A New Series on Movies and Popular Culture From Rutgers University Press @RutgersUPress

Of interest from Rutgers University Press: Quick Takes: Movies and Popular Culture

Blair Davis, Comic Book Movies (Rutgers University Press, 2018).

Steven Gerrard, The Modern British Horror Film (Rutgers University Press, 2018).

Barry Keith Grant, Monster Cinema (Rutgers University Press, 2018).

Ian Olney, Zombie Cinema (Rutgers University Press, 2017).

Valerie Orlando, New African Cinema (Rutgers University Press (2017).

Stephen Prince, Digital Cinema (Rutgers University Press, 2019) (forthcoming).

Steven Shaviro, Digital Music Videos (Rutgers University Press, 2017).

David Sterritt, Rock 'n' Roll Movies (Rutgers University Press, 2017).

John Wills, Disney Culture (Rutgers University Press, 2017).

Rapoport on Golding's Lord of the Flies

Professor Nancy Rapoport (University of Houston Law Center) has posted on SSRN her book chapter, Lord of the Flies (1963): The Development of Rules Within an Adolescent Culture. From the abstract:

This essay, included in the book SCREENING JUSTICE--THE CINEMA OF LAW: Significant Films of Law, Order and Social Justice (Rennard Strickland, Teree E. Foster & Tauyna Lovell Banks, eds., William S. Hein & Co. 2006), discusses the development of the law in Goldman's "Lord of the Flies" and raises the question of whether an island populated by a mix of boys and girls - or an island populated by only girls - would have developed a different law.

Bandes on Movies and the Rule of Law

Susan Bandes (De Paul University Collegeo of Law) has posted We Lost It at the Movies: The Rule of Law Goes from Washington to Hollywood and Back Again, forthcoming 40 Loyola of Los Angeles L. Rev. (2007) on SSRN. From the abstract:

This essay, written as part of a symposium on popular culture and the civil justice system, examines the vast gap between legal and popular discourse on the judicial role. The legal academy generally regards as uncontroversial the proposition that judicial interpretation cannot be value-free. Yet in popular discourse, the ideal judge is someone who leaves all prior attitudes behind, simply applying the law that is "out there" and that admits to only one possible outcome. Judges perceived to deviate from this ideal are at risk of being branded "activist." Members of the lay public - a majority of them, according to a recent survey - are upset about what they perceive to be activist judges. Perhaps more disheartening, pledging fealty to this unrealistic view of the judicial role remains de rigueur in the halls of Congress. This essay explores the connection between the depiction of the judicial role in popular media such as movies and television and the very similar caricature that still holds sway in more serious non-fiction venues, like Senate confirmation hearings and political campaigns. In popular venues, the judge is generally depicted either as a neutral or invisible placeholder for a fixed and determinate rule of law, or as biased, vulgar, or downright villainous. Drawing from legal theory, narrative theory, psychology, and prior work on popular culture and media studies, I argue that the simplistic notion of judges and judging that currently dominates the discourse is inherently conservative and hegemonic, and suggest that this state of affairs poses dangers for the rule of law and the evolution of the judicial system.

More on the Image of Judges in Popular Culture

Susan Bandes of DePaul University College of Law has published "We Lost It At the Movies: The Rule of Law Moves From Washington to Hollywood and Back Again," as part of a symposium in volume 40 of Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. Here is the abstract.

This essay, written as part of a symposium on popular culture and the civil justice system, examines the vast gap between legal and popular discourse on the judicial role. The legal academy generally regards as uncontroversial the proposition that judicial interpretation cannot be value-free. Yet in popular discourse, the ideal judge is someone who leaves all prior attitudes behind, simply applying the law that is “out there” and that admits to only one possible outcome. Judges perceived to deviate from this ideal are at risk of being branded “activist.” Members of the lay public - a majority of them, according to a recent survey - are upset about what they perceive to be activist judges. Perhaps more disheartening, pledging fealty to this unrealistic view of the judicial role remains de rigueur in the halls of Congress. This essay explores the connection between the depiction of the judicial role in popular media such as movies and television and the very similar caricature that still holds sway in more serious non-fiction venues, like Senate confirmation hearings and political campaigns. In popular venues, the judge is generally depicted either as a neutral or invisible placeholder for a fixed and determinate rule of law, or as biased, vulgar, or downright villainous. Drawing from legal theory, narrative theory, psychology, and prior work on popular culture and media studies, I argue that the simplistic notion of judges and judging that currently dominates the discourse is inherently conservative and hegemonic, and suggest that this state of affairs poses dangers for the rule of law and the evolution of the judicial system.

Download the entire article from SSRN here.