Constitutional Law in the Movies

David Ray Papke, Marquette University Law School, has published Oil and Water Do Not Mix: Constitutional Law and American Popular Culture, as Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 10-09. Here is the abstract.

Why have most fictional films and television series purportedly involving constitutional issues been commercial and artistic failures? Focusing in order on “First Monday in October” (1981); “The Pelican Brief” (1993); and “The Court” and “First Monday,” two short-lived American television series from 2002, this article suggests the works fail not because of a lack of creativity but rather because of the way they were produced. In particular, the article argues the culture industry’s use of stock characters, devotion to familiar conventions, and reliance on established genres virtually preclude anything resembling meaningful constitutional deliberation and discussion. These aspects of pop cultural production are industrial imperatives, but stock characters, familiar conventions, and established genres limit the intellectual range and depth of films and television series. These limitations are especially pronounced when consideration of the Constitution is a possibility.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Conference on Law and Popular Culture

Marquette University Law School is hosting a Conference on Law and Popular Culture November 1st to celebrate the publication of Law and Popular Culture: Text, Notes, and Questions by LEXIS Publishing. The conference is being organized by David Papke, of Marquette.

Papke on 12 Angry Men

David Ray Papke, Marquette University Law School, has published "12 Angry Men Is Not an Archetype," in the Marquette University Law School Legal Studies Paper 07-08. Here is the abstract.

Fifty years after its initial release, 12 Angry Men (1957) remains an important cinematic and political work. But alas, 12 Angry Men is fundamentally atypical as a pop cultural portrayal of the jury. In the standard portrayal individual jurors do not come alive as characters. They are seen in the courtroom rather than in the deliberation room. And, most importantly, the jury does not emerge as a symbol for the larger democratic process and concomitant rule of law. Assuming that popular culture indirectly indicates the public's attitudes and expectations, the flat, uninspiring portrayal of juries in contemporary American popular culture may indicate the public's abandonment of the idea that juries are important manifestations of popular sovereignty.

Download the entire paper from SSRN here.

Papke on Courts

David Papke, Marquette University School of Law, has published "The Impact of Popular Culture on American Perceptions of the Courts," as Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper 07-07. Here is the abstract.

After a brief introduction defining popular culture as the commodities and experiences produced by the culture industry for mass audiences, this essay explores the impact of court-related popular culture on what Americans think of and expect from their courts. The Perry Mason effect from an earlier era and the CSI effect from the present are noted, as is scholarly work by Michael Asimow, Philip T. Dunwoody, Kimberlianne Podlas, Victoria S. Salzmann, and others. The essay concludes with suggestions for what might be done in the courthouse, the community, and the family room to control the impact of court-related popular culture on American legal consciousness.

Download the entire paper from SSRN here.

Papke on Portrayals of Judges in American Pop Culture

David Ray Papke (law, Marquette) has posted on SSRN an article entitled, From Flat to Round: Changing Portrayals of the Judge in American Popular Culture. From the abstract:

American judges are not only important government functionaries but also familiar pop cultural figures. However, the portrayal of judges in American film, television, and inexpensive literature appears to be changing. Judge Harlan Weaver in Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder (1959) illustrates the way the pop culture judge were once "flat," symbolic representations of the rule of law. Since the 1970s, meanwhile, judges have increasingly been portrayed as crazy, villainous, and complexly sympathetic. Examples of this new "round" characterization include Judges Rayford and Fleming in And Justice for All (1979); assorted judicial characters in novels by Scott Turow and John Grisham; Judge Amy Gray from the television series Judging Amy (1999-2005); and Judge Judith Scheindlin and her irksome judicial colleagues from daytime television. The alterations in characterization ominously suggest larger changes in the culture of postmodern America.