“The Forum gave me an opportunity to once again review my work — and the reactions of others. When a writer takes on a “serious” issue, he or she hopes to provoke discussion and the night provided that. Basking in the brilliance of Sidney Lumet is always a thrill. And Thane asked tough questions, which were both stimulating and terrifying. At heart, I’m a writer, not a speaker. I sometimes wonder if I should let the work speak and then keep my mouth shut — A lesson I never seem to learn.”– Tom Fontana

Available at: http://law.fordham.edu/audiovideo/ce-culture2.mp3

Thanks to Fordham’s Information Systems and Planning Department and Time Warner, Inc. for this recording.

(NB: If the audio will not play via the hyperlink, cut and paste the URL into iTunes, RealPlayer, or any other digital music player. Feel free to contact James Peiser if you need assistance.)

(L-R: Fontana, Lumet, Rosenbaum)

One question that emerged from our conversation with Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana was: Does the artist have a duty of patriotism during a time of national crisis and emergency? “Strip Search” is a cautionary film about the consequences of the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties. Yet, doesn’t the artistic community have a responsibility to assist in the war effort; indeed, must they be patriotic so that the reasons behind the Patriotic Act–the defense of this nation from the threat of terrorism–not be undermined or trivialize?

Lumet and Fontana did not, in any sense, believe that they had a responsibility to support a war that they did not believe in personally. Fontana, in fact, believed that the most important obligation of the artist is to expand the conversation and the scope of public debate, to “keep people talking,” which is not unlike the overall purpose of our Forum– why we sponsor these events and maintain this blog.

Artists supported America’s involvement in World War II, although it is true that artists tend to be on the left of the political spectrum, and are drawn, politically and personally, to messages of anti-violence and anti-war, even through Hollywood is better known for mass produced images of violence and glorified depictions of war. While artists appreciate the struggles of the radical, not all radicals are deemed righteous or redemptive. For instance, anti-abortion protestors who chain themselves to abortion clinics are not depicted in our cultural landscape in particularly heroic terms, and yet their means are decidedly radical.

Yet, President Bush, and Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana, are in one sense advocating the same thing, but ultimately drawing different conclusions. Everyone believes in American freedom–the far right and the left, and everyone in the middle. Freedom is the cornerstone of American democracy and exceptionalism, yet both sides can advance the cause for freedom and yet leave all sorts of contradictions on the cutting room floor, and the West Wing.

The presumptions and premises of the Patriotic Act is that American freedom will end unless we vigilantly and valiantly prosecute, interrogate and punish those who have brought terrorism to America. Lumet and Fontana, in “Strip Search,” suggest that American freedom is itself compromised by depriving us of the very liberties that ultimately make America free. What is America without its freedoms, and yet what would America be if it were left unprotected against those who value neither America, nor the promise of its freedoms?

In the film, the interrogator proclaims, in an effort to both lament and rationalize what he is about to do: “I can’t help it that we don’t live in a perfect world.” And the woman about to be strip searched says, in response to his desire to have his child live in a safer world, which presumably requires that he resort to these interrogative techniques: “Safe but not free; alive but not human.”

One question that I asked Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana was: Does the artist have a duty to be patriotic in a time of national crisis and emergency? “Strip Search” is a deeply complex film, but it is mostly a cautionary film–the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties are examined as morally destructive. But in asking that question, I wondered whether the opposite conclusion is also possible: The moral corrosion might be necessary, at least for a temporary time, because the business of national security demands it. And if that is the case, if terrorism threatens us more than the loss of all of our freedoms–applied to some people and hopefully for only a short time–then shouldn’t the artist sign on and assist in the war effort? Artists very much did support America’s involvement in World War II. Why are so few artists unwilling to get behind the war on terrorism?

Artists are generally on the left of the political spectrum, taking positions of anti-war and anti-violence. For this reason, “Strip Search” is not a surprising film. Artists are drawn to radicals, as we discussed in the E.L. Doctorow/Tony Kushner Forum, but not all radicals are glorified. For instance, anti-abortion protestors are not depicted as righteous, redemptive figures in our cultural landscape.

But in a way, both President Bush, and Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana, are saying the same thing, but applying it completely differently. Everyone claims to be fighting on behalf of freedom, but the President’s solution has ultimately compromised civil liberties, and in effect, freedom. And yet what “Strip Search” proposes–not fighting terrorism with all means necessary–might also result in the end of what we once knew to be American freedom.

The Chinese interrogator in “Strip Search,” toward the end of the film, proclaims with great regret, “It is not my fault that we don’t live in a perfect world.” He says this–by way of both lament and justification–just before he begins to strip search the American graduate student who is studying in China and who is suspected of having ties to terrorism.

We don’t live in a perfect world, but what licenses are now granted on account of that realization?

One idea that was discussed at the Lumet/Fontana Forum was the spiritual and moral consequences that the torturer must inevitably endure by having to engage in acts of torture. The torturer, invariably, becomes less human.

Even if one accepts the argument that torture, in some limited circumstances, can be justified on moral grounds because it might save the lives of thousands more without having to actually kill the person who is being subjected to torture, it is not without a moral cost to both the torturer, and to the society who has granted him the license to engage in such acts.

One of the more provocative moments of the Lumet/Fontana Forum came when I asked them whether they believed that torture was ever morally permissible. For instance, what if you knew that torturing someone for an hour, as despicable and grotesque as that experience might be, would save the 3,000 lives that were lost on 9/11?

Both of our guests rejected the premise. Tom Fontana argued that all the evidence seems to suggest that information obtained by way of torture is nearly always unreliable and untrustworthy. Sidney Lumet found torture, under any circumstances, equally odious. He concluded that while he can’t imagine ever supporting torture on any grounds, if it had to be done, he would have to be pretty well certain that the hour of inhumanity would, in fact, most assuredly save lives.

Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana, as a tandem, and individually, were simply sublime last night. They were smart, funny, witty and charming, with a great chemistry and raport. Their comments completely reinforced the spirit of and purpose for the Forum–artists in conversation about the way in which the legal system inspires the creation of art.

In this case, in screening their film collaboration, “Strip Search,” we focused on the competing moral and legal tensions between security and freedom in a post-9/11 world. In an age of the Patriot Act, with 9/11 anxieties everywhere, and with the reminder of Ground Zero just a few short miles from where the Forum was held last night, at the Time Warner Center, what moral compromises are necessary in order to defend ourselves against terrorism, and what are the moral implications in doing so?

We will have an MP3 of the event available for downloading soon, but I will post some of the highlights of the evening shortly.

55 years ago today the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death.