Tom Fontana’s Impressions from "Strip Searches…"
“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
May 4th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Says:
Thanks for a great show, Tom.
One question Tom Fontana didn’t answer completely had to do with the guilt of the detainees.
Sidney Lumet said he thought the movie’s ending was clear that the woman (Maggie Gyllenhaal) was guilty of something, and the man (Bruno Lastra) was not. Tom Fontana explained that this was not his intention. He said the guilt or innocence of the characters was not clear even to him.
Despite Fontana’s disavowals, it can’t be meaningless that the white woman who, to our eyes, does not fit the profile of a terrorist, was guilty, while the Muslim man was apparently innocent. There seemed to be some play on our usual profiling going on. Yet the issue of profiling did not come up.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Says:
I thought Tom’s blog entry here is far too modest. For those of us who were at the Forum, we know that Tom was articulate and brilliant, and that he was very much present in the conversation, which is demonstated by this comment. As an artist, he wants to have his characters understood and misunderstood democratically. Sidney Lumet thought that as the character was written, the American graduate student in China was guilty. Tom isn’t sure. This comment suggests that some statement about profiling obviously is being made here. How could it not? The Muslim is completely innocent, having been strip searched all on account of his skin color and ethnic background. We are being forced to rexamine our presumptions and prejudices. Yet, our artists do not agree on what the message is here, although an avalanche of differing opinion is out there. The audience will see what it wants to see, all inspired by the creative imagination that is being directed at the legal system.