By: Anna Krutaya
Movies depicting trials and the events surrounding trials have been around for ages. In its countdown of the 25 Greatest Legal Movies, the ABA Journal has a movie dating all the way back to 1939 (The Young Mr. Lincoln). Regardless of what the plot is or what year the movie was made, the general concept is always the same; it is a battle between good and evil. Those who represent the good are seeking to expose the truth about something that the evil side is attempting to conceal. If the good wins out in the end, the audience is left with a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment after seeing that the justice has been served. If evil prevails, the audience walks away saying that the film truly portrayed the shortcomings of our legal system. However, I find that if one focuses only on which side prevails, you will miss seeing the bigger picture and will thus be missing out on the true message that the writers and the directors are trying to convey.
One of my favorite movies growing up was The Miracle on 34th Street. Fred Gailey played by John Payne portrays a young attorney who leaves his job in a prestigious New York firm in order to represent Kris Kringle who claims to be the real Santa Claus. The case seems to be a lost cause from the beginning. How could a court of law which is supposed to be logical and reasonable, sanction the existence of what most deem to be a fictional character? When Mr. Gailey wins the case it is considered a miracle (thus the name of the movie), but I would argue that the bigger miracle goes completely unnoticed. When Mr. Gailey decides to quit his job in order to represent Kris Kringle, those closest to him are skeptical to say the least. Doris, who is the female lead and Mr. Gailey’s love interest, calls his resignation an “idealistic binge” over some “lovely intangibles.” His reply is that one day she might discover that those intangibles are the only worthwhile things in life.
It is only after taking Law and Literature that I find myself being able to appreciate the true importance of this statement. Even in 1947 the writers and directors understood the necessity of exposing the law’s focus on the physical and the tangible. What are these intangible things that Mr. Gailey believes to be the only worthwhile things in life? I would argue that they are all those things in a moral justice universe that are necessary to discover the truth. Mr. Gailey knows that without truth, there can be no satisfaction in life. He knows that attainment of the truth is the only real justice. He knows that no matter how ludicrous a defense may seem, every person deserves to have their story heard. What the legal profession needs today is another miracle. We need our attorneys to learn the importance of truth and back-story. We need our attorneys to be willing to lay their own future on the line so that the truth may be discovered. But most of all we need our attorneys to understand that the intangibles really are the only worthwhile things in life.
