In Court
Introduction - My Cousin Vinny - Boston Legal
Introduction
On this page I’ll use two films to get at a number of key points about evaluation: My Cousin Vinny (1992) will help us get at what constitutes a reliable source of information and a persuasive argument; Boston Legal (2008) will help us get at the relation between the use of diverse rhetorical strategies and the evaluation of these strategies.
In both films, the role of the judge is crucial. This is important when it comes to evaluation and research: like a lawyer you want to argue a strong case, and like a judge you want to weigh evidence, remain balanced and impartial, and make the most informed judgment possible. Also, judges can’t leave issues hanging in the air. They can’t say that there are good arguments on both sides, so let’s just leave it at that. Judges have to make decisions, bring down the gavel. You’ll need to do the same in essay #2 and essay #3. For instance, you can’t just say that Cox is convincing here and not convincing there. You must weigh what is most important on each side and you must argue for a final conclusion, that is, why she is more right or more wrong.
In fictional courtroom scenarios there’s a close relation between rhetoric and evaluation both in terms of strategies and in terms of aims. In terms of strategies, this is fairly straight-forward: the rhetorical strategies a lawyer uses are evaluated by the judge. Yet the aims of rhetoric are trickier, since there are two audiences. First, there’s the immediate courtroom audience in the scene. These characters can be referred to as part of the diagetic situation. Diagetic is a rather fancy term, yet one that will be helpful in your analysis of Mad Men, so try to keep it in mind. Second, there’s the viewing audience that’s watching the film or TV show. One of the points I make in Evaluation is that you need to be clear about rhetorical aim when evaluating. Again, this applies to your evaluation of Cox and Mad Men: make sure not to confuse a point a character makes in the show (in the diagetic situation) with the points the director is trying to make, or the effect the director is trying to create on the audience. The following chart gets at this distinction in My Cousin Vinny (clip #1 and clip #2 ) and Boston Legal (this clip):
My Cousin Vinny
View and evaluate clip #1 and clip #2 from My Cousin Vinny (1992). How in clip #1 does the court establish who has expert knowledge? You may want to look up the term voir dire. How in clip #2 does Marisa Tomei’s character make an effective argument?
Boston Legal
View this clip from “The Mighty Rogues” (Boston Legal, S4 E16) and try to isolate the reasons Alan Shore’s speech is effective. After this, look at the scripts for two scenes below. (As far as I can see, there are no complete clips on Youtube for the two scenes, and there is no clip for scene 1).
Script
Boston Legal: “The Mighty Rogues” (Season 4, Episode 16, April 17, 2008, written by David Kelley, Lawrence Broch, Jill Goldsmith). The following two scenes are in a court room.
Scene 1 (starting at 14:00)
Shirley Schmidt [played by Candice Bergen]: He [her father] doesn't wanna live like this. His mind is rotting away, much of it's already gone, his organs are shutting down, he's incontinent. The indignity is beyond words.
Alan Shore [Shirley’s lawyer, played by James Spader]: When your father was competent, did you two ever discuss…
Shirley: We did. He signed a living will. He did not wanna be kept alive by extraordinary means…
AAG [Assistant Attorney General] Jeremy Hollis: But we're not talking about keeping him alive with any extraordinary means. You're here asking for permission to euthanize him.
Shirley: My father is in extreme discomfort, I'm asking to manage his pain with morphine.
AAG: Yes. You have to couch it in those terms to get the court order. But, Ms. Schmidt, you're not denying what this is really about, are you?
Shirley: Are you denying this happens all the time under the heading of pain management?
AAG: When there is actual pain to manage. But here your father isn't in any real physical discomfiture. He's probably not even aware of his mental state. The pain we're talking about managing here is yours.
Shirley: First of all, my father suffers from broken ribs. He is in pain. Second, the agitation he experiences, the fear, the anxiety, are an extreme form of discomfiture, Mr. Hollis. Please do not suggest to me that he does not anguish.
Dr. Giles Bromfield [on the witness stand]: Well, the fact of the matter is we can now manage his pain quite effectively without morphine. And we are, with codeine. The other fact… He stops.
AAG: Is what, sir?
Dr.: Well, the pain we're talking about is from injuries that will heal. In cases where morphine drips have been turned up with fatal results… it's irreversible pain. Which, I certainly sympathize with the family's position, if it were my father I would probably wanna do the same thing. But the law simply doesn't allow it.
Alan Shore: I read an article that said people in comas can actually experience physical pain. Is that true?
Dr.: Yes.
Alan: Do you think it's possible that a conscious person could be experiencing pain but because of his advanced mental deterioration that he be incapable of communicating that pain?
Dr.: I suppose it's possible.
Alan: So if a doctor, say, wanted to make such a finding, let's say the patient was his own father say, he might be able to find pain, prescribe the morphine, and nobody could state to a reasonable medical certainty that he was wrong.
Dr.: I'd like to think that my medical ethics would prevent me from doing that.
Alan: I see. So, in your opinion the medically ethical thing to do here is let this person's brain continue to rot until all his vital organs shut down, he shrinks to 85 pounds, his esophagus closes up so he can no longer eat and he begins to suffer grand mal seizures. These are the ethics you bring to this court room today?
Scene 2 (starting at 25:25)
Alan: This is not a new debate, but the fact that we still continue to have the debate in this country baffles me. People are helped to die every single day in virtually every hospital. In the hospices, at home, all under the wink-wink of pain management. And yet every time someone suggests bringing this practice out of the closet opponents leap up screaming, "There's potential for abuse!" "We'll end up killing people who wanna live!" Come on! If there's potential for abuse then by all means let's regulate it. Have an administrative hearing, or go to court like we're doing now. But there's much more potential for abuse when we do it secretly!
AAG: No, no, no. There's a good reason for the secrecy. The last thing we want to do is to cultivate a culture of suicide. Almost twenty percent of today's teenagers contemplate taking their own lives at one time or another. Recent five-year analysis showed a twenty percent rise in suicides among middle-aged people. It's becoming epidemic! Not the time to lift the stigma.
Alan: We would not be sending the message that…
AAG: Oh yes we would, Mr. Shore. You make it permissible, that's one step closer to making it acceptable. And the real danger is that elderly parents start thinking maybe it's their duty to spare their children so they won't drain their finances.
Alan: This would not be that case.
AAG: Could be tomorrow's case.
Alan: Which is why we take it on a case by case basis. Addressing all the concerns you raised, but why must we have an absolute blanket ban when it causes such immeasurable suffering? For so many!
Judge Victoria Peyton: Because it's not potential for abuse that's really in play, Counsel. Let's all admit that. It's politics. And the legislator gets to make the laws. Not the Judges.
Alan: But it's for the Judges to safeguard the constitution, included therein is our fundamental right to privacy. Can there be anything more private, more personal than the destiny of one's own body? One's life. It's also for the Judges to step in and be humane when a gutless, politically expedient Congress refuses to do so. [YOUTUBE CLIP STARTS HERE] My God, we put dogs to sleep! To spare their needless suffering. Why don't we extend the same compassion to human beings? This man is terminal. He will die. He fears people. All people. He can't control his bowels. He is in utter lack of cognizance and an inability to have any meaningful exchange or even contact. Would you choose to live like that? Would anybody?
AAG: To allow assisted suicide is to say that life itself has no intrinsic value. No sanctity.
Alan: Oh baloney! I'm saying Walter Schmidt's life in its current state has no intrinsic value. He lies in his bed with no apparent capacity to discern or think. His days have devolved into a horrible cycle of soiling his bed sheets and screaming incoherently at the very touch of the nurse who cleans him. His life is a misery. I'm sorry, there is no sanctity in that. I don't care what… [He leans over the table to compose himself. He goes to his chair, closes his binder and chuckles derisively. To Jeremy Hollis softly:] I'm sorry. [He takes a moment to compose himself]. My best friend [Denny, played by William Shatner] has Alzheimer's. In the very early stages, it hasn't… He is a grand lover of life, and will be for some time. I believe even when his mind starts to really go he'll still fish, he'll laugh, and love. And as it progresses he'll still wanna live because there'll be value for him in a friendship, in a cigar. The truth is, I don't think he'll ever come to me and say, "This is the day I want to die." But the day is coming. And he won't know it. This is perhaps the most insidious thing about Alzheimer's. But you see, he trusts me to know when that day has arrived. He trusts me to safeguard his dignity, his legacy and self-respect. He trusts me to prevent his end from becoming a mindless piece of mush. And I will. It will be an unbearably painful thing for me but I will do it because I love him. I will end his suffering. Because it's the only decent, humane, and loving thing a person can do. Ms. Schmidt is here today because she loves her father. She's asking you to show mercy that the law refuses to.
AAG: She is asking you to play God.
Alan: Your Honor, whatever one's belief in God, I know we can all agree, some lives are taken far too early, and others far too late. [He sits. So does Jeremy Hollis. And back in the last row of the courtroom, unnoticed, sits Denny.]
Judge Victoria Peyton: I really don't believe in playing God. I do believe in God, by the way. I believe there's a sanctity to every human life. The idea that doctors and relatives get to start weighing the quality of a given life to decide who shall live, who shall die. It horrifies me. And I see tremendous potential for abuse. But there is no suggestion of such abuse here. Mr. Schmidt is terminal, his condition is irreversible, he is suffering. The law allows patients to refuse medical treatment even when to do so means death. It allows the disconnection of nutrition and hydration tubes thereby basically starving the person to death. What rational distinction can there be for not allowing a more humane method? The plaintiff's motion is granted. Ms. Schmidt? My prayers are with you. [Shirley mouths, "Thank you."] Adjourned. [She pounds her gavel and leaves.]
Evaluation Sample
The excerpts above are colour-coded below according to evaluative categories. Note that this is purely an evaluation exercise, and does not include research: the evaluation stays within the dramatic context, and doesn’t bring in research on the validity of the statistical, medical, or legal assertions of the lawyers.
Questions to consider. How does Alan Shore combine description and pathos? How does he counter slippery slope? How does the expressive mode complement the argumentative? (Keep in mind here the three aims of rhetoric: argument, expostiion, and expression). How is the TV audience affected by the rhetorical structures in the two excerpts? How is the judge affected by Alan’s arguments? What effect does the judge have on the audience?
