Imagine a great night out with your family and friends as you watch a popular movie. The loud fans and the conveniently louder “legit” movie critics grin and compel everyone to just sit and gobble it up - “The story of the year! Fast paced and grueling action!” How about one word catch phrases such as “amazing’ or “absolute eye candy!” and “can’t get enough of it!” Truly, movies have their own appeal to different audiences for different reasons. On a sour note, perhaps one question should be asked - Is it realistic? Or is it accurate?

Movies that fall on the broader realm of “reality” as opposed to “fantasy” are subject to different structures and paradigm that should accurately represent the real world. After all that is what “reality” is all about. Of course, in this big bad world, there are certain laws that reality falls in. The law of physics is one. An accurate movie would of course expect the jumping leading man falling from the sky to actually… well fall. As we realize the structure and setting of the movie, the audience builds a certain assumption to make the movie more or less real for them.

However, when we talk about the institution of law, well that could be a very dangerous line to walk into. While many contend that there are different ways to make meaning of the hundreds of thousands of law that we have today, at the end of the day it is a piece of paper that could be read telling us what to do and what not to do with the attached consequences for breaking it. That is why movies, in the effort to make their story realistic, have to make the plot work with what is correct, lest they get jeered for bastardizing it. Still the old comment about Hollywood has always been, “they cannot get the damn thing right!” Really? Let’s see.

Changing Lanes

There are movies where the law needs to change to get the bulk of the story going. “Changing Lanes” revolves around the characters played by Ben Affleck and Samuel Jackson, two attorneys that are strangers to each other, both rushing to get to their court appointments on time. In the rush, they end up getting their cars tied up in a fender bender. Affleck, a jerk that he is, decided to leave Jackson in the mess to get to his appointment in time. In the process, he left his important case files thrown out from the back of the car, which could mean jail time and removal of license if Affleck did not find it. The lucky Jackson found Affleck’s case file and in a twisted avenue for revenge, he ran away with it. That is how the chase took up the rest of the movie.

The breadth of this blunder is on the issue of chasing for these original files. The importance of these files is what started the ruckus in the first place. Of course, if you know that if the law says that in the event that the original document is lost accidentally, a copy would do just fine. If the story makes sense, all the parties involved including judge would have a copy long before Affleck walked into court and found he had lost the original. Then all the zip and turns to get back those files won’t be needed. Then, there won’t be a story to the movie. So forget the slight hiccup, we have a story here!

Double Jeopardy

In a sensational neighborhood of artsy people, filmmakers will not mind to get even strongly held law principles wrong as long as they get a very compelling climax to the story, even if it sadly puts viewers in a dangerously wrong impression of the law. In “Double Jeopardy”, Ashley Judd plays a suffering wife on the hands of her child-stealing husband who faked his death. As she cannot believe how her husband still got her chained even after his death, Judd got diced in court as the convicted murderer. After serving a long time in jail, Judd hunted her husband down across different states to kill him for real. Well the law said since she was convicted of a crime that ended up killing her husband, then it might as well be that her husband is truly dead. Right? There might be something cool in putting time in first then doing the job that you have been punished for after.

This is what the movie title - Double Jeopardy - means. Double Jeopardy in lingo-speak means you can’t be sentenced twice for the same offense. That gave Judd the license to kill. However, if we all think that we can accept the definition as is, then there is something wrong here. Remember that lawyers don’t get paid big bucks to make one sentence definitions.

We should know that there are different states in America with different courts independent of each other. While the basic definition holds true, it only applies for the same state. Since she killed her husband in a different state from where she was convicted, the ruling state can still sentence her, stripping her of the license to kill. Even then, her previous murder sentence would be vacated because no murder had really occurred. But she’d be convicted and sentenced on new murder charges.

Just imagine if someone ignorant of the law actually believes this. We would be playing with fire right now if not for Judd’s charming way of killing her husband. The logic that you can commit the crime you have been wrongly convicted of is utterly absurd.

Liar Liar

At the end of this Jim Carey starrer, the character being played by Jim Carey suddenly comes up with a way to get his client out of the clause of the pre-nuptial agreement clause that states she gets nothing if she cheated on her husband. The solution is that she was a minor at the time she was married and signed the pre-nup and, since she was a minor, the pre-nup was unenforceable. However, this is not completely accurate.

A contract (of which pre-nuptial agreements are a species) entered into by a minor is not void, but rather is voidable by the minor party. This means that the contract is enforceable until it is voided by the minor. The right to void the contract on the part of the minor is retained for a reasonable time after becoming an adult. However, and this is the point the writers really missed, if the party fails to declare the agreement void within a reasonable time after becoming an adult it would be deemed as “ratified” thereby making the contract fully enforceable against both parties as a matter of law.

In the movie, Jim Carey’s client was 26. It had been 8 years since she had turned 18 (the age of majority in all 50 states for contracts). It is not likely that there is court in this country that would not have accepted an argument of ratification and no high priced attorney worth his fees would have failed to recognize this argument.

In the Bedroom

The viewer can overlook sometimes even the most obvious legal principles as long the movie sells the suspense. In the 2001 box office success “In the Bedroom,” two parents find themselves in utmost resolution to avenge their loss of their murdered son. Apparently, they were shocked to see the case against the murderer too weak to warrant a conviction.
Well they ought to be shocked. Here is how it went.

The killer beats up the victim - because he is shacking up with the killer’s wife - then turned to threaten his wife. Next, the killer enters his wife’s house where the victim told him to just man up and go away. Man up he did as he came back anyway and shot down the wife’s boyfriend in the head. The wife who became the primary witness saw his husband on top of his boyfriend upon hearing the shot with gun in hand and his boyfriend dead.

In law circles, that is a clean murder with not much of a trial needed. But to stir things up, the movie tells us that the wife only heard the shot and did not see the killer shoot him; thus there is no case. Sound like Michael Jackson to me where you don’t see the M.J. doing something at night except for the fact that the 40 year old pop king is found in bed with the other children. Of course that is how the parents in the movie got the resolve to take the law upon themselves because obviously and literally, justice is blind anyway. The defense lawyer in this movie is that good.

Intolerable Cruelty

America loves divorce. In fact, much is portrayed in Hollywood movies about marriage breakups that are dark, pleasant, and twisted. Fast and clean as they say. While there are many dimension of a process of a divorce, we must remember that divorce is also a legal proceeding and not just a paper signed after a paltry dinner.

In the 2003 comedy “Intolerable Cruelty“. Once E.R. hotshot George Clooney turned divorce lawyer this time. His character played out as highly reckless, supra-unethical kind of a lawyer that every client would love to have. It would be nice to have a divorce attorney who can rip your ex off and strip him of all his money before you say a sweet goodbye. Thus, the movie contends a fast paced divorce trial set in sunny California. The shouts matching the threats are described as entertaining except for the fact that divorce is not really all of a jazz.

In this movie, the divorce trial is under the assumption that California has fault divorce. That is why this movie got into a habit of pointing who is the culprit of the failed marriage. Except that in real life, the democrats in California were the first to adopt no-fault divorce. In California, all you need to get a divorce is to say that you and your ex have “irreconcilable differences.” Sign the damn paper, get the half of what you have and move on with your lives. It seems like the directors coming from California forgot to get a real lawyer to look into the script because it would certainly put up a laugh.

Legally Blonde

When trend setter actress Reese Witherspoon turns into a law student in “Legally Blonde,” Reese, bridged a bunch of overpaid, tightly fit sneaky lawyers into a set of hip, hop, and most of all blonde lawyers. The antics of the movie meshed the airhead stereotype of a blonde against the rigid classroom of a law school all in good fun. However, when humor in law comes in, perhaps scriptwriters think funny first than to look right.

In the movie Reese Witherspoon first made her impression with the admissions committee of the Harvard Law School in a video where she is dressed in a bikini on a hut tub. In a twist of miracle, she got admitted after her stint in fashion design. She did not fit right in as she has to overcome bickering professors, scandalous classmates, and high-pitched case studies. In the end, she was allowed to represent a critical client though she is only a freshman. The court agreed citing a Massachusetts Rule of Court 3.03. Reese then wish-washed through the trial, won it over high profile attorneys, and then earned credit enough to speak at their graduation ceremony. Once again, the blonde conquered the world.

However that pivotal part in the story did not just go down right. The same cited rule clearly states it does not permit a freshman to represent a wealthy client in a major criminal case. The rule only applies to senior law students who have taken a course in evidence or trial practice and only if he represents the state or the not-so-rich clients. Well she got in anyway and there goes the story. The freshman even got the suspect to confess! Once again, a freshman lawyer is that good just like in any other law movie.

White Oleander

While we have been talking about how lawyers can turn into superstars with how they can play God because the law was made wrong for a good story, filmmakers can even go far to make a law process get junked altogether in favor of an engaging story. In the movie “White Oleander,” Michelle Pfeiffer plays the role of a mother who kills her boyfriend. Sentenced to life in prison - she patiently waits for freedom as she takes care of her daughter through her letters.

Through the trial, the movie shortcuts the details of how she got arrested up to the appeal for her crime. The shortcut might be suitable for the movie but it seems that the director forgot something. The trial went so fast that the jury was not given time to leave during the appeal. Maybe the jury is there to listen to Pfeiffers’ plight during her court appearance, but we all know that juries don’t decide on appeals. Like just what Hughes Jackman said in Runaway Jury, “trials are too important for juries too handle.” An appeal? get real.

Saving Private Ryan

Then of course when it comes to war movies there are real life depictions that should be highly accountable to the law of war. War is bad enough of a movie topic to teach children but when you get the procedures wrong, the error gap widens. In “Saving Private Ryan“  starring Tom Hanks, American soldiers searching for Mr. Ryan executed several German prisoners of war on the spot. The audience in awe of this war movie would say that the Germans deserved it.

The Geneva Convention clearly states that treatment of POW’s should not end up in summary execution. While it is ironic to point out this inaccuracy in a movie that depicts war, which is a crime in itself, the movie puts the blunder in another level by finding nothing wrong with no intention to justify that act. This is a very dangerous aspect in a justice system in a time of sensitivity over engaging wars.

Getting the Law Right in Movies

The law can be a part of a sub-genre just like professional drama that involves medicine, and law enforcement. While we could excuse these movies for getting the law wrong, it is also important that with these excuses, we actually acknowledge that they are flat wrong. After all, we do not want to rate a good movie because of their entertainment value then go on and think that the movie is possible in real life. It could teach dangerous things like “hey buddy you can do this because the law allows it.”

Remember that laws are written to create open and shut arguments. While the creative juices in movies have to contend with the letter of law, law and movies will always be an interesting mix. Whether we elect for courtroom comedy, or hard-core drama, just remember that it is just entertainment.