Conference focused on artists and lawyers who use entertainment to promote stories of social injustice
by Joshua Rich
Mira Sorvino accepts the Promise Institute Award for Contribution to Human Rights Through the Arts at the March 16 summit “Lights. Camera. Reaction.: The Art of Impact in Entertainment.”
Academy Award-winning actress Mira Sorvino and a host of preeminent artists and lawyers who use movies and television to spread stories of social injustice shared the secrets of their craft at a March 16 summit at the Hammer Museum at UCLA.
Featuring panels on the law, economics and art behind works that drive social change, “Lights. Camera. Reaction.: The Art of Impact in Entertainment” was presented by the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law; the Skoll Center for Social Impact Entertainment at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television; and the arts nonprofit Creative Armenia.
Sorvino, a United Nations goodwill ambassador and longtime campaigner against human trafficking, received the inaugural Promise Institute Award for Contribution to Human Rights Through the Arts.
In accepting the award, the “Mighty Aphrodite” star detailed the abuses faced by women she has met in her travels for the U.N. and while working on films about human trafficking. She encouraged members of the audience to take action. “The filmmakers in this room have all made incredible contributions to changing the world [by] enlightening their audiences through an artistic depiction of a terrible issue,” she said.
Sorvino also addressed her role as a leading voice in the Time’s Up movement against sexual harassment in Hollywood and other workplaces. She marveled at the collective power of women speaking out. “It’s not stopping now,” she said. “The cat is out of the bag, the Pandora’s Box has been opened, we have found a voice.”
Panelists who participated in the summit included filmmakers Edward Zwick (“Glory” and “Blood Diamond”), Amy Ziering (“The Invisible War” and “The Hunting Ground”), Dr. Eric Esrailian of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (“The Promise”), Mike Medavoy (“The Promise”), Catherine Hardwicke (“Thirteen”), Evgeny Afineevsky (“Winter on Fire”), Terry George (“The Promise” and “Hotel Rwanda”) and Reginald Hudlin (“Django Unchained” and “Marshall”); actress Angela Sarafyan (“The Promise” and “1915”); activist and public relations specialist Bonnie Abaunza; entertainment attorneys Kelli Sager of Davis Wright Tremaine and Gabriel Brakin of Participant Media; and the leaders of UCLA Law’s Documentary Film Legal Clinic, “Frontline” special counsel Dale Cohen and entertainment law specialist Daniel Mayeda.
Panelists share their views on the business of social-justice entertainment.
Cohen, whose clinic offers free legal services to independent filmmakers, moderated a panel on navigating the legal minefields when making movies that confront human rights violations. The clinic’s services are increasingly vital, panelists made clear, in an era when major studios don’t produce impact movies like 2006’s “Blood Diamond,” which tackled the gem trade in war-torn Africa.
“The day in which serious fiction films [with large budgets] are made are long gone,” said “Blood Diamond” director Zwick. He elaborated that corporate entanglements and risk aversion have made it unlikely that major studios would back a film like ‘Blood Diamond’ today. “I think they’ve abdicated that to … the world of independent film and documentary.”
Cohen’s panel further explored the extensive challenges of telling such stories. Ziering spoke of protests and pressure that she received while making the documentary “The Hunting Ground,” about sexual assault on college campuses. Zwick, meanwhile, spoke about the massive PR campaign that diamond giant De Beers waged against “Blood Diamond.”
Sager and documentary clinic associate director Mayeda explained how lawyers must walk a fine line in shepherding film projects through possible litigation hazards. “The goal,” Sager said, “is to help the creative process without stepping on it, so that we’re trying to make it legally safe enough for you to do what you do without sucking all of the blood or the interest out of the project.”
Other panels featured several members of the creative team behind the 2017 movie “The Promise,” which was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Armenian Genocide of the early 20th century. That project served the cause of social justice in two ways: It highlighted a historic atrocity that is poorly understood, and its proceeds went to support a number of human rights organizations, including the Promise Institute at UCLA Law.
Alongside “Promise” producers Esrailian and Medavoy, Skoll Center executive director Peter Bisanz moderated a discussion on the business of making movies with a message. Abaunza and Brakin, who graduated from UCLA Law in 2005, detailed how social-impact tools like music videos, retail products and strategic use of digital platforms can be key to activating audiences.
Angela Sarafyan discusses her roles in “The Promise” and “1915,” which detailed the Armenian Genocide.
“It has become more relevant than ever to be producing this type of content; there’s more audience demand for it than we’ve ever seen,” said Brakin, the general counsel and executive vice president of business affairs at Participant Media. “We’ve reached a bit of a tipping point in the corporate world, [with] companies realizing that they need to be thinking about: How does their business contribute to the public good?”
A panel on the creative process behind the making of human rights films, moderated by Creative Armenia vice president of productions and programs Alec Mouhibian, was similarly revealing. “The Promise” director George, whose films have detailed horrors in Northern Ireland, Rwanda and the Ottoman Empire, discussed how he focuses on appealing to audiences all over the world. “We are universalizing the humanity of our characters,” he said. “You have to be able to play today in Belfast, Beirut and Beijing. That’s the nature of the business, and the story needs to be therefore universalized.”
Hudlin agreed. His 2017 biopic “Marshall” sought to make legendary lawyer Thurgood Marshall broadly relatable by focusing on an intimate story from the future Supreme Court justice’s early career. For any lawyer, activist or filmmaker intent on crafting a piece of entertainment whose overriding purpose is to land with a positive impact, Hudlin said, “The truth is a very powerful weapon.”
Comment
+ Permalink
BY ADAM BANNER
Movie still courtesy of Starlight Media and Open Road Films
I don’t think my wife likes to watch “lawyer movies” with me at the theater. I don’t blame her opposition, actually. She has to hear about the practice of law every day of her life. Why would she want to think about jury trials under the guise of “entertainment”?
To be fair, she’d go without question if I asked. She’d have a quick look on her face—the one I see for a split-second when she’s a little frustrated—but it would pass, and she’d agree. I’ve learned over time to save those slightly frustrated looks for the other movies I enjoy. Like the ones based on comic books.
Consequently, I didn’t go watch Marshall when it was first released on the big screen. I waited to rent it online. It’s worth a rent.
The film begins in Hugo, Oklahoma. As a born-and-bred Oklahoman, the scene immediately caught my attention. I’ve heard of the Billy Lyons case. To be honest, though, I’d never read too much into it. Up until this film, I had no idea Thurgood Marshall handled the trial.
INNOCENT VS. GUILTY
The film serves as an origin story of sorts for the future Justice Marshall. Marshall is a one-man legal army for the NAACP. He travels across the country trying cases for the accused. As the opening minutes unfold, he is sent to Connecticut to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman.
Once Marshall meets his new client, he begins their relationship by peppering him with questions. He wants to know if his client raped the complaining victim. He starts to interrogate him. He dispenses with pleasantries and icebreakers. He informs his new client that the NAACP will “only represent innocent people.” The client, Joseph Spell, informs Marshall that he is, in fact, innocent.
In that regard, there are two types of criminal defense trial attorneys: Those who want to know whether their clients are guilty, and those who don’t. I fall on the side of those who’d rather not know.
The sad reality of the profession is that 80 to 90 percent of my clients are lying to me about one thing or another 80 to 90 percent of the time. That’s a rough estimation. Maybe it’s a little cynical, but ultimately, it’s true. For whatever reason, even within the security of confidentiality, criminal clients aren’t typically totally truthful.
Can I ask my clients if they committed the crime? Of course. But I usually don’t. They will either tell me they did, or they’ll tell me they didn’t. There will always be an issue of culpability, and someone accused of a crime will usually voice their opinion about the accusation.
Marshall’s NAACP couldn’t represent guilty people, but I can. I’m bound by the facts, and that’s good enough for me. The guilty need attorneys too, and their attorneys need to be zealous advocates, free from bias and emotion.
Now, I can tell when clients are lying—most of the time. I’m no human lie detector, though. With that in mind, I feel like I perform my best when I take a universal approach to each and every case: It doesn’t matter whether the client is innocent; all that matters is whether the prosecution can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That’s why fair jurors are so important.
Photo of actor Chadwick Boseman as a young Thurgood Marshall courtesy of Starlight Media and Open Road Films
JURY SELECTION
But it’s not just clients who will lie to you, though. Jurors will lie as well. Transparency isn’t easy to come by. It’s not most people’s default setting.
In the film, Thurgood Marshall and his co-counsel go through a voir dire sequence. All of the individuals they speak with are remarkably candid. In a time fraught with racism and ignorance, these potential jurors have no qualms. They don’t worry about potential backlash or criticism when they explain and justify their insecurities and hatred.
Today though, one can’t vomit the same hate-speech allowed in the 1940s and get away with it. Even among those with racist tendencies, most have societal restrictions and restraints that keep them from airing their actual thoughts and feelings on race, religion, and other perceived division lines. It makes it increasingly difficult for the attorneys tasked with weeding out the bad apples.
The fact that bigotry is not as widely accepted as it was in the past does not mean it ceases to exist. There are still plenty of potential jurors, in every prospect pool, with deep-seeded demons. Some are wicked enough to actively hide them just to get on a jury.
It’s hard to uproot those prejudices through public questioning, but you have to try. At the end of the day, the goal is to get individuals who will agree to the burden and follow the law. People interpret those issues through different prisms, though, based on their feelings about the defendant’s specific characteristics. You have to understand how people view your client.
HE’S GOT BAGGAGE
Mr. Marshall’s client, Joseph Spell, is far from a perfect man. He was dishonorably discharged from the army. He was fired from his last job for stealing. He left behind his wife and two kids in Louisiana. “But none of that makes him guilty.”
Many of the defendants we defend have baggage. If no criminal ever committed another crime, there’d be a lot more room in prison and a lot less attorneys at the courthouse. But the reality of criminal law is that individuals often face the system more than once.
Sometimes, the baggage they carry isn’t even a prior conviction. Sometimes it’s just a “prior bad act” the prosecution offers to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
How do you handle the potential impeachment and negative character evidence? According to Marshall, “the jury needs to hear him deny it. And you bring out all the bad stuff yourself.”
I agree with this for the most part. I generally believe the jury wants to hear someone say: “I didn’t do it.” For me, that’s not a hard-and-fast rule, though. There are plenty of situations where I wouldn’t put a client on the stand unless he or she demanded it. Sometimes the potential benefit is outweighed by the potential detriment.
Others live and die by the mantra that the “client must speak.” Early in my career I had a boss who wanted every defendant to take the stand. He firmly believed that it was next to necessary that the accused testify under oath. Yet, sometimes it’s better for the defendant not to speak. Maybe there’s a ton of baggage. Maybe the prosecution’s case is so weak there’s no need for the defendant to testify.
The movie is spot-on though: if your client is going to testify, take the air out of the prosecution.
Embrace the bad stuff.
LAST-MINUTE PLEA OFFERS
In the film, the prosecution makes various plea offers throughout the trial. This is one of the most difficult aspects of criminal defense trial practice. I’ve had prosecutors make new plea offers during trial. This is almost always an indication things aren’t going quite the way they planned.
Maybe a witness didn’t come off as well as expected. Maybe skillful cross-examination exposed a problem the prosecution can’t patch. There will be times during trial when a deal too good to pass up gets placed on your platter. What do you do?
The easy (and sometimes smart) option is to urge your client to take the definite deal as opposed to risking an unknown verdict. There is nothing more difficult than a client questioning whether he or she should take a sweetheart plea offer during trial.
It’s tough to tell someone they shouldn’t take a misdemeanor conviction and probation when he or she is staring down the barrel of a felony that carries decades in prison. A definite resolution is a beautiful thing. There is security in knowing the outcome. Waiting out twelve strangers is a lonely experience.
But to fight for an entire trial just to settle? That is a tough pill to swallow. Usually, by that time, the hard work is over with. Still, it’s the client’s decision to accept or decline a plea offer. Nevertheless, they will usually ask for your opinion.
Again, the movie is pretty spot on: Don’t admit to it if you didn’t do it.
Overall, Marshall was a pretty solid viewing experience. It had some nice comedic undertones, the “legalese” wasn’t underdone or overblown, and I kept thinking Black Pantherwas going to burst on to the screen and take out some of the racist townsfolk. Apparently Chadwick Boseman is a great actor, regardless of what kind of suit he is wearing.
Comment
+ Permalink
I grew up on great variety shows, so it was so much fun to do one. It was great to stay at a hotel in Harlem, and pass a line four blocks long on the way to work at the legendary Apollo Theater.
We invited acts from around the world to perform. Here’s a dance team from India:
We also had the son of a legendary performer come and do the show:
The blowback even hit TMZ:
This young lady came all the way from the UK to do her thing. Meet Sarah Ikumu!
Here’s a view of the action from the control booth:
This shy young lady from Walnut California did her thing. Check out Erika Guinton!
And we’ve got hot guest stars, like Charlie Wilson and TI, here with me and musical director Ray Chew:
Check out Macklemore:
You’ve never seen an act this crazy. I don’t know how he did it!
Back together again – me and Kid & Play!
The Smooth Operator Big Daddy Kane!
Biz Markie is such a fun guy to be around!
Here I am with the DGA staff on the crew:
So many great things to see in Harlem, like this great statue of Harriet Tubman:
Here’s a close up of her skirt:
Right around the corner from The Apollo are the offices of the Amsterdam News. Whenever I see it I always think of my friend Nelson George, who got his start there:
The Harlem State Office Building has this awesome statue of Adam Clayton Powell out front:
There are so many great street murals in Harlem, like this one:
Here’s a preview of the next episode:
Comment
+ Permalink
