Films, TV Scenes Can Help to Teach "Hard Law," too
by
Stephen G. Coughlan

Other authors have discussed the use of scenes from television and movies to raise significant policy issues. I think we can use these materials to teach "hard law," too.

Students' interest begins to flag toward the end of the year, and they may have less enthusiasm to enter into class discussions when they are busy preparing for final exams.

One way to encourage participation is to show short clips from movies as hypotheticals and use them as the focus for discussion.

The technique seems well-suited to teaching criminal defenses. My first-year Criminal Law students learned the law of self-defense after watching a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark in which Indiana Jones first uses his fists and whip to fight off a number of attackers in the marketplace, but draws his gun to shoot a dangerous-looking swordsman. The scene raises most of the relevant issues in the Canadian defense: Has he been unlawfully assaulted? Is he acting under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm? Can he otherwise preserve himself? Could he, and must he, retreat? Must he measure force to a nicety?

In a later week, the scene in which Dr. Jones first destroys an archaeological site to escape from it, and then steals a horse to ride off to recover the Ark, sets the stage for a discussion of the defense of necessity. Can it be used as a justification (stealing the horse) or only as an excuse (vandalizing the site), and if so what are the requirements?

I divide the students into groups (Crown and defense) and have them confer for about 20 minutes before we discuss the case as a whole. Small-group discussion about whether the defense can apply is usually quite active; students unwilling to speak up in a large group seem more willing to enter into the small debate among themselves. When we present the arguments on either side, there is lots of participation. All the students have had a chance to think through their arguments fully, and students often raise particular points from the cases in support of their views. My impression is that students are more likely to raise key issues in this context than in a specific discussion of the cases themselves.

When we encounter the defense of provocation, the Zefirelli film of Romeo and Juliet provides a good introduction. Romeo kills Tybalt after Tybalt has killed Mercutio. The facts make the legal issues seem far more vivid than any oral or written hypothetical could. It is obvious that Romeo tries very hard not to be provoked, and does not seek a quarrel. It is also obvious that he is in a rage when he sets off after Tybalt. Had Romeo lost control? Would anyone have lost control? Did he act before his passions had had time to cool (he had to run a long way before he caught Tybalt)? Even several side issues arise: Romeo is only 15 years old; is that relevant? Can we take his cultural background into account (attacking each other with swords appears to be quite normal behavior in his society)? What about those obscure insults -- meaningless to us (what is drybeating an ape, anyway?), but apparently very provocative to a 15th-century Veronan?

I have several times urged one of my colleagues to show part of Body Heat, a thriller whose plot turns around the Rule Against Perpetuities, to her first-year Property students. She has declined, probably wisely. Nonetheless, this year I will try to find films that I can use to teach some aspects of the elements of crimes. It is possible to overuse these visual hypotheticals, but used occasionally they can provide a nice counterpoint to the usual discussion and make the issues more real.