This is the first movie on my list where quote “Jimmy Stewart plays a small-town lawyer”. Anatomy Of A Murder marks #2. However, despite the fact that this film is essentially a tragedy, Jimmy plays a more positive role. The simplest synopsis would say that this film is about a young lawyer, Rance Stoddard, who travels to Shinbone, a renegade town in the Wild West. When he gets there, he is accosted by the town ruffian, Liberty Vallance. Thus begins this fancy pilgrim’s hoity-toity pursuit to build a lawful society in Shinbone, in order to bring Liberty to justice (I am having so much fun writing this recap). Tom Doniphon, played by John Wayne, stands as the only equal to Liberty in the town, and Tom is skeptical of Rance’s lawfulness and is convinced the only justice that Liberty can understand is with a pistol (Eek I feel so sassy and Western!)
But really, this film is about different conceptions of justice, different balances of lawfulness and a town’s transition from one rule of a law to another. This movie doesn’t offer any specific conclusion as to what system of governance is best. But what it does is show the confusion, excitement and nervousness that a town experiences when an outsider comes in and provides a different way of life.
There is something I want to point out regarding Doniphon’s character, who I will now refer to only as John Wayne, because John Wayne is never not John Wayne in any movie. As I plow through the legal films, I have noticed a certain lawyer cliché emerge. Namely, the fact that lawyers in film tend to be jaded, detached and cynical. Rather than rallying with the crowds and shouting prolific oratory, lawyers seem to take deep breaths, look mildly bemused by the human drama but ultimately saddened by what a mess lay before them. There is a certain demeanor that accompanies this. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Stoddard is a young, flailing mess, impassioned and crazy and searching for justice. John Wayne’s character is the one that embodies that lawyer-y demeanor that I am growing accustomed to seeing in legal dramas.
This makes sense, because he is *used* to his rule of law. He is the lawyer-figure in the system of justice that Shinborne has. He is used to its rises and falls, and he understands when one can win and when one cannot. Stoddard still believes in changing the world. I think this is very telling, in that it re-enforces that Stoddard didn’t necessarily “save” Shinbone by coming. It already had a specific rule of law, which Valance and John Wayne were old hat at, and Stoddard didn't understand.
I think systems arise within groups of people. And in order to prevent these systems from being subject to hatred, prejudice and greed, we codify them in such a way and evolve them with the times. A strong system had arisen in the town of Shinborn that was not codified, but was still a system. The absence of established & codified rule and logic is certainly frightening to someone who does not understand it, but no one in that town was necessarily complaining before Stoddard’s appearance. The rules were just understood.
This movie is very vindicating, but still ends on a somewhat tragic note. The sadness this film evokes certainly has a lot to do with the analysis of justice this movie offers, and the absence of satisfying conclusion or direct answer. But this works in its favor. There is no direct answer to the questions this movie proposed.
Nancy Is A Lawyer?
This movie actually taught me a lot. Some of it I knew already, from doing work with people in the political arena. Mainly, I'm referring to the fact that people are swayed by a common enemy. You can convince people of everything and anything if you point a finger alongside them. Secondly, it reminded me how much I value internal consistency. More and more, I find myself saying lately “I just like it when things make sense”. Even though the world is chaos, I love it when, in a system, there is just a sense of logic that works within that system, whether or not the system itself holds any real water. The world of Shinbone before Stoddard’s entrance, there was a sense of justice. Thus, it made me wince every time Stoddard tried to impose his sense of city-slicker justice, because it did not work within that environment.
Now, Stoddard’s justice had more of a logical consistency…but that is because it was designed to. The legal system strives towards being comprehensively internally consistent. That’s why certain cases setting precedence over other cases is even an issue– if it counted once, it has to count again, because those are the rules, because otherwise our system is broken. And, ya know, I *do* adore that about man’s codified system of judgement, I really really do. But there was something so pure and organic about Wild West, terrain law as it arose, something so seductive and logical. It wasn't internally consistent because it wasn't designed; it just happened. Obviously, it could not stand the test of time, because it is not a law that can be altered or edited, it is not a rule of law that can bend to the changes in social roles and democracy. I am getting the inkling that that aspect of law is key to justice. However, that does not mean I didn’t cringe every time Stoddard did something ridiculously lawful and logical. I found myself shouting “No! That doesn’t work here!”
This is not a downside of law, by any means. This is just an understanding that law does not exist just because we notice it or because we try to act towards it. Law arises of its own accord. I think it’s important to realize that it is there, so we can change it and realize that we probably shouldn’t commit mass genocides and that ladies can vote and junk. But a rule of law is not a conscious human creation, but just a manifestation of social contracts. It arises even without the volition of certain individuals. It just arose in society because that’s what happens when big groups of people get together and try to figure themselves out.
No comments:
Post a Comment