When Law Goes Pop: The Vanishing Line Between Law and Popular Culture

Rating:
Summary: TOUGH SLEDDING
Review: Law professor Richard Sherwin argues that the law has fallen prey to the representational form of the mass media, television particularly. The law, in its most noted form, the criminal trial, finds that it must present itself like a television drama in order to conduct its business.

This wouldn't be so bad, argues Sherwin, if the law's ability to curb popular passions, objectively search for "truth," maintain the public's faith in the system, and win the battle between legal truth and the public desire for closure all weren't hamstrung in the process.

In these days when most Americans frame their view of the world based on what they see on television, Sherwin's subject is extremely important. The question is whether this book is worth the effort it will require of many readers. And early on, it's hard to know if it is worth all the trouble.

Mainly, Sherwin couches his central argument in the opaque language of literary criticism and legalese. Perhaps this is done for the sake of greater precision. Nevertheless, as a consequence, all but legal and literary scholars will find themselves back on their heels when reading this dense work. Sherwin does, thankfully, buttress the core of his assertions with illustrations from popular trials, movies and television, which allows many readers to better follow his line of reasoning while getting their feet back under them. Still, the case Sherwin's arguing has been argued at least as well elsewhere and with less technical language.

Tough sledding aside, if you enjoy popular culture and hold the law in high regard, then ready a thick dictionary, find a firm chair, get in good light and read Sherwin's book. Only your stamina will determine whether the outcome was really worth the work.

Rating:
Summary: TOUGH SLEDDING
Review: Law professor Richard Sherwin argues that the law has fallen prey to the representational form of the mass media, television particularly. The law, in its most noted form, the criminal trial, finds that it must present itself like a television drama in order to conduct its business.

This wouldn't be so bad, argues Sherwin, if the law's ability to curb popular passions, objectively search for "truth," maintain the public's faith in the system, and win the battle between legal truth and the public desire for closure all weren't hamstrung in the process.

In these days when most Americans frame their view of the world based on what they see on television, Sherwin's subject is extremely important. The question is whether this book is worth the effort it will require of many readers. And early on, it's hard to know if it is worth all the trouble.

Mainly, Sherwin couches his central argument in the opaque language of literary criticism and legalese. Perhaps this is done for the sake of greater precision. Nevertheless, as a consequence, all but legal and literary scholars will find themselves back on their heels when reading this dense work. Sherwin does, thankfully, buttress the core of his assertions with illustrations from popular trials, movies and television, which allows many readers to better follow his line of reasoning while getting their feet back under them. Still, the case Sherwin's arguing has been argued at least as well elsewhere and with less technical language.

Tough sledding aside, if you enjoy popular culture and hold the law in high regard, then ready a thick dictionary, find a firm chair, get in good light and read Sherwin's book. Only your stamina will determine whether the outcome was really worth the work.

Rating:
Summary: Much Better as a Reference than as a Read
Review: Professor Richard Sherwin concludes his book with an explicit statement of his thesis, the usual format for mysteries but not for academic studies. If you are a reader who prefers to know where the case studies are headed before reading the case studies, you might do well to read the last chapter first. I hesitate to advise readers to do so, however. Many of Professor Sherwin's analyses of one or a few movies are rich with insight and will inform, enlighten, and even entertain. In contrast, his theoretical contribution (affirmative postmodern theory) is too skimpy to justify a place in my library. Thus, I recommend that readers locate this book in a local library and consult it regarding legal matters in popular culture.

I recommend Mr. Sherwin's analysis of Errol Morris's "The Thin Blue Line." I shall never watch or show that classic without thinking about Professor Sherwin?s gloss thereon. I disagree with his comparison of the older and younger versions of "Cape Fear." I suspected that each of his characterizations of one film might just as easily be asserted about the other, but he held my interest and impelled me to watch both versions again. Mr. Sherwin appears to believe that films of David Lynch and Quentin Tarantino tell us much about theories or institutions of law and law enforcement. I was not convinced but found the argument interesting.

I recommend highly Sherwin's comparison of the "jigsaw puzzle" closing of Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden in the first Simpson trial to the heroic saga narratives favored by Johnnie Cochran and Gerry Spence. Sherwin is especially good at exposing Mr. Spence's skill. Mr. Spence appears to be the shrewd country lawyer whom he plays on television.

I also recommend Sherwin's account of myth making in famous cases of the 19th and 20th centuries, although consideration of landmarks of sensationalism calls into question just when the law began to go "pop."

I recommend that readers skip the numerous lists of questions with which Mr. Sherwin mars his manuscript. I could never be certain where the questions were headed and where I was supposed to the find the answers, if any. Readers should be underwhelmed as well by Mr. Sherwin's generalization from aberrations, including the aforementioned Simpson trial. In these matters, Mr. Sherwin seems to succumb to pop law and to see the world in a sound bite of the erstwhile "Rivera Live."

Most of all, I urge readers to overlook his every attempt to generalize about law and legal institutions from movies. As I have said, Mr. Sherwin's analyses of movies are intriguing. However, getting from the movies analyzed to legal institutions is no minor trick. When Mr. Sherwin would generalize to the legal culture from this or that trend that he claims to see in this or that movie, the reader should indulge his impulse to attend to the movie critique and to ignore the alleged social criticism that, it appears, the author believes his cinematic analyses justify. Mr. Sherwin's methodological justification for this twist on cinematic verity is almost self-satire: "My working assumption is that film, like notorious cases, provides a reasonably reliable indicator of shared, conflicted, and newly emerging beliefs, values, and expectations"(p. 171). With working assumptions such as that, what hypothesis wouldn't work out?

Mr. Sherwin separates postmodern sheep from postmodern goats, but the author's renditions of postmodernism seemed to create multiple Potemkin Villages. The specter of skeptical postmodernism may haunt some in the Western world, but Mr. Sherwin's manifesto will strike most readers as disjointed and overwrought.

Rating:
Summary: Much Better as a Reference than as a Read
Review: Professor Richard Sherwin concludes his book with an explicit statement of his thesis, the usual format for mysteries but not for academic studies. If you are a reader who prefers to know where the case studies are headed before reading the case studies, you might do well to read the last chapter first. I hesitate to advise readers to do so, however. Many of Professor Sherwin's analyses of one or a few movies are rich with insight and will inform, enlighten, and even entertain. In contrast, his theoretical contribution (affirmative postmodern theory) is too skimpy to justify a place in my library. Thus, I recommend that readers locate this book in a local library and consult it regarding legal matters in popular culture.

I recommend Mr. Sherwin's analysis of Errol Morris's "The Thin Blue Line." I shall never watch or show that classic without thinking about Professor Sherwin?s gloss thereon. I disagree with his comparison of the older and younger versions of "Cape Fear." I suspected that each of his characterizations of one film might just as easily be asserted about the other, but he held my interest and impelled me to watch both versions again. Mr. Sherwin appears to believe that films of David Lynch and Quentin Tarantino tell us much about theories or institutions of law and law enforcement. I was not convinced but found the argument interesting.

I recommend highly Sherwin's comparison of the "jigsaw puzzle" closing of Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden in the first Simpson trial to the heroic saga narratives favored by Johnnie Cochran and Gerry Spence. Sherwin is especially good at exposing Mr. Spence's skill. Mr. Spence appears to be the shrewd country lawyer whom he plays on television.

I also recommend Sherwin's account of myth making in famous cases of the 19th and 20th centuries, although consideration of landmarks of sensationalism calls into question just when the law began to go "pop."

I recommend that readers skip the numerous lists of questions with which Mr. Sherwin mars his manuscript. I could never be certain where the questions were headed and where I was supposed to the find the answers, if any. Readers should be underwhelmed as well by Mr. Sherwin's generalization from aberrations, including the aforementioned Simpson trial. In these matters, Mr. Sherwin seems to succumb to pop law and to see the world in a sound bite of the erstwhile "Rivera Live."

Most of all, I urge readers to overlook his every attempt to generalize about law and legal institutions from movies. As I have said, Mr. Sherwin's analyses of movies are intriguing. However, getting from the movies analyzed to legal institutions is no minor trick. When Mr. Sherwin would generalize to the legal culture from this or that trend that he claims to see in this or that movie, the reader should indulge his impulse to attend to the movie critique and to ignore the alleged social criticism that, it appears, the author believes his cinematic analyses justify. Mr. Sherwin's methodological justification for this twist on cinematic verity is almost self-satire: "My working assumption is that film, like notorious cases, provides a reasonably reliable indicator of shared, conflicted, and newly emerging beliefs, values, and expectations"(p. 171). With working assumptions such as that, what hypothesis wouldn't work out?

Mr. Sherwin separates postmodern sheep from postmodern goats, but the author's renditions of postmodernism seemed to create multiple Potemkin Villages. The specter of skeptical postmodernism may haunt some in the Western world, but Mr. Sherwin's manifesto will strike most readers as disjointed and overwrought.