|
Volume 22, Number 1/2/3 (1998) reprinted by permission Legal Studies Forum AFRICAN AMERICAN ATTORNEYS IN TELEVISION AND FILM: COMPOUNDING STEREOTYPES CHERYL SMITH-KHAN* Although television may do a better job than film of avoiding racial stereotype portrayals,1 it still fails to accurately depict African Americans or their experiences. This failure may have dire consequences. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson appointed a commission, headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, to investigate economic and social reasons for destructiveness caused by racism.2 The Kerner Commission concluded that the media’s portrayal of minorities, Blacks in particular, contributed to continued racial stereotyping in society. History has proven the Commission correct. In 1979, the United States Civil Rights Commission conducted a study to determine whether television had improved its portrayal of minorities.3 This study found that racial stereotyping had not only continued but, in some instances, intensified. A 1993 study found that the unfair portrayal of minorities on television produced negative self-images in people of color and specifically African Americans.4 When actor and comedian Bill Cosby ended a history-making television run with The Cosby Show, he reportedly found it difficult and even painful to watch television because of its portrayal of African Americans.5 He had hoped that the eight season run of a “nationally treasured” show about an “educated, professional, intact Black family” would end stereotypical portrayals of African Americans.6 Cosby concluded that the industry had chosen to ignore The Cosby Show’s record setting success and allowed programs he viewed as stereotypical to remain on the air.7 Cosby characterized Def Comedy Jam8 as “the Amos ‘n’ Andy9 of the 90's....” In his view, “[t]here are people watching these shows who know nothing about [African Americans].”10 A significant portion of society know African Americans only from the images they see on television. These portrayals have a considerable negative impact on both Black and White children who watch them.11 Bradley Greenberg, who has done extensive research on African Americans in television, found that African American children identify with African American television characters.12 He also found that White children are more likely than African American children to learn about people of other races from television.13 The African Americans portrayed on television are often inferior and unimportant characters, void of credibility. Not surprisingly, White children who had the least opportunity to interact with African American children were most likely to believe that these portrayals were realistic.14 Television’s general portrayal of African Americans perpetuates negative stereotypes, while the number of Black-oriented programs offering positive images are limited in number.15 Between 1996 and 1997, the number of African American oriented dramatic series dropped from seven to five.16 The primary networks did not have a single African American dramatic series on their schedules.17 United Paramount Network (UPN) and Warner Brothers Network (WB) added six African American series to their fall 1997 schedules; one or more African Americans will star on all nine of UPN’s series and half of the twelve WB shows. Unfortunately, one of the new shows does an extremely poor job of portraying African Americans. The remaining series do little to improve the portrayal of African Americans on television and in some cases actually perpetuate negative stereotypes. Because UPN and WB do not enjoy as many affiliates as do the major networks, even those series providing positive images may not reach a sufficiently-large audience. The television industry does not, of course, have a monopoly on stereotyping; it gets considerable help from the motion picture industry. Indeed, television may do a better job than film of avoiding racial stereotypes. Most of the current Black roles in films exist solely to entertain. They suggest the legitimacy of the current social order.21 The African American community is portrayed as an urban wild kingdom, the setting of serial tragedies, comprised of inner city drug dealers and gangsters. Not surprisingly, these portrayals have a remarkably negative effect on African American youths.22 In many cases, these youths model themselves after characters they see portrayed in the media. For many White viewers, their only images of Blacks are based on media stereotypes of African Americans.23 Although negative images may reflect some aspects of African American life, it ignores other, more positive aspects. Strong, successful, and intact African American families, with children who are not drug dealers or gang members, form the bulk of African American society. These families are rarely seen on big screen. As recently as the early 1990s, many movies resorted to racial stereotyping, reminiscent of the Black films of the 1970s.24 They focus on young, urban African American males whose lives are defined by racism.25 Women’s characters are rarely developed, and the old stereotypes of irresponsible African American males and drug-addicted African American mothers persist.26 Two Spike Lee films offer encouragement that positive portrayals are possible. Mo’ Betta Blues, a 1990 film, and Malcolm X, a 1993 production, both include positive images alongside negative portrayals. In Mo’ Betta Blues, “[r]ather than focusing on some doomed, drugged-out hero whose life is one long drawn out study of torment and self-despair, Lee presented an ordinary but talented young middle-class trumpet player.”27 Bleek Gilliam, [Denzel Washington] chooses to stop playing in order to have a family. Self-centered at the film’s beginning, Bleek ends the film as a good father and devoted husband. In rejecting his earlier lifestyle, he illustrates maturity and responsibility. Bleek leaves music after being beat up by loan sharks who are after his manager, Giant [Spike Lee]. Bleek has retained Giant as manager out of loyalty to a childhood friend and he even tries to help Giant end his gambling habit. The movie reflects “the camaraderie of black jazz artists, whose cultural experiences, language, and attitudes are unique points of group identification.”28 Although Bleek constantly battles with Shadow [Wesley Snipes], over creative control of the quintet, even coming to blows, Shadow supports Bleek when Bleek is attacked by thugs. He supports Bleek during Bleek’s recuperation and when Bleek begins to play the trumpet again. Despite these positive images, this film still portrays other African American male characters in a manner that reinforces the usual stereotypes: lying, unintelligent, and untrustworthy men concerned primarily about their next sexual conquest. Spike Lee, who often develops his male characters more fully than female characters, follows that trend in this film. Lee’s female characters are categorized into “the standard nurturing, good (darker) woman versus the career-driven, sexier bad (lighter) woman.”29 Nevertheless, despite the stereotypical shortcomings of some of the characters, Bleek Gilliam provides a more realistic, positive portrayal of an African American male than is normally found in movies. Lee’s Malcolm X presents Malcom X [Denzel Washington] as an “uncompromising-hero.”30 This film also depicts African Americans as drug dealers, prostitutes and murderers, with even the Honorable Elijah Muhammed responsible for fathering children with different women. Yet, the negative images in this film are recast and contextualized by Malcolm X’s commitment and fortitude in fighting racism while trying to protect himself and his family. Placing the often misunderstood Malcolm X in a positive light, Lee breaks free of Hollywood stereotypes. Television Lawyers Virtue consists of moral excellence. Unfortunately the public seldom ranks lawyers among the virtuous. Media portrayals, particularly on television, contribute to the negative images of lawyers. Most people have no personal experience with lawyers or the legal system. They get most of their information (and misinformation) about lawyers second hand.” Moral and ethical television lawyers exist, but hit program ratings don’t necessarily reward ethical behavior. Television dramas about attorneys contribute to the public’s low regard for the legal profession. Law and Order,31 a network series now in syndication, deals with the New York police and their work with prosecutors. The District Attorney, Adam Schiff, supervises Chief Assistant State Attorney Ben Stone and Assistant State Attorney Paul Robinette.32 Schiff is portrayed as a hard-nosed prosecutor, who expects his subordinates to act in the best interest of the New York District Attorney’s Office. He frequently directs Stone to “cut a deal,” often against Stone’s opposition. These deals result in lesser punishment because Schiff doubts the strength of the case against the accused. He seems incapable of compassion or empathy for those who suffer at the hands of the justice system. This portrayal reinforces the public’s negative opinion of lawyers as self-consumed individuals, who will sacrifice the interests of others to protect their institutional offices. Murder One, a short-lived ABC series, also depicted the battles between the prosecutors and private attorneys. Murder One differs from Law and Order in devoting multiple episodes to a single case, it too presented unflattering images of lawyers. The second season opened as “hot shot prosecutor” James Wyler [Anthony LaPaglia] left the district attorney’s office to form his own firm, but not before he learned crucial information about a recently-arrested murder suspect. After resigning he goes immediately to the jail to convince the accused to retain him as her lawyer. He also manages to convince a public defender to professionally join his firm. Wyler’s cavalier treatment of ethics raises serious questions about his integrity. The series most familiar to general audiences, L.A. Law, continues to draw viewers in syndication. One of the biggest television hits of the 1980s, its popularity surprised critics who thought public hostility toward lawyers would limit its appeal.33 Incidents involving two L.A. Law characters, Arnold “Arnie” Becker [Corbin Bernsen], and Michael Kuzak [Harry Hamlin], portray lawyers abdicating responsibility for their choices and playing fast and loose with ethical rules. Becker, a high-priced divorce lawyer who sleeps with his female clients, becomes depressed after overhearing two women discussing his inadequacies as a man and as an attorney. His actions throughout the series make it clear he has earned their disdain. Yet, he refuses to recognize or take responsibility for his behavior. L.A. Law: The Movie (1988), Becker reinforces this perception. Arriving at the office, he is confronted at gunpoint by a scorned ex-husband. The ex-husband fires the pistol, which is filled with blanks, and leaves. Rather than pondering how his own behavior led to this confrontation, Becker immediately responds to his secretary’s announcement that a senior partner has died: “Well, if he’s dead I get first dibs on his office.” Portrayals such as this encourage society to believe that lawyers behave unethically, lack compassion, and put their own self interest first. An incident involving Michael Kuzak indicates one reason why L.A. Law succeeded despite the attorneys’ unsavory behavior. The lawyers of L.A. Law want good to triumph over evil. Although the times in which they champion the underdog hardly parallel the activities of Atticus Finch,34 L.A. Law often asked its viewers to root for the underdog. In one episode, Kuzak represents a wealthy client’s son. The son is one of three young men accused of raping a young woman dying of leukemia. Kuzak makes clear how much he despises this assignment. During an aggressive cross-examination by an attorney for one of the defendants, the victim angrily erupts and is jailed until she apologizes for being in contempt of court. Ironically, if improbably, Kuzak is jailed for unpaid traffic tickets and placed in the next cell. Kuzak apologizes and tells her: “If you were to get a gun and blow my client away, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.” The victim responds, “But that’s the difference between you and me because I would.” Kuzak, viewing himself in the eyes of the rape victim, sees himself in a different light. The case is ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence when the victim feigns memory loss, but that is not the end of the story. Kuzak’s client pulls a gun on him and demands money. Kuzak proceeds to a local bar, the hangout of the police detective who worked on the rape case, and orders a drink and sits down next to the detective, with whom he trades snide remarks concerning their respective roles in the case. Kuzak asks, “By the way, do you know if he [Kuzak’s client] has a permit to carry a pearl-handled handgun?” The detective does not answer but goes to make a telephone call. When the client is arrested for probation violations including gun possession, drug possession, and resisting arrest, Kuzak tells him that these charges could mean serious jail time but could probably be taken care of if he pled guilty to the rape and provided evidence against the other two men. The client eventually agrees and all three men are sentenced for raping the young woman. Kuzak later discusses the case with his senior partner, Leland McKenzie, played by Richard Dysart. McKenzie says that he understands that the police “had a little help” in the case against Kuzak’s client. Kuzak responds, “If I crossed the (ethical) line, I can live with that.” McKenzie’s response is telling: “Michael, I might argue with your ethics but I admire your conscience.” Even though Kuzak’s behavior violated legal ethics, the audience admires him for doing the wrong thing for the right reason. Movie Lawyers Movies often portray attorneys as less than heroic, at times less than human. Consider four examples from the 1980s and 1990s.35 In Body Heat, William Hurt portrays a lawyer who plots to help his girlfriend kill her rich husband. He goes to prison and she gets away with the money. In The Verdict, Paul Newman is a hard-drinking ambulance chaser who distributes his business card at a stranger’s funeral. Greta Scacchi is a “bed-hopping” prosecutor who sleeps her way to a promotion in Presumed Innocent. She ends up dying at the hands of the wife of a former lover. Finally, the partners at Wyatt, Wheeler, Hellerman, Tetlo & Brown in Philadelphia wrongly terminate an associate, [Tom Hanks], because he has AIDS. The firm partners turn on their former “golden boy” and attempt to make him appear incompetent. Class Action involves its attorneys in virtually every kind of bad behavior imaginable. The plaintiff’s counsel [Gene Hackman] is matched against his own daughter [Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio]. She had rejected her father’s civil rights practice and joined a corporate firm, in part because of her father’s extramarital affairs. Attorneys in her own firm lie to her about their client’s culpability. A partner in her firm, with whom she is having an affair, turns on her to save himself. Another partner instructs her to use a deposition to “eliminate [the deponent] as an effective witness.” The lying, back-biting, and ruthless effort to destroy the witness demonstrates two despised traits attributed to lawyers: deception and heartless behavior. After the deposition in which his daughter used personal attacks to effectively eliminate the witness, he tells her and her senior partner, “Hold on to that money you’re trying to protect real tight because without a heart and soul it’s all you’ll ever have.” The firm’s lawyers also commit at least two serious ethical violations. The senior partner authorizes sending plaintiffs’ counsel literally hundreds of boxes of reports in response to a discovery request. Although he includes the incriminating report in these mounds of paper, he transposes its index number to make it virtually impossible to find. As they load the truck, the daughter and another associate engage in a rather callous exchange. Ms. Ward: “This is justice by avalanche.”Contrary to the partner’s representations, the firm deleted the category number of the incriminating report from the log sent to plaintiffs’ counsel and destroyed the report itself. Not only did the lawyers fail to fully disclose critical evidence, they destroyed it. When the judge learns of these actions, he forces the defendant’s attorneys to settle the case or have their ethical violations reported to the state bar. To some extent, even the judge protects outrageous lawyer conduct. Portrayals of African American Attorneys on Television Three comedies illustrate how little television has invested in showing African American attorneys in a positive light. The first African American attorney to appear on television, fictionalized or otherwise, was Algonquin J. Calhoun [Johnny Lee] in 1951.36 Calhoun was a character on the “infamous” Amos ‘n’ Andy show. An inept shyster, he practiced law despite being disbarred for malpractice and ethics violations.37 He stretched the truth, fabricated information, and told outright lies when necessary.38 This character and the show itself were so offensive that the NAACP passed a resolution condemning it and even brought an unsuccessful lawsuit to enjoin its broadcast.39 Among other charges, the NAACP alleged that “Negro lawyers are shown as slippery cowards, ignorant of their profession, and without ethics.”40 Living Single is an example of how little progress has been made since 1951. This Fox network comedy about four African American women, one of whom, Maxine “Max” Shaw, [Erika Alexander], is an attorney. After being let go by a prestigious African American law firm under going financial difficulties, Shaw joins the public defender’s office and becomes romantically involved with a client.41 Later, she runs for Alderwoman and wins amidst allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. Portrayed as an unmotivated lawyer with poor judgment, Shaw lacks respect for the rules governing her profession. She is depicted as a sex-starved woman who chases men. The situation comedy Sparks has done much to malign the reputation of African American attorneys since it first aired on the UPN network early in the 1996-97 season. The show focuses on an African American law firm headed by Mr. Sparks [James Avery]. The firm includes his sons, Maxi and Greg, a female associate, a secretary, and a messenger. One episode involved an office reception held to ingratiate firm members with a troublesome judge. Maxi accepts the judge’s challenge to play basketball; the court is right outside the office. The episode supports stereotypical beliefs that African Americans as a race are superior basketball players. In this same episode Sparks returns from court saying he has just lied to a judge.42 Sparks is especially alarming when the actors’ response to their roles is explored. During a recent interview on a syndicated radio show, James Avery was asked if he had taken any flack from Black attorneys about these characters.43 Avery replied that he had gotten some grief from one attorney. Miguel Nunez Jr., who plays one of the sons, responded, “It is the Black attorneys’ job to define who they are, we are just trying to be funny.” Prime time network dramatic series that depict African American lawyers usually relegate them to minor roles.44 On Law and Order, for example, although Paul Robinette portrays a competent attorney, he is always a step behind the White attorney Ben Stone. The most positive depiction of Robinette occurs only when he leaves the district attorney’s office to pursue civil rights litigation. While defending his client, Robinette explains why he left the office: “Ben Stone once asked me if I was a Black Attorney or an attorney that was Black. I guess I finally decided which one.” By recognizing himself as a Black attorney, Robinette becomes an advocate for issues important to African Americans. Law and Order presents another character, Shambala Green, an African American female public defender, who will do whatever is necessary to zealously and ethically represent her clients even when her identity as an African American is challenged. Ms. Green is appointed to represent a young white woman charged with shooting two African American males on a New York subway train. The defendant maintains that she feared for her life and shot the men in self-defense. It is possible, of course, that the defendant feared the young men because of their race rather than any actual threat they posed. We later learn that one of the youths was a sex offender. District Attorney Ben Stone, in a pre-trial discussion with Ms. Green, states his beliefs that the young woman basically “assumed the risk” when she rode the subway and that the young men “were merely asking . . . [for sex].” Calling him a chauvinist pig, Green walks out. Green stages a re-enactment at trial to show that her client had sufficient fear to warrant the use of self-defense. The re-enactment involves bringing in African American, Guardian Angel-types to pose as the defendants. The potentially offensive “black male intimidation of a white female” issue is presented in a way to suggest that Green was providing competent representation for her client, a refreshing, but far too uncommon portrayal of an African American attorney. The Practice, which appears on ABC, features a “gritty, urban firm in Boston that is small and struggling.”45 The Practice portrays lawyers trying to live ethically. The one African American attorney in the firm [Steve Harris] portrays a strong, ethical, and intelligent African American attorney. In one episode he represents a client charged with bank robbery. When he receives security camera films that prove his client guilty, he confronts his client and advises him that he must proceed in a manner consistent with the client’s guilt.46 In another episode, Harris helps one of the firm’s newer attorneys confront opposing counsel who appears to be trying to take advantage of her in a civil suit. He accompanies his less experienced colleague to a meeting with opposing counsel and directly points out both legal and ethical problems with opposing counsel’s conduct. African American Attorneys in Film In the early twentieth century African American attorneys were depicted favorably in films containing all Black casts and intended for Black audiences.47 Not until 1955 did a movie intended for White audiences present an African American lawyer, and a judge at that. Trial depicted the Honorable Judge Theodore Motley [Juano Hernandez] a dignified role portrayed by one of Black America’s most respected actors.48 Unfortunately, not until the late 1970s and 1980s did African American lawyers appear again in films, and then only in assisting attorney roles.49 In Class Action, Nick [Lawrence Fishburne], African American lawyer, seemingly competent and capable, but relegated to behind the scenes work interviewing clients and witnesses, doing research, and sitting second chair at trial. Nick spends more time counseling the boss’s daughter than he does lawyering. Films rarely depict Black lawyers in solo practices or in African American law firms, the environment in which the majority of African Americans practice.50 Three recent movies do, however, portray African American attorneys in a positive light. In 1993, for the first time in more than thirty years, a movie featured an African American attorney as its central character. In Philadelphia, the defense of the attorney wrongfully terminated from his job in a prestigious law firm because he has AIDS is undertaken by Joseph Miller [Denzel Washington], an articulate and competent litigator. He is also a down-to-earth, devoted, family man. The film shows him in the delivery room coaching his wife through childbirth and resting on the hospital bed holding his wife and child. At home, he helps his wife cook dinner and care for their baby daughter. He openly communicates his fears and difficulties. Miller’s family demonstrates cultural awareness; an African American doll lays in his baby girl’s crib. Most significantly, Miller makes a notable transformation from a man blinded by prejudice to a professional who understands the negative impact that prejudice can have. When Andrew Beckett, the discharged lawyer initially consults him, Miller’s discomfort is obvious. Beckett actually says, “Mr. Miller, if you don’t want [the case] for personal reasons....” Miller responds, “That’s right.” Two weeks later, Miller sees Beckett in the law library and initially tries to hide behind a stack of books. He has a change of heart when the librarian speaks to Beckett. The librarian tells Beckett that he located information about HIV-related discrimination and offers him a private research room. When Beckett does not respond, the librarian asks if he would not be “more comfortable” in a private research room. Beckett responds, “No, would you be more comfortable?” Miller then approaches Beckett and makes small talk. After learning that Beckett still needs an attorney, Miller turns to walk away but then returns to discuss case strategy. Taking a book from Beckett, Miller reads a passage from a case dealing with discrimination against an individual with tuberculosis: “This is the essence of discrimination. Formulating opinions about others not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in a group with assumed characteristics.”51 Despite his obvious personal bias against Beckett’s lifestyle, Miller decides to represent him. While the behavior of Beckett’s former employers is presented as reprehensible, both Miller and Beckett are presented in a favorable light. Miller is transformed from a homophobic attorney who chases potential personal injury clients into a compassionate attorney attempting to move beyond his prejudices. Even the lawyers representing Beckett’s old law firm have doubts about their work. After the firm’s attorney completes a brutal cross-examination of Beckett, she tells her co-counsel, “I hate this case.” Philadelphia depicts an African American attorney as a professional, wrestling to overcome biases that threaten his ethical and moral being. Another film depicting African American attorneys in a positive light, Losing Isaiah (1995), is about an African American crack addict who loses custody of her infant son after she abandons him in a pile of garbage to go get high. A white couple adopts Isaiah, but a custody battle ensues five years later when his mother learns he is still alive. This film portrays African American attorneys in varied job settings. Caroline Jones [La Tonya Richardson], represents the adoptive parents and works in a prestigious law firm. Jones is honest and forthcoming with her clients. Opposing counsel, Khadar Lewis [Samuel Jackson] is an attorney at the Urban Defense Fund of Chicago; a talented advocate who zealously works to help his client regain custody of her child. He is steadfast in his commitment to his client and to the cause of having black children placed with black families. Both attorneys perform admirably. Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) depicts a strong African American judge who presides over the case of a wealthy White man, Sherman McCoy. McCoy and his mistress make a wrong turn while driving from the airport to New York City. The mistress runs over a young African American male but blames the accident on McCoy. Judge White [Morgan Freeman], an ironic name for an African American judge, is in complete control of his courtroom, and at one point orders a young African American defendant to take a plea instead of going to trial because the judge knows the defendant would receive a 25-year jail sentence. During McCoy’s trial, exonerating evidence comes to light and the indictment against him is dismissed. An African American spectator disagrees with that decision and calls the judge a racist pig. Disgusted by that outburst, Judge White remarks to the courtroom: Color does not matter when witnesses perjure themselves and prosecutors elicit perjury of men of the cloth. Justice is the law and the law is man’s feeble attempt to set down the principles of decency. It’s not an angle, a contract, or a hustle. It is what your grandmother taught you; its in your bones. Now go home and be decent people.White, an African American judge, represents the pursuit of justice and professionalism in the face of emotion and racism. Because perception creates reality, the misinformation conveyed in the depictions of African American attorneys is troublesome. In our society, perceptions are formed about attorneys and about African Americans from the media; stereotypical presentations do a tremendous disservice to both. |
