CAPS #2 Helen Mildish - A Time to Kill

Interpretive Perspective of the Movie “A Time to Kill”

This film is stunning, emotional, and an excellent example of ethnic stereotypes, race, and class. This film covers so many points of view I have decided to focus only on a small portion, primarily covering the closing argument of the lawyer in the case; which is the underlying plot of the entire film.  The basic premise is that a black mans child is assaulted, violated, disrespected and he takes matters into his own hands by shooting the men who perpetrated the crime. There was an underlying idea that somehow a black person is not worthy of basic human respect and dignity.  Racial identity is constructed not only from actual race, but more importantly how that race is recognized within social and historical context (Martin & Nakayama p. 191). In our recent history, within the United States particularly the south, Africans were bought and sold like property. The racial impression was that an African life was a useful tool, not actually a human being. These ideas were supported by the white majority and passed down thorough generations. As time change more tolerance and acceptance has become a part of communication, but to say that the U.S. does not have a racial issue is extremely ignorant.  

The main character, a lawyer named Mr. Brigance is a white man fighting for a black mans rights int he south. As you can imagine this creates a lot of tension between him and his main stream culture. In the movie Carl Lee Hailey played by Samel L Jackson says “You are my secret weapon because you are one of the bad guys. You don't mean to be but you are. It's how you was raised. Nigger, negro, black, African-american, no matter how you see me, you see me different, you see me like that jury sees me, you are them. ” The lawyer Jake Tyler Brigance played by Matthew McConaughey is taken aback, and completes a full self introspection. Interpretive approach (Martin & Nakayama p. 60) states that communication and reality is subjective. He acknowledges the differences between races, and initially believes that a black man can still get a fair trial in the south.  Mr. Brigance fights for Carl Lee rights and feels serious pressure from majority to stop resisting the norm. Instead of caving to the majorities demand he redefines what it means to be a black man committing this crime, and puts the crime in the majorities perspective. All steps to  majority development in Intercultural Communication in Context by Martin & Nakayama (p. 183-184)   The scene I wanted to focus on Mr. Brigance says:

This is a story about a little girl walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl. Suddenly a truck races up. Two men jump out and grab her. They drag her into a nearby field and they tie her up, and they rip her clothes from her body. Now they climb on, first one then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure -- vicious thrusts -- in a fog of drunken breath and sweat. And when they're done, after they killed her tiny womb, murdered any chance for her to bear children, to have life beyond her own, they decide to use her for target practice. So they start throwing full beer cans at her. They throw 'em so hard that it tears the flesh all the way to her bones -- and they urinate on her.

Now comes the hanging. They have a rope; they tie a noose. Imagine the noose pulling tight around her neck and a sudden blinding jerk. She's pulled into the air and her feet and legs go kicking and they don't find the ground. The hanging branch isn't strong enough. It snaps and she falls back to the earth. So they pick her up, throw her in the back of the truck, and drive out to Foggy Creek Bridge and pitch her over the edge. And she drops some 30 feet down to the creek bottom below.

Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body, soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood -- left to die.

Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl. Now imagine she’s white.

Here is a video of the same speech performed by Matthew McConaughey’s character:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSs04tXVCg4

Wow. How can you not have an emotional response to that speech? He has proven a very good point, that we distance ourselves from violence, stereotypes, bigotry and racism by simply accepting these as truths. The jurors feel comfortable knowing that they are right. They take comfort in their socialization and rationalization. When Mr. Brigance says “Now imagine that little girl is white” all of those jurors suddenly see THEIR daughter raped, beaten and violated left to die. At this point their hearts make the decision, not their minds which have been trained to be racist without conscious thought. Their hearts treat Carl Lee Hailey as a human and not as a black man, and now they can relate to his outrage and his actions.  That single statement shattered their sense of comfort and acceptance and started them into the path of questing their belief system. As states in the definition of the interpretive approach (Martin, Nakayama p. 60)  culture is created and maintained through communication. Now that the white majority in that court room have considered Carl Lee Hailey a man and not a black man there is a chance that communication about men of color could change in the future. This movie is an amazing example of intercultural communication, the positive, the negative, the ingrained, and the challenge to change. 

Works Cited

“A Time to Kill”, Directed by Joel Schumacher. Performed by Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, Kevin Spacey and Samuel L Jackson. 1996. Film.

Martin & Nakayama, (2013).  Intercultural Communication in Contexts 6th edition, McGraw-Hill.

Anon., Photograph Retrieved Feb 8th 2013.  http://thescottandlenshow.com/?p=5115 

Anon., The CLosing Argument of “A Time to Kill”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSs04tXVCg4 . Retrieved Feb 8th 2013.