Law on Film

Alfred Hitchcock’s 1943 film, Shadow of a Doubt (1943), sets a murder story inside what seems the safest place imaginable: an ordinary American family in an ordinary American town. But as suspicion gathers around Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton), the film slowly exposes something more unsettling than a single killer on the run. It reveals how charm, respectability, and social status can insulate wrongdoing from scrutiny — and how communities prefer comforting narratives to disruptive truths. The police investigate, but they move hesitantly; the town remains confident in its own innocence. The real drama unfolds not in the courtroom, but at the dinner table. The film explores law’s capacity — and its limits. How does misogyny operate not just as motive but as ideology? What happens when loyalty to family collides with loyalty to justice? And in a film released at the height of World War II, is Hitchcock warning that the most dangerous threats to democracy are not always foreign invaders, but may also be charismatic figures embedded within everyday life?
Timestamps:
0:00     Introduction
2:13     Teaching law students through film
5:54     Shadow of a Doubt and law’s inadequacies
11:11   The film’s setting and Santa Rosa, CA
14:54   Imagining the perfect crime
21:21   Misogyny in Shadow of a Doubt
27:48   Playing with crime genres and narrative structures 
32:58   Hitchcock’s cameo
35:16   Doubling and other filmic techniques
48:19   Complicity in covering up the evil
51:11   A critique of wartime idealism and the narrative of the enemy within
56:17   Questioning American institutions

Further reading:
Eggert, Brian, Shadow of a Doubt, Deep Focus Review (Mar. 2, 2013) 
Hughes, Rowland, “Shadows and Doubts: Hitchcock, Genre, and Villainy,” in The Devil Himself: Villainy in Detective Fiction and Film (Stacy Gillis & Philippa Gates eds. 2001)
Modleski, Tania, The Women Who Knew Too Much (1988)
Scovell, Adam, “Why the sinister Shadow of a Doubt was Hitchcock’s Favourite,” The Telegraph (Feb. 7, 2023)
Truffaut, Francois, Hitchcock (Simon & Schuster, 1985)
Wood, Robin, Hitchcock’s Films Revisited (2002)
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. 
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz 
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode we look at Blade Runner (1982) (dir. Ridley Scott) and its sequel Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (dir. Denis Villeneuve), two films that imagine a world where the line between human and machine, creation and creator, has all but vanished. Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic depicted a rain-soaked dystopia where “replicants”—bio-engineered beings—fight for recognition, identity, and life itself. Denis Villeneuve’s 2017 sequel deepens that vision. Law operates in the shadows across both films: as surveillance, classification, and control. The “blade runners” themselves enforce a form of administrative violence that exposes the limits of legal personhood. What does it mean to have rights without recognition, or to be alive without legal existence? And conversely, what are the implications of recognizing rights and legal personhood in robots? In this episode, we’ll examine these and other themes around artificial intelligence, migration, colonization, and bioethics as well as the way films themselves can contribute to and shape public perceptions about these issues. 
Timestamps:
0:00     Introduction
2:45      Emotion and memory in robots
8:08      Slave labor and robot rebellion
9:54      Generative AI and other changes since the first Blade Runner 
15:16      Robots giving birth
20:19     Robot rights
24:17      A new category of companion
32:56    Filmic depictions of AI
38:01     “Time to Die”
43:21     The political economy of AI development
47:22     A dystopian vision of data and surveillance
52:18     A positive post-human future?
57:58     Concepts of immortality

Further reading:
Almog, Shulamit, “When a Robot Can Love – Blade Runner as a Cautionary Tale on Law and Technology,” in Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice (Jan. 1, 2013)
Birhane, Abeba, van Dijk Jelle, and Pasquale, Frank, “Debunking Robot Rights Metaphysically, Ethically, and Legally,” 29(4) First Monday (2024)
Darling, Kate, The New Breed: What Our History with Animals Reveals about Our Future with Robots (2021)
Dick, Philip K., Do Androids Dream of Sheep (1968)
Lewis, C.S., Abolition of Man (1943)
Oliver, Kendra H., Higgs, Oliver S., and Clayton, J., “The End of Genetic Privacy in the Blade Runner Canon,” 14 (1/2) Journal of Literature and Science 108 (Dec. 2022)
Pasquale, Frank, “Cultural Foundations for Conserving Human Capacities Amidst Generative Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Philosophico-Literary Critique of Simulation,” in Being Human (B. Roessler & V. Steeves, eds, 2024)
 
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. 
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz 
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Erin Brockovich (2000) (directed by Steven Soderbergh) is based on the true story of Erin Brockovich, a legal assistant without formal training, who uncovers one of the most significant environmental lawsuits in U.S. history: the case against Pacific Gas and Electric for contaminating groundwater in Hinkley, California. The film, which features an Oscar-winning performance by Julia Roberts in the title role, explores the role of lawsuits in exposing truth and gaining compensation for victims, the gendered dynamics of legal advocacy, and the challenges of taking on entrenched power structures in society.
Timestamps:
0:00     Introduction
1:59       Who is Erin Brockovich?
3:11       Obstacles to holding corporations accountable
5:49      How Erin Brockovich overcomes those obstacles
8:10      Imbalance of power and resources
14:40    Hinkley, California
18:00    Accessing records
21:16     Tort reform, punitive damages, and proportionality
27:10     States and environmental regulation
32:22    Causation and attribution science
37:30    Whistleblowers              
41:17      Finding the “smoking gun”
42:53    The practice of law and parenting

Further reading:
Banks, Sedina “The ‘Erin Brockovich Effect’: How Media Shapes Toxics Policy,” 26 Environs Env’t L. Poly’ J. 219 (2003)
Brockovich, Erin and Eliot, Marc, Take It from Me: Life’s a Struggle but You Can Win (2002)
Chen, Sarah Small, “Toxic Film: Analyzing the Impact of Films Depicting Major Contamination Events on the Regulation of Toxic Chemicals,” 35 Georgetown Env’t L. Rev. 561 (2023)
"'Erin Brockovich’ Made their Town Famous: They Still Don’t Have Clean Water,” Wash. Post (Dec. 27, 2024)
Martens, Daniel L. “Chromium, Cancer, and Causation: Has a Death-Blow Been Dealt Chromium Cases in California?” 16 Natural Resources & Env’t 264 (2002)
McCann, Michael McCann & Haltom, William, “Ordinary Heroes vs. Failed Lawyers – Public Interest Litigation in Erin Brockovich and Other Contemporary Films,” 33 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1045 (2008)
“Still Toxic After All These Years,” Grist (Jan. 29, 2019)
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. 
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz 
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode examines a case that sits at the uneasy boundary between criminal adjudication, media power, and moral authority: the prosecution and execution of Aileen Wuornos, labeled the “first female serial killer. We look at two documentaries by Nick Broomfield—Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992) and Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)—alongside the feature film Monster (2003), written and directed by Patty Jenkins and starring Charlize Theron in an Oscar-winning role. Broomfield’s documentaries are less about guilt or innocence than about process: who controls the narrative, how legal representation operates, and what happens when a defendant’s life becomes an object of transaction, between lawyers, media, and the public. The films also penetrate the issues around the application of the death penalty in the United States, and the problems that arise when the state seeks to executive individuals who are themselves victims and suffer from severe mental illness. Monster  approaches the same facts through dramatization. It also raises important questions, including how far context should matter in judging criminal responsibility and construction of narratives around crimes.
Timestamps:
0:00   Introduction
2:58   Capturing law on film
5:24   The two Nick Broomfield documentaries
11:16   Addressing Aileen Wuornos’s murders
14:04  The flawed defense strategy
18:47  The depiction of Tyria Moore (Aileen Wuornos’s girlfriend
20:55  Selling the Aileen Wuornos story
23:09  The theme of the “monster”
28:29  Themes of betrayal and self-defense
31:53   Nick Broomfield and an outsider view of the American legal system
34:56  Mental illness and the death penalty
37:39  Media coverage of sensational murders 
39:22  Failures of the legal process
44:26  A critique of the death penalty
47:00  Exoticization in the films

Further Reading: 
Cavanaugh, L. Sheila, “‘White Trash:’ Abject Skin in Film Reviews of ‘Monster’,” in Skin, Culture, and Pscyhoanalysis (Cavanaugh, L. Sheila et al. eds.) (2013)
Dargis, Manohla, “Life and Death Issues,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 9. 2004)
Diamond, Suzanna, “‘A Flower in a Hard Rain’: Melodramatic Storytelling by, and About, Aileen Wuornos,” Anthurium, vol. 15(2) (2019)
Horeck, Tanya, “From Documentary to Drama: Capturing Aileen Wuornos,” Screen, vol. 48(2), pp. 141-59 (Summer 2007)
Pearson, Kyra, “The Trouble with Aileen Wuornos, Feminism’s ‘First Serial Killer,’” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 4(3), pp. 256-75 (Sept. 2007
Smith, Abbe, “The ‘Monster’ in All of Us: When Victims Become Perpetrators,” 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 367 (2005)

Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. 
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz 
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

My Undesirable Friends: Part I—Last Air in Moscow (2024) is Russian-language American documentary film written and directed by Julia Loktev (with co-director Anna Nemzer). The film describes the effort to maintain press freedoms in Putin’s Russia in the period leading up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The documentary provides an intimate portrait of independent Russian journalists—mainly young women—who risk everything to pursue truth and accountability amidst escalating repression under the Putin regime. Filmed in late 2021 and early 2022, the documentary captures how the legal machinery of censorship, surveillance, and state-harassment converged to crush internal dissent and incapacitate civil society. It not only provides a profoundly disturbing account of what has occurred in Russia but also serves as a broader warning about the fragility of press freedoms and in a time of rising authoritarianism worldwide. 
Timestamps:
0:00      Introduction
2:45       How the film came about
5:25       A primer on Russian censorship and repression
15:15      “Foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations”
23:32     Social marginalization through the creation of an enemies list 
28:46     State persecution of TV Rain and other independent media 
32:45     The manipulation of language
36:30     Identifying the pivotal moment 
43:36     How the film captures the elimination of press freedoms
48:26     Courts and lawyers
53:27     The Kremlin’s public mobilization to support the war in Ukraine
58:53     Independent journalism in exile
1:02:17   Parallels to the United States under Trump
Further reading:
Chang, Justin, “‘My Undesirable Friends: Part I’ Is a Staggering Portrait of Russian Journalists in Dissent,” New Yorker (Aug. 14, 2025)
Edel, Anastasia, “Putin vs. the Press,” Foreign Policy (Oct. 3, 2025)
Human Rights Watch, Russia’s Legislative Minefield: Tripwires for Civil Society Since 2020 (2024)
Human Rights Watch, Disrupted, Throttled, and Blocked State Censorship, Control, and Increasing Isolation of Internet Users in Russia (2025)
Krupskiy, Maxim, “The Impact of Russia’s ‘Foreign Agents’ Legislation on Civil Society,” Fletcher Russia & Eurasia Program (2023)
Troinovski, Anton & Safronova, Valeriya, “Russia Takes Censorship to New Extremes, Stifling War Coverage,” New York Times (May 18, 2022)
Yablokov, Ilya & Gatov, Vasily, “Broadcasting through the (New) Iron Curtain: Practices, Challenges, and Legacies of Russia's Independent Media in Exile,” Journalism Studies (Feb. 11, 2025)
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. 
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz 
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast