'Supreme Court' film: C-SPAN delivers the goods
Readers of this blog have been asking me lately what I do on weekends to try and wash the Olbermanns, O'Reillys, Lettermans and Gosselins out of my brain after a TV week like the one that just ended.
My answer: I try to spend at least a few hours every weekend with one of the C-SPAN channels. There is almost always some program that reminds me that there is at least this one little niche where the great democratic promise some of us felt for cable in its infancy in the late 1970s and early 1980s is being realized day in and day out. And C-SPAN is offering just such a production Sunday night at 9 in "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court."
The 90-minute documentary not only gives viewers a look into parts of the building that the public has never seen, it takes its audience into the very culture of the institution at a depth that no other TV production has come close to doing.
First of all, it is the only work of TV or film to have all living justices and former justices on camera for individual interviews. Beyond the justices on the bench, that includes David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor.
The conversation with Souter alone would be worth the price of admission. His counterintuitive analysis of the huge courtroom as a place of "great intimacy" is startling in its brilliance and ability to make you instantly see a place that you thought you knew in a totally different light. This soft-spoken, quiet man with his focused and original thoughts is such a refreshing antidote to all the chattering, yelling, ill-informed, partisan voices that otherwise so dominate cable TV today.
While it is nice to see for the first time on TV the Robing Room (where the justices gown-up for the bench), the Lawyers' Lounge and two of the dining rooms, the real strength of this documentary is found in the interviews skillfully conducted and deftly edited and positioned throughout the film.
Supreme Court justices, not surprisingly, often tend to sound self-important even when one shows up in such venues as a "60 Minutes" profile. But the interviewers here manage to go beyond that with most of the members of the court. Even Clarence Thomas, who often moves beyond self-important to sounding downright pompous in interviews, opens up a bit -- and you start to see the man behind the robe.
In one segment on the dining room, for example, he describes how Justice O'Connor kept inviting him to lunch with the other justices until he could no longer refuse. And when he finally came, he says he was blown away by the camaraderie. He adds that he has come to treasure the lunches.
Camaraderie yes, great food no, says Ruth Ginsburg, pointing out that the food comes from the public cafeteria where visitors to the building eat.
"It's not haute cuisine," she says.
Thomas is one of the most interesting studies in this film. As he describes his acculturation to the court, a picture starts to emerge of a somewhat angry man with a chip on his shoulder who expected to be treated as an outsider -- only to be suprised and delighted by the acceptance and respect that he has found among his colleagues.
Some of my favorite moments in the film concern the history of building itself, and how the architecture and location were chosen to try and give it an equal standing with the other two branches of government. Producer Mark Farkas brings us great facts about the building's construction during the Great Depression, and how despite all the marble, it actually came in under budget.
Still, when it was completed in 1935, seven of the nine justices inititally refused to move from their offices in the basement of the Senate to the opulent-looking hall.
Two last words on the talking heads Farkas uses to supplement the interviews with the current and former justice: They're great. I was especially happy to hear from the dean of Supreme Court reporters Lyle Denniston, who covered the court for the "Baltimore Sun" for many years and now does his excellent work as a reporter for for the SCOTUSblog.com. When I was being interviewed in 1989 for the job of TV critic at the "Baltiomore Sun," I remember telling editors one of the reasons I wanted to join the "Sun" was to work on the same paper as folks like Denniston.
C-SPAN's focus on the court continues with specials each night of the week. If you like what you see Sunday night, there is much more ahead.
And the next time you want to denounce all of cable TV for the prime-time excesses of MSNBC and Fox, remember C-SPAN is part of the cable landscape, too.
Comments
Sounds like C-SPAN might be a good place to turn. I have pretty much had it with the cable news channels. I feel like I am not getting much.
It is nice to know that underneath it the robes these judges have real human interests. I would like to go to lunch with one of them just to get some ideas. Maybe they should try some "forums with the judges" like we had at our hospital with our new CEO, some real interaction with the judges and some regular American's that would be the ultimate.
I am sure the more we watch about our justice system the more informed we will be to make decisions. Is Mr. Denniston doing part of the interview then?
I think I will watch tonight.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 4, 2009 3:03 PM
Now I know for sure I am watching this tonight. I found a great article about why Americans sometime don't understand the judicial process or do not think about it as being relevant to their lives. If we think about it this is the highest authority in our nation and we should care about the decisions that it makes every day, particularly in cases that might affect issues of discrimination etc. Actually all the areas of judicial precedent are important to us as Americans. So yes it would be great to see a real one in person.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 4, 2009 5:12 PM
Z,
I never new that you do not have to be a lawyer or a judge to be a supreme court justice. However, I guess presidents do usually pick someone who has studied law. My husband pointed out that the average citizen would not make it through the nomination process. Still it kind of made me think wow.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 4, 2009 7:32 PM
You know what I am having one of those nights when you can't sleep, so I did watch this and I had a couple of comments.
I felt like after I watched that some of mysteriousness of the whole supreme court was a little more clear. I was impressed by Judge Sotomajor. There was a lot of controversy surrounding her nomination, but I felt like she is really grateful for the opportunity and she is asking other judges to help her in her new position. She was impressive.
I also liked the Chief Justice John Roberts. He seemed like he had the personality to be able to work well with the other judges and steer them with firmness, but fairness.
I enjoyed the explanation from them about the proximity of the bench where they are seated being so close to the lawyers that would be presenting arguments that they could almost touch them. They said this makes you engaged in what is happening. And Judge Clarence Thomas saying that he did not prefer the rapid fire questions or the interuptions, he would rather have time to hear the whole argument and then give a response, he said "Maybe it us a Southern thing".
The fact that they all shake hands before they go in impressed me.
And finally, maybe my favorite part was all of the sculptures that are on the top of the building. I liked Moses with the tablet and there was even Napoleon. The whole building was very impressive. I got the idea they did not care for the protestors that they can often see from one side of the building though.
It was a good documentary, I am sure I will watch more. So far I am every post on this blog site, I hope I am not the only one who watched.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 5, 2009 2:08 AM
I taped it and can't wait to see it. I've been seeing teasers/commercials for days now on C-SPAN, and think it's going to be a wonderful series.
Thanks for the great post, Z. I'm really looking forward to hearing camera-shy Justice Souter. I agree with you that he is (was) a very soft-spoken and thoughtful justice.
I was lucky to have gone to the Supreme Court to watch oral arguments (the public can attend anytime, as long as seats are available), and what an amazing process to watch. The pomp and circumstance... the grandeur of the courtroom... the cases. And the entire building itself is simply something everyone should see in person.
Can't wait to see the series. I'm taping it all this week.
Posted by: TVfan | October 5, 2009 12:50 PM
Yeah TVfan,
I am glad to hear someone else is watching these besides me.
I was so impressed with the judges willingness to show us their offices. Who would have know they are rotated based on senority. It was exciting to see inside their offices.
It would be great to see the supreme court in person. How nice that you have been able to do that.
TVfan I will be looking for your posts this week.
Z, hope I did not post this twice. I had an error message on my computer. My email is messed up.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 5, 2009 1:18 PM
Z,
This is not really your problem, but I hope this is on at 9:00 again tonight?
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 5, 2009 8:04 PM
Answered my own question.
Here is the schedule:
http://supremecourt.c-span.org/
I know they said 6:00 p.m. one night and that is October 12th.
Thanks
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2009 8:08 PM
Z, answered my own question.
Here is the schedule:
http://supremecourt.c-span.org/
I knew it was on at 6:00 p.m. one night and that is October 12th.
Thanks.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 5, 2009 8:10 PM
Oaky Z,
I watched this afternoon from last night recorded in my box. I really enjoyed the interviews by Lyle Denniston. He really seems to have no pretense and speaks so easily and his ability to make you feel comfortable and engaged in what he was saying were great. Also, the lady Joan from USA Today seemed to excited about her job as a journalist interviewing about the supreme court., it made her interesting.
Mr. Denniston has some very interesting points on how the different Supreme Court Justices through the years have kept the court harmonoius. I think it was Chief Justice Burger who has a less than harmonious court. The younger Cheif Justice John Roberts he felt was more bold and agenda driven. I can see how a lot more could get accomplished if you had the justices working together, but I suppose it sometimes is a matter of personality and how the Chief Justice steers it.
Mr. Denniston had a long part about cameras in the courts and it was very interesting. I thought that he would have been opposed, but actually quite the opposite. He said the dynamic was the oral argument and the lawyers arguing the cases new that they needed to present this so that at least five out of the nine would be won over. Another fact that I did not know, five out of nine is the majority.
This all was so good and I am really excited about watching more of it tonight. It has peaked my interest in the justice system. There was so much more to this you could go on and on!
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 6, 2009 4:21 PM
Z,
Have last night recorded in my box. Will post later. We had no electric early this morning. What happended to TVfan? Or ALEX. It's not fun to be the only one watching this documentary.
Will be back.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 7, 2009 9:48 AM
Z,
C-SPAN got lost somewhere. I think all of the arguments on health issues are running over and I can't find the Supreme Court documentary. It is too bad because I liked it.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 7, 2009 9:48 PM
Z,
I found this on Thursday. I think that it was not really missing. Maybe the arguments are a part of the documentary. I just don't seem to have much of an attention span for these, unless maybe if it was a particular topic I was interested in.
I did like it on Thursday because they were back to the interviews. Drew Days, I found the most interesting and there was another attorney interviewed. It sounds very intense. The arguments are anywhere from 10-30 minutes and they are trying to make an argument for the case they have. The justices are asking questions often interupting one another.
I liked Drew Days presentation on how it was so important to keep the justices with you. He said there are often surprises, he thought Justice Stevens was with him one time he was sure and he ended up being on of the descenters in a 7-2 majority. It was interesting how much pride he takes in preparing and then judging his presentation. He said it you get a 9-0 you might as well give up, 5-4 you might have been able to persuade someone or shift them.
I can see how this could be a very interesting career to argue these cases in the Supreme Court system and feel like you had actually possibly has some role in helping defining a precedent.
It was good. I would recommend C-SPAN Supreme Court documentary. I think I will watch tomorrow. 10,000 times better than wastiing time on Jon and Kate.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 8, 2009 9:48 PM