Protasis
“In the light, during the day, it felt like a movie. This is that movie. My story. Written, directed and starring Steve Harmon.”
Monster is narrated by 17-year-old Steve Harmon (Kelvin Harrison Jr) in the style of a screenplay. He has a bright future ahead of him as a filmmaker. This future is jeopardised when Steve is thrown into a criminal justice system that has already judged him based on the colour of his skin. Steve is accused of acting as a lookout in a robbery of a bodega during which the store owner died. Steve and his acquaintance, William King (ASAP Rocky), are charged with murder via the felony murder rule. Two other teenagers involved in the robbery have agreed to a plea bargain, lessening their charges by testifying against Steve and King. However, Steve insists that he was not involved and “his character is so abidingly decent, there is never any doubt about his innocence.”
When the scene shifts to the courtroom for the first time, the audience hears Steve’s voice-over: “Fluorescents illuminate blacks and whites that swallow up greys. No space for grey in the court of law.” Yet, the drama makes a point of highlighting the grey area between guilt and innocence. While there are many courtroom films that explore racial injustice, for instance Just Mercy or A Time to Kill, the exploration of motifs such as the perception of truth and trust versus distrust sets Monster apart from these other films.
Epitasis
Now, let’s take a closer look at the portrayal of law in Monster as well as some of the courtroom scenes.
The characterisation of the legal professionals involved in this trial is quite cliché-ridden. A journal article published by Georgetown University Law Center discusses the question of whether one can be a good person and a good prosecutor. The writer points out that prosecutors are often presumed to be on the ‘right’ side, after all they represent the State. In the film, Steve’s lawyer makes a similar comment about how the jury is more likely to believe the prosecution. Yet, in most legal films, prosecutors are portrayed in a way that makes the audience instantly dislike them. The prosecutor in Monster is no exception and fully lives up to the stereotypical Hollywood prosecutor who only cares about his track record and a quick conviction. He is annoyed when Steve refuses to make a deal, thinking of the trial as nothing more than a waste of time and money.
However, Steve’s public defender is, of course, the complete opposite. She cares about him and believes that he is innocent. At times she even acts in a motherly way towards him. Before Steve takes the stand, they prepare for the questioning intensively as is usual. But, instead of giving him the ‘correct’ answers to uncomfortable questions or telling him what is wrong with his answers, she lets Steve figure it out himself. Putting in more effort than she had to so that Steve can learn whilst still being authentic to himself shows that she cares more than one would expect from an appointed public defender. She sees Steve as a teenage boy whereas the prosecutor directly refers to the defendants as monsters in his opening statement, a label which is referenced in the film title.
Denouement
As aforementioned, the film emphasises that there is often a grey area between guilt and innocence which is “hard to explain to a (criminal justice) system that demands a strict black and white answer.” One of the most important legal principles in criminal law is the presumption of innocence. A jury must consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. Steve’s lawyer tells him quite cynically that, even though that is the law, half the jury decided he was guilty the moment they laid eyes on him. “You are young, you are Black, and you are on trial. What else do they need to know?” He receives similar advise from another prison inmate, telling him that the reality is often the opposite of the theory: guilty until proven innocent. These perspectives challenge the audience to contemplate their own beliefs and biases. Is it true that we are more likely to think someone is guilty of an offence just by virtue of them being the defendant in a trial relating to said offence? And, if it is true, then how reliable is the presumption of innocence?
Encore
The film takes place in Harlem, New York. Not being familiar with specific laws in that jurisdiction myself, I was quite enraged by the beginning of the film and confused that it did not come up during the trial. When Monster starts, we are told almost immediately that Steve is still a minor. Yet, he is interrogated by the police without his parents, lawyer or other adult present. In the UK and Ireland, the police generally may only interview a minor with their parents present. In New York, however, the police are not prohibited from interviewing minors without their parents if they are over the age of 16. Knowing this partially clears up the confusion as to why Steve’s public defender did not bring the police interrogation up during the trial. Nevertheless, she should have brought up that Steve’s request to make a phone call was ignored and that he was told to remain silent after he asked if he should get a lawyer. Then again, there is only so much you can put into a 98 minute long film.
Final Thoughts
Monster follows Steve all the way from his life before the arrest to his experiences in prison and to the trial in court. The film succeeds at showing just how terrifying this would be for a teenager. It makes the audience wonder how one’s view of themselves would change if they were in Steve’s shoes. At the same time, the audience is turned into off-screen jurors when Steve directly asks the audience in the final scene: “Boy, man, human, monster. What do you see when you look at me?”
Commentaires