Seite - 91 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Band 02/02

Film, Parable, Reciprocity | 91www.jrfm.eu 2016, 2/2, 69–98 children standing before the judge or considered in photographs of damage done by a severe beating. Scene after scene raises the complexity of what to do with children running away from home, shoplifting, getting into prostitution, selling drugs, taking drugs, along with questions of whether a child is loved or cared for, with no simple answers and no obvious solution to their problems. The larger circumstances of such deep human need for nurture and love relativ- izes the judge’s authority, exercised in a diplomatic and often caring way, even as he also communicates the coercive power of the state explicitly through ref- erences to incarceration and the death penalty. A play of domination occurs when the judge, in chambers, refers to the punishment of death in the electric chair to a boy who persistently denies a charge of molesting a little girl he was babysitting. The judge follows his remark (likely intended to get a confession) with the assurance that Tommy would not be subject to such punishment. In the final sequence of the film, the same threat is leveraged in the case of Robert Singleton, in the judge’s chambers and in court. The power differential is acute. Robert has entered a guilty plea in juvenile court against his own wishes, a tactic advised by his lawyer to avoid sentenc- ing in adult court. Robert tells his story while the judge sits on the bench as defender of an impartial law (but here, as elsewhere in the film, shows subtle “tells” that imply that he is not as dispassionate as he appears). Robert is very emotional, while the judge appears controlled and rational, an impersonal tone and manner usually accorded greater social authority. The hierarchy of the situ- ation is usually amplified by the physical position of the judge, seated higher than the defendant. Yet the filming of this scene “scrubs” the scene of these visual markers of the hierarchy of judge and defendant (though the gavel, sym- bol of the judge’s authority, is visible in some shots of him). Robert’s address to the court is shot like a conversation between equals in conventional cinema, alternating close-up shots of Robert and the judge in a shot/reverse-shot se- quence. The judge appears in medium close-up (fig. 10), while Robert appears in close-up shots, accentuating attention to his facial expressions. In a debate within a huge power differential, Robert questions justice while the judge de- fends the law. Rather than diminishing his authority, the aurality of Robert’s inadvertent gestures and sounds – he pauses, gasps for breath as if there is not enough oxygen in the room, his mouth gapes open as if caught in surprise (fig. 11) – leaves a lingering impression that he is telling the truth, despite the judge’s comment “You’ve been doing some rationalizing and you’ve convinced yourself that what you’re saying is true, but you haven’t been able to convince anybody else.”49 The viewer may be convinced by Robert’s anguished pleading, and may 49 Transcript of Juvenile Court, Wiseman, 1973, 83. Further page references from this transcript will be cited in the text, the title abbreviated to JC.