Likeness, Believability, Artistic Freedom: How to Evaluate the Portrayal of Law in Popular Culture

Much public concern and much scholarly interest has originated from the fear that pop cultural images of the law, the legal profession and legal institutions are not “truthful” and somehow negatively distorted. David A. Black has argued that films need to be believable, or the audience will not take them seriously. Insiders in the legal system, of course, recognise lots of inaccuracies, but many of them are unintelligible for the broader audience, or do not matter to them at all. It is unavoidable that fictional depictions cannot give a highly realistic view of things legal. Critics are probably rather concerned with what they perceive as negativity of the depiction. It must be born in mind that dramas need tensions between heroes and villains, just painting a glossy picture would be boring to the audience. To convey a message, the audience is often made to feel uncomfortable and finds itself confronted with extreme constellations of corruption, procedural unfairness and unjust decisions. Rather than employing a realistic–unrealistic scheme to evaluate the portrayal of law, the focus should be on the stories told and their contribution to a wider critical discourse.