The film A Time to Kill has a plethora of examples of the invocation of empathy, whether real or apparent. While some scenes display this invocation clearly, like Jake’s closing statement scene, others go about it in a more subtle, rather impactful way. Rather than inspiring apparent empathy openly, these scenes both pull on the heartstrings as well as challenge the foundation of one’s character as the real empathy that is invoked also draws forth guilt.

In a particular scene, Jake visits Carl Lee in jail to give him bad news regarding the outlook of the trial. Jake tells Carl that they are going to lose the case, “there are no more points of law to argue” and he wants to move forward to reach a plea deal (TK 2:08:45-2:08:57).  He continues to explain that the jury needs to identify with the defendant, and at the moment they could not relate at all with Carl Lee. “We are not the same Carl Lee… They see you they see a yard worker, they see me they see an attorney,” Jake elaborates. However, Carl Lee quickly responds, “you white and I’m black” (TK 2:09:12-2:09:30). This response was the initial shattering of the unspoken divide between these two characters. Throughout the film, the viewer sees Jake Brigance as a sort of hero. He repeatedly reminds himself that amidst all of the racial turmoil that the case has catalyzed, he is one of the ‘good guys’. The viewer carries this idea of Jake and his team until this scene. Carl Lee realizes in this moment, Jake has no idea who he is or why he was chosen for this difficult task.

In order to make Jake understand, Carl Lee reveals the truth behind his choosing Jake to defend him. “You’re just like them, don’t you see?” Carl Lee asks (TK 2:09:39-2:09:45). He continues, explaining to Jake that they never walk the same streets and their children will never play together. When it all comes down to it, “America is a war, and you’re [Jake] on the other side.” No matter how many times Jake eats at ‘Claud’s’ and no matter what he says about the ideal of not seeing color in society, Jake is one of the bad guys. “No matter how you see me [Carl Lee] you see me as different” (TK 2:11:02-2:11:09).

This comes as a shock to Jake and the viewer alike. We feel a new level of real empathy for Carl Lee as we realize that even the white people that are there to help him cannot help but see him for what he is on the outside, not a man, a black man. A new, more authentic view of Calr Lee’s predicament is exposed as he asks, “how a black man ever gone get a fair trial with the enemy on the bench, in the jury box…?”. In reality, his life is in “white hands” (TK 2:10:35-2:10:45). This statement allows the Jake and the viewer to see the trial and the world from Carl Lee’s eyes. His only chance to be set free is to use one of the ‘bad guys’ to relate to the enemies deciding his fate.

This real empathy extends to Jake as well. He realizes that all this time he struggled to feel true empathy for Carl Lee, instead he had felt pity, and a selfish guilt for having not stopped the crime. Now, Jake sees himself in a new light. He went from having to reassure himself that he was the ‘good guy’, to being exposed as the ‘bad guy’ that he has been his entire life. This harsh exposure allowed him to feel real empathy for Carl Lee and thus devise a plan to draw that same empathy from the jurors the next day. Carl Lee has no problem telling Jake the truth. If it meant that he would be set free, he was willing to shatter Jake’s unrealistic view of himself. In doing so, he allows Jake to truly empathize with him and in turn feel guilty for struggling to feel real empathy for so long.

Works Cited

A Time to Kill. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Warner Bros., 1996. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. 21 September 2017

In A Time to Kill, the director, Joel Schumacher, adequately invokes empathy in the viewer in order to tackle the conflicts of racism and the rape culture in America. He thoroughly does this developing the plot of the brutal rape of ten-year-old Tonya Hailey which causes the viewer to empathize based on their concern for the helplessness of rape victims and children.

To elaborate, the empathy invoked in the viewer is real because people generally have a special concern for children and rape victims. Schumacher depicts this horrific scene in a clever way. Firstly, the usage of first person perspective during the rape scene allows the viewer to be in experience what Tonya experienced first-hand. One good explanation of this technique is described by Martin Hoffman. He explains is as, “imaging oneself in another’s place converts the other’s situation into mental images that evoke the same feelings in oneself” (Hoffman, 233). The viewer sees the rape from Tonya’s eyes as if it is happening to them.  In addition to this, the camera switches perspectives so that the viewer is enabled to see the effects of the beating. The images of the swollen eye, blood, and broken bones cause the viewer to feel her distress it is conveyed in the film. This change of perspective is also significant because the camera shift acts as a shift of emotion for the viewer. First, the viewer empathizes by being the victim, then the viewer empathizes as a bystander—witnessing the victim in distress.

Another aspect of the film that invoke empathy the violation of children’s innocence. The rape scene occurred in broad daylight. Usually children are not as cautious and do not expect tragic events to happen during the day; instead they are more apprehensive at night. Also, the director uses the typical scenario of the unsupervised child in an ominous environment. These details are essential because the viewer reacts based on preexisting attitudes towards vulnerable children. In real life situations, children are often preyed on. Because of this, the director incorporates this idea in the film so the viewer can empathize with the character as if she is a real person.  Thus, the film invokes empathy on the viewer

Works Cited

A Time to Kill. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros, 1996. DigitalCampus. Web. 20 September 2017

Hoffman, Martin L. “Empathy, Justice, and the Law.” Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological  Perspectives, Amy Coplan and Peter Goldie. University Press, 2011. (230- 254).  4 Sep 2017.

Directed by Joel Schumacher, A Time to Kill, relies on the invocation of feelings and emotions both among the characters and with the viewers. The plotline of the story concerns a murder case where Carl Lee Hailey murders two white men who brutally physically and sexually harassed his ten-year old daughter. Hence, the film is largely dependent on empathy especially for such a strange case where whether or not Carl Lee Hailey is punished justice will still be served. Schumacher however, uses the opening scene in order to sway the audience’s emotions towards Carl Hailey.

The opening scene of A Time to Kill immediately allows the viewer to empathize with Carl Lee Hailey, for it cleverly portrays how these two racist, white men shattered the innocence of a young, black girl and diminished the livelihood of an adolescent. The producer did not plunge the viewers in to the rape scene, but rather juxtaposes the initial two atmospheres and settings. One of terror and dominance as the two bigoted men enter the town versus the tranquil and naïve atmosphere brought by Tonya. The camera works of this scene essentially puts the viewers in Tonya’s shoes and constructs the utter tumultuous nature of Tonya’s state of mind. Zooming into the harsh ropes tying her small hands and showing her bloody, lifeless legs are key components of this scene that trigger the audience to empathize with her. This same empathetic response does not seem possible if the viewers heard it through the words of Jakes Brigance. Ultimately, viewers wish for these two men to be punished. Thus, when Carl Hailey is put on trial for murdering these rapists, it is understandable for the viewers to side with Carl Hailey since he served justice for the sake of his ten year old daughter.

During the rape scene, the producer uses first person narration of Tonya. This choice invokes real empathy because she is an adolescent who has yet to enjoy her childhood, but became victim to the corrupt and barbarous nature her bigoted society. Throughout this scene, she calls for help by continuously calling “Daddy.” This reminds the viewers that this is a child who does not even understand what is being done to her and only comprehends that she is in pain and trouble. The idea that she could not say anything other than daddy also emphasizes her vulnerable state, and further characterizes the two white men as callous and inhuman. Empathetic feelings of anger and injustice are aroused through the opening scene in addition to feelings of distress for Tonya and her family. However, this is the key moment where the fragility of empathy is exposed because a viewer is susceptible to over-aroused by this scene. Over-aroused empathy can make the viewer blindly support Carl Hailey, and fail to recognize the nuances of the case from an objective view point. The strategic placement of the rape scene sets the audience against the two men, and helps justify the vigilant murder committed by Carl Hailey.

Works Cited:

A Time To Kill.  Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros 1996. Swank Motion Pictures.

In the movie A Time To Kill, a man, Carl Lee Harper, is tried for the murder of two men in broad daylight. While the movie shows Carl Lee bursting out of a closet, that he presumably stayed in overnight, and shooting the two men on their way to court in front of many witnesses, he is found not guilty (ATTK 18:27-19:37). Although seemingly clear cut, the trial is complicated by the motive of his action. Carl Lee was taking the law into his own hands by shooting the two men. These men had raped and left his daughter to die. Although she survived, she would no longer be able to have children and was left very injured still. In the setting of the crime, the two men convicted for this assault were not unlikely to go free or get off with minimal punishment. For this reason, Carl Lee felt the need to hide in a closet and shoot these two men. By appealing to the pathos of the jury, Jake, Carl Lee’s attorney was able to set his client free.

Jake makes the jury feel empathetic toward Carl Lee in his concluding statement. Right when it looked like Jake was going to lose the case, Carl Lee explains that he chose Jake as his attorney because Jake is “a bad guy” like the jury (ATTK 2:10:51-2:10:53). Jake still sees in black and white similar to how the jury sees yet is able to understand Carl Lee’s actions as he is also a father. This helps Jake realize he could only convince them of Carl Lee’s innocence, or at least justify his actions, by figuring out why he himself felt that Carl Lee should go free. The reason? He would have done the same if he was in Carl Lee’s position (ATTK 2:07:45-2:08:07). His only hope to get Carl Lee set free, was to trust that the jury would feel the same way. He designs a concluding speech with the intention to evoke feelings that allow the jury to understand the actions of his client. Jake does this by telling a story, using the imagination of the jury to put them in the shoes of Carl Lee. Then to really make them feel empathetic toward Carl Lee, he asks them to imagine that the little girl in the story who got raped is white (ATTK 2:20:21).

The reactions of the jury show that they felt the emotion Jake was intending them to feel. The women in the jury were weeping while the men looked disturbed (ATTK 2:18:00-2:20:21). This was a clear indication that the jurors were not just sympathizing but genuinely feeling how Carl Lee felt. By asking the jury to imagine that the little girl was white, he was attempting to make them feel how they would feel if they were in the same situation rather than merely feeling sorry for Carl Lee’s position. This affective empathy invoked by Jake’s speech is not uncommon in the practice of law (Hoffman 231). In this instance, it was successful in overcoming racial prejudice to the extent that a black man who clearly committed a vicious crime was exonerated.

Work Cited:

A Time to Kill. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros, 1996. digital campus. Web. 20 September 2017

Martin L. Hoffman. Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives. Oxford University Press 2011

Carla Brigance, the wife of a defense attorney from the film, A Time to Kill, invokes empathy towards the viewers as she tries to keep her marriage from failing. Carla’s husband, Jake Brigance was defending a black male who committed murder, an action caused by the rape of the defendant’s daughter in a very unfair and white-dominated state from the 1980’s.
Though the Brigance family was white, those that were angry that a black male was able to receive support even if he killed two white men were almost offended, which triggered the active rise of the Ku Klux Klan (ATTK, 49:00-50:25).
Hannah Brigance, the daughter of the couple, was also bullied at school, being called a “nigger lover” (ATTK, 51:20- 51:26). Without concerning the race of Hanna Brigance, the viewers were able to empathize with what Jake would have felt when he heard that his daughter was being bullied at school (and how Carla would have felt seeing Hannah “bawling” and telling Jake about the situation).

The guilt and the sadness of purity and innocence were absorbed by the viewers, especially if the viewers were parents (or could deeply empathize with parents). Her mother Carla, was very worried about her family as a whole and decided to stay at her parents’ home for a while. Her actions and hardship from their property frequently set to fire, arguments with her husband, and others getting negatively influenced by the trials; her tears and sweat appealed and were able to influence the viewers to feel real empathy for her family (ATTK, 50:48-51:30).
Carla’s emotions and facial expressions throughout the film fully showed her stress from the negative and positive effects the trial was given to her family. Real empathy was felt when Carla came back to her husband a night before the hearing took place and truly showed understanding towards him. Her anger was gone and she had love to finally put herself in Jake’s perspective, why he initially decided to take the case and why he did not try to stop the murders (ATTK, 2:06:43-2:08:25).
In the beginning of the film when the family started going through financial difficulties and hardship that others were causing them, Carla interpreted her husband as a mercenary man who took this case for his reputation. However, as she separated from her husband and had time to herself, Jake’s hard work and effort to win the case showed enough real empathy to convince Carla to come back to him with faith and trust. His responsibility in the case, even with their house burnt, led her to perceive that he was still involved in the case because he truly felt empathy for Carl Lee and his victimized daughter, Tonya. When Carla visited Jake in his office a night prior to Carl Lee’s final hearing, she manifested real empathy as she said, “you were trying to make things right, I know that now. I thought you took this case because you wanted to prove to everybody what a big-time lawyer you were, but I was wrong. You took this case because if those boys had hurt Hannah the way they hurt Tonya… You would have killed them yourself. I love you, Jake” (ATTK, 2:06:43-2:08:25).
Her statement touched the hearts of those that were viewing as well as her husband’s as he finally found someone who understood him more than he could imagine. Carla’s representation and assimilation to empathy were iconic and heartwarming. Carla is symbolic towards the guilt that many people will be able to feel if they focused on work instead of their families. The empathy from Carla leads the viewers to understand that there needs to be a good balance between work and family and that communication is important since humans, all make mistakes, especially when they are stressed.

Works Cited:

A Time to Kill.  Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros, 1996. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. 20 Sept 2017.

Within A Time to Kill, one’s emotions fluctuate among each other in a dynamic matter. The viewer of the motion picture feels a range of emotions. Everything from hate to sympathy and anger to brokenness is felt. Many of the viewers are brought to tears within the movie along with some of the characters. Among these emotions, empathy is most definitely felt by the viewer multiple times. However, there is one instance in where both the viewer and the characters are simultaneously made to feel empathetic. This occurs when Jake Brigand addresses the jury for his summation statement at the end of the court case. Jake Brigand does this by asking the jurors to picture themselves at the scene of the horrific rape which took place to Carl Lee’s daughter. In doing so, he vividly describes the rape as it had taken place, not leaving out any minor details or sugar coating it in any way. As he does this, the jurors can be seen in an uncomfortable manner; for some, they shift in their seat, for others, tears start to run down their face. As the viewer, one is unable to detach themselves from the scene he is describing and ends up putting themselves in the same position the jurors are. Both the viewers and the jurors see themselves as a bystander as this horrific act which takes place. They see the rape happening and cannot help but feel for the little girl who is the victim.  Jake Brigand is invoking this empathy. The matter in which he does it is the only way to have the jurors see the case through un-biased eyes. Jake’s approach to this also causes the same thing to happen to the viewers. Both the viewers and the jurors then not only feel sympathy for the little girl who was raped, but also for her father who did what he thought was just. One is invoked to feel empathy here because it puts them in a position where they can imagine the suffering of the little girl and Carl Lee.

I believe that the empathy taking place is a real empathy for both the viewer and the jurors within the movie. Although the viewer understands that the whole thing is part of a motion picture and is not actually happening, the empathy felt is still very real. My main reasoning for thinking this is because both the viewer and the jurors want to take action. The viewers root for Carl Lee to go free and the jurors change their minds on from, a guilty verdict to a not guilty verdict, acquitting Carl lee. I don’t believe apparent empathy causes people to take significant action like the jury did in the movie or the significant action that the viewers wanted to take; only real empathy causes this drive. Also, at least in my personal case, the empathy felt for this girl has not gone away yet after the movie is finished, it still lingers in my emotional consciousness even though I am full aware that what has taken place is fictional.

Works Cited:

A Time To Kill.  Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros 1996. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. 20 September 2017.

When watching “A Time to Kill” one cannot but feel empathy at one point or another. Whether it’s for Tonya Hailey, the little girl that was raped, or Cora Mae Cobb, mother of Billy Ray Cobb. This movie brings you on a moral roller coaster filled with many emotions. While most of the empathy is felt by both the characters and audience, there are moments when the only empathy felt is by the viewer. One of these moments is when Carl Hailey is paying Jake Brigance for his lawyering services. As Jake finishes counting he points out that there is only nine hundred dollars of the thousand he’s due. Carl’s only response is that he has kids to feed. Jake promptly retorts so do I. This simple interaction brings forth much empathy from the viewer. Yet it does it in such away that it is not obvious.

Empathy is felt because of the simple fact everyone knows how it feels to have money troubles. The movie up to that point showed that Jake has been experiencing income problems. This is observed while talking with his secretary about how behind on payments they were. The fact that Carl was a black man working in the south meant money was also tight for him too, not to mention having four children. This build up leads to this main point of neither of them having cash to spare. That added to the feeling of hopelessness, the view can’t help but have empathetic feels to both. Though the best selling point of this scene is how they both respond physical. Jake’s frustration is and has a look that matches. Though Carl has the look of someone thinking, not giving up. People upon seeing both can be moving to two different types of empathy, sorrow for the situation and or a push of solidarity, belief and want of them to keep going. The reason why this is not obvious is because no one is asking for empathy, no one is asking for understanding. That’s why when you feel empathy in this scene you barely feel it unless your looking for it.

Now some may question if this is real empathy or just something fake. What has to be remembered though is that the emotion of empathy is felt by the viewer here. While the situation may be fake, an act, just some movie, emotion is not that simple. While watching any movie the view sets themselves into the story. Anything they feel is real in that time the movie is running. The feeling of empathy for this scene is far from fake and since it is almost hidden, it can’t anything but real. It is a subconscious empathy, one that can’t be faked even if one wanted too.

“A Time to Kill” is an intense movie, with many moments for empathy. Though the jail scene where Jake and Carl work out the payment, in Carl’s cell, is one of the few scenes were the only ones allowed to feel empathy are the viewers. Neither Jake or Carl can afford to be swayed by the other, which in my opinion makes viewers all the more empathetic towards the two. Making this scene one of the best instances of empathy invoked.

My fellow citizens of Maycomb County, despite the dour circumstance, I do hope that you are filled with pride to be partaking in one of the foundational cornerstones of this great country. These United States of America were founded by men who long ago convened in a room not so different from this one to draft our nation’s constitution; thus creating order from anarchy by instilling within our an uncompromisable  society rule of law. Our founding fathers and the doctrines they created are the shining pillars of what we as Americans should aspire to be. Our very constitution commands us, “the people of the United States”, to “establish justice” “in order to form a more perfect union” (The Preamble,US, 1789).

However, even before they were the framers of our constitution and our state, when they were common citizens, who walked the streets among colonial subjects oppressed by the tyrannical power of Great Britain, they still carried within them the drive to be decent human beings who would stand up for what was just and right, not only for their own people, but for all of mankind.

Take the example of delegate and eventual President of the United States, John Adams, who, in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, defended in a court of law a British officer who had been wrongly accused of purposefully firing off the first shot with intent to kill American colonists. There was evidence to substantiate the fact that the British soldier had no intent to kill American colonists, and was actually victim to hysteria-driven violence and beatings at the hands of the colonists. John Adams, American attorney, eventual founding father, and patriot chose to defend that British officer for no other reason than to be in the service of justice, an equalizer which knows no factional bounds.

Surely this act is unexpected for someone who would go on to expel the British from America and lead this new country to a glory unlike the world has ever known. You may question how this man’s inconsistent actions towards the British. The fact of the matter is that Adams’ defense was borne of a righteous drive to uphold justice regardless of any petty prejudices he may have had. John Adams, an American founder and hero, and the constitution he would create, demonstrate to all of us that it is our sacred duty to cast our biases and prejudices aside and simply defend the innocent. To deny any man this decency is to strip them of our Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that we, as Americans, hold “to be self-evident” the truth that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” (The Declaration of Independence, US, 1776)

It is with the example set by our forefathers and our statal doctrines in mind that we now turn to Tom Robinson: a man wrongly accused of beating and raping Miss Mayella Ewell. My fellow citizens, “the state has not produced one iota of medical evidence” (TKAM, 1:32:09 – 1:32:12) that ties Tom Robinson to this crime, and you have witnessed indisputable proof that Tom Robinson is physically incapable of committing a physical aggression perpetrated by left hand, as Miss Ewell’s were.

However, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Tom Robinson is a black man. Some assume that “all negroes are immoral beings, [and] all negro men are not to be trusted around white women” (TKAM, 1:36:02 – 1:36:12) . However, we must realize that these assumptions are “immoral assumptions” and are themselves “lie[s]” (TKAM, 1:36:22 – 1:36:24) We are told thusly by President Abraham Lincoln, who instituted the a series of constitutional amendments to ensure that black men and women are treated as equals under the eyes of the law, therein helping our country to further fulfill the promises of our legal system and the proposition that all men are created equal, and should thus be treated as such.

My fellow citizens, our American contemporaries John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and our constitution have demonstrated to us that justice is blind. She is unaware and concerned with the color or creeds of the accused, instead, she is concerned only with providing for the greater good. Just as John Adams defended an innocent man regardless of his affiliation, it is time for you too to defend an innocent man regardless of his color. Please know that should you fail to acquit Tom Robinson, you have proven yourselves to be not only irredeemably blind to the ethical responsibilities of justice herself, but also deaf to the commandments of our founding fathers and our great American tradition.

In the name of all that we hold sacred as Americans, I pray you see to it that justice is served.

Works Cited

• US Constitution, Preamble, 1789
• US Declaration of Independence , 1776
• To Kill a Mockingbird. Robert Mulligan. Universal Studios, 1962. www.imdb.com.web. September 13, 2017.

This case is about a man, who stands accused of raping and beating a woman. The man, Tom Robinson is a hard-working family man who has never been in or caused any trouble of any sort. Now out of the blue, he is accused of this heinous crime. I would like us all, to look at the evidence presented before us. A trustworthy witness, the sheriff, has told us that Mayella had bruises around her throat consistent with those of a person who had been choked with both hands as well as a black right eye. The first action, choking, requires the use of both hands, and the second, required the use of mainly the left hand. Tom Robinson, as we have demonstrated here in front of you, has lost the use of his left arm and
hand. How then could he have choked her and punched her right eye? It is impossible.
I am not telling you to put the credibility of one man over another. I am not telling you to believe Tom’s story although I would implore you to believe it. I am telling you to look at the facts. If this was not a man of color this trial would never have come to court. First of all, “the state has not provided one iota of medical evidence” that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place (TKAM 1:30:05-1:30:15). Secondly, just looking at the evidence provided, he could not physically, have committed the crime. Remember this is physical evidence, not opinion, that has been provided. The evidence is unequivocal. That’s a word that simple folk like you, me and Tom Robinson may not understand. It means undeniable, leaving no doubt whatsoever. There is absolutely no doubt that Tom Robinson, physically, could not have done this crime of which he has been accused.
Now, we come to motive. What possible motivation could Tom have to carry out this violent attack on Mayella? Is there a single shred of evidence that he fancied her? None. Has there been one complaint, is there one witness who can say that Tom Robinson fancied Mayella? No. Is there any evidence that perhaps Tom had it in for Mayella? There is no evidence at all. So the physical evidence tells you that Tom Robinson is innocent and there is no motive. It is your job as the jury to look at the evidence without bias, without any preconceived notions and determine whether or not this man is guilty of the crime he is charged with.
It is your duty to forget you are in Maycomb county but instead picture yourself sitting at the feet of our Christian God. Twelve apostles, sitting in judgment of a good man with one good arm trying to earn a righteous living. Find this man innocent. Do not punish this man for crimes he did not and could not have committed. For it is sinful to punish those who have not sinned. The truth has been presented before you, let it speak to your hearts.

Work Cited:
To Kill a Mockingbird. Dir. Robert Mulligan Universal International, 1962. Academic Video Online. Web. 10 September 2017.