MovieChat Forums > The Accused (1988) Discussion > A Few Questions

A Few Questions

posted 9 years ago by blakkdog
2 replies | jump to latest

1. Is it common for lawyers to bring a rape victim back into the site of the rape HOURS after it occurs to point out the people who raped her? And does it make sense for those people to still be sitting around as if nothing had happened?
2. Ken's friend told him not to testify because he would be given more jail time. Wouldnt this be double jeopardy? How could this legally be done?
3. Why didnt the prosecutor bring up what happened with the scorpion tattoo guy in the parking lot? Wouldnt that show clearly that this guy had been there and egged people on since he admits it right there and mocks her about it? Why did that whole scene just basically disappear and have NO impact one way or the other after it happened? I mean couldnt she also have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon for what she did? It seems like a huge incident with lots of potential legal ramifications to have NO impact on the trial at all and in fact to just vanish completely from the film without a trace!
4. Im not super familiar with every aspect of the public legal system. Can the DA "fire" the prosecutor? He seemed to basically be threatening that he would ruin her no matter what the result of the trial was. Yet she remains in the office the whole time. Then he tries to make it tougher for her by trying to influence the kid to recant. Is that legit? Seems like he's just handing her more dirt to bring up against him like she originally threatened. I just couldnt figure out the relationship between those two and it seemed to go nowhere. He starts out as a confidant, then they have this big blow up with tons of threats between the two of them, then he tries to influence the kid (I would have loved to have heard the "discussion" between them when she leaves her client with Ken). Is this kind of stuff par for the course with serious type A lawyer personalities under these circumstances? Or did it seem strange to anyone else also? And when his friend (the lawyer who went to the hockey game with them and is always hanging out on the couch) shows up right before the trial and says he's there for "moral support", did anyone else wonder what they were up to? Or was that the directors way of showing the audience that the office knows the DA can be a hot headed ass but that her colleagues were still supporting her?
5. Was anybody else confused/annoyed when she cut her hair? And is that sexist of me? Was it more about making a psychological change for the victim (she wanted to see a different person when she looked in the mirror) or was it more about trying not to look attractive?
6. Did anybody else find this film fine but pretty underwelming in a post SVU world? Im sure in 1988 this was fairly cutting edge and daring in a media market where all you had was maybe Hill Street Blues. But since that time weve had dozens of different crime/law series with literally COUNTLESS episodes most of which were far more intense or depraved than this one. And with more twists and turns than this one. So I think it loses something in the inevitable comparison to this reality. I could deal with the cheesy 80's hair and clothes but I think Ive been inoculated to crime/court dramas so much over the last two and half decades, that I couldnt get as emotionally invested in this movie as I probably should have been.

---
Using words to describe art is like using a screw driver to cut roast beef.

[–] fairy_depp 9 years ago

That's a lot of questions, here are what I think are the answers:

1) I found that odd too but I guess that's just for the film so we had a feasible way of them finding the culprits. I expect in real life it was a lot of boring detective work which doesn't make such good entertainment. I don't know whether she would be given a lawyer so quickly either - all just a bit of artistic license.

2) I wondered that to start with too but I think it wasn't giving him more time, it was just making sure he served his time and didn't get off on parole early.

3) As you say, it wasn't in anyone's best interest to make a fuss about it. If he did then he's basically opening himself up to prosecution for the rape and if she mentioned it then she's showing herself to be violent and unpredictable which isn't what her lawyer wanted at all!

4) I don't think he actually influenced Ken to recant, I thought that was purely because of Kens chat with his friend. I think the lawyer was just worried about Kathy ruining her reputation and therefore his reputation as she works for him. I think he was just all about the business.

5) I think it's probably quite a normal reaction.. She felt that she was raped because she was sexy and so wanted to come across as plain and tomboyish.

6) I found it shocking how different the world is now compared to then considering it's less than 30 years ago - I don't think people view rape victims in the same way nowadays. Of course it was a very 80s film but I thought it told a very important story

2)

[–] cataclysm1071 8 years ago

I think the scene of the rapists sitting around the bar drinking, after the fact, was the whole point. These guys didn't think they did anything wrong and therefore figured no crime happened. They figured they just had public sex with a woman in a bar.