Emma Donoghue‘s novel “Room,” and subsequent movie of the same name, is allegedly inspired by real-life criminal Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned and raped his daughter, Elisabeth Fritzl, for twenty-four years. The novel and movie feature Ma and her son Jack as prisoners of Old Nick–Ma’s kidnapper and rapist. When Jack turns five, Ma executes a successful escape plan.

A 2010 article written by Sarah Crown, and published on The Guardian’s website, quotes Donoghue as saying her book was not based on the Fritzl case but, rather, “triggered” by it. Similarly to Ma, Elisabeth Fritzl was imprisoned, raped, and impregnated. The major differences include:

• Fritzl’s captor and rapist was her father.
• Fritzl was imprisoned for 24 years.
• Fritzl’s prison was in her home’s cellar–Ma’s prison was in a garden shed.
• Fritzl had multiple children in her prison while Ma raised one child.

People accused Donoghue of taking advantage of the shocking case for self-gain in the form of a book deal. Donoghue states she did not intend this and views the book, partly, as a reflection on the complexities of parenthood.

Since the trial, Elisabeth Fritzl and her family withdrew from society, adopted new identities, and began “anonymous” lives. So, it’s hard to imagine she is glad that her story has regained notoriety with the film’s creation and award nominations.

But when “fiction” lives so close to reality, it’s not strange to wonder: did the film and the book need to purchase Elisabeth Fritzl’s life story rights? Seemingly not, as most courts recognize that there is a difference between retelling a true story and being inspired by one to create a work of fiction. There are significant differences between Donoghue’s stories and the real crimes, therefore it is not viewed as a true depiction of the Fritzl case.

While the use of Elisabeth Fritzl’s trauma as literary and cinematic inspiration may feel distasteful to some, Donoghue’s works do not use the crime’s details for shock factor, but rather as a way to explore how strength and family function. In fact, the most gripping part of Donoghue’s screenplay is the intelligence and resilience of major, and minor, female characters. For example, how a woman could endure a constant trauma for seven years and raise a son, without breaking down mentally is unimaginable even when it is performed in front of you. What motivated Ma to maintain a daily routine for Jack? Perhaps the love and sense of responsibility she had for her son surpassed the atrocities she endured. Or perhaps it was the hope she would one day see her mother and father again and return to her childhood home, which she describes to Jack in an attempt to explain the outside world to him.

Another extraordinary woman appears in the female police officer who responds to the 911 call when Jack escapes. While she only emerges in one scene, her ability is striking. She patiently questions Jack in an attempt to learn his story. While gentle in tone and manner with Jack, she does not back off from her questions when he refuses to speak. Instead she pushes him to give her all the information he can. The male officer, her partner, only gets in her way, telling her she won’t get anything out of the boy and to give him time. But she ignores the other officer and from Jack’s disjointed tale of escape is able to deduce the location of Jack’s prison and rescue Ma quickly. Her part may have been meant to move the plot along rather than to applaud women who excel at their jobs, but, still, her heroism is lasting.

Despite privacy concerns, the story of “Room” remains important. It’s important that two such heroic, female characters exist as recognitions of real, strong women and as role models for every person. And finally, it’s important that this story features women doing the saving rather than being saved.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Woman in the “Room” appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix’s latest original documentary series “Making a Murderer,” follows Steven Avery: a supposedly wrongfully convicted man who spent 18 years in prison on a rape charge. He was exonerated based on DNA evidence, only to be found guilty, two years later, of rape and murder in another trial. But the series also revealed the complicated interrogation process of a intellectually disabled minor when police arrested Brendan Dassey, Steven Avery’s nephew, as an accomplice to sexual assault and murder. Dassey was a minor at the time of questioning and his IQ neared the range of intellectual disability; two factors garnering extra limitations to police during interrogations. Yet during law enforcement’s four hour interrogation of Brendan, no guardian or lawyer was present. Warning: there are spoilers ahead.

This interrogation was deeply problematic: a study published in The University of Chicago Law Review’s 2002 spring issue found that, when compared to non-handicapped persons, intellectually disabled individuals often did not understand their Miranda rights. Many also didn’t necessarily understand the context of an interrogation or the consequences of confessing to a crime. That last part applies to Dassey, who does not appear to understand the consequences of his words during his interrogation. For example, he asks a detective what time he will be returning to school after confessing that he assisted Steven Avery in the sexual assault and murder of Teresa Halbach, something mentally competent persons (as defined legally) should know would lead to their arrest.

When Dassey is at last allowed to speak to his mother, in private, he tells her he did not commit the crimes he confessed to. “They got to my head,” he tells his mother. While their conversation was recorded, it was not shown in Dassey’s trial. The prosecution only played his confession.

The problems don’t stop there–the recorded interrogation shows the police asking leading questions, not allowing Brendan to make original utterances. At the time of questioning, only the police knew the murder victim had been shot in the head. Detectives wait for Brendan to confess this fact as it would prove his guilt. Dassey never offers this information so the police directly ask him who shot the victim in the head. Specific questions like these can contaminate a confession and make it impossible to prove the validity of a suspect’s statement.

It is alarming to see allegedly coerced confessions because it means our justice system has a margin of error wide enough for innocent people to be convicted of murder. And it’s frightening to see detectives work to prove what they believe happened rather than uncovering the truth of a crime. If it happened to one person, it can happen to anyone. Maybe that’s one of the reasons that programs like “Making a Murderer” and “Serial” have become so compelling.

Watch an excerpt of the interrogation from the series below:

Unfortunately, Brendan Dassey is still in jail awaiting the court’s decision on his appeal for a new trial–who knows if he’ll get a second chance at justice.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Making a Confession: Police Interrogations and the Intellectually Disabled appeared first on Law Street.

“Bob’s Burgers” is a show that boasts positive female role models with the “strong, smart, sensual” Tina, driven, witty, entrepreneurial  Louise, and determined, bright Linda. But, despite its feminist females, the show sometimes includes passing jokes alluding to sexual assault. The problem is that jokes like these encourage lax attitudes about sexual assault in a society that already ignores victims too often.

When a popular show goes on its winter hiatus, it’s time to fill the void by binge watching old episodes on Netflix. Revisiting past episodes reveals that the mostly feminist-friendly “Bob’s Burgers” has some sexist hiccups, which are alarming for such a progressive show. Season 2, episode 8 deals with Bob’s new found love for pat-a-cake. He convinces his friend, Teddy, to “cake,” and almost immediately Teddy begins to protest. He shouts that the hand game hurts him and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. But Bob continues slapping Teddy’s hands and yelling at him to keep his hands up.

The scene’s humor makes Teddy, a large, grizzly man, play the vulnerable role. The joke is that the dialogue (which would normally be spoken by a man and the woman he is sexually assaulting) comes from two men, who are friends, in a non-sexual situation.

Teddy’s line, “I don’t like it! I don’t like it! Stop!” and Bob’s aggressive behavior are meant to spoof an abusive relationship. But, what’s so funny about sexual assault?

The scene is fundamentally not politically correct, a concern that gained strength during last year’s discourse on trigger warnings. The New York Times and The Atlantic weighed in on collegiate trigger warnings this past fall to examine whether they encourage “coddling” or respect–and that debate will probably be continued in 2016.

But, trigger warnings and PC standards leave comics with a dilemma because jokes are designed to not be safe or appropriate. Should there be a line comedy can’t cross or does that ruin the art form? Jokes will push that PC line as far as an audience will allow. For example, comedy has evolved from eventual audience rejection of offensive practices like black face. In this case, the show has plenty of funny material so why can’t it evolve away from jokes like this one? For a show like “Bob’s Burgers” that is often heralded for its feminism, it may be time to consider that evolution.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Political Correctness and Comedy in “Bob’s Burgers”: Where’s the Line? appeared first on Law Street.

Season four of “The Mindy Project” featured Mindy Lahiri battling her traditional fiancé (Danny Castellano) to continue working as an OBGYN rather than becoming a stay at home mother. In the United States, stay at home mothers are still far more common than stay at home fathers–so the couples’ fight, although fictional, reflected our national gender expectations.

In the second-to-last episode Mindy finally says the things to Danny that had probably come to the wealthy, New York doctor’s mind the minute she had first heard of his desire for her to give up her career and her new fertility clinic.

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

Danny: Oh, yeah, right, right, your career.  You’re too busy getting half of Manhattan knocked up, and Leo, he’s just out there by himself alone, playing pat-a-cake against a wall while his Mom’s working?…
Mindy: Every time that you disagree with something that I do, it’s a referendum on my character. If I want to go to work, it means I’m a bad mother. If I want to have a second glass of wine, it means I’m out of control.…In your eyes every single thing I do is more evidence that I’m a bad person.
Danny: You’re not a bad person. You want me to help you make good decisions, don’t you?
Mindy: Yeah, I thought I made good decisions, and now you’re just making all the decisions for me.
Danny: So what, if it’s the right decision?…You are an amazing mom…Why not do it again?
Mindy: I’m also a good doctor. I don’t want to have to give up any more to have more kids.
Danny: That’s selfish.

And don’t worry, the fight does not end there. Mindy makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that her desire to keep her career, which she has invested at least 11 years of her life just to be trained in, does not make her selfish. At last she stands up for herself. After Danny’s season-long agonizingly belittling utterances, to the mother of his child, Mindy’s rational, valid points are more than welcome. She even throws in some impressive diction (i.e. “referendum”). But the one thing Mindy doesn’t say to her partner is: Why don’t you be the stay at home parent?

The season finale takes viewers back to Mindy and Danny’s introduction. Mindy is able to perform a difficult delivery that Danny had scheduled as a C-section. The plot suggests Mindy is the better doctor because she performed a difficult maneuver so the patient could have her preferred natural birth plan, instead of Danny’s preferred C-section plan. So, from a logistical stand point, why should the better doctor stop working just because she is a mother?

Working moms are nothing new to American television or American reality. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers, with underage children, stayed at home and did not work. Meaning that, in the United States, working mothers are the norm. But despite the power of those numbers, 51 percent of participants in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey said children were better off if they had mothers who stayed at home rather than worked, while only 8 percent said the same about fathers.

So, in 2015, is it too radical to suggest, on television or in reality, that the man occupy the domestic sphere? Too radical for even Mindy to utter? Apparently so.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What’s Wrong With a Mr. Mom? “The Mindy Project” Explores the Working Mom’s Conundrum appeared first on Law Street.