Readers and Filmmakers React to ‘Devil’s’ Criticism : A Cinematic Satire With Purpose

I would like to respond to Roger Lowenstein’s denunciation of “Devil’s Advocate” (“ ‘Devil’s Advocate’: A Crime Against Our Legal System,” Counterpunch, Nov. 10). Some of the most esteemed criminal trial attorneys in the country were consulted in the scripting of the film. These were working lawyers, not screenwriters with a law degree, and none of them seemed to have a problem with the film’s point of view. They understood that the movie is a satire, an entertainment and an art form with a long pedigree in literature, theater and the visual arts.

In the tradition of Pope, Swift, Samuel Johnson and the National Lampoon, we hoped to highlight some serious social ills in “Devil’s Advocate” through comic exaggeration. Holding the most powerful institutions and individuals in society up to sardonic scrutiny is a time-honored practice. It is used to ensure that those with great influence and power, at the very least, risk embarrassment if they abuse the trust we invest in them.