Quantum of Solace - Dir. Marc Forster (The Bond Project #22 - JK)

Quantum of Solace (2008) 

Dir. Marc Forster

                

Inscrutable Bond

by 

Jack Knorps

                Quantum of Solace epitomizes the reason why I have not been keeping up on the Bond films that have come out during my lifetime (eschewing the Dalton Bonds as I was six at the time of the last one, there have been six, and I would say I have seen 3 (GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies each counting for ½ as I watched them as “background noise”)): it is too difficult to follow.

                Of course, this is a sequel to Casino Royale, and picks up where that film left off, and begins with a fantastic chase sequence, again, which may or may not be similar to the one in Licence to Kill and/or The Dark Knight Rises.  Regardless, the stunt work is not a problem for the film (nor do I think it has ever been an area where the Franchise has suffered).  

                I do want to pause for a moment to question why the Bond films must not be Rated R.  Clearly, the subject-matter is R-rated.  There is an extraordinary amount of violence in the films, as well as sexual tomfoolery.  But, Bond does not curse.  The lack of the F-word keeps them PG-13.  So kids can see it, and here’s a prediction: Skyfall will kill during its opening weekend.

                But do kids really understand what is going on in this movie, or do they just like big explosions and cool stunts?  That’s my problem.  Even if you take out the “adult” subject matter, the Bond films are meant to be seen and understood by adults that can appreciate the political commentary they offer, as their plots always revolve around foreign affairs.  Given that Bond is an English agent, it is even more difficult for Americans to understand the purposes of his missions.

                While watching this film, I reflected upon watching films with my older sister.  My older sister often asks a multitude of questions during films with only slightly complicated plots.  If she were to agree to watch Quantum of Solace, I do not think she would make it through 30 minutes.  And she would miss 77 minutes and probably be no worse in her Bond knowledge.

                It is significant that Casino Royale runs an epic 144 minutes and this film clocks in at a “suitable” 107.  Maybe I just like long movies, but for some reason Quantum of Solace feels like it is missing something.  My guess is that this is attributable to the unique quality of the Craig Bonds: Skyfall is apparently the last film of a trilogy.  Perhaps the closure that always seems to be lurking in Quantum of Solace, holding over from Casino Royale, will finally be delivered in Bond #23.

                The villain in this film, Dominic Greene, seeks to acquire a desert in Bolivia from a Bolivian Dictator.  The Dictator tells him that he is wasting his time—many people have tried to find oil there in the past to no avail.  Greene does not seem to care.  He offers his services—which, if I recall correctly, involve paying off government officials so that the Dictator may continue his reign—in exchange for ownership of this desert land.  The agreement is made, and Greene is happy-go-lucky.  He is also, apparently, a philanthropist, who is a strong advocate of environmental protection and sustainable energy.  This may or may not have to do with “Quantum.”  Later he claims that the world’s most valuable resource is held in this desert.  Perhaps that resource is Quantum.  I cannot tell.  Later, in a scene that law students may appreciate, he coerces the dictator into signing a contract with his company, which owns 60% of the clean water supply of Bolivia.

                Now, Greene is played by an extremely capable actor.  At first, I recognized him as a French actor, but I could not place him.  Looking him up on IMDB, I found that he is probably most familiar to American audiences due to his stellar performance in, incredibly, another film reviewed on Flying Houses.  The actor is Mathieu Amalric, and if The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is any indication of his talents, then I can only conclude that he was not given a very good role by the screenwriters.  True, he is an interesting villain, because generally we do not think of environmental advocates as villains.  (Perhaps this is some kind of political statement too, but that would go too far).  The problem is that he is not believable as a violent person.  He makes threats, but he does not carry them out.  I don’t even remember if he dies in the movie or not. 

                On that note, Paul Haggis wrote the screenplay along with Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.  Now I will not comment on the latter two, but I am sure they are capable.  And I will not blame Haggis totally, because Casino Royale is really quite an excellent film, but Haggis is most famous for writing and directing a certain Oscar winning film that jacked its vague title from a David Cronenberg vehicle.  Many people decried Crash for capitalizing on “hidden racist sentiment” that may or may not still be a factor in present-day Los Angeles, but Haggis won again next year with his screenplay for Million Dollar Baby, a film that was much more appreciated—particularly for its “twist.”

                Furthermore, Marc Forster directed this film.  Now, Marc Forster has a pretty good track record.  I never saw Finding Neverland but it was apparently quite good, I found Monster’s Ball to be quite compelling, and while Stay was basically a “non-starter,” now that Ryan Gosling is an A-lister, more people might have seen this film by now, and they should because it’s quite interesting.  This is to say nothing of The Kite Runner or Stranger Than Fiction (only the latter of which I’ve seen, and which is light entertainment, but not offensive).  I just have to admit that Forster does not seem to be the best director for this film.  Nor was it the best script. 

                Craig himself is good, and still icy—if not icier.  The Bond Girl, played by Olga Kurylenko, is quite beautiful, and vows revenge against the Bolivian Dictator for crimes he committed against her family in her childhood.  She is more than adequate in her role, and one of the better parts of the movie—but unfortunately if you compare her performance to Eva Green’s in Casino Royale, you will see how much better that film was than this one.  Judi Dench is also good as M, though I was quite confused when she apparently got shot and then showed up in the next scene looking very healthy without any kind of explanation—perhaps there was a pithy line thrown out that I missed. 

                I believe I have said all I can about Quantum of Solace.  It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s not a terribly exciting movie either.  It is rather confounding, but I suppose if we are to view these Craig Bonds as a Trilogy that it is necessary to view so you will not be lost when you see Skyfall.  Perhaps the best thing about Quantum of Solace is its theme song sung by Jack White, which is consistent with Bond playing to the trends of the times.  If I have to attach a “rating” to my two reviews here, I would give Casino Royale 3 ½ stars, and Quantum of Solace  2 ½ stars (I would only give it 2, but the ½ comes from the theme song as well as the potential for intrigue for Skyfall—that is, the hope that they have saved their best for the last).

GoldenEye - Dir. Martin Campbell (The Bond Project #17)

GoldenEye (1995)

Dir: Martin Campbell

Rebirth of Bond
by
Jay Maronde

                First and foremost, I should mention that this was the first Bond film I ever saw. I distinctly remember when my father took myself and my brothers to the movies opening week because he wanted to see the new Bond. The people at the theater tried to give him shit that he was taking three children to a PG-13 movie, but if you’ve ever met my Dad clearly you can understand why this wasn’t going to stop him at all. Now, a big part of the reason that he was so insistent upon us seeing this film is that it had been six years since the last film and there had been a lot of talk at the time that there would be no more Bond films. Fortunately, GoldenEye easily became the most profitable Bond since Moonraker, and effectively rendered Licence to Kill’s poor box office performance a nullity.

                The reasons for the many years between Bonds are always convoluted, but GoldenEye ‘s longest-ever-delay also had some of the craziest reasons ever. First, MGM had sold the broadcast rights to the entire Bond Canon to a company that wanted to broadcast them on TV. At the time this was a huge copyright issue and lawsuits ensued fast and furiously. For some time the Eon Productions team was intent on never making another Bond film unless they had control of these lucrative re-broadcasting rights (yes, I’m fully aware that the SPIKE network generally shows the entire Canon during these recent few Thanksgiving holidays, and I have no explanations for you as to why other than money—but in the early 1990s this was not going to happen without a fight). Second, there were no more Fleming novels to make films from, and as such GoldenEye is the first film ever that draws nothing from the works of Fleming (other than the Bond character himself). Further, after the script was finally delivered it required substantial rewriting as apparently it bore numerous similarities to True Lies, which was also being made and released around the same time. And even further, while all of these legal and creative issues were delaying the project, the U.S.S.R. was dismantled, and the Berlin Wall fell; as such the standard James Bond enemy of Russia wasn’t the best enemy anymore. Finally, while all of this bickering was going on, Timmy Dalton and numerous other Bond standards quit their roles making this the first James Bond to replace Bond, M, and Moneypenny all in the same movie.

                So again the producers were searching for a new Bond. Luckily for them they had already decided two films previous that they had wanted to give the role to Pierce Brosnan, who at the time was unfortunately unavailable due to contractual obligations to the Remington Steele television series. So while numerous actors were again auditioned (including again Mel Gibson) the producers eventually went with Brosnan, and personally I think it was a wonderful choice. Brosnan is a great Bond. He’s got the Roger Moore suave, Lazenby’s youthful looks, Dalton’s willingness to do his own stunts, and Connery’s grittiness. For me he just looks the role maybe the most of all the Bonds. Also new to this film was the casting of Dame Judi Dench as M, and she is fantastic (many early reviews of the new film Skyfall have critics clamoring that she deserves an Oscar for her performance). Dench is the first female to portray the MI6 chief and while initially there was much talk about how Bond would look taking orders from a lady, Dench’s outstanding performance quickly removed all doubts as she’s far more imposing and leader-like than Hilary Clinton (who is the only person I can even think to compare her character with).

                The film also featured two fantastic Bond girls: not only the lovely and very-much-come-hither Izabella Scorupco as James Bond’s Russian computer programmer Ally Natalya, but also the fantastically gorgeous and very sexually aggressive Famke Janssen as Xenia Onatopp—the extremely memorable henchwoman who literally copulates men to death. Now the name On-a-Topp is a fantastic Bond girl name, like tops up there with Plenty O’Toole and Holly Goodhead, but Janssen (who later becomes Jean MF Grey in the X-Men movies) is easily at the peak of her youthful beauty. She’s stunningly gorgeous and easily one of the best looking Bond girls to ever grace the screen with any Bond. Her performance in this role is stunning, moaning orgasmic as she murders people all over the world—she is so convincing as a henchwoman that it is remarkable.

                The casting in this film isn’t the only thing that makes it awesome, as this particular Bond has some record-breaking stunts (many of which Brosnan preformed himself) including the tallest bungee jump ever performed, and the most scale models ever used in a Bond film.  There is also a fantastic tank chase through the streets of St. Petersburg. I should mention first that the producers were so pleased with the stuntman who performed the record-breaking bungee jump that they gave him a cameo later in the film as one of the helicopter pilots whom Xenia kills. The other helicopter pilot is actually the other stuntman who performed the stunt in the beginning where Bond defies the law of physics and jumps into a falling plane (the stunt was actually performed in real life, and no laws of physics were actually broken—as while all objects fall at the same rate, a human will fall faster than a plane whose propeller is running in reverse, which is how the footage was actually achieved). These two amazing stunts right at the beginning of this film definitely let the viewer know that this new Bond film is going to be action-packed and utterly fantastic. The other stunt I would like to mention is the wonderful tank chase through the city as Bond is pursuing the kidnapped Natalya in a stolen Russian tank. Brosnan is actually in the tank for all these scenes, which adds tremendously to the realism of the film even though the tank was modified so that a professional was covertly driving from a hidden location. My favorite part of the chase (which is almost always cut from the TV version) involves Bond driving said tank directly through a Perrier tractor trailer truck and smashing millions of cans of Perrier everywhere (in real life the company paid to have every single can recovered from the streets of St Petersburg so as to avoid any chance of crafty Russians being able to bootleg their product).

                Also of note about this film is the Car—not necessarily for the car itself, because it has a very small role in the film and never uses any of the cool gadgets that Q branch has installed—but instead because the deal struck between EON and BMW is always recognized and the world’s most successful product placement deal ever. The James Bond edition of the Z3 in this film sold out in less than 24 hours. Several Z3’s were used to ferry journalists from the Premiere at NYC’s Radio City Music Hall to the after party at the MOMA (also of note: this is one of two Bond films to not have its world premiere in London, and the only one to premiere in NYC (San Francisco hosted the premiere of A View To a Kill)). While this car may not be the most “James Bond” of all of Bond’s cars it is clearly a very recognizable symbol of this movie.

                Before I close I feel I should mention that I really like the title song GoldenEye, sung by Tina Turner and written by Bono and The Edge. Personally I hate U2, and loath Bono (I could go either way on The Edge) but the song is great it really recalls to mind the great Shirley Bassey Bond anthems of earlier films.  And while it is only a small part of the film, I feel like the song really envelops the viewer into this new world of Bond. This entire film is wonderful. It’s gritty at points, sweet at points, extremely interesting, and beautifully filmed with wonderful locations. Brosnan’s transition into the role of new Bond was more than successful and the continuing viability of the Bond franchise may be attributable in part to his performance. 

Licence to Kill - Dir. John Glen (The Bond Project #16)

Licence to Kill (1989)
Dir: John Glen

A Gritty Film for a Gritty Bond
By Jay Maronde

John Glen’s final entry into the Bond Canon could easily be one of the most violent and divisive James Bond Films ever produced for two reasons. First, Timmy Dalton had already shown that he wanted to play Bond in a very different, much more gritty way. Second, Producer and Broccoli family member Michael G. Wilson wrote most of the movie because the Writers Guild of America was once again on strike. These two factors contributed to this very gritty entry into the Canon, which leaves everyone to wonder what would have happened had the franchise continued with this director/ actor pairing.           


The first thing I want to mention about this film is that the villains are extra fucked up and crazy. Robert Davi plays Franz Sanchez, the biggest of the big-time South American drug lords, and he is fucking awesome. Sanchez is so evil he doesn’t kill his enemies; he feeds them partially to sharks and lets them live so that he can enjoy their suffering. He also is more than willing to travel to America (where he is under indictment) and risk arrest, exclusively for the purpose of recapturing his escaped girlfriend (the radiant Lupe, played by the beautiful Talisa Soto) and beating her (but only after cutting her new boyfriend’s still-beating heart out of his chest (which he later refers to as his little valentine). This is where the film opens. James Bond and his old friend Felix Leiter are on their way to Leiter’s wedding in Key West when the Coast Guard flies over, stops the limo motorcade, and enlists Bond and Leiter to capture Sanchez. Felix Leiter in this film is once again played by David Hedison of Live and Let Die fame, making him the first actor to reprise the role of Felix. Leiter advises Bond that he is only along on the adventure in an observatory position, but Bond jumps out of the Coast Guard chopper and literally hooks the tail of Sanchez’s escape plane, dragging him back into American airspace and a waiting jail cell. Bond and Leiter then parachute into the wedding, making for one of the most positive James Bond pre-credits sequences.* After this moment however, the film gets progressively darker.               


After the credits, the song for which is sung by Gladys Knight and isn’t that great but is very catchy, we are returned to the duel scenes of Leiter’s happy wedding and Sanchez’s unhappy (yet remarkably calm) interrogation. Then in a plot twist which was completely ripped off by the 2003 Samuel L. Jackson action flick S.W.A.T., Sanchez offers 2 million dollars to anyone who will spring him from the clink. Of course there’s a dirty cop who takes the cash, and he gets his later as Bond feeds him to a shark. But Sanchez escapes, and sends his goons after that CIA guy who arrested him, our old friend Felix Leiter, who is literally carrying his new wife across the threshold as the goons show up. Here we get our first view of a great young actor who was cast because he was weird and creepy but not too much. This young actor is Benicio Del Toro, and he is fantastic, like easily one of the best Bond Henchmen ever, and he is actually the only Bond henchman ever to win an Oscar. Later on in the film right before Sanchez feeds only part of Leiter to a shark,  Dario (played by Del Toro) remarks in the creepiest way ever that he gave Leiter’s wife “a nice honeymoooon”  (YOUTUBE LINK, http://youtu.be/r5rUWO1ZUQA , BAM!) implying that they raped her before killing her. This is the first rape I can remember from the entire Canon so far, further adding to this film’s almost surreal grittiness. Clearly this upsets James Bond greatly and he begins his plans for revenge. Unfortunately, M wants him to go to Istanbul and solve other more pressing British problems. Bond refuses, resigns, and then is forced to escape from MI6 custody, as clearly being a super spy isn’t really a job you are allowed to just quit.               


With the help of Former CIA pilot Pam Bouvier (played by the ultra-lovely Carey Lowell (who is one of my favorite Bond girls exclusively because she later became an ADA on “Law & Order”) Bond escapes America, and travels secretly to South America to confront Sanchez on his home turf. Bond deposits a ton of Sanchez’s own money (which he stole) in Sanchez’s Bank, and then heads to Sanchez’s casino to play a quick game of no limit card counting. Personally, Bond blatantly counting cards could be one of my favorite James Bond casino scenes in the entire Canon, and it definitely works perfectly for Bond’s purposes of having a face-to-face with Sanchez. The two meet, Bond tells Sanchez that he is an unemployed assassin looking for work, which is shocking because it’s actually true. The two eventually become associates before Dario blows the whistle while they are all at Sanchez’s secret cocaine processing facility which of course Bond burns to the ground before escaping. Bond then chases down Sanchez and eventually lights the gasoline soaked villain on fire using the lighter that the Leiters gave him as a gift for being the best man at the wedding.               


Also worth a mention in this film are Desmond Llewelyn as Q in his biggest role ever, covertly helping Bond, acting almost as if he’s a field agent when officially he’s only on vacation in South America (Moneypenny arranged this particular vacay without M having any knowledge), and the Great Wayne Newton. Both of these characterizations have unique back stories. First, this was supposed to be a Bond film where Bond takes out Noriega. Unfortunately the British have no jurisdiction over South American leaders which is why Bond quits before running off to settle this score. The producers didn’t want the movie to not feature Q branch but how would an expatriated James Bond be receiving his standard help other than to have Q covertly helping of his own accord, so for many parts of this film Q is almost Bond’s sidekick. The Wayne Newton appearance is far more amusing as Newton had always wanted to be in a Bond film so he wrote the producers and nicely asked if they could make it happen. Originally he was given a very small part but after the production team got him in front of the camera his role was greatly expanded to what we see today as the final product.                


Licence to Kill is certainly not the best of all Bonds and certainly wasn’t the most profitable films of that era, but it is quite gritty and is the exact type of film that Timmy Dalton should be the star of and therefore the movie is definitely worth a viewing.

 *Apparently the opening sequence in The Dark Knight Rises pays homage to this one.  -JK

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Exams/Grades

This is labeled NIED #15 on my computer, but this is the second NIED column to be rejected (and it may be the shortest--but the notes I have added in this post may make it the longest).  The first was "Batman in Aurora" which became a "Special Comment" on Flying Houses rather than an Op-Ed for the BLS Advocate.  That decision I could understand.  There, I was not writing precisely about law school, but there was only a tangential issue discussing a potential expansion of tort liability (on which I am, unfortunately, not an expert).  As may be clear from this blog I am pretty much incurably obsessed with Batman due to my film project and I mainly wanted to write about Batman*. 

This column, however, is very much about law school, but was rejected because the editorial board of BLS Advocate agreed that the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.  I will let you decide for yourself and comment.  This is unedited.  

The next NIED column for BLS Advocate will be #16.  #15 will not appear on BLS Advocate unless by way of reference.  

NIED #15: Exams/Grades             

By this point probably no one who finds this article does not realize that law school grades are derived almost entirely from an anonymously-graded exam given once at the end of a semester. Perhaps there are a couple readers stumbling upon this piece that do not realize profs may boost your grade up to 1/3 of a letter based on your in-class participation.  Those are the two single-most-acknowledged elements of law school grading – at least for 1Ls. 2Ls, 3Ls (and 4Ls, now, as they have apparently become recognized as a class) have a possible third element: write a paper.  Obviously, if you want to have control over your grade, and there is a paper option for the course (“in lieu of an exam”), write the f***ing paper**. Those courses are few and far between, though, and many are 2 credits.  And Legal Writing, I think most will agree, is not exactly a walk in the park, though the past elements of control are present. 

***Grade school, high school, and college grades were comprised of a mix of quizzes, tests, exams, papers, homework assignments, and class participation. Taking out quizzes, tests, and papers seems like a relief from the student’s perspective, but there are still “homework assignments.” However, while some profs will threaten to lower your grade by 1/3 of a letter, my guess is that this is a rare occurrence that only happens to the student who completely does not give a f***(****), does not read, barely makes it to 50% of classes, gets high in the morning, and feels as if they can magically intuit the rules of the law for the course. Thus, there is a distinct possibility that the majority of students occupy some region in between super-smart-nerd and super-dumb-jock, and that no matter how strong your understanding of the course, no matter how many trenchant comments you make or questions you ask, there is always a risk that your mind will explode when the proctor yells, “BEGIN!” and you hear a hundred booklets being flipped over, and you know the professor has said no cheating, no study aids, this is a closed book exam—but maybe they say “limited open book”—just bring your Code—and they tell you “no writing in your Code” but you know, you know that students are writing in their Code. Or else they have a crib*****.

There is just as much (if not more) cheating going on at law school as there was in grade school, high school, or college. And this time—we’re expected to believe—our grades actually matter. Sometimes profs themselves are just flat-out negligent when writing their exams******. Last year I took an open book exam and I brought in one of my “practice answers” from a previous exam given by the same professor. The same question, verbatim, appeared.  I looked at my answer and thought to myself, “Well, this will be a nice way to make up some time.”

But then doubt seeped in—what if I hadn’t written a great practice answer? Sure, I had reviewed that answer with other students previously, but did I take all of their comments properly into account? Whatever, I needed the time, and it was a decent answer.  I started transcribing from my three-ring binder that held all of my study materials and I looked up at a proctor for a moment. He seemed to be looking right at me—like I was turning my head from page to screen, page to screen, page to screen, in a clear act of cheating. I didn’t want to cause any commotion, so I stopped, thought to myself, “Even if I can’t transcribe this, I know this, and I know it better now than I did then.”

But then again, I am an open book. Most students—I recall—at least those that had their practice answers with them—did just transcribe. Some people in another exam cried or else threw-up; others wrote more in their Codes than (ambiguously) permitted. Most of the time there is no great surprise and everyone seems remarkably sure of themselves and it is in those instances where I know that I just f***ed up*******.

All the mystery, stress, paranoia, cheating, and loneliness of exam-taking should be thrown out of the law school curriculum********.  Unfortunately we live in a world governed by the ABA, and though most people will agree that there could be better alternatives, we’re not permitted to consider them.  Keep teaching Property as a core first year course.  Keep grading anonymous.  Keep exams in the same basic format, even though you could get way more creative and actually test practical skills.  Keep the OCI system in place.  I must admit, it feels mighty good to be this helpless in a system purportedly teaching us to help.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. 

NOTES

*See http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/batman-in-brooklyn-mission-statement.html (a very long piece on the Batman film I will make), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-dir-christopher.html (a review of the newest film, qualified immediately below in this note), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/special-comment-batman-in-aurora.html (the piece referenced), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/07/killing-joke-alan-moore-and-brian.html (a review of a famous Batman comic), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/06/dark-knight-returns-frank-miller-with.html (a review of a famous Batman graphic novel). As a side note, I saw The Dark Knight Rises again last weekend, and after a second viewing I will fully admit that it is a flawed film, and suffers from an extremely "non-creative" script.  The first half of the film is excellent, but I might go so far as to say the second half of the film is laughable (sample line: 1: So, you came back to die with your city? 2: No, I came back to stop you.  --Should be changed to-- 1: So, you came back to die with your city?  2: No, I just wanted a rematch.).  Regardless, my rankings stand (still feel Dark Knight Rises eclipses Batman Returns) and I still believe everyone should see it.  (Though--other side note--I am very much looking forward to the forthcoming review of License to Kill for The Bond Project....)

Notes below represent edits/comments related to the "unpublishability" of "Exams/Grades."  

**Some might consider this to be an uncouth sentence and the use of the (expurgated) f-bomb to be entirely unprofessional.  However, I use this language to underscore the force of my advice.  I took one class with this option, and while the paper sounded like a huge pain in the butt to juggle with everything else, in retrospect several students told me they wished they wrote the paper.  Not only was it my highest grade, but it was as close to getting the "journal experience" (by which I mean, concentrating the utmost care upon every single word and citation, and organizing one's thoughts and research into a coherent and readable article) as possible for a non-member.  Bottom line: if you have the option, DO NOT take the exam.  You obtain a more robust educational experience, and you will be able to better control your GPA.

***Those past elements of control were present during the earlier stages of our academic upbringings.  

****Language used to underscore the degree to which a student must fail to participate to enable grade-lowering.  I do not like sitting in the back row of law school classrooms because I get distracted by all of the other students being distracted by facebook, news sites, gmail, or, most odious to the poor student, online shopping.  These students may still give a f*** despite their rank indifference to the professor speaking in front of them.  The students that stay up all night doing blow, sleep through class, and attend exactly 40% of classes (or fails to attend because attendance is not actually taken in many classes) and who manage to ace the exam--even they can slip from the professor's memory as being a "poor participant" due to their excellent exam performance.  This is one of the vaguer forms of "cheating" that occurs with surprising regularity.  However, this is an apparent contradiction of my point, and this type of student generally is not going to ace the exam--and if they do, then it is a sign that they must "give a f***" to a certain degree.  Bottom line: students inevitably brag about how little work they do to score incredibly high, and that may cause frustration in the listener if they cannot compete with them.

*****This is an "inside joke"/reference to the most difficult exam I have ever taken (and which I understand, was also considered the most difficult exam any student in that class had ever taken).  If the point here was unclear, it is understandable, but further specificity could be interpreted as slander, which I do my best to avoid in NIED columns.

******I would remove this line if published by BLS Advocate in accordance with the note directly above. I do not believe this professor is negligent--and indeed repeating a question from an earlier exam may not be considered negligence--but rather a gift to the students that made the effort to tackle every practice exam.  However, other professors are certainly negligent in the exams they give students:
They owe us a duty (to foster our understanding of an area of law)
They breach that duty (by testing a concept that they gave short shrift in class)
They cause an injury (to the student's grade because the student could not prepare to answer a question which the professor did not indicate would be tested on the exam)

They cause damages (which are extraordinarily difficult to monetize).

This could be the topic of a long rhetorical essay (and would need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, as some students are just whiners, and some professors will actually spend 5 minutes talking about something, actually put it on the exam, and actually expect students to appropriately focus their efforts on the most time-consuming topics, and quickly note the "5 minute topic") and I will stop here.

*******Language used to underscore the extraordinary sensation of failure and impending sadness caused by such an event.

********This final paragraph could be another major reason for "unpublishability."  Here I come out with guns blazing so my words may be taken poorly.  The point is that "law school reform" is a joke, and there must be real reform if we want to produce an environment where students will be encouraged by their experience and accordingly "be fair" in their practice of law and not discouraged by some of the rank inequalities (potentially causing "ruthless" and/or "morally bankrupt" legal careers) that arise in an "imperfect, though best possible" system.  Bottom line, and basic point to the article: exams are probably the #1 claim students may have against law schools for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and devising a better system where this is no longer the case is definitely possible.  But schools fear the wrath of the ABA.  They fear that "experimental" procedures will reflect poorly on the academic ability of their students.  It's perfectly understandable.  This does not mean however, that people should refrain my imagining alternatives, or writing about their feelings on the matter, even when they concede an important point.  Such passivity allows a totalitarian regime to continue to dominate its subjects and no person who claims to believe that the free exchange of ideas leads to positive societal developments can argue otherwise.