The Narrative Paradigm: A Time to Kill

This segment from the 1996 feature film A Time to Kill provides a good example of Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm. Set in Canton, Mississippi, the premise of the film is as follows: after Carl Lee Hailey’s (Samuel Jackson) daughter has been brutally raped by two white men he seeks the counsel of Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey); afraid that the two men may be acquitted due to a deep-seated racism in the area. Hailey acquires an M-16 assault rifle and kills the two men and he is immediately arrested without protest. Brigance plans to plead not guilty on the behalf of Hailey citing temporary insanity.

In the beginning of the clip, Brigance says that he had “a great summation all worked out”, but he abandons it for a story instead. He explains how all the “legal maneuvering” was getting in the way of the truth, that very truth which he is only able to reveal by recounting the story to the jury members. His story is told so well, that you can see the audience hanging on to each word, as he invokes feelings of sympathy among audience members for Carl Lee Hailey’s plea. Many of the jurors, even those who are white and had previously expressed racist beliefs in the film, are persuaded by Brigance’s powerful story.

Without coherence and fidelity, two integral components of narrative rationality, Brigance’s story may have not won the support of the jury. Brigance’s rendition of the gruesome story (with particular emphasis on the progression of heinous deeds performed by the two white men) has definite structural coherence. The story moves from beginning to end with no holes in-between. Material coherence is imminent as a result of testimony provided by other witnesses, as well as the evidence that has been found at the scene of the crime. Characterological coherence is especially important in this particular example. The fact that Brigance is white and a respected member of the community definitely gives him more credibility in the eyes of the jury.

The second important component of narrative rationally is fidelity. To finish his story, he asks the audience to imagine that the girl is white which allows the jury to better relate to Hailey, as well as better understand why he acted as he did. They understand what their children mean to them and the story suddenly becomes more true and tangible to them.

All of these elements combined provide good reasons why Hailey was innocent. The value of family and children is universal, and allows the white members to better relate to the plea of Hailey, who they otherwise would view as unequal because of his ethnicity. Brigance skillfully incorporates the audience’s history, biography, culture, and character into his closing argument in a way that invites the jury to see passed their prejudice.

“What is it in us that seeks the truth, is it our minds? Or is it our hearts?” This question alone addresses humans’ innate tendency to often evaluate truth through narrative rationality, not through a collection of facts and statistics.