Top Ten Ethics Films

I believe that the Italian film Hands Over the City is the best municipal ethics film of all time, and deserves a place at the top of City Ethics’ list.

Hands Over the City is a dramatic film that is about municipal government ethics, and nothing else. A film whose central fact is a glaring conflict of interest.

Yes, it’s Italian, and it’s forty-five years old, but it does star the great Rod Steiger (dubbed into Italian). It's the Twelve Angry Men of municipal government ethics.

Hands Over the City (Le Mani sulla città) has a similarly narrow focus, and its principal characters similarly fight it out among themselves, with people changing sides as the film goes along. But instead of a jury, it’s about a city council, a big city council with factions, faction leaders, and a developer/council member who has purchased land from the city that he wants to develop, making him zillions of lira. He is a walking conflict of interest. There should be a dozen “Don’t do this” signs posted on his sizeable frame.

The city is Naples, but except for an unusual amount of shouting and use of hands (one of the great scenes involves the rightist faction displaying their "clean hands"), it could be any city in the United States. The issues are the same, the factions only a bit different (there’s a leftist party that despises speculation, and its leader, De Vita, is the film’s moral center (Carlo Fermariello, actually the secretary of the Naples workers’ association, plays De Vita with great passion; you won’t believe that he and most of the other characters are amateurs. By the way, using amateurs was not a way to keep the costs down, but a central tenet of Italian Neo-Realism)).

Rod Steiger is the developer, Edoardo Nottola (Nottola means “bat,” which clearly has something to do with blood-sucking; De Vita, means “of life”; this is not a neutral or subtle film).

Some of the dialogue and speeches are memorable. Here are some of the best lines (from an ethics standpoint).

Nottola’s opening speech to his men (the film has only one woman, wife of the rightist leader, who appears to be very unhappy): “A 5,000% profit ... What can beat that? Business? Industry? Sure, invest in factories: strikes, unions, medical benefits. It’ll give you a heart attack. I’m proposing no strife and no worries. All profit, no risk.” Ah, the wonderful benefits of manipulating government spelled out in capital letters.

A bureaucrat to his fellows when an investigation begins, with a big smile: “I’ve been here forty years and never seen anyone sacked.”

De Vita after the right trots out all the right excuses and explanations to end the investigation into a collapsed building (Nottola’s, of course) that kills two people: “The perfect machine. All by the book.”

Nottola to the rightist leader, who wants him to stop building for a while, until the election is over: “I have to build there.” The leader responds, “Be patient, Nottola. We’ll handle everything. ... Your company takes a slap on the wrist, a few city officials take early retirement, and everything returns to normal.” But will Nottola go along, and withdraw from the council race? Watch the movie and find out.

De Vita to Nottola, who tries to win De Vita over: “It’s your methods I’m against, not your buildings. I want them built in accordance with the law, not your schemes.”

De Vita to the City Council: “The sale of public land to a private citizen with no debate in the City Council is a moral issue. I can’t expect you to grasp such reasoning.”

The centrist leader tells Balsamo, a centrist sympathetic to De Vita, “You don’t destroy the Nottolas of the world that way. You merely pretend they don’t exist.” Balsamo responds, “You speak as if power was everything.” And of course it is. The centrist leader becomes mayor. He responds to Balsamo, “In political life, moral indignation is a worthless commodity.”

This is not a movie full of plot, or even character. That’s not its intent. But it is a fine film, a solid example of Italian Neo-Realism. And it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a more powerful, unHollywood portrayal of the central issues in municipal ethics.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
[email protected]
---

Lillian (head of parole board): "You don't see any options - no middle ground." Brubaker: "I don't see playing politics with the truth." Lillian: "No way to compromise?" Brubaker: "On strategy maybe, not on principle."

Bergman: "You came from the health research industry, where research and creative thinking are core values. Why are you now working for tobacco?" Wigand: "Mostly, I got paid a lot. I took the money. What's wrong with that? Bergman: "Nothing's wrong with that. You've provided for your family. What can be wrong with that?" Wigand: Well, I always thought of myself as a scientist. That's what's wrong with that.

"You're in a state of conflict. Here's how it lays out. If you have vital insider stuff that the American people for their welfare need to know and you feel compelled to disclose it and this violates the agreement - that's one thing. On the other hand, if you want to honor the agreement, it's simple. Say nothing. Do nothing. The only guy who can figure this out is you, and that's you all by yourself."

I was fortunate today to see an American film focused almost entirely on local government ethics. The film is City of Hope (1991), written and directed by the great John Sayles, most of whose films involve important ethical quandaries.

The film presents a dark picture of a very unhealthy ethics environment in a small-to-medium New York-area city. The environment has corrupted pretty much everyone involved. Sayles is smart enough to ensure that there is no black and white. Even the most sympathetic character, a young, idealistic black council member cannot help caving in to pressures.

The best thing about the film, government ethicswise, is the emphasis on the conflict between the personal and the ethical. The film tells a story about characters torn between what they know is right, what they feel they need to do for their family, what is politically possible, what they are told to do by high-level officials, and their personal feelings.

The biggest problem with the film is that, other than rampant nepotism, almost everything in the film involves a quid pro quo deal. One character even uses the term in a conversation about a deal. In other words, the misconduct is criminal, not about conflicts of interest. And the enforcement, or threatened enforcement, is all criminal and politicized, especially due to the district attorney's desire to run for the Senate. The criminal justice system is involved in just about every deal the film shows.

In addition, the ethics environment has gone beyond the stage of institutional corruption, where ethical misconduct is legal. There is no question of legality, only of enforcement by a corrupt system. The city government is a "machine." Except for the young black council member, everyone has compromised themselves long before the film takes place.

But this is a fine film that everyone interested in local government corruption should watch. The problem is that it is difficult to find. It is not available in DVD format (anyone still have a VCR?). It's not on Netflix, but it is available on Amazon instant video. I saw it in 35 mm at Yale.

For film buffs, the cast (and the acting) is amazing and the writing, directing, and cinematography excellent. The main protagonists are played by Vincent Spano and Joe Morton. The cast also includes Chris Cooper, David Straithairn, Angela Bassett, Tony Lo Bianco, Lawrence Tierney, Gina Gershon, Josh Mostel, and John Sayles himself.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
[email protected]
---