What Makes “a Great Jurist”? A Legal Educator’s Reflection on the Film La Grazia, by Paolo Sorrentino

Who is Mariano De Santis?

President De Santis (played by Toni Servillo) is a former judge and law professor, renowned for writing extensive law handbooks, and nicknamed ‘cemento armato’ (“reinforced concrete”). At the end of his presidential term, he is confronted with two profound moral dilemmas: whether to grant pardons to two controversial prisoners and whether to sign the Euthanasia Act (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) into law. Throughout the film, De Santis appears firm, almost immovable, careful with his reasoning and slow at decision-making. His entire existence seems shaped by his profession - a lifestyle that is well-reflected by his austere suits. In other words, he lives in service of the law.

The Traits of a Jurist

Through the figure of De Santis, we can reflect on what it truly means to be a jurist, as he embodies three traits that characterise the profession.

1. A jurist seeks the truth
The law presents truth from a distance, through norms and abstractions. To judge wisely, however, one must sometimes approach the truth more closely. When De Santis is confronted with personal circumstances indirectly relating to the Act awaiting his signature, his convictions begin to shift. Through this story, we are shown that the proximity to the lived reality can transform one’s views and understanding, surpassing pre-formed believes. 

2. It takes courage to be questioned and to ask questions
Authority can silence questions. Yet, De Santis does the opposite. Whenever he senses hesitation in those around him, he invites them to challenge him. At the same time, in the film he does not hesitate to ask questions to discover the hidden aspects of his personal past. He understands that questions, even uncomfortable ones, are tools to discover the truth and to gain wisdom. 

3. Patience and courage in decision-making
Certain decisions — especially sensitive ones — demand time. Asking for such time is a sign of responsibility. However, reflection alone is insufficient. Ultimately, a jurist must gather the courage to decide, even where the decision will not satisfy everyone. 

Between Past and Future

In the film we also encounter Dorotea, the president’s daughter and a jurist herself, who is working on the text of the Act and is in favour of granting the two pardons. Her professional mission is to draft laws that can keep up with the present and with the reality in which we live. While Dorotea focuses on the present and future, De Santis, throughout the film, recalls the past, thinks of his personal experiences, engages in internal dialogues with his late wife, and tries to uncover the truth behind her 40-year-old betrayal. He is confronted with a conflict between his religious convictions, combined with a tendency to romanticise the past, and the needs of the society. 

After days of reflections and considerations, De Santis chooses to follow the opinion of the younger generation, who holds the future. Is that a courageous choice, or a weak shift of responsibility towards the ones who come after us?

‘Un grande giurista’

At one point during the film, a secondary character tells De Santis: “Lei è una grande giurista, lei può scoprire la verità” (you are a great jurist, you can discover the truth). Does the greatness of a jurist lie in the possession of the truth, or in taking the time and the courage to undergo the process of discovering - coming closer - to what seems to be the truth? Should finding the truth be the ultimate goal of a jurist, or can we find it somewhere else? 

This post does not aim to reach any conclusions; however, it invites you, the reader, to reflect on the kind of jurists we, as a society, want and need.