This blog post examines how an individual’s painful struggle became a story of justice through the film Flash of Genius.
Long ago, Professor Michael Sandel’s book What Is Justice? from Harvard University gained immense popularity in Korea. This is thought to reflect the thirst for ‘justice’ emerging amidst the recent contradictions within Korean society. However, justice, as the fair principle that constitutes and sustains society, is not solely considered in the political sphere where public attention is concentrated. Even in engineering, which deals with technology, justice is now being treated as a crucial matter. The Challenger disaster, which exploded 75 seconds after launch in 1986, is a prime example. This incident occurred because the O-ring, the connection point between the rocket and the fuel tank, lost its elasticity due to low temperatures, causing the fuel gas to leak and explode. The engineers at the company responsible for the rocket knew this but couldn’t prevent it. After the accident, the cause was uncovered through the conscientious actions of an internal engineer, but this engineer was subsequently fired from the company.
Following this incident, engineers came to be required not only to possess professional engineering skills but also to uphold ethical values that pursue justice. However, achieving justice based on ethics can sometimes demand the sacrifice of an individual, as seen in the earlier example. The debate over whether justice should be pursued even at the cost of one person’s sacrifice continues to this day. Amidst this context, the 2008 film Flash of Genius, based on the true story of engineer Robert Kunz who fought a 12-year legal battle against a major corporation to uphold ‘justice’ despite the destruction of his family, is noteworthy.
Director Mark Abraham employed a three-part structure to tell Robert Kunz’s story in the film. He divided the roughly two-hour runtime into three parts: “Wiper Production and Contract,” “Preparing for the Legal Battle with Ford,” and “The Courtroom Confrontation with Ford.” Within this structure, he tells the following story. Bob Kenz is an engineer with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering who teaches at a university. He was a professor who emphasized an engineer’s ethics above technology. On a rainy day returning from church, Bob Conz noticed his car’s windshield wipers wouldn’t stop moving. This constant motion caused the wipers to scrape the glass, producing an unpleasant noise. Conz applied electrical engineering principles and developed a regulated wiper in his basement that moved at timed intervals. After developing the regulated wiper, he patented it through an investment firm where his friend Gil worked. The famous automobile company Ford showed interest in the intermittent wipers developed under this patent. Bob Conz made a verbal agreement with Ford and created a prototype of the intermittent wipers, sending it to Ford.
Bob Conz lived dreaming of a happy life with his family. However, Ford disassembled and analyzed his prototype, then unilaterally canceled the agreement. It was the moment his life changed. A year later, Bob Conz saw a new Ford car equipped with his adjustable wipers undergoing test runs and realized his technology had been stolen. Filled with rage, he resolved to take Ford to court. But people discouraged him, thinking a legal battle against a giant corporation was a fool’s errand. Even the friend who helped with the patent turned his back on him. Overwhelmed by stress, Bob ended up in a ‘mental hospital’. Returning from the mental hospital, Bob Conz resolves with his family to fight back. With his wife’s help, he finds a lawyer and prepares for battle. Ford, learning of this, sends a lawyer demanding Bob Conz accept money to drop the case. The lawyer also urges him to accept, but Bob Conz refuses, stating it’s not about money but right and wrong. The lawyer then withdraws from the case.
Determined to fight the legal battle to the end, Bob Conz ultimately divorces his wife and is separated from his six children. Yet he refuses to yield and continues pursuing his case. Ford persistently tries to use money to make him overlook the subsidiary’s wrongdoing, but he keeps refusing. After several years, his children begin to understand their father’s resolve and start helping him. Bob Kunz and his eldest son face Ford in court for the final showdown. Before the jury, he defends himself without a lawyer. Ford claims the variable speed wiper technology is unrelated to Bob Kunz’s patent, calling his patented technology a poor idea anyone could have thought of. But Bob Kunz meticulously explains how he developed the variable speed wiper, pointing out to the jury that his technology is identical to Ford’s. Impressed by his honesty in his words and demeanor, the jury ruled in Bob Kearns’ favor. He won the case, was able to live with his six children, and received $10.1 million in compensation. But twelve years had passed.
This film, based on a true story, depicts the legal battle Robert Kearns, who passed away in 2005, fought against Ford from 1978 to 1990. Director Mark Abram depicts in Flash of Genius how the underdog Kenz fought for justice against the powerful Ford. Winning a legal battle against a large corporation is generally not easy. In fact, Ford used its influence to co-opt the intermediary who facilitated the verbal agreement with Kenz, compelling him to perjure himself in court by testifying that Kenz’s technology was unrelated to Ford’s. This shows how much harder achieving justice is than we might imagine. Moreover, the protagonist’s family and life are shattered during the struggle. The director shows the protagonist fighting for justice to the very end and emerging victorious, even amidst these circumstances, offering a powerful example and courage to engineers who might be facing similar problems.
Furthermore, the film poses the question, “What would you have done if you were the protagonist?” prompting audiences to deeply reflect on the realization of social justice. Beyond this question, the protagonist’s actions emphasize that justice must be upheld, even through sacrifice. Regardless of its box office performance, this film contains a profoundly valuable theme, embodying an important societal value. However, there are also shortcomings. The film’s narrative approach is one example. It begins with Bob Conze conversing with police on a bus. The opening scene is crucial for setting the tone, yet this bus scene was neither prominent nor easily comprehensible, making it ineffective as a first impression. Placing the lecture scene about ‘ethics engineers must uphold’ earlier might have better emphasized the protagonist’s commitment to justice.
There are also regrets regarding the content. Some story elements were omitted in the process of condensing a long narrative. Particularly, the process of going to the mental hospital and the divorce from his wife were insufficiently developed and unfolded abruptly, making them difficult to understand. However, brief conversations with characters in the film allowed one to infer details like “Did he go to the mental hospital due to stress?” or “Did he divorce his wife?” Yet this deliberate lack of detail seems intentional. The director likely wanted viewers to focus on the film by actively piecing together the story themselves. By distancing the protagonist’s personal pain from the film’s core focus, it appears the director aimed to give courage to those watching who might be in similar situations, preventing them from becoming intimidated or losing the strength to fight for justice.
This film makes one reconsider justice. During middle and high school, I felt anger toward the injustices reported in media like television or the internet, wondering, “Justice should be upheld, so why isn’t it?” However, as I entered university and advanced through the years, I witnessed the realities of society and the difficulties in realizing justice. I also saw myself in situations where I witnessed misconduct, like copying assignments out of fear of personal repercussions, yet failed to report it. Amidst this, I saw the protagonist, an engineer in a position similar to mine. This brought to the surface a longing for justice that had been buried in the darker corners of my heart. While I still fear personal sacrifice, at least watching this film and writing these words allowed me to express and leave behind my conviction that justice must be upheld.
In 2025, many Koreans, including myself, hold a strong interest in realizing social justice. Yet, achieving justice in practice comes with significant challenges. Director Mark Abram addressed the issue of justice in Flash of Genius through the court battle between a large corporation that stole a genius’s idea and the vulnerable individual. Using a three-act structure, it tells the story of the real-life figure Robert Cuney, showing how he overcame adversity to triumph and how justice was ultimately served. While there were some shortcomings, like issues with the opening scene’s composition or leaps in the narrative, it conveyed the message that justice must prevail by showcasing the protagonist’s human triumph. Furthermore, the film is meaningful in that it serves as an inspiration to many and sparks a spirit of challenge.
“Who designed the artificial heart valve? An engineer. Who built the gas chambers at Auschwitz? Also an engineer. One saved tens of thousands of lives; the other killed millions. I don’t know how you’ll end your life, but I guarantee you’ll face a day when you must decide. Choosing which path to take won’t be easy.”
Bob Kuns, the protagonist, tells his students this. Summarizing this part in light of the film’s content, it boils down to the question: “Even if it’s not such a huge ethical issue, can we practice small acts of justice, like not condoning theft? And should we?” This question is likely the one the director poses to the audience. And the director gives viewers time to reflect on justice once more while watching the film. In this sense, the film is well worth the time invested. It presents an answer to that question—the answer this society needs—through Bob Kuns, who overcomes hardship and triumphs. If there are any college students who haven’t seen this film yet, I urge you to watch it.
