In The Verdict, Paul Newman is Frank Galvin, a hard-luck alcoholic lawyer who is at the end of his career, or will be if he doesn't get it together enough to try the last case he could get. He's been hired to represent the family of a woman who has been incapacitated by a medical procedure gone bad at a prominent Catholic hospital. The question is will Newman take the Archdiocese's offer to settle out of court, or will he go to trial and risk losing. He goes to trial and finds himself fighting against the best lawyer in Boston, the power and prestige of the Church, and a judge who is sympathetic to both. He also finds himself falling for a mysterious divorcee who comes to town and happens to take an interest in the aging lush.
Scott: That divorcee is played by Charlotte Rampling, who has one of the best names in the history of cinema. It's just so evocative for no apparent reason. "Do you like Rampling?" "I don't know, I've never rampled." Well, one person who has rampled is Newman's character. I quite liked his interaction with Rampling, particularly the scene where she tells him to man up and instead he runs into the bathroom and has a panic attack. It's not necessarily what you would expect from the premise.
That's actually true of much of the film. When you hear it's a legal drama starring Paul Newman, it brings to mind images of big, powerful lawyers and high theatrics on the stand in classic Perry Mason style. That doesn't really happen so much. Instead, it's much more low key, which in turn makes it more interesting and believable.
I was struck, though, by the surface similarities between this and the first film we watched, The Carey Treatment. Both are medical dramas, where the main character is investigating the death of a young woman who died due to complications with pregnancy (well, sort of). Both deal with how the powers that be exert influence to maintain the status quo. But, of course, only one has a deranged James Coburn kidnapping school girls and getting malicious rubdowns in non-existent Irish bathhouses. So in that sense, The Verdict could have been better.
I also appreciated another subtlety that may have been lost on someone not from Boston. Galvin goes to South Station to pick up his star witness, a medical expert from New York he was forced to essentially pick out of a phone book and has never met. It turns out that the doctor is black. Galvin tries very hard to mask his horror that he will be putting a black man on the stand. Remember, this is Boston in the early 1980s. It's been less than a decade since the city dealt with busing and the wounds from that hadn't fully healed. Galvin's reaction to the doctor reveals an understanding that some in his jury box will see the doctor through that prism.
Finally, the difference between the way a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Boston was portrayed in 1982 and the way the lawsuits against the church in the early 2000s went was fascinating.
Scott: Yeah, as we discussed during the film, the media treatment of the case would be almost completely opposite now as it was then. In the film, they have the Globe, Herald and channel 2 all do glowing puff pieces about how great the church was; if the case was going on now, those media outlets would be out for blood.
I have to say, though, that there was one small thing that bothered me about the story. At the end of the film, it ends as though Newman and his clients have just won a huge settlement. Yet, I find it almost impossible to believe that they would be able to collect on it. Newman and Warden earlier discover clear grounds to have this declared a mistrial, but decide not to pursue it. I'm sure that the defendants would be quick to call for a mistrial themselves, if not because of the actions of Rampling's character then because of the way the judge allowed evidence and then retroactively disallowed it. Based on the verbal instructions given it seems hard to understand how the jury could come to the decision they did and if I were the defendants I would immediately protest that he had prejudiced the jury with this evidence. And even if that didn't work, they can always appeal.
More likely, I think, would be am ultimate conclusion of the two sides eventually agreeing to an out of court settlement for a figure between the original offer and the award. After losing the case once the Archdiocese wouldn't want any more bad press form it, but by contesting the case they could at least save some money. Not that I necessarily think the movie should have shown any of this; it would have to be 12 hours long and really boring. But I just didn't think the ending was actually an ending so much as just the place where the film stopped.
Oh, and on another note, I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the scene where Newman just hauls off and punches Rampling right in the face. That was a bit of a surprise.
Lance: I don't know. I think there would be a huge risk in the defense asking for a mistrial based on the activities of the Rampling character. Sure, they might get a mistrial, but they also might all go to jail and be disbarred. In any event, the point is that Galvin redeems himself on the biggest stage of his life. What happens after that really isn't that important. I was bothered that there was a Boston Herald American in Galvin's apartment and two days later a man in the jury box was reading the same paper (with the same "Cops Stalk Terror Gang" headline). OK, I wasn't bothered, but I noticed it. And I liked the Boston shots--nice to see the city in the dead of winter--even though director Sidney Lumet used the State House steps to stand in for the courthouse.
This is where I could finish with the line "and the verdict is..." but that would be too corny. Let's just say the movie is well worth your consideration.
Tags: Paul Newman Charlotte Rampling Sidney Lumet The Verdict 1982
No comments:
Post a Comment