Film Review: The Verdict

  "The Verdict"

 **** (out of ****)

The Bishop (Edwards Binns) asks his lawyer if the doctor at the Catholic hospital - which the Boston Archdiocese operates - is guilty of the malpractice he is accused of. The lawyer doesn't say anything. Is the silence an implication of guilt? What will the Bishop do?

It isn't a moment the general public may pay much attention to - and one the "critics" didn't focus on either -  but it hits at the heart of director Sidney Lumet's film "The Verdict" (1982). The film is a study in morality and redemption. 

In many ways Lumet's film is similar to his previous work, "Prince of the City" (1981). That film was about police corruption on its surface but was really about a cop trying to redeem himself and live by his own moral code. In "The Verdict" we follow a one time promising lawyer who learned about the ethics of the legal system and has taken to drinking ever since. More than a courtroom drama, the film is a story about this lawyer trying to redeem himself. Both stories are about men in professions that challenge and test their courage under pressure.

The lawyer is Frank Galvin (Paul Newman). Money and success seemed to be in his future after graduating law school. He married one of the daughters at a prestigious law firm and as a result was made a partner. Through no fault of his own he was nearly disbarred however after allegations of jury tampering were made. The problem went away, as did the law firm partnership and his wife. Replacing all of it was the sweet taste of booze. Frank still looks like a polished gentleman with fine clothing but he hasn't had much work in the past few years. You've heard of ambulance chasing lawyers? Well Frank is an obituary chasing lawyer. He attends funerals pretending to be an acquaintance of the deceased. He'll offer his condolences to the grieving widow and slip her his business card, offering his services if needed.

An old lawyer friend, Mickey (Jack Warden) takes pity on Frank and throws an open and shut medical malpractice suit his way. If Frank can stay sober, he'll make a third of the settlement fee. The defendants - the Catholic hospital, the doctors, and the Boston Archdiocese - are pretending they want to go to trial, to clear the names of the doctors, but it's secretly understood no one wants the case to go to trial. At issue was a young pregnant woman who went into a hospital for a delivery but complications arose. Doctors gave the woman an anesthetic which resulted with her being left in a permanent vegetative state. 

Initially Frank is apathetic to the case and to the entire situation. He hasn't even met with his clients - the sister (Roxanne Hart) and brother-in-law (James Handy) of the victim. He agrees with Mickey that it is an open and shut case and will be settled out of court. Little by little however as Frank gathers enough evidence to demand a hefty settlement, he is placed in a moral quandary - which Lumet beautifully visualizes with a polaroid picture as it develops - now that he knows the truth, what will he do about it? It is the same situation that the Bishop finds himself in and becomes a running theme throughout the film.

Within this scenario the film, adapted by David Mamet from a Barry Reed novel of the same name, establishes many themes surrounding issues of power, law, wealth and class. It does so by setting up this story as a David & Goliath tale. The hospital, which has a great deal of money behind it, can afford to hire the services of a major law firm. When we first see the firm, the viewer may initially mistake it for a corporate boardroom of shareholders. Around 10 or 12 men are seated at a conference table headed by Ed Concannon (James Mason). This is what money and power can buy you. Lumet almost humorously contrasts this image against Frank and Mickey alone by themselves in a library sifting through books, preparing their legal defense.

Trialing the case in the courtroom isn't enough however. A law firm as big as Mr. Concannon's can exert its power and influence in multiple ways such as by paying off or intimidating potential witnesses, calling on resources in the media to manipulate and control public opinion with flattering articles, and depending upon friendships with the Judge (Milo O' Shea) presiding over the case to suspiciously always rule in your favor.

 

The tactics the lawyers use address another important theme in the film, legality versus morality. Nothing Concannon's firm is doing is necessarily illegal. It is the games lawyers can be expected to play. But is it morally right? There is a distinction between what is legal and what is moral. 

Reading comments on the internet I came across a discussion regarding a courtroom scene involving inadmissible testimony and evidence. This scene has an impact on a later scene concerning the jury's verdict. For me this is yet another example of what do we do when we are given the truth and feeds into the concept of legality vs morality. Perhaps what the jury decides wasn't based on legality but it is morally satisfying. 

Corruption, morality and justice, this is what the films of Sidney Lumet have centered on since his theatrical film debut, "12 Angry Men" (1957). Like that debut film, "The Verdict" tells us the law is ultimately to be decided by the people. We have the power to stop injustice and hold the rich and powerful accountable.

For all the things "The Verdict" and Sidney Lumet do correctly there is one flaw I find the film possesses and that is a character played by Charlotte Rampling. Rampling is a wonderful actress who has appeared in such films as Luchino Visconti's "The Damned" (1969), Woody Allen's "Stardust Memories" (1980) and "The Night Porter" (1974). But as talented as she may be, I believe the film could have done without her character. The always insightful and wonderful New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote of Rampling in her review, "Although the extreme restraint of Miss Rampling's performance makes a bit more sense on a second viewing than it does on first, both the character and the performance slow the movie down for no vital purpose."

Practically every other performance in the film however is not only great to watch but adds to creating a sense of this Boston community. There's not a lot of street life in "The Verdict" but the characters and their speeches give you a sense of your location and the period. Two minor characters that deserve special recognition are Judge Hoye and Kevin Doneghy, the brother-in-law. Kevin gives a beautiful speech to Frank, when he is upset Frank did not notify him of a settlement offer, about how the establishment never has to deal with their failures as it affects the working people. The Judge becomes a not-so-subtle symbol of how the law is meant to serve the interest of the powerful. Pay attention to a quietly powerful scene between the Judge, Concannon and Frank, meeting in the Judge's chambers. Notice the delicate way the Judge and Concannon try to tag-team Frank to accept the settlement offer. 

And not to leave any performances unnoticed, James Mason makes an impact as a seemingly mild-mannered slick operator. He knows being a lawyer isn't about trying your best, it's about winning. He enjoys the finer things life has to offer and deludes himself into believing he is still a good person because his law firm does pro-bono work. Mason adds an elegance to the character another actor may not have been able to. Jack Warden on the other hand provides a nice contrast as a street smart guy.

But this is Paul Newman's show all the way. Many "critics" viewed this film as a comeback for Newman and several cite it as one of Newman's best performances of his career. Newman has always been blessed with Hollywood leading man looks but "The Verdict" was thought to be one of the few times Newman didn't rely on his features. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he stated, "This is the first movie in which Newman has looked a little old, a little tired." Ebert goes on to add, "Newman has always been an interesting actor, but sometimes his resiliency, his youthful vitality have obscured his performances". Newman doesn't try to hide Frank's flaws from A scene involving him shown passed out drunk to slapping a female. He's wasn't afraid to take chances with this performance and risk being seen by the public as unlikable.

One of Newman's highlight moments comes at the end of the film, as his character gives his closing arguments in the courtroom. While Newman gives a passionate speech, which I believe is meant to encapsulates the film's message, I'd like to focus on how Lumet and his cinematographer (Andrzrj Bartkowiak) shoot the scene. Normally you would either get a close-up or medium shot of the actor as they make their plea. But Lumet shoots it in an extreme long shot as we see the courtroom watchers in the background. In theory it takes the emphasis off of the actor and makes us focus on the words instead. The words and the framing combined however, I felt suggested Frank was speaking on behalf of all of us. Emotionally it would feel different if Frank spoke directly into the camera and as compared to how it was done here. These are the kind of decisions filmmakers have to make. It's why Lumet was one of the best, for the subtle ways he could convey his message visually.

There was a time I thought the 1970s was probably Lumet's best decade as a filmmaker with the release of such films as "Serpico" (1973), "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974), "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975) and "Network" (1976), but as I've been rewatching Lumet's films, in order to review them on here, I'm noticing at the beginning of the 1980s, he was standing firm as one of the best directors entering the new decade. He had three knockouts in a row with "Prince of the City", "The Verdict" and "Daniel" (1983). Three films about moral conviction meant to counter Reagan's America. I sincerely don't think Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola or even Robert Altman - to name some titans of the 1970s - started the 1980s as strong.

Perhaps to make up for the sin of not nominating "Prince of the City" for any major Academy Awards the prior year, "The Verdict" was showered with five Oscar nominations including for best picture, best actor, supporting actor (Mason) and best director. It was nominated in the same categories for the Golden Globes as well. Unfortunately it didn't win any awards at either ceremony. Newman lost the Oscar that year to Ben Kingsley's performance as Gandhi - which was spectacular - in Richard Attenborough's epic of the same title. It was also Lumet's fourth and final best director nomination. He would never win a competitive Oscar but was given a honorary award in 2005. Actions such as this helped to solidify the belief the Academy didn't like to nominate east coast directors for awards. In additional to the nominations, Roger Ebert declared "The Verdict" as one of the best films of 1982 while Gene Siskel gave it a "thumbs up" on their TV show.

The ideas behind "The Verdict" have aged nicely and its critiques of the legal system and the influence of the powerful remain just as relevant. This is one of Lumet's best films