1982: Verdict, The (69th)

Nice.

What else happened this year? The Falklands! And a lot of bad fashion.

What is the plot - in one sentence? An alcoholic lawyer is given a juicy case where he can either take the money, or fight in court for justice.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? The jury eventually finds them negligent, and he wins the case. At the end of it, he's slightly wealthier, now ignoring the call of a woman who betrayed his cause that he seemed to like, despite her looking 1/3 of his age. 

What is the meaning of the title? It all hinges on... the verdict ... of the jury.

Photo goes he

Here's Paul Newman and his one ally sleeping on a plane together. Doesn't that look glamorous? Isn't it weird that it's only 5 years after Paul Newman was playing a hockey player in a movie?

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? It's the 1980s, so we see doctors chain-smoking. There's a lot of discussion about an 'expert' witness being black, and thus not trustworthy - but at least they're honest, today it would just be sugar-coated. The entire movie's about a scandal involving Catholics, but it isn't about systemic child abuse - it's a medical negligence case in a Catholic hospital. I was as amazed as you are.

As for a slap - Paul Newman slap-punches Charlotte Rampling in a bar, a few people intervene. She poses as his lover, and then spies on him, so, in the logic of the movie, she had it coming.

Any thoughts? Paul Newman plays an alcoholic lawyer. We learn that he was an idealist initially, and was set for great things, but he was betrayed by his wife's family firm, and it's left him a bit fucked career-wise. He's now an ambulance and funeral chaser, and he's given one last case out of sympathty.

Instead of taking the money, he works against the odds to find the truth of what has happened (a nurse was made to doctor some documents.) Despite exposing the truth of the situation, the evidence is shot down by a technicality. Ignoring that, the jury finds the Catholic church guilty and there'll be a payout for both Paul Newman and for the family of the person at the end of negligence.

The message of the movie seems to suggest that it is people who make justice, not books and lawyers, but the fact that a case like this would be unique suggests that it is not the case. As would the fact that the legal system has already screwed him over so much.

It's full of good performances, Paul Newman is a captivating fellow (though I always think he needs a bit of a moisturising: his face looks like you could sand with it), but a few other characters don't hit the same heights. A doctor agrees to help out, but is bribed into not testifying, but he's not a convincing character even in the short scenes he has. The brother-in-law of the comatose woman who is the center of the trail also seems a bit perfunctionary - he describes himself as 'working class' guy who just wants a payout, but even in a very small role he doesn't show himself to be a convincing actor. This is weird as the director, Sidney Lumet, was renowned as an actor's director.

Would you recommend this? It's a perfectly fine movie, with some good performances, and a real, rousing speech from Paul Newman about the nature of justice at the end. It was fine, but maybe I've just seen too many of these recently, perhaps it's aged poorly? Perhaps I'm just too jaded?

I've been watching (and have mentioned before) the TV show Rake, and I think that does a better job showing a substance abusing lawyer getting up to hijinx, this was more just a sad character study.

Final thoughts? In reality, a case like this would probably have been found not guilty: it's hard to get inspired by that, no matter how many end-of-movie speeches you get.

Paul Newman's assistant in the case, one of his few allies (which is in stark contrast to the  overfunded, overstaffed, and overstrached opposition) looks like absolute shit in this movie, he looks like a melted sandwich in a suit.I hope he was ok.

There are a lot of villains, not least the judge, who is so anti-Newman it would lead to a mistrial in real life. However, he was the detective in 'Theatre Of Blood' a movie I watched with my parents a few days ago, and that was a lot more fun than this. I'll admit that this is going for 'character study / inspirational realism' than fun, but... 

 

OK! That's it, you can find the others in this series right HERE!!!!! I'll be busy with work (guess who's travelling with work!) for a while so this may have to tide you over a while.

I love YOU most of all.