Movie Review:


The Verdict (1982) by David J. Wildberger


[You may have noticed that over the last year or so the Trial Reporter has become more diverse in the offerings presented to its readers. We have printed book reviews, and this edition includes a film review of a classic legal thriller. We aim to continue to provide such “off the beaten path” features in the future.]


What do you get when you combine


a great screenwriter - David Mamet, a great director - Sidney Lumet, a great actor - Paul Newman, and a great sup- porting cast, including James Mason, Jack Warden, Milo O’Shea and Charlotte Rampling? You get The Verdict, which stands as one of the most enduring courtroom dramas Hollywood has of- fered. Paul Newman plays Frank Galvin, a


down-and-out trial lawyer, reduced by circumstance and alcoholism to passing out business cards in funeral homes. Never mind the logical flaw inherent in the assumption that every funeral home presents fertile ground for a quick buck. One of the films lasting images is our introduction to Galvin, drunk and preying on the bereaved, while posing as a “friend” of the deceased. He has truly sunk to the barrel’s bottom, as he lets it be known that he is available to “be of assistance” to the grieving family. As Galvin’s back story is revealed, we


find that he was once a rising star in a large law firm. He lost his marriage and most of his career when he was made the fall guy for a senior partner’s attempted jury tampering. As the movie opens, it is years later and Galvin is wallowing in the residue of his own failure. He is in a bar playing a pin ball machine, reflecting the ill-conceived metaphor of the law as a game of chance, played by lawyers in search of money rather than justice. Galvin does not care about his clients,


Fall 2008


the legal system or any concept of justice. He only cares about using the system to eke out a hardscrabble existence and keep his head above water. Soon thereafter, a colleague, Mickey


Morrissey, (played by Jack Warden), visits Galvin’s office to follow up on a medical malpractice case that he has referred to his old friend. The case is set to go to trial. Much to Morrisey’s chagrin, he finds that the drunken Gal-


ing that he is in the midst of a situation larger and more important than his fee. The nursing home scene is Lumet at


his directorial best. We see the begin- ning of Galvin’s transformation, but we cannot yet discern his motivation. Is he moved by a need to address the injustice suffered by his client, or the injustice suffered by him? The ambiguity fostered by the scene is only increased by the fact


One of the films lasting images is our introduction to Galvin, drunk and preying on the bereaved, while posing as a “friend” of the deceased.


vin has done nothing on the case in 18 months. We follow Galvin as he uses the


remnants of his talent and training to attempt to work the case up for settle- ment (not trial). The fee he hopes to draw would put him back on his feet. The case involves a young mother who suffered the loss of her child and cata- strophic brain damage as a result of an anesthesia mishap during childbirth. The victim’s sister and brother-in-law desperately need monetary assistance in order to provide care for the victim and to allow them to move on with their own lives. As Galvin prepares the case for settle-


ment, his cynicism and venality begin to wane. He realizes the tragedy and injustice that have befallen his comatose client. He travels to the facility in which she is housed in order to take pictures of her for use in settlement negotiations. Using a Polaroid camera, Galvin photo- graphs his client. Lumet shows us that, as the images on the photographs come in to focus, so does Galvin’s understand-


Trial Reporter


that Lumet never shows us the woman’s face, thus never completing the picture of her humanity. Shortly after his visit to his client,


Galvin meets with the defendants’ rep- resentatives and turns down a settlement offer. He does so without consulting his clients. We know that the family would instruct him to accept the offer and we realize that the lawyer’s motives are mixed, at best. The tautest scenes in the movie arise


from Galvin’s interactions with defense counsel, Ed Concannon, and trial Judge Hoyle. James Mason is absolutely mag- nificent and believable in his portrayal of Concannon, the confident, effective and ultimately amoral first chair of the medical malpractice defense team. Particularly compelling is the scene in which Concannon prepares a defendant doctor for trial testimony, politely, but forcefully coaching him how to answer questions. Milo O’Shea is also memo- rable as the trial judge, more interested in expediency than justice. At a pre-trial conference, Judge Hoyle


59


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76