The Verdict - 1982
Directed by Sidney Lumet
Written by David Mamet
Based on the novel "The Verdict" by Barry Reed
Starring Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden
James Mason & Milo O'Shea
I love courtroom dramas, and I love
The Verdict. Figuring what makes it special goes further than needing to see guilty parties punished and innocence upheld - this is a film that has as it's focus the lawyer prosecuting the case, making it a redemption story on top of a contest. As a primary benefit (one of many this film has) we have the considerable talents of Paul Newman in the leading role, and it appears to have been a role he relished. His character, Frank Galvin, comes from a position of weakness and vice, and you'll see him doubt himself at every turn when his case falls apart just before his trial starts. Opposing him is the power of the Boston church, a high-priced law firm, and well-known and respected doctors. All of those characters are kept at a cold distance, and David Mamet, who has a most adept skill at writing screenplays, knows exactly what to do and when to do it. Newman's charisma, Mamet's script and Sidney Lumet's direction turned this into a classic film that seems to have got even better with age, like a fine wine. Or perhaps age has made me identify with Galvin more than I did when I was younger.
Attorney Galvin (Newman) starts out as a man at the absolute bottom. An alcoholic, he finds funerals and wakes to go to so he can hand out his card and hope to attract grieving clients. Often he's chased out by angry mourners, but he has no self-respect left anyway. A friend, Attorney Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) hands him a "money-maker" - a case where all he has to do is accept the settlement, which will be sizeable, and pocket his 33%. When Galvin visits his braindead client in a city hospital, and ponders her situation, he goes through a change and decides that he can win this case and redeem himself once and for all. Ignoring his client's relatives, he refuses a $210,000 offer and decides to try the case. Opposing him is Attorney Ed Concannon (James Mason) and his competent staff, and also, unfortunately, the judge presiding over the trial, Hoyle (Milo O'Shea). When Galvin's star witness is scared off, and his stand-in proves to be a disaster, the only thing he has to fall back on is a newfound love with Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) and a hope that if he keeps fighting, a miracle will deliver him salvation.
There were some tough categories to find yourself nominated in during the 1983 Academy Awards. It was tough enough even if
Gandhi hadn't swept up so many awards, with the likes of
E.T. the Extraterrestrial,
Missing,
Tootsie,
Blade Runner,
Das Boot and
An Officer and a Gentlemen (and more) getting attention. Best Picture, Best Director (Richard Attenborough) and Best Actor (Ben Kingsley) all went to
Gandhi over
The Verdict. Best Adapted Screenplay went to
Missing's writer over Mamet and
An Officer and a Gentleman's Louis Gossett Jr. made sure James Mason never ended up winning an Oscar despite his talents.
The Verdict is the kind of film where the nomination itself is the award - it wasn't attention-getting enough to stand out, but I would have felt a little aggrieved at the time to see Ben Kingsley beat Newman, for I truly think that Newman's performance was the better one, even considering Dustin Hoffman and Peter O'Toole were worthy contenders. The film was nominated for five Golden Globes as well, but those awards went mostly the same way, favouring Attenborough's prized project.
This is a fine-looking film, but isn't the kind of cinematic journey where the visual component dominates. It is interesting however, the way Sidney Lumet and director of photography Andrzej Bartkowiak made autumn hues dominate the entire film. That dark brownish kind of colour becomes so all-pervasive that whenever I'd think of
The Verdict I'd actually think of those colours - and the connection I made was that this was a film about someone in the autumn of their life. Lumet and Bartkowiak also tried to employ a kind of "chiaroscuro" effect with the lighting, making shadows definite shadows and light areas completely lit - it's something I've heard Lumet talk about before, and something from the art world that he likes the look of. The half completely hidden, and the half completely exposed. In the meantime, Johnny Mandel's score can be hard to remember or pick up upon due to it's sparseness and the way it's sparingly used to pick up on the important moments that need an extra dramatic push. Everyone does just enough to accentuate and turn our attention to Galvin, his world and how it revolves around this one case.
Awards and filmmaking techniques pale in comparison to the way the film is written and the way Paul Newman gives us one of the best performances of his career. This is a film which knows exactly when to raise the stakes, and exactly how low and precarious everything gets for our protagonist. A great example is the part of the film where Newman's Galvin meets the victim's relatives for the second time - this time they're angry, and quite astonished that their lawyer has refused a settlement, and is taking the matter to trial without their approval. Now this means much more than Galvin's personal redemption - he's put not only his reputation, but two innocent lives at risk, and just as these stakes are raised, he finds out his star witness can't be contacted. It's the first moment in the film where we all feel a great big gush of "uh-oh", and it's done with such perfect precision that it affirms just how good a screenwriter David Mamet is. Lumet adds his interesting little touches - such as the pinball machine character trait, which is something the director used to do to see how his day and life were going at any particular time. Do well on the pinball machine, and you were in your groove and luck was on your side.
The difference between the pulp novel and the resulting film is also worth considering when the question is asked - "just how good is
The Verdict?" The film added much more to the character of Frank Galvin, who in the novel is simply a "scrappy rogue" instead of a lost human being suffering from alcoholism. In the film one particular character close to Frank turns out to be working for the other side, and while in the film this is an enormous revelation, in the novel it's a small matter that's brushed off as being part of the law business. I found it interesting that they'd show Frank strike his lover, Laura - obviously this was taboo in 1982, and although we live in more progressive times, this was a gross overstepping of his bounds - but it's a strange situation. She cut him deeply. The depth of betrayal and amount of hurt that this does to Frank is incalculable, but at the same time he does something completely unacceptable at any time, and as an audience it's kind of thrilling to try and work that out morally in our own minds. It's what makes this such a fascinating and great movie, and Galvin an interesting and flawed character.
I love courtroom dramas. I was one of those rare people who actually felt fascinated to be called in for jury duty, and when I actually ended up on a jury in a trial, I ended up as the foreman. I won't lie - some courtroom procedures, and the thoroughness, can be stultifying boring, and it can be hard to simply stay awake. But those moments where people are testifying and being questioned, and the responsibility, really had me feeling a sense I was doing something important and worthwhile. For some, it was traumatic, for we were sending someone to jail (and we noticed, by way of having all of the guy's info, that the day we were giving our verdict happened to be his birthday.) One of the moments that still stands out to me is the huge mistake the defense lawyer made while questioning the victims wife (it
is true - don't ask a witness a question unless you know what the answer will be.) I still remember, being the foreman, being closest to those testifying, and how the victim was visibly shuddering in fear when he was on the stand. Some of the biggest dramas outside of the battlefield are happening in courtrooms every day.
The Verdict just happens to be one of the best of these films.
So, to end with, I have to use my little remaining effort again praising Paul Newman for an absolutely stellar performance - something critical to this film's success, and if it was up to me he'd have won an Oscar for this. He makes himself absolutely vulnerable, and was particularly brave in going all the way and making Frank Galvin someone who has absolutely plumbed the depths of his own despair, and it was Newman's own idea to use eye-drops during the first part of the film as someone trying to hide the redness of his booze-hazy eyes. It's a great film for those of us who are sick of corruption, and want to believe that court is the great leveler that it's meant to be (but is, in all actuality, mainly the great escape-hatch for the rich.) Lumet and Mamet made for a great combination, and when Newman was added to the mix then this great project turned into a film that ended up as one of the best of 1982. I'll never be averse to watching it. It's perfectly paced, and has that nearly flawless sheen of a production blessed by luck and talent from start to finish (Newman nearly died when some lights came crashing down during one shot - I'll count that as luck, for they missed.) I could say something like "This film is guilty of being a great film!" but instead I'll just say it's a great movie. That's my verdict.
Reply to Topic
The Verdict (Sidney Lumet 1982)
I think the scene where the judge very one sided grills and then dismisses the black doctor was a bit on the nose. Though Sidney Lumet wasn't known for subtleness so it's not surprising it's in the movie. Forgot to give a shot out to James Mason, very effective in the movie. I wish he could've had some more air time.
