Sidney Lumet, who directed movies for five decades, wondrously explored the moral disputes inside American institutions. “12 Angry Men”, “Serpico”, “Dog Day Afternoon”, and “Network” are all invigorating films, which made us contemplate, where an individual’s culpability and responsibility starts and ends within these institutions. One such challenging movie that belongs to Lumet’s unsurpassable oeuvre was “The Verdict” (1982). Based on the novel by Barry Reed and adapted exceptionally by David Mamet, “The Verdict” consists of a compelling narrative, which hurls a redemption-seeker into a courtroom. Like many other Lumet’s films, it has a stern art-film aura and eventually exults the winning of good over evil.
On the outset “The Verdict” has a simple story of David Vs
Goliath. You might have come across this story line in numerous underdog
formulaic sports movies. Yet, what’s great about this movie is that it claims
all our attention into this ordinary premise. Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a
once idealistic lawyer, who worked in a huge law firm. Now, he is an alcoholic,
wallowing with pain and guilt. Apart from drinking, he spends the rest of his
free time by playing pinball at a local bar. At times, he works as a
ambulance-chasing lawyer. He attends various funerals and thrusts his card into
the hands of bereaved people. In one such occasion, he gets humiliated and
thrown out by a bereft man. Frank’s only friend is his former associate Mickey
Morrissey (Jack Warden). He is also fed up with Frank, but brings up a
sure-fire case to make him get a grip on his life.
It is a medical
malpractice case. A young pregnant woman lies in permanent coma because of the
wrong anesthetic given to her during childbirth by two renowned doctors. The
hospital named St. Catherine's Hospital is owned by Archdiocese of Boston. Sally
Doneghy, the girl’s sister, and her husband Kevin has brought up the
malpractice suit. The hospital management is happy to pay a price to keep this
matter out of court. Frank is also happy because through a successful
negotiation he might get one-third of settlement amount. To negotiate strongly,
Frank takes a Polaroid camera to take some pictures of the girl lying in
vegetative state. When he snaps those Polaroid, something snaps inside Frank,
making him realize the enormity of the crime committed against this girl.
He rejects the $210,000 settlement and announces that he is going
to take the case to trial. The defense hires a satanic lawyer Ed Concannon
(James Mason); the trial is conducted by nefarious one-sided Judge; Frank’s
witnesses disappear due to dirty tricks by opposition; and even Frank doubts
himself about winning this case. What follows could be easily predicted, but
the depths we travel along with the main character give us an exceptional
viewing experience.
Cinematographer Andrzej Bartkowiak unrelenting gloomy images
gives us a feeling of watching a movie from the 70’s, but those images scores
very well as it reflects Frank’s mind set and his inability to break away from
the past. The famous playwright David Mamet’s script contains his usual trademark
dialogues, and at the same time, peers hard at the havoc brought out by corruption
and institutional incompetence. Mamet’s script would always have misogynist
viewpoints. In ‘The Verdict’, his views are conjured upon the double-crossing
character of Laura (played by Charlotte Rampling). Although the movie has
robust script, it entirely belongs to Paul Newman and Sidney Lumet. Newman, in
the 80’s entered a new phase in his career. He got involved with compelling
cynical characters, bestowing us with bravura performances.
Newman and Lumet never show Franks as a noble crusader
fighting for justice. At first, he acts out of extreme selfishness, and then
takes the case to trial, going against the wishes of his clients. Lumet hints
that by taking the case to trial, Frank not only wants to bring out the guilty
doctors, but also wants a shot at his own salvation. Newman’s brilliance lies
in the way he conveys the pain of Frank. He doesn’t make Frank to change
entirely after that Polaroid scene (a moment of clarity). Frank only changes
from being sad drunk to an energetic drunk. Nothing else changes, including the
anguish in his eyes. The other great performance comes from James Mason as
master defense strategist. The scene where Mason, preps one of the doctors,
repeating taunting questions, is particularly memorable for all its
malevolence.
Lumet draws out enough suspense without ever making us
forget that it is primarily a character study. Lumet uses many long-takes and
as action unfolds, the camera gets slowly pushed into his face, an effect that
is used to place the main character into that institutional space. The most
impressive of the long-take camera movement happens near the end, during
Frank’s summation. Although, the film ends with a victory, Lumet doesn’t finish
it with a sunny picture (considering the fact that the woman will forever be a
vegetable). Frank may now have new chance in his life, but we see him, still
sitting in his office, gazing into the empty space with a glass in his hand.
“The Verdict” (128 minutes) is rendered in a subtle manner
and filled with original performances. There are no un-called for reaction
shots or musical cues to tell us what you should think or interpret.
Trailer
No comments:
Post a Comment