The Verdict Reconsidered: A Classic Film

 

 

The Verdict (1982)

Directed by Sidney Lumet

20^th Century Fox, 129 minutes, R (language, brief nudity, violence)

★★★★★

 

In 1983, The Verdict was nominated for five Academy Awards, including most of the big ones. It was its misfortune to be swept aside by Gandhi and audience responses that were less sterling than its reviews. It is, however, a great courtroom drama. It was directed by the legendary Sidney Lumet with a screenplay from David Mamet, a guarantee that it had enough salty language to give it an R rating. (Its nudity and violence are mild by today’s standards.)

 

Paul Newman is Frank Galvin, once a mainstay among Boston lawyers but now a regular in its Irish bars. Frank has descended so low that he’s an ambulance chaser whose TV ads you might see after 11 pm. That doesn’t begin to describe Frank’s desperation. He has pretty much worn out his welcome everywhere, though an old friend Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) tosses him a potential life saver and a warning not to screw it up. Deborah Ann Kay lies in a comma. There are enough questions about what went wrong that her brother-in-law Kevin Doneghy and her sister Sally (Roxanne Hart) have filed a medical malpractice suit in hope of recovering money to pay for Deborah’s care.

 

All Frank has to do is what is often done in civil suits, settle out of court. The diocese of Boston admits no wrong but offers $210,000 dressed up as an act of compassion. Frank could simply meet with the Doneghys, get them to sign off, collect a big fee, and begin to get his life and practice in order. That’s what would have happened had Frank not gone to the hospital to see what’s left of Deborah Ann. Without telling the  Doneghys of the proposal, Frank rejects the settlement and plans to take the case to court.

 

You name it and the card is against Frank. Suing the Catholic Church in Boston is akin to me challenging a heavyweight boxing champion to a fistfight. The two doctors in the suit–Toller and Gruber­–are acclaimed obstetrics physicians. Bishop Brophy (Edward Binns) is as oily as the Caspian Sea, but he’s smooth as silk and as canny as a fox.  He hires a law firm headed by the courtly Ed Concanon (James Mason). Concanon  looks suave and sophisticated but it would be safe to say his access to dirty tricks is more sophisticated than his moral compass. The physician who was gung ho to help Frank absents himself on the eve of the trial. Frank quickly pivots to a doctor in New York he has never met. He is Dr. Thompson (Joe Seneca), an African American without a direct connection to the events. A black man? In Boston? In 1983? My odds against the aforementioned boxer are better.

 

Could it get any worse? Yes. Hoyle, the trial judge has it out for Frank and makes no secret of his admiration for Toller, Gruber, the Bishop, and Attorney Concanon. Frank’s hatred of Judge Hoyle is equally palpable and the two go at each other like hyenas at a roadkill. Plus, the Doneghys learn that Frank turned down the settlement offer and has risked losing everything. Frank needs a miracle.

 

He's probably not going to find one in Boston dive bars or with the pinball machines he tilts in frustration. Frank seems to be slipping deeper into his cups, though he does acquire a lover who can match him drink for drink: Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling). She professes faith in Frank–enough that he breaks out of his funk, but he’s still no match for Concanon or Boston’s religio-political machine.

 

The Verdict features it all: double crosses, browbeating witnesses (check out Lindsay Crouse as Kaitlin Costello), favoritism, a shocking breakup, a bittersweet verdict, and a post-trial letdown. Newman and Warden are wonderful as grizzled hard-nosed Boston lawyers. Newman is especially convincing as a world weary nothing-left-to-lose hangdog drunk. Even the accents are mostly right. The cinematography of Andrzej Bartkowiak captures the cigar smoke, the darkness, the spilled booze, and the shabby courtrooms of the 1980s. (Warning: 1980s clothing and hair appear!)

 

It's a terrific film that is now rightly considered a classic. Ignore audience scores in the 70s; too many viewers want cheap endings with protagonists who overcome all flaws. The Verdict shines for its verisimilitude, even it does get a few court procedures wrong. Call it grit over rainbows and flowers.

 

Rob Weir

Saint Omer a Gut-wreching Film

 

Saint Omer (2022)

Directed by Alice Diop

Les Films du losange, PG-13

In French with subtitles

★★★★

 

In Monday's review of Anatomy of a Fall I noted ways in which the French legal system is unique. Among them is that judges have far more discretionary power than in the United States and can consider extenuating circumstances, even those rooted in non-French culture.

 

Saint Omer is a dramatization of one of the most famous trials in French history. Director Alice Diop attended the 2013 trial of Fabienne Kabou, a Senegalese immigrant who murdered her infant daughter. For the record, Saint Omer refers to the location where the crime took place, not any individual involved with it. The film takes several liberties with the actual trial, but not many.

 

We first meet Rama, who is probably Diop’s alter ego. Rama (Kayije Kagame) is Senegalese, and a high-powered literature professor and novelist. She is expecting a child with Adrian (Thomas De Pourquevy), a white, gentle bear of a man. Though Rama has a prestigious position, she and Adrian live in a crowded apartment with several of Rama’s relatives, including her drama queen mother. Rama lectures about trauma in literature, the ostensible reason for traveling from Paris to Saint Omer to witness the trial of Laurence Coly (Guslagie Malanda).

 

Coly’s was a gut-wrenching trial. Laurence is a graduate student, Catholic, and a highly intelligent young woman who speaks impeccable French. Much of her drive has to do with her strong-willed and domineering mother Odile (Salimata Kamate). Laurence readily confesses that she traveled to Saint Omer, checked into a hotel, cuddled her 15-month-old daughter, calmly waited until dark, walked to the beach, and placed her baby on the sand knowing she would drown when the tide turned. In the United States this would be a cut-and-dried murder of the first degree; Laurence knew exactly what she was doing, and because she carefully planned it, was of sound mind–cultural differences would not matter.

 

Laurence has no idea why she fabricated parts of her life or would wish to kill a daughter she professed to love. The présidente du tribunal (presiding judge) is both gentle and flabbergasted. She (Valérie Dréville) tries valiantly to get Laurence to explain herself. She admits only to being upset that her boyfriend Luc Dumontet (Xavier Maly) made her to leave his apartment. When Dumontet takes the stand, we are stunned to see that he is perhaps three times as old as Laurence. He admits he wanted to end their relationship, but vehemently insists that is not responsible for Laurence’s horrible deed. Dumontet is a bit odd to say the least, but when Laurence is questioned about their relationship or being depressed, like the judge’s questions about her lies and motives she responds, “Je ne sais quoi” (I don’t know). Throughout the trial her affect is flat and emotionless. That is how she suggests that sorcery must be involved. Sorcery? Should the judge take such an antique cultural artifact seriously? Is she mentally ill?

 

During a break in the trial Rama has lunch with Odile, who ignores the crime and is obsessed with whether the news media will continue to stress the intelligence of her daughter. Rama is shaken and conflicted. Family parallels are obvious, but can she also understand or empathize with Laurence? Could any woman? This film will shake you to the core.

 

Saint Omer has won numerous awards at film festivals and a César for best film. Malanda also won numerous prizes for playing Laurence. Rightly so. She made herself such a blank slate that we ponder whether sorcery was in play. Malanda also said that she had nightmares for a year after playing the role. Although she was less heralded, Valerie Dréville was letter-perfect as the judge. Hers was a tightrope walk between compassion and utter disbelief.

 

Saint Omer is a veritable modern day Medea story. In legend, she was the lover then wife, of the Argonaut Jason and helped him carry off the golden fleece. Later she killed their children. (Go to Wikipedia for more on Medea.) What would you do with Laurence if you were a trial judge with discretionary power?

 

Rob Weir

 

 

Anatomy of a Fall Destined to be a Classic Film?

 

 

Anatomy of a Fall (2023)

Directed by Justine Triet

Neon/Lionsgate, 152 minutes, R (for ridiculous!)

In French, German, subtitles, and English

★★★★★

 

Welcome to Off-center views goes to court. I will be featuring several courtroom films, the first of which is Anatomy of a Fall, a French/English/German film that was nominated for the Best International Feature Film Oscar, and won both the Palme d’or at Cannes and numerous César awards in France.

 

The first thing you need to know about this brilliant film is that the French judicial system is quite different from that of the United states. First of all, evidential rules are quite different. The courts often appoint independent investigators in criminal trials rather than leaving the task to prosecutors and defending attorneys. That’s because French trial courts are more concerned with statutory law than with legal precedents. Judges have far more power in France and lead the trials in an inquisitory manner. The standard of innocence or guilt depends upon the judge’s findings rather than the U.S. standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are usually no juries and there is very little cross examination by prosecuting or defending attorneys. If that sounds harsh, the ameliorating factor is that judges have far more leeway in probing extenuating circumstances.

 

Anatomy of a Fall takes place in the present time. Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller) is a German novelist married to Samuel, a university lecturer. Their son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner) is severely vision impaired due to a childhood accident. We later learn that Samuel blamed himself for the accident.

 

Sandra is in the living room conducting an interview, which she cuts short because the song “P. I. M. P. “ is blaring from the upper level of their chalet. Sandra assumes that her husband is playing the music at ear-splitting level because he frequently does that and claims it helps him work. However, when Daniel comes back from a walk with his guide dog Snoop, his father's body is prone in the blood-soaked snow outside the home. The open question is connected to the movie’s title; did he commit suicide or was he murdered?

 

There are suggestive but inconclusive reasons to draw either conclusion. Some testimony suggests that there was marital strain and loud arguing; Sandra counters that her outbursts were related to her discontent with being forced to move to a remote area near Grenoble. The prosecution points to ways in which murders in her novels mirrored the pattern of Daniel's death. Experts for both prosecution and defense illustrate how on one hand Daniel could not have fallen four stories without being pushed, or how he absolutely could have done so. Also introduced is that the marriage was strained because Sandra had an affair with another woman.

 

The movie is rated R ostensibly because of theme of suicide and bad language, though it’s my belief that the real reason for the R rating is Sandra's bisexuality. The movie also suggests that there is sexual frisson between Sandra and the woman she was interviewing and Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), her defense attorney.

 

Other complicating matters intervene, not the least of which is Daniel’s shifting testimony. Still another is though Sandra is fluent in conversational French, as a native German speaker she has trouble following the rapid pace and can’t express herself with enough precision. (She is granted permission to switch from French to English.) Another unique aspect of French law is that when children are involved they are placed under a court monitor to prevent them from being unduly influenced and to deal with their emotional distress. Marge Bender (Jehnny Beth) plays that role quite expertly in Anatomy of a Fall.

 

Director Justine Triet reported that the 2007 Amanda Knox case in 2007 partly inspired her to co-write and direct the film. (Knox is the college student American college student accused of killing her roommate in Italy.) In that case and this film, guilt or innocence depended upon who was telling the story.

 

Much of Anatomy of a Fall takes place in the courtroom, a setting that could make for very dull viewing.  But the overlay of ambiguity, family drama, contrasting points of view, and Sandra’s coolness make this film riveting in every way. This one comes highly recommended. It might well endure as an art house classic.

 

Rob Weir