Film Court Is In Session

Settle in for another rainy November night with a soft blanket, a warm drink of your choice, and a big bowl of popcorn. What better time to indulge in some of cinema’s most intelligent narrative, the courtroom drama?

Though many of these films can be seen as limited cinematically, they provide the very best in character study, and intriguing peeks into the workings of the criminal mind.

Films that deserve mentioning include Primal Fear, featuring a breakout performance by a very young Edward Norton, To Kill A Mockingbird, which is considered one the best screen adaptations in film history, and 12 Angry Men, a film that never actually takes place in a courtroom, but deals in character analysis that scrapes to the bone.

There are though three personal favorites, worth viewing again and most certainly if for the first time. For that reason, there will be no spoiler alerts for any of the following.

Why not begin then with a tale from Agatha Christie? Renowned as one of the greatest mystery writers of all time, Christie’s work usually transports her audiences to exotic locales with one of her famous detectives.

Witness For The Prosecution from 1957 rather, brings our attention directly to the hallowed halls of justice. Set in London, England at ‘The Old Bailey’, one of the world’s most famous courthouses, this film delivers a plausible and chilling story of circumstantial evidence.

Leonard Vole is a former WWII war veteran played by Tyrone Power in his last film before his untimely death, accused of murdering an elderly widow for her money. An ailing barrister named Sir Wilfred Robarts, played by the incomparable Charles Laughton, agrees to take on Vole’s defense after speaking with the man’s German-born wife, played by Marlene Dietrich, twentieth-century cinema’s most adored femme fatale.

What unfolds during this realistic interpretation of the Western civil justice system, is a lesson in the many obstacles and trap doors that must be negotiated in a court of law. At play are themes dealing with spousal testimony, circumstantial evidence, and the ‘double jeopardy’ clause. By the film’s climax, Sir Wilfred’s suspicions have borne out on several fronts.

This picture demands that close attention be paid throughout, mainly because of the numerous twists and turns taken as the narrative unfolds. If you watching this movie for the first time, put your thinking cap on. It will pay dividends in the end.

Anatomy of a Murder is a 1959 film starring Jimmy Stewart as a lawyer and former District Attorney, Paul Biegler. The events are set on the Northern Michigan peninsula and based on an actual case. Taken from the novel by former Michigan Supreme Court Justice, John D. Voelker, the story is based on an actual case he tried as a defense lawyer.

Stewart is always believable as the small town underdog, pitted against a stacked deck, this time in the form of state prosecutor Claude Dancer played by George C. Scott, who arrives directly from the Attorney General’s office to try the case.

The ensuing pitted battle for truth and justice is mediated by a real-life lawyer, Joseph C. Welsh, playing the part of Judge Weaver. His role lends authenticity to the trial, like no other before or since.

Ben Gazzara plays an army Lieutenant, accused of killing a bar owner who he suspects has raped his wife. Themes of small-town justice and open sexuality are perfectly matched with a musical score by jazz legend, Duke Ellington. Sir Duke even makes a cameo appearance as what else, a saloon piano player.

Without spoiling the ending which once again, takes twists and turns with perceived truths, this picture also examines nuances of legal gamesmanship and use of the ‘rule of law’.

The reliability of witness testimony and each person’s perception of truth, and right versus wrong, come boiling to the surface, as was the theme of a previous film discussed; Rashomon.

As in Witness For The Prosecution, legal minds struggle to way the dependability of an individual’s testimony against the purpose it will serve for the case, on each side of the floor.

The Verdict follows the story of a down and out lawyer, Frank Garvin, played by Paul Newman, who’s law career has nearly crashed completely due to bad choices and heavy drinking.

An actor who may have had the worst string of luck in film awards history, losing Academy Awards to films dealing oddly, with social justice issues. Newman has starred and excelled in many iconic films, but timing was never on his side.

In 1961, his breakout performance in The Hustler went virtually ignored at Oscars time when up against the powerhouse courtroom drama, Judgement at Nuremberg, where Maximilian Schell was given the trophy.

1968 saw Paul Newman give one of his most legendary performances as Cool Hand Luke, only to see the Best Actor award go to Rod Steiger for In The Heat Of The Night, a must-see film that deals with racial tensions in late sixties America.

Unfortunately, in 1982’s The Verdict, Newman’s work once again went underappreciated in the wake of a little film featuring a virtual unknown named Ben Kingsley, for his portrayal in Gandhi.

Notwithstanding his Oscar jinx, Paul Newman delivers a brutally honest account of the depths the American justice sinks to, aided by brilliant wring from David Mamet, and the direction of Sidney Lumet.

The plot centers around the tragic circumstances of a young woman who’s chid birth goes horribly wrong and leaving her in a catatonic state. Galvin is given one last chance to save his career by negotiating a fair settlement for the woman’s family, rather than taking the case to court.

What transpires though is a study in the corruption of the legal system due mainly to money, and the lengths that giant legal firms and big business will go to protect their interests.

Frank Galvin has a crisis of conscience and insists on trying the case, against all odds. Perhaps one of the most poignant moments comes early in the film when opposing attorneys meet the judge in chambers before trial. To avoid the stain of malpractice, the lead counsel, James Mason, comes to chambers with a settlement cheque in hand.

The judge and defense team wish to sweep the entire issue under the proverbial rug, and his honor suggests to Galvin, “If I were in your position, I should think I would want to take the money and run like a thief.”

Galvin merely looks up at the judge and replies, “I’m sure you would”, thus setting the tone for the David v. Goliath battle.

From there, all gloves are off, and the defense will stop at nothing to turn events in their favor. In the climatic ‘closing argument’ soliloquy by Newman’s character, he is left to plead for the humanity of the jury members to mete out justice.

Each of these films deals with the evolution of legal precedent. They also fit well as a progression in, or rather the dilution of the American justice system. Where Witness For The Prosecution displays the intent, and sometimes surprising outcomes, Anatomy Of A Murder explores the entrance of gamesmanship and the power of one against the odds when legal minds do battle.

By the time we reach The Verdict, it is the justice system itself that is put on trial. Even forty years ago, the erosion of courtroom ‘fair play’ has turned those who make their presence, into cynical and untrusting beings.

It is the nuance in the narrative where The Verdict shines. Rather than a film like And Justice for All, which overdramatizes the issue of the inequity of law for effect, this more subtle response to the issue seems to bear a more timeless quality.

The messages displayed in The Verdict are even more prevalent today, as history will show. We need only look to recent rulings in cases of police brutality to see that the machinations going on behind the scenes, are yet to be resolved in the public eye.

This story originally appeared on Medium by Stuart Englander

I hope you enjoyed reading it.

All tips are gratefully accepted for my future musings.