Reflections on “The Verdict”
Directed by Sidney Lumet
Screenplay by David Mamet
Starring Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack
Warden and James Mason
The
underpinning context of “The Verdict” and its storyline is a legal system in
which personal ambition, status, survival, self-satisfaction and manipulation
of technicalities appear to have overwhelmed the system’s fundamental precept
of seeking justice. It is also the story of Frank Galvin’s rediscovery of this
underlying principle and his fight to gain justice for his client while
regaining his own self-respect.
The
subject of the legal case in hand is a young woman who attended a Catholic
hospital for the birth of her baby. She received an anaesthetic which caused
her to vomit and choke while sedated and, deprived of oxygen, she suffered
brain injury, became comatose and then dependent on life support equipment.
Virtually
all the characters are opportunistic or pragmatic to one degree or another.
They accept the conditions and environment in which they work, adapt, and do
what they can or need to do in order to make their way in the world, with
little or no genuine or prolonged thought for the subject of whatever case they
are dealing with.
The
victim’s sister and brother-in-law care for the victim but, worn down by time,
pressure and grim reality, they are content to settle with the defendants to provide
ongoing care for the young woman, but also to ease their own lives.
The
Bishop responsible for the administration of the hospital is keen to play down
the case for the sake of the smooth running of the hospital but is equally keen
to offer only a modest settlement as a pay-off while ignoring the issue of the
hospital’s negligence and responsibility, and their consequences for the patient.
The
doctors accused of negligence are content to be carefully tutored in their
responses to questions so as to deflect awkward queries that might imply
responsibility, to avoid any hint of a bad impression and to create confidence
and trust.
This
tuition or preparation is overseen by Ed Concannon, a celebrated, highly
successful and quite unscrupulously determined legal craftsman who points out
at one stage that he is paid to win, thereby suggesting a certain lack of moral
integrity, replaced by legal dexterity.
Even
the Judge in charge of the case appears to regard the proceedings as a game in
which pride, self-satisfaction and legal fraternity have won out over principle
and the underlying purpose of the proceedings.
These
characters may be opportunistic, self-centred and blinkered but it is clear
where they stand. The same cannot be said of Laura who ingratiates her way into
Galvin’s confidence and affections only to betray him to Concannon for money.
This is pragmatism taken to the length of treachery.
When
we first meet Frank Galvin, the lawyer engaged to represent our hospitalised
victim, he is no better than any of the other characters. Frank has become an
ambulance chaser. He is reduced to pursuing legal work by offering his services
to the families of recently deceased people involved in accidents. At one time
he was something of an idealist and a champion of principle but he was defeated
by the cynicism, opportunism and corruption of others. His real crime, however,
is that he accepted this defeat and he has steadily descended into disappointment
and self-contempt. He now goes through the motions of a career in an attempt to
keep his head above water and he drinks excessively because he recognises and
disapproves of what he has become but also, perhaps, because he can’t find the
strength or the motivation to raise himself out of the pit into which he has
dug himself.
Frank’s
colleague and loyal friend Mickey helps him by having him undertake what he
regards as a straightforward medical malpractice suit which all concerned parties
are keen to settle. However, when taking evidential photos for the case, Frank
has something of an epiphany as he is made aware of the human consequences and
repercussions of the medical error at the heart of the case. This is no longer
merely an academic, money-making procedure – Frank’s humanity and sense of
purpose are unexpectedly rekindled and he opts to take the case to trial and
seek justice rather than accept a sizeable fee in exchange for settling out of
court and effectively sweeping the whole affair, and his client’s life, under
the carpet.
Naturally,
Frank struggles to make his case, especially in the face of various underhand
tactics employed by his legal opponent, all designed to ensure courtroom
victory while denying, perhaps, natural justice.
Legal
thrillers and courtroom dramas frequently end with a revelation that proves a
case and apportions blame where it should be, and this film is no exception.
Evidence is produced that reveals truth but, in keeping with the themes of
opportunism and manipulation at the expense of justice, this evidence is to be
dismissed on a legal technicality.
Legally
speaking, Frank’s case is over and he is left with nowhere to go in his
summation speech except to appeal to the jury for justice.
Dr
Thompson, Frank’s expert witness whose position and testimony are belittled,
manipulated and derided in court, despite offering an accurate assessment of
events, suggests to Frank that he should not underestimate people and their
capacity to hear the truth. Possibly with that thought in mind, Frank suggests
to the jury in his summation that justice does not exist in itself and that for
now, they are the law. As human beings and members of society, we create
justice by listening and applying a sense of fairness, and this rather sums up
the principal theme of the piece. The law can only aspire to the spirit of
justice and upholding the law and its technicalities should not necessarily be
regarded as a valid objective in itself, especially if in doing so, natural justice
is failed as a result.
This
gritty and relatively realistic legal drama manages to deliver the usual
courtroom thrills while outdoing many of its rivals in terms of its
underpinning issues and philosophy and its appeal to humanity, hope and honour with
regard to its character development. Frank’s rediscovery of idealism and
integrity is not without difficulty as he gives in to and then battles fear,
intimidation and self-doubt, but his slow and steady transformation is complete
when he chooses dignity and principle as, drinking mere coffee, he declines to
answer the treacherous Laura’s phone call at the end of the film.
The
whole was filmed in a natural, almost subdued style which suits the general
import and tenor of the film, and Paul Newman has rarely, if ever, been better
as he captures Frank’s soulless survival and grifting, and his own surprise at
his desire to do the right thing for his client whose case was merely being
shunned or exploited by virtually all those involved.
My
thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some
value.
Stuart
Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
