DR.

RAM MAHOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

2018-2019

SUBJECT: ENGLISH
PROJECT ON:
MOVIE REVIEW

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Kushagra Tripathi Dr. Alka Singh

Enrollment number - 180101074 Assistant Professor
(English)
B.A.LL.B (Hons.) RMLNLU, Lucknow
Semester-II

Page | 1
Declaration

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Movie Review” submitted to the Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow is a record of an original work done by me under the
guidance of Dr. Alka Singh, Assistant Professor, English , Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law
University and this project work is submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of B.A. LLB. (hons).

The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any other University or Institute for
the award of any degree or diploma.

Page | 2
Table of Contents

Declaration............................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................................4
Movie Review: The Verdict...................................................................................................................5
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5
Statement of the Problem......................................................................................................................6
Aim....................................................................................................................................................6
Research Methodology......................................................................................................................6
Review...................................................................................................................................................7
Storyline:...........................................................................................................................................8
Implication:.......................................................................................................................................8
Movie Review: The Lincoln Lawyer...................................................................................................10
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................10
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................................11
Aim......................................................................................................................................................11
Research Methodology........................................................................................................................11
Review.................................................................................................................................................12

Page | 3
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude towards all those whose help and constant support the project
would not have reached its current facet. Foremost I would like to thank Dr. Alka Singh for her kind
guidance and for quenching my queries on many doubts and technicalities which I came up during the
making of this project. I would take advantage of this situation to thank the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor,
Dr. Gurdip Singh, esteemed Dean (Academics) Prof. Dr. C.M. Jariwala and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National University for providing me with such an enriching opportunity to work and research on this
topic.

This project would not have seen the light of the day without the constant direction and guidance of
my parents and guardians to whom I owe a lot. I would also like to use this opportunity to thank my
brother in helping me out with the nitty-gritty of formatting.

I would also like to thank all of my friends and seniors who aided me along the way. I must also
extend my gratitude to the library and library personnel who provided me with research material and
good books to work upon and the distinguished authors, jurists and journals for providing in the
public domain such invaluable information.

Page | 4
Movie Review: The Verdict

Introduction

The Verdict is a 1982 American courtroom drama film starring Paul Newman as Frank Galvin,
Charlotte Rampling as Laura Fischer, Jack Warden as Mickey Morrissey, James Mason as Ed
Concannon, Milo O'Shea as Judge Hoyle and Lindsay Crouse as Kaitlin Costello Price. The film,
which was directed by Sidney Lumet, was adapted by David Mamet from the novel by Barry Reed. It
is about a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer who takes a medical malpractice case to improve his
own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing.

The Verdict garnered critical acclaim and box office success. The film was nominated for five
Academy Awards, including Best Actor in a Leading Role (Paul Newman), Best Actor in a Supporting
Role (James Mason), Best Director (Sidney Lumet), Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay (David
Mamet).

Frank Galvin is a down-on-his luck lawyer, reduced to drinking and ambulance chasing. Former
associate Mickey Morrissey reminds him of his obligations in a medical malpractice suit that he
himself served to Galvin on a silver platter: all parties willing to settle out of court. Blundering his
way through the preliminaries, he suddenly realizes that perhaps after all the case should go to court:
to punish the guilty, to get a decent settlement for his clients, and to restore his standing as a lawyer.
A lawyer sees the chance to salvage his career and self-respect by taking a medical malpractice case to
trial rather than settling.

Frank has a new spring in his step, enough that he attracts the attention of Laura Fischer, the two who
begin a relationship. Despite having whatever the truth is on his side, that truth which he does not
know, and having an expert witness of his own, Frank has an uphill battle in that the Archdiocese has
retained the services of Ed Concannon, a high priced lawyer who has a large team of associates whose
task is to help Concannon and the Archdiocese win at any cost. Concannon's task seems even easier as
Judge Hoyle, the presiding judge, is already biased against Frank for taking the case to court.

Page | 5
Statement of the Problem
The movie takes a hard look at the human havoc wrought by institutional incompetence and
corruption; it examines the ways in which professionals abuse those whom they serve; and it puts
forth the value of idealism in a world tainted by cynicism.

Aim
The artful cinematography of Andrzej Bartkowiak accents the film's theme of the forces of light doing
battle against the forces of darkness. How a man rises to an important challenge, shakes off the
cobwebs, resuscitates his law practice and fights furiously to help good triumph over evil. As near
miraculous transformations go, this one's not bad at all, considering the fact that it's accomplished in
only slightly over two hours' screen time.

Research Methodology

The research methodology is purely analytical. The facts and information already available have been
analysed to make a critical evaluation.

Page | 6
Review

The title of this movie is deceiving. THE VERDICT suggests a courtroom drama, something like TO
KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, or INHERIT THE WIND. It does have some riveting court scenes, but
what happens outside of court and to Paul Newman is the real attraction here. The title not only refers
to the inevitable decision of the important case of the film, but also to how the Newman character is
going to live the rest of his life. Should he sell out and take the easy settlement, or take the highly
regarded archdiocese of Boston to court for real justice. These are the questions Newman must face in
this profound drama that seems more like a picture of the 70's than an 80's film.

Director Sidney Lumet has dealt with the legal system before in his first film, 12 ANGRY MEN. He
takes it to a more personal level and Paul Newman, one of the finest actors of the past 40 years, is the
person to do it. He is a legend and he bares his soul as attorney Frank Galvin, a lonely, corrupt drunk
whose license to practice law is hanging by a thread. Jack Warden plays his trusty assistant who gets
him a case that could help Frank change his life. Warden, however, has had enough.

Newman plays an excellent drunk, even cracking an egg into an 8am beer to start his day. This is a
dim looking movie, shot during a cold winter in Boston. There are no great shots, or even any
emotionally-rousing speeches, but this is Lumet's style. It is plodding and we see into the life of a
lawyer on the ropes. James Mason is perfect as the slimy defense lawyer. Newman is constantly
underestimated because of past failures. He is a drunk, but he still has some tricks up his sleeve.

"The Verdict" is simply one of the best legal dramas ever done. Of course much of what happens in
the movie is unrealistic and wouldn't happen in a real case but the movie isn't a study in courtroom
procedure (watch the fantastic "Anatomy of a Murder" for that) it is a study about redemption and in
that respect it excels.

This movie captures Paul Newman's finest screen performance and that alone makes it an important
movie. The scenes where Newman hardly says anything show how great an actor he is---his look of
self-loathing when he's thrown out of the funeral home, his palsied hand and lost look when he's
trying to drink his whiskey, his panic when Charlotte Rampling lambastes him for being a failure.
Then throw into that his terrific courtroom scenes, his arguments with the judge in chambers, it is just
a sensational performance all around.

The level of acting is high all around in this movie. James Mason was Oscar nominated for playing
the silky smooth, totally corrupt defense attorney. Jack Warden shines as Frank Galvin's world-weary
former law partner. Lindsey Crouse has a small role as a nurse but is given the most powerful and
dramatic moment in the entire movie. Her cross-examination by James Mason is where the movie
really shines and shows that Paul Newman can keep his ego in check. How many movies give the
most powerful and dramatic moment of the film to one of the secondary players? How many lead
actors would be willing to just sit there quiet in a chair while a bit player and the second male lead
share the big moment? It was a bold decision by both Newman, director Sidney Lumet and writer
David Mamet and it is unforgettable. The movie shows the two extremes of the practice of law. James
Mason's win-at-all-costs cheating and Paul Newman getting so emotionally wrapped up in the case
that he is no longer protecting his client's interests and instead is out to settle his own personal scores.
A great, great movie.

Page | 7
Storyline:

Frank Galvin was once a promising Boston lawyer with a bright future ahead. An incident early in his
career in which he was trying to do the right thing led to him being fired from the prestigious law firm
with which he was working, almost being disbarred, and his wife leaving him. Continually drowning
his sorrows in booze, he is now an ambulance chasing lawyer, preying on the weak and vulnerable,
and bending the truth whenever necessary to make what few dollars he has, as he has only had a few
cases in the last few years, losing the last four. His only friend in the profession is his now retired ex-
partner, Mickey Morrissey, who gets Frank a case, his fee solely a percentage of what his clients are
awarded. The case should net Frank tens of thousands of dollars by settling out of court, that money
which would at least get him back on his feet. It is a negligence suit brought on behalf of Deborah
Ann Kaye by her sister and brother-in-law, Sally and Kevin Doneghy, against St. Catherine Labouré
Hospital, operated by the Archdiocese of Boston, and Drs. Towler and Marks. Kaye was admitted to
the hospital for what should have been a routine delivery, but something that happened while Kaye
was on the operating room table led to her brain being deprived of oxygen, resulting in permanent
brain damage, and Kaye now being in a totally vegetative state requiring hospitalization for the rest of
her life. Frank eventually learns that the cause seems to be that Dr. Towler, the anesthesiologist and an
expert in the field, used the incorrect anesthetic for the situation. However, all but one person that was
in the operating room that day has provided depositions that nothing improper occurred in the
operating room. The one holdout is the operating room head nurse, Maureen Rooney, who is not
talking, period, to Frank or the other side. Upon seeing the state Kaye is in, Frank unilaterally decides
to do what he believes is the right thing by declining the lucrative out of court settlement offered by
the Archdiocese and take the case to court. In doing so, he hopes the truth that the hospital and the
doctors truly were negligent comes to light. Feeling that this case may be a turning point in his life,
Frank has a new spring in his step, enough that he attracts the attention of Laura Fischer, the two who
begin a relationship. Despite having whatever the truth is on his side, that truth which he does not
know, and having an expert witness of his own, Frank has an uphill battle in that the Archdiocese has
retained the services of Ed Concannon, a high priced lawyer who has a large team of associates whose
task is to help Concannon and the Archdiocese win at any cost. Concannon's task seems even easier as
Judge Hoyle, the presiding judge, is already biased against Frank for taking the case to court.

Implication:

There is a moment in "The Verdict" when Paul Newman walks into a room and shuts the door and
trembles with anxiety and with the inner scream that people should get off his back. No one who has
ever been seriously hung over or needed a drink will fail to recognize the moment. It is the key to his
character in "The Verdict," a movie about a drinking alcoholic who tries to pull himself together for
one last step at salvaging his self-esteem. It has a strong implication based on the following terms:

 Faith: Despite the illegal dealings of the defence team, the unjust behaviour of the judge, the
credibility problems of the defence “expert,” etc., the jury accepts there was a wrongdoing by
the defendants without certain proof of their guilt and correctly finds them guilty. It clearly
shows that sometimes, people should get their faith rewarded.

 Morality: Frank decides to bring the case to court because he believes he can get a larger
award—it just isn’t right what they did to that poor young woman; he also doesn’t want the

Page | 8
 physicians, people who are supposed to help other people, to be free to continue harming
others through negligence.

 Responsibility: Frank felt it was his responsibility to reveal the jury tampering for which he
was almost disbarred, he feels responsible for the comatose woman which almost gets him
kicked off of the case, and he thinks he is responsible for Laura’s interest in him which almost
loses the case because she is a spy for the defence team.

 Psychology: Laura “psyches-out” both Frank and Mick. She lures Frank by playing hard to
get and worms her way into his heart, being something she is not. She staves off Mick’s
doubts by being assertive and open about his suspicions of her.

Page | 9