Flick of The Day: And Justice For All...

Perhaps best remembered today for Al Pacino's ranting monologue which ends the film, or perhaps for the various pastiches and homages of it, today's flick of the day is Norman Jewison's And Justice For All... A big hit in its day garnering another Oscar nomination for Pacino, it is a film which is rarely given its due in comparison to other films of the era for two reasons. Firstly it is possessed of a truly dire late 70's Disco soundtrack that would not be out of place in an episode of Cagney & Lacey and which dates the film horribly getting in the way of what is a fine tale. The second reason is the inconsistent tone of the picture, veering from a courtroom drama to light comedy, leaving the viewer never quite sure whether it is fish or foul. This is unfortunate because at its heart is a decent story of good versus evil and one of Al Pacino's more varied performances of the decade that built his reputation as perhaps the best actor of his generation. 

And Justice For All...

Al Pacino is Arthur Kirkland, a rabble rousing but ultimately idealistic young lawyer working the courthouse in Baltimore. As the film opens we meet Arthur's varied cast of clients from wealthy philanderer's like Dominic Chianese's Carl to downtrodden folk seeking justice. It becomes apparent that Arthur is not your average lawyer, with an almost unrealistic zeal for the truth, exemplified by his willingness to attempt to knock out a Judge he felt was obstructing his case. Indeed at the beginning of film, Arthur is in present for contempt of court for this attempted assault on Judge Fleming, played with a dark sliminess by John Forsythe. It is this kind of farcical event that leaves you unsure of the true tone of the film. How often outside of Hollywood could a lawyer punch a Judge and still practice law? In any case, the thrust of the movie revolves around the arrest and trial of the aforementioned Judge for a brutal rape. You would imagine Arthur would be delighted to see his nemesis get his comeuppance and perhaps he is though no sooner has he digested the news of the arrest that he is approached by Judge Fleming  to act as his defence in the trial. Fleming proceeds to coerce Arthur into taking his case on, promising to see him disbarred otherwise. Arthur's attempts to exonerate this odious Judge are at the centre of the film though they are only one strand of the various problems and sub-plots that beset Arthur before his final showdown in court. Will he defend a man he hates?

Pacino excels in the role of Arthur, perhaps because it is so different to the usual performances we have becomes used to over the years. Much like his equally talented colleague Robert De Niro, over the past 15 years or so Pacino has retreated into playing a pastiche of himself. No matter the role, Pacino's characters are the always over the top and loud. There is nothing wrong with this per se, it just feels like he is operating within himself, not pushing for the performance. Perhaps this is natural in middle age but is a delight to seem him a young man again in the role of Arthur, giving the kind of wild eyed and varied performance he can deliver. 

"You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! He *told* me so! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?"

If one Judge is Arthur's nemesis then another is the closest thing he has to friend. A criminally underused Jack Warden is Judge Rayford, an interesting character who is semi-suicidal but has a fondness for Arthur yet this is never developed too deeply.

Great performances aside, it is difficult to get past the tonal shifts that cause the film to stutter. One moment, the film is almost biting in its social commentary on the dark corruption endemic at the lower levels of the American Justice system and the next is some grand farce with Arthur taking his fear of flying up in a helicopter ride above the city with Warden's Judge Rayford in a scene that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of M.A.S.H. It is unfortunate because if Barry Levinson and Valerie Curtin's script could have taken a tone and stuck to it, this could have been a classic rather then just a film that has more positives then negatives. The is essential cinema if only to see the development of cinema in the late '70s and for the work of Pacino, but it could have been more. C'est la vie.

Flick of The Day: The Verdict

The American director Sidney Lumet passed away earlier this month at age 86. This master of cinema left behind a body of work that would be the envy of any director. Spanning the ages, from the classic and oft imitated 12 Angry Men to 70's new Hollywood fare like Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon and ground breaking work like media satire Network. Today's flick of the day is another of his finest films, The Verdict.

The Verdict (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Paul Newman, is Frank Galvin, an ageing alcoholic attorney with a broken marriage in his past and a baggage filled career. He spends his days drowning Bushmills in his local bar while playing pinball, and trying to pick up clients at funerals, preying on the grief of others. He is in a bad way, and in one last attempt to help him, an old friend and mentor Mickey played by Jack Warden throws him a medical malpractice case to get him back on track. Warden is superb throughout, acting as the rock that supports Frank. The case in question appears like an easy pay day. A young woman goes into the hospital to have her third child, and is given the wrong anaesthetic leading to her slipping into a coma after severe brain damage. The hospital is owned by the local archdiocese who are keen to cover up the mistake. They offer to settle but against his clients wishes Frank goes to court. It is as much about his own redemption as getting justice for his client who has been grievously wronged. On the opposing side, is a conniving Judge, played by the great Milo O'Shea who doesn't want the case in his court and a defence lawyer who is without scruples, in an Oscar nominated performance from James Mason. Against all the odds, Frank tries the case and as the obstacles mount up, gives his all in the search for justice, including sacrificing his relationship with Charlotte Rampling who has more to her then meets the eye.

The actors are aided in their performances by a great script from David Mamet, whose fine work we have reviewed before. The dialogue gets to the heart of the matter and offers some great interplay between the characters, particularly in the court room scenes. The shocking testimony of the admitting nurse is a highlight when James Mason breaks the cardinal rule of cross examination, asking a question you don't know the answer to. You will almost feel the urge to cheer to finally see the good out.

Judge Hoyle: It seems to me, a fellow's trying to come back, he'd take the settlement, get a record for himself. I, myself. would take it and run like a thief. 

Frank Galvin: I'm sure you would.

This is after all the classic tale of David Vs Goliath. Paul Newman excels in the role of Frank Galvin, another in the long line of great performances earning him his fifth of eight Oscar nominations. Lumet shoots the film with a lot of wide angles, we are viewing this as outsiders. It is almost a documentary feel, an indictment of the American justice system and how hard it is to obtain justice.

The film isn't showy, Boston is a dark cold city, permanently bathed in snow. All of the interiors seem weathered and have seen better days, much like Paul Newman's Frank. There is very little music, indeed very little noise of any kind, focusing the viewer's attention on Newman's performance, which as I've said is superb.

Frank Galvin: You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law. Not some book... not the lawyers... not the, a marble statue... or the trappings of the court. See those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are... they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, "Act as if ye had faith... and faith will be given to you." IF... if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts

All in all, a great film, not Lumet's best but its definitely up there. A host of great actors, Newman, Mason and Warden make the best of a great Mamet script. What else can I say?