Stars: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea
Director: Sidney Lumet
Oscar History: 5 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Paul Newman, Supporting Actor-James Mason, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars
If you look hard enough, the guy in the tan suit & striped tie in the top right next to the woman with the perm is a very famous future movie star- do you know who it is? |
(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Frank Galvin (Newman), a largely disgraced attorney who was once accused of jury tampering, in the twilight of his career. He's an alcoholic ambulance chaser, someone who barely makes rent, and is given a bone when he is sent a medical malpractice case by his friend Mickey (Warden) that seems certain to settle out of court (read: an easy payday). Frank, though, wants to take the case to court, and refuses the out-of-court settlement (to the chagrin of the victims' relatives), and has to go toe-to-toe with the hospital's legal defense team, headed by Ed Concannon (Mason), a cutthroat lawyer. The case then follows as Concannon's team goes to great lengths (scaring off witnesses and hiring a woman, Laura, played by Rampling, to seduce Frank & feed him information). In the end, though, a nurse that had been on-duty confesses that the hospital had put the patient under anesthesia even though she had recently eaten, thus causing her current medical predicament. Frank wins the case, and is left wondering whether or not his relationship with Laura is worth saving.
The Verdict gains its reputation not necessarily from the uniqueness of its plot, but the quality in which it's executed. This is, in fact, considerably better than you'd expect from even the best Law & Order episodes because it explores the soul of some of these characters. Newman is fantastic in the lead role as Frank. This was during the period where everyone was sort of wondering if Newman, a decades-long Hollywood favorite, would ever get to win his competitive Oscar (spoiler alert: he would, four years later, but this year he'd be bested by Ben Kingsley), and it's easy to see why such scuttle continued with a performance this solid. Newman's work here is grounded in not making the alcoholism Frank's totality, but part of his life. He's a high-functioning alcoholic-he's had a dwindling career, but he's still kept his career. Newman makes that a side effect of his life, just sitting there on the outskirts, creeping in when he needs it not to the most. It's great acting from a champion performer.
The film won three other nominations other than its Best Picture/Actor credentials, and all of them are well-earned. Lumet's direction is succinct, rarely giving us a shot that isn't carefully-framed, while the script is brilliant, filled with strong speeches from Newman & Mason, as well as almost no scenes that are out-of-place (I'm shocked the editing wasn't nominated). The relationship between Newman and Rampling doesn't quite gel properly, though to no fault of either actor (I don't know if I'd have nominated Rampling or not for this-I'd need to explore the year more-and she's one of my favorite performers, but there's something off in their chemistry, him too fire and her too ice). James Mason was correctly cited for the film, and unlike Newman, would never win an Academy Award; he would die less than two years after the release of The Verdict. This is a proper epitaph to the actor, though, with his distinctive voice ringing not just alongside a truly villainous character, but one who is a reminder of the audience's culpability in assuming authority is usually looking out for its best interests. The Verdict succeeds because it finds a way to not just show an underdog tale, but why underdog tales are important in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment