In this blockbuster movie from the 1980's based on Boston lawyer Barry Reed's novel, an alcoholic lawyer mired in hard times thrust upon him by a legal system that rewards cronyism tries to redeem himself by winning a medical malpractice case. See the post here.
In one scene, the lawyer, Frank Galvin (played by Paul Newman and earning an Oscar nomination) gives us a glimpse of what lies inside the gritty exterior and beyond the grimy practices.
The weak, the
weak have got to have somebody to fight for them.... That's why the court
exists. The court doesn't exist to give them justice, eh? But to give them a
chance at justice.
TheVerdict is probably my favorite law movie of all time. I am enamored with its ironies and thoughtful inquiries into the civil justice system.
Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a one time promising lawyer, now down on his luck after being victimized by ethically challenged legal employers. He has a case that is sure to get him back on his financial feet - a malpractice case against a hospital run by the powerful Archdiocese of Boston. A young mother is given a general anesthetic during childbirth and aspirates into her mask. The oxygen deprivation leaves her comatose. A settlement is all but assured, until Frank decides that he has an obligation to pursue the case to a verdict to expose the wrongdoers. But is it justice that Frank seeks or his own personal redemption?
In the eyes of many, it is usually the lawyer who wants the settlement money and the client that wants justice. In a beautifully designed reversal of roles Frank's clients, the victim's sister and her husband, are seeking a settlement to set up a perpetual care fund for their loved one before departing to Arizona to pursue work and better health. In a key scene, Frank, who is initially portrayed as a low life, turns down the substantial settlement offer to pursue "justice." It is the first time that Frank exhibits any redeeming qualities. Of course, it is also the moment when he breaches his professional obligation to his clients.
The movie examines issues of disparity of resources in civil litigation, professional ethics, civil settlements, the adversarial system, and the very nature of justice in the civil system. In a final irony, the only way justice can be acheived in court, is to ignore the law. Galvin's summation is a signal cinematic moment.
The movie is based on the novel of the same name written by Boston attorney Barry Reed. For legal popular culture buffs, it is interesting to note that Reed is the lawyer who referred to Jan Schlictmann the Woburn, MA leukemia case that was the subject of the book and movie, A Civil Action.
Top Documentary Films features an impressive list of full length documentaries available on-line free of charge. What a great way to extend the classroom by assigning movies for students to watch outside of class! The list of movies available is quite extensive and diverse. I pulled out a few relevant examples:
WalMart: The High Cost of Low Price is a documentary that is not without an agenda. Clearly the producers have set out to paint WalMart as an unethical behemoth of unbridled capitalism. Although the evidence is principally anecdotal, the stories are evocative and persuasive. The movie provides students with an effective tool for examining ethical practice in business and the limits of government regulation and civil liability controls on conduct in the legal environment. It's pedagogical value is enhanced by the fact that the movie is available to be viewed on line for free. Reviews are available here.
I have been able to create an interesting assignment by having students view a second movie, Why WalMart Works and Why That Makes Some People C-R-A-Z-Y. This is the "WalMart is good" counterpoint to the High Cost movie. There are some great scenes in here that challenge students basic understandings of business, capitalism, ethics and law, and the legal landscape upon which business operates. In one scene, an industry analyst confirms that WalMart has a fiducairy duty to maximize return on income. In another, an expert matter-of-factly points out that "there are winners and there are losers." In another scene, a teenager is heard to opine that if he worked at WalMart, he might be able to earn "thousands of dollars." The one drawback is that this movie is not as readily available for viewing.
The documentary "Hot Coffee" has recently been shown at the Sundance film festival. Below is a video of the filmaker, Susan Saladoff, a former practicing trial lawyer. Her perspective is that corporate media campaigns have perpetrated falsehoods about the McDonald's coffee case and others in order to support tort reform. The media campaigns have been successful in mis-educating the public. This movie represents her attempt to set the record straight.
Below are several interviews and reports from Democracy Now:
I have been using John Grisham's, The Rainmaker as a required assignment pretty much since it became available on DVD in the late 1990's. The movie raises important issues about the legal system and the legal profession that I simply do not have time to cover in detail in class. In that sense, this movie truly has worked for me as an extension of the classroom, allowing students to learn from an entertaining medium in a comfortable setting (their own dorm room or place of their own choosing). Although the setting of the movie may be starting to look a bit dated (Rudy talks on a cell phone that looks like the receiver of a backpack radio from a WWII movie) the issues that the movie raises about the legal system and the legal profession are relevant and provocative.
A summary of the movie plot may be found here. Reviews may be found here and here. A complete transcription (good for double checking student quotes) may be found here. Be careful to distinguish the move from a 1956 movie with Burt Lancaster and Katherine Hepburn entitled simply, "The Rainmaker."
I post "Guided Viewing Questions" for students to read prior to watching the movie on their own ( please e-mail me for a copy if you like). I place a DVD of the movie on library reserve, but our library also has acquired rights to stream the movie free to students' laptops. In the worst case scenario, students can rent a showing from Amazon for $2.99 to watch on line. I encourage students to watch the movie with other classmates. My hope is that they will spontaneously discuss this movie with their friends, as they would any movie that was watched for entertainment purposes, alone. On an appointed day, I post a question or choice of questions from the Guided Viewing list for students to answer on line. Responses are limited to 500 words. This assignment consistently produces many comments that start, "I never realized that . . ." or "I never thought about how . . ." That is what I was aiming for.
John Grisham's, The Rainmaker trailer:
Dek Shifflet (Danny DeVito) on legal ethics after "signing up" a hospital patient to a contingent fee agreement:
The American Rhetoric - Movie Speeches site gives access to a wealth of video clips from popular movies. There are a number of law related movies. Three of my favorites are:
Frank Galvin's closing argument in "The Verdict": After the judge instructs the jury to disregard the testimony of the plaintiff's keywitness, Galvin (Paul Newman) prompts the jury to nullification with the brilliantly delivered mandate, "YOU are the law."
President Andrew Shepherd's press conference address from "The American President": After his political opponent questions his character, Shepard (Michael Douglas) addresses the charges including the criticism of Shepard's girlfriend for a college-age protest in which an American flag was burned. I show this clip when we discuss Texas v. Johnson
Other law related movies from which clips are available at the site include:
Adam's Rib
Amistad
Inherit the Wind
Judgment at Nuremberg
Legally Blonde
The Hurricane
The Shawshank Redemption
To Kill a Mockingbird
Wall Street
"My Cousin Vinny" is a comedic look at the legal system. I am a great believer in the learning potential resident in comedy (as one may deduce from the posts in this blog). I also embrace the concept of extending learning opportunities beyond the time, space, and format confines of the classroom. When properly guided, watching a movie is likely a far richer and more effective learning experience for students than reading a textbook. Certainly, it is a more enjoyable experience - which helps contribute to the assignment's success.
Plot summaries are available here. Reviews are available here. This is a fabulously funny movie. But don't let its comedic presentation trivialize its educational value. I use this movie as a "flex assignment." "Guided Viewing Questions" are posted on line for the students to read prior to watching the movie (please feel free to e-mail me for a copy if you want one). I leave a DVD copy on reserve in the library but most students choose to use their Netflicks accounts or other download services to watch the movie on their laptops. After watching the movie, students may submit a short (250 word) reaction on line to earn points toward their grade. The reaction is supposed to include what the student learned about the legal system from watching this movie. In anticipation of writing this post, I took particular care to note students' responses. Once again, I was reminded of how little experience undergraduate law students posess about the legal system. It is the quality that makes teaching undergraduates simultaneously rewarding and bewildering. Here is a sample of reaction statements (paraphrased):
"I never knew that . . .
. . . evidence was so important in proving a case in court."
. . . judges were so involved in trials. I thought that juries did all the work."
. . . eyewitnesses could be mistaken."
. . . experts could testify about important information."
. . . that judges got to decide if a witness could testify or not."
. . . that coutroom rules were so important in trials."
. . . that police can make mistakes."
. . . that an innocent person could come so close to being proven guilty in court."
And, "I saw this movie before and thought it was just a funny movie. Now after learning about trials in class, I see how it all fits together and how important trials are."
While all of this may have been covered in class and written in the textbook, there is a point where lecture can begin to sound like, ". . . blah, blah, blah . . ." In its uniquely entertaining way, My Cousin Vinny does the job of contributing to student understanding about the legal system.
