Jump to content

The Verdict: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Formatted refs
(21 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1982 American legal drama film by Sidney Lumet}}
{{Short description|1982 film by Sidney Lumet}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Infobox film
{{Infobox film
Line 16: Line 16:
| director = [[Sidney Lumet]]
| director = [[Sidney Lumet]]
| producer = [[David Brown (producer)|David Brown]]<br/>[[Richard D. Zanuck]]
| producer = [[David Brown (producer)|David Brown]]<br/>[[Richard D. Zanuck]]
| studio = [[20th Century-Fox]]<ref name="afi">{{cite web |title=The Verdict |url=https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/56898 |website=AFI Catalog |publisher=American Film Institute}}</ref><br>[[The Zanuck Company|The Zanuck/Brown Company]]<ref name="afi"/>
| studio = [[20th Century Fox]]
| distributor = 20th Century Fox
| distributor = 20th Century-Fox
| music = [[Johnny Mandel]]
| music = [[Johnny Mandel]]
| color_process = Deluxe Color
| color_process = Deluxe Color
Line 30: Line 30:
}}
}}


'''''The Verdict''''' is a 1982 American [[legal drama]] film directed by [[Sidney Lumet]] and written by [[David Mamet]], adapted from [[Barry Reed (author)|Barry Reed]]'s 1980 novel of the same name. It stars [[Paul Newman]], [[Charlotte Rampling]], [[Jack Warden]], [[James Mason]], [[Milo O'Shea]], and [[Lindsay Crouse]]. A down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer accepts a [[medical malpractice]] case to improve his own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing.
'''''The Verdict''''' is a 1982 American [[legal drama]] film directed by [[Sidney Lumet]] and written by [[David Mamet]], adapted from [[Barry Reed (author)|Barry Reed]]'s 1980 novel of the same name. The film stars [[Paul Newman]] as a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer who accepts a [[medical malpractice]] case to improve his own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing. [[Charlotte Rampling]], [[Jack Warden]], [[James Mason]], [[Milo O'Shea]], and [[Lindsay Crouse]] also star in supporting roles.


''The Verdict'' garnered critical acclaim and box office success. The film was nominated for five [[Academy Awards]], including [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], [[Academy Award for Directing|Best Director]], [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor in a Leading Role]] (Newman), [[Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor|Best Actor in a Supporting Role]] (Mason), and [[Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay|Best Adapted Screenplay]].
''The Verdict'' garnered critical acclaim and box office success. It was nominated for five [[Academy Awards]]: [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], [[Academy Award for Directing|Best Director]], [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor in a Leading Role]] (Newman), [[Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor|Best Actor in a Supporting Role]] (Mason), and [[Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay|Best Adapted Screenplay]].


==Plot==
==Plot==
<!--Per WP:FILMPLOT, plots are 400 to 700 words ONLY-->
<!--Per WP:FILMPLOT, plots are 400 to 700 words ONLY-->
Once-promising attorney Frank Galvin is an alcoholic [[ambulance chaser]]. As a favor, former partner Mickey Morrissey sends him a [[medical malpractice]] case which is all but certain to be settled out-of-court for a significant amount. The case involves a young woman given general [[anesthesia]] during childbirth at a Catholic hospital, after which she choked on her vomit and was left [[coma]]tose. The [[plaintiff]]s, her sister and brother-in-law, intend to use the settlement to pay for her care.
Once-promising attorney Frank Galvin is an alcoholic [[ambulance chaser]]. As a favor, former partner Mickey Morrissey sends him a [[medical malpractice]] case which is all but certain to be settled for a significant amount. The case involves a young woman given general [[anesthesia]] during childbirth at a Catholic hospital, after which she choked on her vomit and was left [[coma]]tose. The [[plaintiff]]s, her sister and brother-in-law, intend to use the settlement to pay for her care.


Galvin is deeply affected upon seeing the woman. A representative of the Catholic diocese offers a $210,000 settlement. Without his clients' knowledge, Galvin declines and states his intention to take the case to trial, stunning the opposing party and the [[judge]] assigned to the case. While preparing for trial, Galvin encounters a young woman, Laura Fischer, in a bar and becomes romantically involved with her.
Galvin is deeply affected upon seeing the woman. A representative of the Catholic diocese offers a $210,000 settlement (about $675,000 in 2024). Galvin declines and states his intention to go to trial, stunning the opposing party and the [[judge]]. While preparing for trial, Galvin encounters Laura Fischer in a bar and they become romantically involved.


Galvin experiences several setbacks. The hospital's attorney, Ed Concannon, has a large legal team that is masterful with the press. The comatose woman's brother-in-law angrily confronts Galvin after Concannon's team tells him of the settlement offer that Galvin rejected. Galvin's [[expert witness|medical expert]] "disappears" before testifying (almost certainly as a result of pressure and/or payoff from the defense), and a hastily-arranged substitute's credentials are challenged. Nobody who was in the operating room is willing to testify that negligence occurred.
Galvin experiences several setbacks. The hospital's attorney, Ed Concannon, has a large legal team that is masterful with the press. The comatose woman's brother-in-law angrily confronts Galvin after Concannon's team tells him of the settlement offer that Galvin rejected. Galvin's [[expert witness|medical expert]] disappears before testifying and a hastily arranged substitute's credentials are challenged. Nobody who was in the operating room is willing to testify that negligence occurred.


In chambers during the trial, Judge Hoyle threatens Galvin with [[disbarment]], but Galvin angrily dismisses him as a [[bagman]] for the local political machine and "[[defendant]]'s judge" who is on the bench because he couldn't "hack it" as a lawyer. Hoyle denies Galvin's motion for a mistrial and threatens to have him arrested. Galvin storms out.
In chambers during the trial, Judge Hoyle threatens Galvin with [[disbarment]], but Galvin angrily dismisses him as a [[bagman]] for the local political machine and "[[defendant]]'s judge" who is on the bench because he couldn't "hack it" as a lawyer. Hoyle denies Galvin's motion for a mistrial and threatens to have him arrested. Galvin storms out.


Although no one in the operating room at the time of the incident is willing to help Galvin, he decides to check those ''not'' in the operating room. Galvin notices that the admitting nurse -- Kaitlin Costello -- filled out a form that included the question "When did you last eat?". Costello is now a pre-school teacher in New York City. Galvin travels there to seek her help. As Laura hastily arranges to meet him, Morrissey discovers a check from Concannon in her handbag and realizes Concannon is paying her for inside information. Morrissey informs Galvin of Laura's betrayal, and Galvin confronts her in a bar. He strikes her, knocking her to the floor. On the flight back to Boston Morrissey suggests moving for a mistrial due to Concannon's ethics violation, but Galvin decides to continue.
Galvin notices the admitting nurse, Kaitlin Costello, filled out a form that included the question, "When did you last eat?" Galvin and Morrissey discover she is now a pre-school teacher in New York City. Galvin travels there to seek her help. As Laura hastily arranges to meet him, Morrissey discovers a check in her handbag and realizes Concannon is paying her for inside information. Morrissey informs Galvin of Laura's betrayal, Galvin confronts her in a bar and strikes her, knocking her to the floor. On the flight back to Boston, Morrissey suggests moving for a mistrial due to Concannon's ethics violation, but Galvin decides to continue.


In the courtroom, Costello testifies she wrote that the patient ate a full meal one hour before being admitted, which contradicts the patient record that states a nine-hour interval. On cross-examination, an incredulous Concannon asks how she can prove this. Costello reveals that her superiors threatened her with termination unless she changed the original record from "1" to "9," but before doing so, she made a photocopy, which she brought to court. Concannon objects that for legal purposes, the original is presumed to be correct, but Hoyle unexpectedly reserves judgment. Costello testifies that the [[Anesthesiology|anesthesiologist]] later confessed that he had failed to read her admitting notes and administered general anesthesia, which is incorrect for someone who ate only one hour prior. As a result, the patient vomited and choked. When the anesthesiologist realized his error, he threatened to end Costello's career if she did not change the "1" to a "9."
In the courtroom, Costello testifies she wrote the patient ate a full meal one hour before being admitted, contradicting the patient record, which states a nine-hour interval. On cross-examination, an incredulous Concannon asks how she can prove this. Costello reveals that her superiors threatened her with termination unless she changed the original record from "1" to "9," but before doing so, she made a photocopy, which she brought to court. Concannon objects that for legal purposes, the original is presumed to be correct, but Hoyle unexpectedly reserves judgment. Costello testifies that the [[Anesthesiology|anesthesiologist]] later confessed that he had failed to read her admitting notes and administered general anesthesia, which is incorrect for someone who ate only one hour prior. As a result, the patient vomited and choked. When the anesthesiologist realized his error, he threatened to end Costello's career if she did not change the admitting form.


After Costello is dismissed, Concannon again objects on the grounds that the hospital's original admitting record has precedence. Hoyle agrees and declares Costello's testimony [[Motion to strike (court of law)|stricken from the record]]. Afterward, a diocese lawyer praises Concannon's performance to the bishop, who asks, "But do you believe her?" and is met with embarrassed silence.
After Costello is dismissed, Concannon again objects on the grounds that the hospital's original admitting record has precedence. Hoyle agrees and declares Costello's testimony [[Motion to strike (court of law)|stricken from the record]]. Afterward, a diocese lawyer praises Concannon's performance to the bishop, who asks, "But do you believe her?" and is met with embarrassed silence.


Despite believing his case is hopeless, Galvin gives a brief but passionate [[closing argument]]. The jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs, and the foreman asks whether the jury can award more than what was asked for. Hoyle resignedly replies that they can. As Galvin is congratulated outside the courtroom, he catches a glimpse of Laura watching him from across the atrium.
Despite believing his case is hopeless, Galvin gives a brief but passionate [[closing argument]]. The jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs, and the foreman asks whether the jury can award more than what was asked for. Hoyle resignedly replies they can. As Galvin is congratulated outside the courtroom, he catches a glimpse of Laura watching him from across the atrium.


That night, a drunk Laura drops her whiskey on the floor, drags her telephone towards her, and dials Galvin's office number. As his phone rings, Frank sits with a cup of coffee. He moves to answer the call but changes his mind and lets the phone continue to ring.
That night, a drunk Laura drops her whiskey on the floor, drags her telephone towards her, and dials Galvin's office number. Galvin is sitting with a cup of coffee. He moves to answer the call but changes his mind and lets the phone continue to ring.


==Cast==
==Cast==
Line 76: Line 76:


==Production==
==Production==
Film rights to Reed’s novel were bought by the team of Richard Zanuck and David Brown. A number of actors, including [[Roy Scheider]], [[William Holden]], [[Frank Sinatra]], [[Cary Grant]] and [[Dustin Hoffman]], expressed interest in the project because of the strength of the lead role. [[Arthur Hiller]] was originally attached to direct while [[David Mamet]] was hired to write a screenplay.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67">{{cite book|first=William |last=Goldman |author-link=William Goldman |title=Adventures in the Screen Trade |publisher=Grand Central Publishing |year=1983 |pages=62-67 |isbn=978-0446391177}}</ref>
Film rights to Reed’s novel were bought by the team of Richard Zanuck and David Brown. A number of actors, including [[Roy Scheider]], [[William Holden]], [[Frank Sinatra]], [[Cary Grant]] and [[Dustin Hoffman]], expressed interest in the project because of the strength of the lead role. [[Arthur Hiller]] was originally attached to direct while [[David Mamet]] was hired to write a screenplay.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67">{{cite book|first=William |last=Goldman |author-link=William Goldman |title=Adventures in the Screen Trade |publisher=Grand Central Publishing |year=1983 |pages=62–67 |isbn=978-0446391177}}</ref> Though Mamet had made a name for himself in the theater, he was still new to screenwriting (his first film credit had come in 1978).<ref>{{cite web|last=Rabin|first=Nathan|title=Joe Mantegna|date=21 April 2009|website=The A.V. Club|url=https://www.avclub.com/joe-mantegna-1798216310|accessdate=19 October 2022}}</ref> The producers were uncertain whether Mamet would take the job given the standards he set with his own previous work, but according to [[Lindsay Crouse]], who was then married to Mamet, the film was actually a big deal for him. Crouse also recalled Mamet struggling initially with Galvin's closing summation, but he finally came up with the scene after staying up an entire night working on it.<ref name=dvdextra1>{{cite AV media|title=Milestones in Cinema History: The Verdict|type=featurette|publisher=[[20th Century Fox]]|year=2007}}</ref>


⚫
Mamet's original draft ended the film after the jury left the courtroom for deliberations, giving no resolution to the case. Neither Zanuck nor Brown believed they could make the film without showing what happened, and Zanuck met with Mamet to convince him to re-write the ending. However, Mamet told Zanuck that the ending he wanted was "old-fashioned" and would hurt the film. He also reacted negatively to Zanuck's use of sarcasm to make his point, as Zanuck claimed his copy of the script was missing its final pages before telling Mamet the film title would need a question mark after it.<ref name=dvdextra1/> Hiller also disliked Mamet's script, and left the project. The producers commissioned another screenplay from [[Jay Presson Allen]], which they preferred, and they were later approached by [[Robert Redford]] to star in the film when he obtained a copy of the script from Allen.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/><ref name=dvdextra1/> Redford suggested [[James Bridges]] as a writer-director, and he had Bridges write several drafts of the screenplay, more or less sanitizing the lead character as he was concerned about playing a hard-drinking womanizer.<ref name=dvdextra1/><ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/> Neither the producers nor Redford were happy with the rewrites and soon Bridges left the project. Redford then began having meetings with [[Sydney Pollack]] without telling the producers; irritated, they fired Redford.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/>
Though Mamet had made a name for himself in the theater, he was still new to screenwriting (his first film credit had come in 1978).<ref>{{cite web|last=Rabin|first=Nathan|title=Joe Mantegna|date=21 April 2009|website=The A.V. Club|url=https://www.avclub.com/joe-mantegna-1798216310|accessdate=19 October 2022}}</ref> The producers were uncertain whether Mamet would take the job given the standards he set with his own previous work, but according to [[Lindsay Crouse]], who was then married to Mamet, the film was actually a big deal for him. Crouse also recalled Mamet struggling initially with Galvin's closing summation, but he finally came up with the scene after staying up an entire evening working on it.<ref name=dvdextra1>{{cite AV media|title=Milestones in Cinema History: The Verdict|type=featurette|publisher=[[20th Century Fox]]|year=2007}}</ref>


⚫
Zanuck and Brown then hired [[Sidney Lumet]] to direct, sending him all versions of the script. After several rewrites, Lumet decided the story's original grittiness was fast devolving and chose Mamet's original script. This was agreed to by Paul Newman, who ultimately agreed to star.<ref>Shawn Levy, ''Paul Newman: A Life,'' p. 436.</ref> Lumet recalled that they had to rework only one or two scenes, mainly giving the trial a resolution as Zanuck and Brown had originally requested. Unlike Zanuck, when Lumet approached Mamet, he was able to get his approval to make that change to his original work.<ref name=dvdextra1/> Lumet then recruited Warden and Mason, both of whom he had worked with before. He wasn't sure if Mason, a renowned actor in that era, would take a supporting role, but Mason liked Mamet's script and did not object.<ref name=dvdextra1/>
⚫
Mamet's original draft ended the film after the jury left the courtroom for deliberations, giving no resolution to the case. Neither Zanuck nor Brown believed they could make the film without showing what happened, and Zanuck met with Mamet to convince him to re-write the ending. However, Mamet told Zanuck that the ending he wanted was "old-fashioned" and would hurt the film. He also reacted negatively to Zanuck's use of sarcasm to make his point, as Zanuck claimed his copy of the script was missing its final pages before telling Mamet the film title would need a question mark after it.<ref name=dvdextra1/>


⚫
Prior to filming, Lumet held extensive dress rehearsals, standard practice for Lumet's films but not common on Hollywood productions. Newman was appreciative as they proved crucial in developing his performance, giving him the time he needed to tap into the emotional bankruptcy of his character.<ref name=dvdextra2>{{cite AV media|title=Hollywood Backstories: The Verdict|type=featurette|publisher=[[AMC (TV channel)|AMC]]|year=2001}}</ref> At one point during production, Newman barely avoided serious injury when a light estimated to weigh several hundred pounds fell about three feet away from him after breaking through its supports. The wood planks were apparently weakened by overnight rain.<ref name=dvdextra2/>
Hiller also disliked Mamet's script, and left the project. The producers commissioned another screenplay from [[Jay Presson Allen]], which they preferred, and they were later approached by [[Robert Redford]] to star in the film when he obtained a copy of the script from Allen.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/><ref name=dvdextra1/>


⚫
The producers were reluctant to keep the scene where Newman strikes Rampling, believing it would turn the audience against his character and even damage his public image. Newman insisted on keeping it, believing it was right for the story.<ref name=dvdextra2/> After the film was finished, the studio's executives sent Lumet several suggestions and urged him to rework the ending with Galvin finally answering Laura's phone call, but Zanuck said that Lumet had final cut authority, and the film would remain as completed.<ref name=dvdextra1/> [[Bruce Willis]] and [[Tobin Bell]] have uncredited background appearances.<ref name="Jokic">{{cite news|last=Jokic|first=Natasha|date=8 January 2022|title=15 Super-Famous Actors Who You Might Be Surprised Started Off As Extras|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/celebrity-actor-extras|work=BuzzFeed|location=New York, NY}}</ref> They are seated together as extras in the final courtroom scene.<ref name="Jokic"/>
Redford suggested [[James Bridges]] as a writer-director, and he had Bridges write several drafts of the screenplay, more or less sanitizing the lead character as he was concerned about playing a hard-drinking womanizer.<ref name=dvdextra1/><ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/> Neither the producers nor Redford were happy with the rewrites and soon Bridges left the project. Redford then began having meetings with [[Sydney Pollack]] without telling the producers; irritated, they fired Redford.<ref name="William Goldman p 62-67"/>

⚫
Zanuck and Brown then hired [[Sidney Lumet]] to direct, sending him all versions of the script. After several rewrites, Lumet decided the story's original grittiness was fast devolving and chose Mamet's original script. This was agreed to by Paul Newman, who ultimately agreed to star.<ref>Shawn Levy, ''Paul Newman: A Life,'' p. 436.</ref> Lumet recalled that they had to rework only one or two scenes, mainly giving the trial a resolution as Zanuck and Brown had originally requested. Unlike Zanuck, when Lumet approached Mamet, he was able to get his approval to make that change to his original work.<ref name=dvdextra1/>

Lumet then recruited Warden and Mason, both of whom he had worked with before. He wasn't sure if Mason, a renowned actor in that era, would take a supporting role, but Mason liked Mamet's script and did not object.<ref name=dvdextra1/>

⚫
Prior to filming, Lumet held extensive dress rehearsals, standard practice for Lumet's films but not common on Hollywood productions. Newman was appreciative as they proved crucial in developing his performance, giving him the time he needed to tap into the emotional bankruptcy of his character.<ref name=dvdextra2>{{cite AV media|title=Hollywood Backstories: The Verdict|type=featurette|publisher=[[AMC (TV channel)|AMC]]|year=2001}}</ref>

At one point during production, Newman barely avoided serious injury when a light estimated to weigh several hundred pounds fell about three feet away from him after breaking through its supports. The wood planks were apparently weakened by overnight rain.<ref name=dvdextra2/>

⚫
[[Bruce Willis]] and [[Tobin Bell]] have uncredited background appearances.<ref name="Jokic">{{cite news|last=Jokic|first=Natasha|date=8 January 2022|title=15 Super-Famous Actors Who You Might Be Surprised Started Off As Extras|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/celebrity-actor-extras|work=BuzzFeed|location=New York, NY}}</ref> They are seated together as extras in the final courtroom scene.<ref name="Jokic"/>

The producers were reluctant to keep the scene where Newman strikes Rampling, believing it would turn the audience against his character and even damage his public image. Newman insisted on keeping it, believing it was right for the story.<ref name=dvdextra2/>

After the film was finished, the studio's executives sent Lumet several suggestions and urged him to rework the ending with Galvin finally answering Laura's phone call, but Zanuck said that Lumet had final cut authority, and the film would remain as completed.<ref name=dvdextra1/>


==Reception==
==Reception==
[[Rotten Tomatoes]] gives the film an approval rating of 89%, with an average rating of 7.8/10, based on 36 reviews. The website's critics consensus reads: "Paul Newman is at the peak of his powers as an attorney who never lived up to his potential in ''The Verdict'', supported by David Mamet's crackling script and Sidney Lumet's confident direction."<ref>{{Cite Rotten Tomatoes|id=verdict|type=m|title=The Verdict|access-date=19 October 2022}}</ref> {{Metacritic film prose |score=77 |count=17}}<ref>{{cite Metacritic |id=the-verdict|title=The Verdict Reviews |type=movie |access-date=January 19, 2023}}</ref>
[[Rotten Tomatoes]] gives the film an approval rating of 88%, with an average rating of 7.8/10, based on 40 reviews. The website's critics consensus reads: "Paul Newman is at the peak of his powers as an attorney who never lived up to his potential in ''The Verdict'', supported by David Mamet's crackling script and Sidney Lumet's confident direction."<ref>{{Cite Rotten Tomatoes|id=verdict|type=m|title=The Verdict|access-date=8 March 2024}}</ref> {{Metacritic film prose |score=77 |count=17}}<ref>{{cite Metacritic |id=the-verdict|title=The Verdict Reviews |type=movie |access-date=January 19, 2023}}</ref>


In a poll of 500 films held by ''[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]]'' magazine, it was voted 254th Greatest Movie of all time.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/500/48.asp|title=''Empire's'' The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|work=[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]]|access-date=19 October 2022|archive-date=8 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908084527/http://www.empireonline.com/500/48.asp|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2013, the [[Writers Guild of America]] ranked the screenplay #91 on its list of the "101 greatest screenplays ever written".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=WGA Lists Greatest Screenplays, From 'Casablanca' and 'Godfather' to 'Memento' and 'Notorious'|access-date=19 October 2022|archive-date=30 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191130130322/https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|url-status=live}}</ref> Richard D. Pepperman praised the scene in which Judge Hoyle eats breakfast and offers Galvin coffee as "a terrific use of objects, making for a believable judge in his personal, comfortable and suitable place, as well as a Physical Action (motion) that demonstrates the subtext of the Judge's objective (in support of the insurance company, the doctor and their attorney) without an abundance of expository dialogue."<ref>{{cite book|last=Pepperman|first=Richard D.|title=Film School: How to Watch DVDs and Learn Everything about Filmmaking|year=2008|publisher=Michael Wiese Productions|isbn=9781615930401|pages=184–185|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lgVZPfv1K6MC&pg=PT185|access-date=7 April 2013}}</ref>
In a poll of 500 films held by ''[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]]'' magazine, it was voted 254th Greatest Movie of all time.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/500/48.asp|title=''Empire's'' The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|work=[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]]|access-date=19 October 2022|archive-date=8 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908084527/http://www.empireonline.com/500/48.asp|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2013, the [[Writers Guild of America]] ranked the screenplay #91 on its list of the "101 greatest screenplays ever written".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=WGA Lists Greatest Screenplays, From 'Casablanca' and 'Godfather' to 'Memento' and 'Notorious'|access-date=19 October 2022|archive-date=30 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191130130322/https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|url-status=live}}</ref> Richard D. Pepperman praised the scene in which Judge Hoyle eats breakfast and offers Galvin coffee as "a terrific use of objects, making for a believable judge in his personal, comfortable and suitable place, as well as a Physical Action (motion) that demonstrates the subtext of the Judge's objective (in support of the insurance company, the doctor and their attorney) without an abundance of expository dialogue."<ref>{{cite book|last=Pepperman|first=Richard D.|title=Film School: How to Watch DVDs and Learn Everything about Filmmaking|year=2008|publisher=Michael Wiese Productions|isbn=9781615930401|pages=184–185|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lgVZPfv1K6MC&pg=PT185|access-date=7 April 2013}}</ref>
Line 108: Line 94:


The film is recognized by the [[American Film Institute]] in these lists:
The film is recognized by the [[American Film Institute]] in these lists:
* [[AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains]]: Frank Galvin – Nominated Hero<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/handv400.pdf|title=AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains Nominees|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-date=4 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104022712/http://www.afi.com/Docs/100years/handv400.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* 2006: [[AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers]] – #75<ref>{{cite web|title=AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers|url= https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-cheers/ |publisher=[[American Film Institute]]|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-date=16 March 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130316140946/http://afi.com/Docs/100Years/cheers100.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* 2006: [[AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers]] – #75<ref>{{cite web|title=AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers|url= https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-cheers/ |publisher=[[American Film Institute]]|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-date=16 March 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130316140946/http://afi.com/Docs/100Years/cheers100.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* 2008: [[AFI's 10 Top 10]]: #4 Courtroom Drama Film<ref>{{cite web|title=AFI's 10 Top 10: Top 10 Courtroom Drama|url=http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=9|publisher=American Film Institute|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-date=28 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328081254/http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=9|url-status=live}}</ref>
* 2008: [[AFI's 10 Top 10]]: #4 Courtroom Drama Film<ref>{{cite web|title=AFI's 10 Top 10: Top 10 Courtroom Drama|url=http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=9|publisher=American Film Institute|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-date=28 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328081254/http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=9|url-status=live}}</ref>
Line 122: Line 107:
* {{IMDb title|0084855|The Verdict}}
* {{IMDb title|0084855|The Verdict}}
* {{TCMDb title|18651|The Verdict}}
* {{TCMDb title|18651|The Verdict}}
* {{amg movie|52313}}
* {{allMovie title|52313}}
* {{AFI film|56898}}
* {{AFI film|56898}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|verdict}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|verdict}}

Revision as of 07:55, 18 May 2024

For other uses, see The Verdict (disambiguation).
The Verdict
Theatrical release poster
Directed bySidney Lumet
Screenplay byDavid Mamet
Based onThe Verdict
by Barry Reed
Produced byDavid Brown
Richard D. Zanuck
Starring
CinematographyAndrzej Bartkowiak
Edited byPeter C. Frank
Music byJohnny Mandel
Color processDeluxe Color
Production
companies
Distributed by20th Century-Fox
Release date
  • December 8, 1982 (1982-12-08)
Running time
129 minutes
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Budget$16 million[2][3]
Box office$54 million[4]

The Verdict is a 1982 American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet and written by David Mamet, adapted from Barry Reed's 1980 novel of the same name. The film stars Paul Newman as a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer who accepts a medical malpractice case to improve his own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing. Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea, and Lindsay Crouse also star in supporting roles.

The Verdict garnered critical acclaim and box office success. It was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role (Newman), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Mason), and Best Adapted Screenplay.

Plot

Once-promising attorney Frank Galvin is an alcoholic ambulance chaser. As a favor, former partner Mickey Morrissey sends him a medical malpractice case which is all but certain to be settled for a significant amount. The case involves a young woman given general anesthesia during childbirth at a Catholic hospital, after which she choked on her vomit and was left comatose. The plaintiffs, her sister and brother-in-law, intend to use the settlement to pay for her care.

Galvin is deeply affected upon seeing the woman. A representative of the Catholic diocese offers a $210,000 settlement (about $675,000 in 2024). Galvin declines and states his intention to go to trial, stunning the opposing party and the judge. While preparing for trial, Galvin encounters Laura Fischer in a bar and they become romantically involved.

Galvin experiences several setbacks. The hospital's attorney, Ed Concannon, has a large legal team that is masterful with the press. The comatose woman's brother-in-law angrily confronts Galvin after Concannon's team tells him of the settlement offer that Galvin rejected. Galvin's medical expert disappears before testifying and a hastily arranged substitute's credentials are challenged. Nobody who was in the operating room is willing to testify that negligence occurred.

In chambers during the trial, Judge Hoyle threatens Galvin with disbarment, but Galvin angrily dismisses him as a bagman for the local political machine and "defendant's judge" who is on the bench because he couldn't "hack it" as a lawyer. Hoyle denies Galvin's motion for a mistrial and threatens to have him arrested. Galvin storms out.

Galvin notices the admitting nurse, Kaitlin Costello, filled out a form that included the question, "When did you last eat?" Galvin and Morrissey discover she is now a pre-school teacher in New York City. Galvin travels there to seek her help. As Laura hastily arranges to meet him, Morrissey discovers a check in her handbag and realizes Concannon is paying her for inside information. Morrissey informs Galvin of Laura's betrayal, Galvin confronts her in a bar and strikes her, knocking her to the floor. On the flight back to Boston, Morrissey suggests moving for a mistrial due to Concannon's ethics violation, but Galvin decides to continue.

In the courtroom, Costello testifies she wrote the patient ate a full meal one hour before being admitted, contradicting the patient record, which states a nine-hour interval. On cross-examination, an incredulous Concannon asks how she can prove this. Costello reveals that her superiors threatened her with termination unless she changed the original record from "1" to "9," but before doing so, she made a photocopy, which she brought to court. Concannon objects that for legal purposes, the original is presumed to be correct, but Hoyle unexpectedly reserves judgment. Costello testifies that the anesthesiologist later confessed that he had failed to read her admitting notes and administered general anesthesia, which is incorrect for someone who ate only one hour prior. As a result, the patient vomited and choked. When the anesthesiologist realized his error, he threatened to end Costello's career if she did not change the admitting form.

After Costello is dismissed, Concannon again objects on the grounds that the hospital's original admitting record has precedence. Hoyle agrees and declares Costello's testimony stricken from the record. Afterward, a diocese lawyer praises Concannon's performance to the bishop, who asks, "But do you believe her?" and is met with embarrassed silence.

Despite believing his case is hopeless, Galvin gives a brief but passionate closing argument. The jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs, and the foreman asks whether the jury can award more than what was asked for. Hoyle resignedly replies they can. As Galvin is congratulated outside the courtroom, he catches a glimpse of Laura watching him from across the atrium.

That night, a drunk Laura drops her whiskey on the floor, drags her telephone towards her, and dials Galvin's office number. Galvin is sitting with a cup of coffee. He moves to answer the call but changes his mind and lets the phone continue to ring.

Cast

Production

Film rights to Reed’s novel were bought by the team of Richard Zanuck and David Brown. A number of actors, including Roy Scheider, William Holden, Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant and Dustin Hoffman, expressed interest in the project because of the strength of the lead role. Arthur Hiller was originally attached to direct while David Mamet was hired to write a screenplay.[5] Though Mamet had made a name for himself in the theater, he was still new to screenwriting (his first film credit had come in 1978).[6] The producers were uncertain whether Mamet would take the job given the standards he set with his own previous work, but according to Lindsay Crouse, who was then married to Mamet, the film was actually a big deal for him. Crouse also recalled Mamet struggling initially with Galvin's closing summation, but he finally came up with the scene after staying up an entire night working on it.[7]

Mamet's original draft ended the film after the jury left the courtroom for deliberations, giving no resolution to the case. Neither Zanuck nor Brown believed they could make the film without showing what happened, and Zanuck met with Mamet to convince him to re-write the ending. However, Mamet told Zanuck that the ending he wanted was "old-fashioned" and would hurt the film. He also reacted negatively to Zanuck's use of sarcasm to make his point, as Zanuck claimed his copy of the script was missing its final pages before telling Mamet the film title would need a question mark after it.[7] Hiller also disliked Mamet's script, and left the project. The producers commissioned another screenplay from Jay Presson Allen, which they preferred, and they were later approached by Robert Redford to star in the film when he obtained a copy of the script from Allen.[5][7] Redford suggested James Bridges as a writer-director, and he had Bridges write several drafts of the screenplay, more or less sanitizing the lead character as he was concerned about playing a hard-drinking womanizer.[7][5] Neither the producers nor Redford were happy with the rewrites and soon Bridges left the project. Redford then began having meetings with Sydney Pollack without telling the producers; irritated, they fired Redford.[5]

Zanuck and Brown then hired Sidney Lumet to direct, sending him all versions of the script. After several rewrites, Lumet decided the story's original grittiness was fast devolving and chose Mamet's original script. This was agreed to by Paul Newman, who ultimately agreed to star.[8] Lumet recalled that they had to rework only one or two scenes, mainly giving the trial a resolution as Zanuck and Brown had originally requested. Unlike Zanuck, when Lumet approached Mamet, he was able to get his approval to make that change to his original work.[7] Lumet then recruited Warden and Mason, both of whom he had worked with before. He wasn't sure if Mason, a renowned actor in that era, would take a supporting role, but Mason liked Mamet's script and did not object.[7]

Prior to filming, Lumet held extensive dress rehearsals, standard practice for Lumet's films but not common on Hollywood productions. Newman was appreciative as they proved crucial in developing his performance, giving him the time he needed to tap into the emotional bankruptcy of his character.[9] At one point during production, Newman barely avoided serious injury when a light estimated to weigh several hundred pounds fell about three feet away from him after breaking through its supports. The wood planks were apparently weakened by overnight rain.[9]

The producers were reluctant to keep the scene where Newman strikes Rampling, believing it would turn the audience against his character and even damage his public image. Newman insisted on keeping it, believing it was right for the story.[9] After the film was finished, the studio's executives sent Lumet several suggestions and urged him to rework the ending with Galvin finally answering Laura's phone call, but Zanuck said that Lumet had final cut authority, and the film would remain as completed.[7] Bruce Willis and Tobin Bell have uncredited background appearances.[10] They are seated together as extras in the final courtroom scene.[10]

Reception

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an approval rating of 88%, with an average rating of 7.8/10, based on 40 reviews. The website's critics consensus reads: "Paul Newman is at the peak of his powers as an attorney who never lived up to his potential in The Verdict, supported by David Mamet's crackling script and Sidney Lumet's confident direction."[11] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 77 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[12]

In a poll of 500 films held by Empire magazine, it was voted 254th Greatest Movie of all time.[13] In 2013, the Writers Guild of America ranked the screenplay #91 on its list of the "101 greatest screenplays ever written".[14] Richard D. Pepperman praised the scene in which Judge Hoyle eats breakfast and offers Galvin coffee as "a terrific use of objects, making for a believable judge in his personal, comfortable and suitable place, as well as a Physical Action (motion) that demonstrates the subtext of the Judge's objective (in support of the insurance company, the doctor and their attorney) without an abundance of expository dialogue."[15]

The film opened in 3 theaters in New York City and grossed $143,265 in its first 5 days.[16] The following weekend it expanded to 615 screens and grossed $2,331,805, finishing seventh for the weekend,[17] and went on to gross $54 million.[4]

The film is recognized by the American Film Institute in these lists:

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "The Verdict". AFI Catalog. American Film Institute.
  2. ^ "The Verdict". The Numbers. Nash Information Services, LLC. Retrieved February 19, 2021.
  3. ^ Solomon, Aubrey (1989). Twentieth Century Fox: A Corporate and Financial History. Scarecrow Press. p. 260. ISBN 978-0810842441.
  4. ^ a b "The Verdict". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
  5. ^ a b c d Goldman, William (1983). Adventures in the Screen Trade. Grand Central Publishing. pp. 62–67. ISBN 978-0446391177.
  6. ^ Rabin, Nathan (21 April 2009). "Joe Mantegna". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Milestones in Cinema History: The Verdict (featurette). 20th Century Fox. 2007.
  8. ^ Shawn Levy, Paul Newman: A Life, p. 436.
  9. ^ a b c Hollywood Backstories: The Verdict (featurette). AMC. 2001.
  10. ^ a b Jokic, Natasha (8 January 2022). "15 Super-Famous Actors Who You Might Be Surprised Started Off As Extras". BuzzFeed. New York, NY.
  11. ^ "The Verdict". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved 8 March 2024.
  12. ^ "The Verdict Reviews". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc. Retrieved January 19, 2023.
  13. ^ "Empire's The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time". Empire. Archived from the original on 8 September 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  14. ^ "WGA Lists Greatest Screenplays, From 'Casablanca' and 'Godfather' to 'Memento' and 'Notorious'". Archived from the original on 30 November 2019. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  15. ^ Pepperman, Richard D. (2008). Film School: How to Watch DVDs and Learn Everything about Filmmaking. Michael Wiese Productions. pp. 184–185. ISBN 9781615930401. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
  16. ^ "Major Openings Bolster B.O.". Daily Variety. 14 December 1982. p. 1.
  17. ^ Ginsberg, Steven (21 December 1982). "'Tootsie,' 'Toy' And 'Dark Crystal' Win Big At National Box-Office". Daily Variety. p. 1.
  18. ^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers". American Film Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 March 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
  19. ^ "AFI's 10 Top 10: Top 10 Courtroom Drama". American Film Institute. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
Wikiquote has quotations related to The Verdict.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Verdict&oldid=1224414743"