"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it." Fun Fact: Paul Newman did Frank Galvin's closing statement in one take. Photography Enthusiast Fact: The instant camera Frank (Paul Newman) uses is a Polaroid SX-70 with manual focus. It was manufactured from 1972 to 1981. Blink And You'll Miss It Fact: Among the people in the courtroom during the dramatic closing speech is a young Bruce Willis. When the judge (Milo O'Shea) tells the head juror (Gregor Roy) that they are allowed to increase the size of the award, Willis can be seen, behind Paul Newman, grinning. Tobin Bell can also be seen as a courtroom observer. This is not, however, the theatrical movie debut of either man. What Script Fact: The last sequence was not in the script. Sidney Lumet devised the scene with Paul Newman and Charlotte Rampling, wanting to show that Laura was drinking while Frank was not. Newman confirmed that Frank was drinking coffee at the end. This is meant to show that Frank has escaped from his personal Hell while Laura has brought herself into one. Frank's refusal to answer Laura's phone call is his refusal to give in to his old vices. Legal Mindset Fact: Both lawyers, Galvin (Paul Newman) and Concannon (James Mason), engage in unethical conduct for which both would have been subject to disbarment. Galvin received a settlement offer from the Archdiocese, and yet he never told his clients about the offer or asked them if they wanted to accept it. That is unethical and prohibited conduct on the part of a lawyer. His clients reveal that his opponent, Concannon, told them about the settlement offer. When a lawyer knows that a party is represented by counsel, the lawyer is prohibited from speaking directly with that party in the absence of their attorney. Concannon also engages in unethical conduct when he pays Laura (Charlotte Rampling) to get close to Frank and learn his trial strategy and secrets, which she does. That conduct is also expressly prohibited by the lawyers' Code of Professional Responsibility.
I didn't see Bruce WIllis there until someone mentioned it 😂 "This is meant to show that Frank has escaped from his personal Hell while Laura has brought herself into one." Oh, that's interesting 🤔 Now that I think about it, winning the case was indeed a good turning point for Frank. Betraying the trust of the man she (presumably) loves is a bad turning point for Laura. I can already see that Cancannon's methods aren't ethical. I'm sure reporting him would be useless anyway, since he has a huge backing. No one would be able to prove he did anything unethical at all. Still, it's good to know that these methods (if proven) can lead to disbarment. Thanks for sharing! 😊
I'll need to go watch ABSENCE OF MALICE next, where Paul Newman is battling news reports that led to his friend's suicide. Sally Fields is the snoopy reporter that Newman exploits ultimately. Very powerful film. Not exactly a courtroom setting but a powerful 'court style drama'.
He appealed to their hearts rather than the ALLOWED evidence. The jury heard the real evidence and believed the real evidence - they also saw the vile lies and believed THOSE to be lies.
I actually support Frank's decision to go to trial rather than accept the early offer because by that time he was no longer an "ambulance chaser" but wanted to really bring justice although his intense need to redeem himself might have an element of selfishness to it, but his instincts were right so that his personal moral dilemma of being an attorney to cash in or to be one who wants justice is validated. It's a film with quiet human complexity and my favorite Lumet film along with 12 Angry Men. A very thoughtful reaction as usual, Henry. Best wishes. Oh, plus the acting is extraordinary. Did you recognize Quincannon from North by Northwest? And Paul Newman-s best performance imo, but Lindsay Crouse as Caitlin knocks me out of my chair and causes my heart to beat so it knocks things over on my coffer table.
It was a complicated decision for Frank. We can see that part of him always doubted whether he made the right decision. I did not recognize James Mason playing Ed Concannon. He sure has changed a lot since he was in North by Northwest. Ah yes, Kaitlin Costello. Beautiful. Her appearance was brief, and her scene in court made me tear up. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 😊
You nailed it, Henry! Frank's decision not to accept the settlement was made from vanity, not justice. He centered himself, not his clients. Though, perhaps, genuinely moved by the state of Deborah, had he centered his Sally and Kevin (what they are actually paying him to do!), they could have lived comfortably _and_ cared for Deborah, long into the foreseable future. $210,000 in 1982 would be equivelent to $683,696.89 today (according to an online inflation calculator I used). But Frank wants his reputation back. Fortunately, it turns out well for the people harmed. As far as Laura being shut out by Frank, she loved him, yes, so I guess she had to go through tbe steps of calling him to beg forgiveness, but she must have known he would refuse her. At some other point a little earlier, before this case, I think a guy like Frank would have accepted people in his life who were corrupt (or occasionally did corrupt things to pay the bills, but were otherwise honest). But not in a case where he is awakened by an epiphany to seemingly, "do the right thing" for "Justice"! It just couldn't happen. And for Laura, you could imagine this potentially causing her to swear off ever taking such seamy employment again, telling her friends "that cost me the love of my life!" As far as the judge striking from the record the testimony: yes, he was wdll within his authority, and the law, for the very reasons Concanon sighted. However, juries being told to strike it from their minds is another thing, whether a judge tells them to or not! My sense is the judge's moral corruption became obvious to the jury, and had some hand in awarding higher penalties than what was expected. Loved your analysis, Henry, especially how you could relate some things in the movie personally. In my youth, while still at home but unemployed, our house took in people for hospice care twice. These were both friends of my mother. This was only care for a few months, each, before they passed, not years, but I understand the concept of 24-hour care because of it, and they required all of us in the household, as my mom worked as a full-time nurse. If society could ever become ideal, the helping professions would be the most esteemed over those of self-profit and fame.
Kevin and Sally look like the kind of people who are content with a simple life. $210,000 would have helped them immensely, and Deborah would also be taken care of. In hindsight, Frank's decision seemed like the correct one, and they got a much bigger settlement. But if they had lost, then it would've been a very different story. Kevin and Sally would not have taken that risk, if they had the choice. I agree, the judge's corruption was too obvious. Bringing in Kaitlin was the right choice. The jury couldn't possibly erase their own memories. Thank goodness the jury were smart people and served justice. It truly isn't easy to care for people who need help with daily activities. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! 😊
I don't think Frank turning down the $200K was selfish. I think it was a risk he decided to take based on his sense of justice and his faith in his abilities despite his current condition.
He had a great case. He just did not have the budget required for the expert witnesses. I suspect Gruber had a lovely island vacation. Happy in the knowledge that he'd now be called as an expert witness on behalf of the Church. He will be making the big bucks from now on. Paul Newman was at just the right time in his career to play this role.
I'm just surprised at Gruber's actions because he was quite convincing when he agreed to go to trial as Frank's witness. I wonder what else Concannon offered to buy out Gruber.
This is one of my all-time favorite movies. Paul Newman, Sidney Lumet, and David Mamet were at the top of their game.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fun Fact: Paul Newman did Frank Galvin's closing statement in one take.
Photography Enthusiast Fact: The instant camera Frank (Paul Newman) uses is a Polaroid SX-70 with manual focus. It was manufactured from 1972 to 1981.
Blink And You'll Miss It Fact: Among the people in the courtroom during the dramatic closing speech is a young Bruce Willis. When the judge (Milo O'Shea) tells the head juror (Gregor Roy) that they are allowed to increase the size of the award, Willis can be seen, behind Paul Newman, grinning. Tobin Bell can also be seen as a courtroom observer. This is not, however, the theatrical movie debut of either man.
What Script Fact: The last sequence was not in the script. Sidney Lumet devised the scene with Paul Newman and Charlotte Rampling, wanting to show that Laura was drinking while Frank was not. Newman confirmed that Frank was drinking coffee at the end. This is meant to show that Frank has escaped from his personal Hell while Laura has brought herself into one. Frank's refusal to answer Laura's phone call is his refusal to give in to his old vices.
Legal Mindset Fact: Both lawyers, Galvin (Paul Newman) and Concannon (James Mason), engage in unethical conduct for which both would have been subject to disbarment. Galvin received a settlement offer from the Archdiocese, and yet he never told his clients about the offer or asked them if they wanted to accept it. That is unethical and prohibited conduct on the part of a lawyer. His clients reveal that his opponent, Concannon, told them about the settlement offer. When a lawyer knows that a party is represented by counsel, the lawyer is prohibited from speaking directly with that party in the absence of their attorney. Concannon also engages in unethical conduct when he pays Laura (Charlotte Rampling) to get close to Frank and learn his trial strategy and secrets, which she does. That conduct is also expressly prohibited by the lawyers' Code of Professional Responsibility.
I didn't see Bruce WIllis there until someone mentioned it 😂
"This is meant to show that Frank has escaped from his personal Hell while Laura has brought herself into one." Oh, that's interesting 🤔
Now that I think about it, winning the case was indeed a good turning point for Frank. Betraying the trust of the man she (presumably) loves is a bad turning point for Laura.
I can already see that Cancannon's methods aren't ethical. I'm sure reporting him would be useless anyway, since he has a huge backing. No one would be able to prove he did anything unethical at all. Still, it's good to know that these methods (if proven) can lead to disbarment.
Thanks for sharing! 😊
My pleasure. 😁
Go in Peace and Walk with God. 😎 👍
I'll need to go watch ABSENCE OF MALICE next, where Paul Newman is battling news reports that led to his friend's suicide. Sally Fields is the snoopy reporter that Newman exploits ultimately. Very powerful film. Not exactly a courtroom setting but a powerful 'court style drama'.
He appealed to their hearts rather than the ALLOWED evidence. The jury heard the real evidence and believed the real evidence - they also saw the vile lies and believed THOSE to be lies.
another great flick. thanks man
I actually support Frank's decision to go to trial rather than accept the early offer because by that time he was no longer an "ambulance chaser" but wanted to really bring justice although his intense need to redeem himself might have an element of selfishness to it, but his instincts were right so that his personal moral dilemma of being an attorney to cash in or to be one who wants justice is validated. It's a film with quiet human complexity and my favorite Lumet film along with 12 Angry Men. A very thoughtful reaction as usual, Henry. Best wishes. Oh, plus the acting is extraordinary. Did you recognize Quincannon from North by Northwest? And Paul Newman-s best performance imo, but Lindsay Crouse as Caitlin knocks me out of my chair and causes my heart to beat so it knocks things over on my coffer table.
It was a complicated decision for Frank. We can see that part of him always doubted whether he made the right decision.
I did not recognize James Mason playing Ed Concannon. He sure has changed a lot since he was in North by Northwest.
Ah yes, Kaitlin Costello. Beautiful. Her appearance was brief, and her scene in court made me tear up.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 😊
You nailed it, Henry! Frank's decision not to accept the settlement was made from vanity, not justice. He centered himself, not his clients. Though, perhaps, genuinely moved by the state of Deborah, had he centered his Sally and Kevin (what they are actually paying him to do!), they could have lived comfortably _and_ cared for Deborah, long into the foreseable future. $210,000 in 1982 would be equivelent to $683,696.89 today (according to an online inflation calculator I used). But Frank wants his reputation back. Fortunately, it turns out well for the people harmed.
As far as Laura being shut out by Frank, she loved him, yes, so I guess she had to go through tbe steps of calling him to beg forgiveness, but she must have known he would refuse her. At some other point a little earlier, before this case, I think a guy like Frank would have accepted people in his life who were corrupt (or occasionally did corrupt things to pay the bills, but were otherwise honest). But not in a case where he is awakened by an epiphany to seemingly, "do the right thing" for "Justice"! It just couldn't happen. And for Laura, you could imagine this potentially causing her to swear off ever taking such seamy employment again, telling her friends "that cost me the love of my life!"
As far as the judge striking from the record the testimony: yes, he was wdll within his authority, and the law, for the very reasons Concanon sighted. However, juries being told to strike it from their minds is another thing, whether a judge tells them to or not! My sense is the judge's moral corruption became obvious to the jury, and had some hand in awarding higher penalties than what was expected.
Loved your analysis, Henry, especially how you could relate some things in the movie personally. In my youth, while still at home but unemployed, our house took in people for hospice care twice. These were both friends of my mother. This was only care for a few months, each, before they passed, not years, but I understand the concept of 24-hour care because of it, and they required all of us in the household, as my mom worked as a full-time nurse. If society could ever become ideal, the helping professions would be the most esteemed over those of self-profit and fame.
Kevin and Sally look like the kind of people who are content with a simple life. $210,000 would have helped them immensely, and Deborah would also be taken care of. In hindsight, Frank's decision seemed like the correct one, and they got a much bigger settlement. But if they had lost, then it would've been a very different story. Kevin and Sally would not have taken that risk, if they had the choice.
I agree, the judge's corruption was too obvious. Bringing in Kaitlin was the right choice. The jury couldn't possibly erase their own memories. Thank goodness the jury were smart people and served justice.
It truly isn't easy to care for people who need help with daily activities.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! 😊
I don't think Frank turning down the $200K was selfish. I think it was a risk he decided to take based on his sense of justice and his faith in his abilities despite his current condition.
He had a great case. He just did not have the budget required for the expert witnesses. I suspect Gruber had a lovely island vacation. Happy in the knowledge that he'd now be called as an expert witness on behalf of the Church. He will be making the big bucks from now on.
Paul Newman was at just the right time in his career to play this role.
I'm just surprised at Gruber's actions because he was quite convincing when he agreed to go to trial as Frank's witness. I wonder what else Concannon offered to buy out Gruber.