"On my first day of law school, my professor says two things. First was: from this day forward, when your mother tells you she loves you, get a second opinion [....] If you want justice, go to a whorehouse. If you wanna get fucked, go to court."
—Martin Veil (Richard Gere)
How can you defend these people? Criminal defense lawyers hear this all the time.
—Dan from his essay on the film (PLEASE READ IT)
Director: Gregory Hoblit
Screenplay: Steve Shagan, Ann Biderman, based on the novel by William Diehl
Released: 3 April 1996
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $102.6 million
Martin Veil...Richard Gere
Janet Venable (the prosecuter)...Laura Linney
Roy/Aaron Stampler...Edward Norton
Judge Shoat...Alfre Woodard
Dr. Molly Arrington...Frances McDormand
Tommy Goodman (Martin's investigator)...Andre Braugher
Naomi Chance (Martin's assistant)...Maura Tierney
John Shaughnessy (the District Attorney)...John Mahoney
Who saw that ending coming—besides Anna Claire who watched it last night? I'm not sure how "realistic" this movie is, but it sure was entertaining. I know I believed Judge Shoat; I believed Janet the prosecutor—smart and tough and able to resist the charms of Martin (and stressed—I think that was what all her smoking was about). Aaron and Martin...that's another story. So:
1. From our discussions and reading and viewings so far, what struck as "real" in this movie (without talking about Martin)? Why? What struck you as "unreal"(again, without talking about Martin)—and why?
2. Martin Veil...he's almost a cliche, a stereotype—the hot shot defense attorney in expensive suits driving an expensive car who will defend mobsters and clergy murderers (alleged clergy murderers, that is). He is a long way from Frank Galvin and Vinny Gambini. He's slick and smart and too good looking for his own good. So do you believe him as a real attorney? Or is he too much a stereotype? Explain your answer.
3. Let's go back to The Paper Chase. Some of you argued that Kingsfield is preparing his students for being lawyers—Dan made a case that law school prepares you to know the law—not necessarily the same thing perhaps. Martin obviously went to law school. So imagine he was one of the quiet students in Kingsfield's class. Do you see anything from Kingsfield's class in Martin—is what we see Kingsfield teach or model for his students appear in any way, shape, or form in Martin Veil?
4. Finally: what question or questions did this movie bring up for you that Mike Jacobs could answer tomorrow?
See you all then.
1. The courtroom seemed real to me. The judge was stern, a little biased, but for the most part fair. The questionings and answers for witnesses seemed real. What struck me as unreal was Roy/Aaron at the end. No one can fake a different personality for so long and get away with it. Also, the very end when he attacked Janet. The whole chase with Martin and Tommy would clearly never happen. They were sprinting through the streets of a run down city filled with homeless people and almost got killed. Martin also didn’t get in trouble for sneaking into the crime scene and stealing the tape.
ReplyDelete2. I believe he is a real attorney. He takes his job seriously, but not too seriously. I think he’s just a good, smooth lawyer. He was nice enough, he wasn’t an alcoholic, and he wasn’t goofy like Vinny. In fact, he might be the most real lawyer we have seen aside from the paper chase.
3. I think Martin embodied the message to be prepared. He never went to court without knowing what he was going to say. When the judge shot down his question, he came up with a new one. He didn’t get distracted with alcohol or other things, aside from his crush on Janet. But all in all, I don’t see much of Martin in the Paper Chase. He doesn’t really have any of the qualities of Kingsfield or his students.
4. What can a lawyer do after they find out their client is guilty, and not only guilty but a threat to society? Can someone go to a crime scene and take evidence? How often are people that committed murders seen as “insane” and not go to prison?
While watching “Primal Fear”, a few things that struck me as “real” was the structure and pace in the courthouse and the behavior of Judge Shoat. The Judge seemed like a nicer and more understanding judge but still was able to set and maintain the order of her court. However, something I found “unrealistic” in this movie was the Aaron/Roy situation. It seems highly unlikely for a convicted person to make up a whole elaborate scheme with the “Aaron” character on the spot AND get away with it throughout the entire trial. Not only do I think he would have slipped up eventually, but I also think no psychiatric professional (or Martin who spent so much time with him) would have been fooled that easily in real life. Another thing I found highly “unrealistic” was the relationship between Janet and Martin. It seems unlikely for opposing sides to spend so much time together/develop a relationship during a trial where they can both only win in the expense of the other.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some attorneys really do have the money, the looks, and the part. However, it isn’t a common thing and an even more uncommon thing for them to win when their client is so in the wrong. Martin Veil is absolutely a stereotype that the movie uses to add glamor to the profession. Nobody wants to watch a movie with average characters!
It seems that Martin is quick on his feet and works on the case a lot off the clock, two things Kingsfeild stressed with his Socratic method of teaching and extremely heavy workload. Martin gives off the impression that he succeeded in law school and is now a very good lawyer.
Like the end of “Primal Fear” what does a defense attorney (or anyone) do if an alleged murderer is found innocent but after the trial is proven guilty? Are there any limitations to relationships between members of the court/opposing sides, witnesses, etc?
1. the thing that stuck with me the most was the 2 personalities. I feel as though a ton of serial killers/ball people out in the word have this sort of second personality. It reminds me of Macbeth and how lady Macbeth told him to be double-sided. This image isn’t that much of personalities but faces. Like to be both good and bad. To have different masks.
ReplyDelete2. I could definitely see Martin as an attorney. He definitely fills the job of one. He takes his job very seriously. He knows his facts, he doesn’t do anything wrong. unlike the other lawyers, he actually knows what he’s doing this time. I don’t really see him as a stereotypes but just an above average attorney
3. He definitely has the readyness side of Kingsfield’s class. Kingsfield seems to really teach his kids how to be prepared. Martin was always ready when it came to his time to show up. I don’t really see many other aspects from Kingsfield’s class in Martin besides the attentivitiy from KIngsfield’s class.
4. The case with Aaron and his multiple personalities. Is this case at all realistic. I feel like there have been cases like this. I feel as though some killers would use an excuse of multiple personalities so they get time off jail. Is this true?
I think that the way the case was handled in that charges were dropped due to the judge ruling Aaron insane, was accurate. It seemed accurate to me because in real life that would happen, and oftentimes defendants do try to convince the court that they are mentally insane in order for reduced charges and sentencing. Aaron’s character for the most part seemed accurate to me because there are people in this world who have been abused and as a result of that suffer from split personalities. I do not think it would be accurate that a person like Aaron would be able to hide that he actually in fact does know what’s going on when he is Roy because I do not think any person, no matter how manipulative or insane they are, could do that.
ReplyDeleteI do believe him as a real life trial attorney. I believe there are attorneys like Martin in the world, because even though he is very stereotypical, I think there are people who are very boastful, but still very good at their jobs. I think part of Martin that is very accurate is the way he carries himself in life, like driving a fancy car and having associates who work for him. This seems accurate to me because I know people in this world who are the exact same way.
I think we see the confidence that Kingsfield wants to see in his students in Martin. I also think we see the almost ruthlessness that we see in Kingsfield in Martin, in that Kingsfield wants his students to be confident and get their job done. While they are a lawyer, it doesn’t matter what they feel, their job is to defend their client, which is something I see in Martin that was also part of Kingsfield’s methodology.
I would like to ask Mike if it would be legal for the judge to decide that Aaron gets no prison time, even though by the end, it is obvious Aaron killed the Bishop.
1. I got serious Law & Order vibes from this film. One thing that seemed real was Aaron/Roy’s motive. As morbid as it may be, it makes sense that Aaron chose to kill the priest after however many months/years of abuse he endured. Another thing that seemed real to me was Martin getting his associate to drop off the tape at the prosecutor’s apartment. The reason why I found this real was because there was no other way for Martin to get the tape into the courtroom. However, I find it unrealistic that Janet would just go along with it. It seems like she would’ve told the judge or something.
ReplyDelete2. Martin Veil is a real attorney. Are parts of his character dramatized? Yes, of course. However, I truly believe that there are those hot shot lawyers who defend the worst of the worst. They get off on being able to say that they are the ones that the prosecution fears. However, there does come a point where Martin is simply too much. His need to constantly be in the spotlight and make a show of himself is very stereotypical in my opinion.
3. The fact that Martin is able to think quickly on his feet and make good decisions is definitely something that Kingsfield required of his students. He would call on them at random, ask numerous questions, give them a set amount of time to answer said questions, and if they weren’t prepared, he’d move onto the next person. While this tactic may seem harsh, it taught his students to work on their extemporaneous speaking skills.
4. Questions for Mike:
- What’s it like to find out that you’ve just defended someone who is guilty?
- How often does evidence tampering occur?
- Is a lawyer being held in contempt common?
1. As far as believability goes, I don’t see how this movie could be real. It’s hard to believe that Aaron fabricated a fake personality for years on end just to kill the archbishop. They believed that he was that stuttering kid for so long only to see him suddenly turn into a murderer? Nobody could keep that up for so long. The court is believable enough for someone who has never been to court.
ReplyDelete2. I completely believe that Martin veil could be a living breathing attorney. Is he dramatized? Absolutely. Do I know attorneys who are enthralled with themselves? You bet. He’s not perfect, and in the end feels really bad and stupid about what he’s done. He’s a 3 dimensional guy, whether he’s a cliche or not.
3. The closest way he embodies kingsfield’s class is that he’s cunning and thinks on his feet. With kingsfield’s torturous remarks and random questions, Veil acts like someone conditioned by years of tough questions. His little petty responses to the judge and DA remind me of how Kingsfield went after Hart.
4. Is it not frowned upon for a judge to drink during the trial? What would happen if they proved Veil tampered with evidence?
What seemed real to me was the whole court setting. Of all of the movies we have watched, i thought this one and the verdict had the most accurate court setting and procedure from what i have seen. The unreal thing was how emotional the case was. This is hard to explain but the case seemed to carry a lot of emotional weight for everybody, with martin because his whole shtick was about not caring if his client was guilty however in this case it is obvious that he did. Also his relationship with the prosecutor got wrapped up in the case. I don't know if this is common but i know that for the movie it is likely they over dramatized the emotional aspects.
ReplyDeletei dont quite understand the question. Of course he is not a real attorney because he is a movie character. I wouldn't say that he is a stereotype but this might be because i dont watch many law movies. I quite liked his character and found him entertaining but when i imagine real lawyers he is not the first thing that comes to mind. He seemed confident and unstressed the latter of which i wouldn't imagine a lawyer being.
Martin is very confident and is unrelenting. These are both characteristics that kingsfield has himself. The confidence is obvious and when we see Martin question his client we see to what lengths he is willing to go to win the case. He is pushing his client to a psychological breakdown and putting the people of the court at risk. I dont think he would have been a quet student however and i think he might have clashed with kingsfield because of hi arrogance. In addition martin is rather oblivious to the emotions of others, hence the end with the female prosecutor he tries to seduce right after destroying her career and how he pushed his client in their one on one session and in court.
Have you ever defended someone and truly thought they were innocent to then find they were guilty?
Also i understand that he was proven to be insane but is he still not a threat to society?
this is evan
DeleteI think the entire thing seemed very real. All the unexpected things that occurred during the trial, including surprising witnesses and new evidence, is something that seems to happen a lot in real life. The “multiple personality disorder” that Aaron had also seemed very real, until it wasn’t. Mental disorders such as this are often why people do bad things, so it was pure genius for Roy “Aaron” Stampler to pretend that he was mentally ill in order to not get the death penalty or life in prison. Something unrealistic that I noticed was the questioning of John Shaughnessy because it had nothing to do with the trial. I do not understand why the judge allowed that questioning to occur.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Martin is a real attorney because he was good at his job (like lawyers should be) and I have heard about prestigious lawyers on the news and whatnot, therefore he seems like a real person. Furthermore, I like to be optimistic and imagine that there are lawyers in the world like Veil who are attractive and successful (a stereotypical lawyer), and that people who practice law are not all like Gambini and Galvin.
I do not think I see a lot of Kingsfield’s class in Martin because it is hard to compare Kingsfield and his teachings to a charming lawyer. I guess I see a strong work ethic and commitment to the trial. Kingsfield wanted his students to commit to his class by reading, knowing and analyzing cases, and this was demonstrated by Martin. Also, Martin was a quick thinker, which Kingsfield taught by asking students questions on the spot.
Questions for Mike Jacobs; Are lawyers similar to Martin Veil common or realistic? Is it very difficult to get a re-trial? Why are re-trials needed to change the plea, especially if a discovery about the defendant's mental health is the reason why the plea needs to be changed?
I think that a very real aspect of this movie was the idea of representing someone and purposely not wanting to know it they are guilty or innocent. as a lawyer, you have to decide whether or not you ethically and morally could defend someone who is guilty. something that i thought was 'unreal' about this movie was the surprise ending. I do not think this would happen in real life. I do not think that Martin was too much of a stereotype. I thought that he was just enough that he was still believable. Martin, i think, really cares about his work and gives it a lot of time, unlike some other lawyers we have watched. i think it is very important that he didnt think his client was guilty. he claims that he will defend someone either way, but i do not think he would have tried as hard if he knew his client was guilty.
ReplyDeleteI do not see a lot of Kingsfield's class in Martin as a lawyer. Martin has a very obvious passion and work ethic for his work, and im sure that this shined in law school, but i do not think that it is because of his experience at law school. i think law school helped him perfect his understanding of being a lawyer, but he is not who he is because of it.
I wonder what you do if you realize your client is guilty and could be a harm to others after the trial is over.
1. Many aspects of this movie seemed realistic to me. The judge seemed very fair, composed, and for the most part unbiased. Her decision to send the defendant to a psychiatric hospital seemed reasonable based on his outburst and the psychologists testimony. I also found the stress that the prosecutor was under realistic. This was a huge case for her, and her job depended on it. Another situation that I found realistic was when the prosecutor brought pictures of the stabbed body, and the bloody weapon into the court room to try to sway the jury and remind them how heinous the crime was. When she was examining the defendant, she was asking questions at a rapid fire speed, and very intensely, to try to get him to break under pressure. I imagine prosecutors in real life may use the same tactic. find it unrealistic that a defendant would come up with an elaborate scam to act as a multiple personality, stuttering person, and succeed. I also find it unrealistic that the lawyers would chase a witness through the streets. I mean come on, I don’t think that many lawyers would go that rout, or be in that good of shape to actually catch the person.
ReplyDelete2. I do find him believable as a real attorney. By no means are all attorneys handsome, wealthy, slick, and smart, but there is definitely a good number who are. Although this may be the classic image that many think of when stereotypically thinking of a lawyer, I don’t think it makes him any less realistic. He took his position seriously, and was passionate about the case. But I do think it could have been more realistic if they showed a flaw or two, which was not portrayed.
3. Martin doesn’t just regurgitate facts, or rely on statements. He analyzes the case carefully and is able to think outside the box when trying to win a case. This is an important tactic that Kingsfield taught in his class. Kingsfield also taught that you have to be over prepared, thorough, ready for anything that is thrown at you, and dedicated. I think Martin succeeds in all these respects.
4. Question—could Martin have done anything to get the court to re try the case since the defendant is very dangerous to society and they let him stay out of jail under false pretenses?
What struck me as the most real about this movie was the objections and general court procedure. While the two attorneys were sitting with the judge and talking during recesses, everything seemed very real and very much how two people would act towards each other in the courtroom. The thing I found most unreal was Martin's manipulative behavior, but, as we aren't supposed to talk about Martin, I'll talk about Veneble. She let her relationship with/ animosity towards Vail get in the way of her job and she, as a respected attorney, doesn't seem like the type of person who would let a former flame knock her confidence that much.
ReplyDeleteI do believe him as a real attorney, because I believe that most of the qualities he possesses are ones necessary to get where he is. He is charming, confident, and being so darn attractive isn't hurting him at all. He knows how to get a jury to like him, and he exudes this careless intensity, as if this whole thing comes so naturally to him. Even how he interacts with his employees, such as Tommy Goodman and the word alleged, shows that he has exactly what it takes to end up where he is.
I don't really see any of Kingsfield's class in Martin. I think Kingsfield would've hated Martin, because he comes off as someone who doesn't care all that much and Kingsfield likes a kissass (if he likes any students at all). In this movie, we don't see Veil stun the courtroom with his amazing knowledge of the law, but instead by the case he presents. To Dan's point, it seems like Veil is only this good because of his many years of experience. I think he would've screwed around in Kingsfield's class, but done very well, because he is so very bright.
I would like to ask Mike what he would do if this happened to him? What would he do if he had fought so hard in defense of this kid, only to find out he got played by an absolute psychopath?
1 Something that struck me as real is how even though Martin is this amazing attorney, he still really struggles with this case. It also takes him quite a lot of time to find all of the evidence, and there were even moments where they don’t find pieces of evidence (ex. the book) that would of been helpful to know. This makes total sense because he is human, and I imagine it is very difficult to find evidence in the real world. This is unlike shows like Law and Order, where the detectives almost immediately found the killer. Something unrealistic about him was the scene where he was chasing down Aaron/Roy’s friend. It definitely seems like something that would not happen in real life.
ReplyDelete2. I do think he is a bit of a stereotype. I’m sure some lawyers have fancy cars and fancy suits and a lot of money, but some lawyers don’t. We talked about this in the beginning of the class, when we were asked about lawyers, and a lot of us said “money”. Dan told us that actually quite a lot of lawyers do not make as much as we think.
3. I definitely do see things from Kingsfield’s class in Martin. Hart always talked about how he had to always be ready for Kingsfield’s class, and Martin is always prepared for when he goes into court. Martin also thinks outside of the box, which was an essential trait to have in Kingsfield’s class.
4. There was the scene where Martin and his colleague chased Aaron/Roy’s friend down and then arrested him. Are defense attorneys allowed to arrest people?
The element of the movie that stuck out to be the most real to be was the way that the events of the court proceeded. For the most part, the trial was quite standard to the other ones that we had viewed, and so was the judge. However, especially towards the end, the film was extremely dramatic, which made it hard to believe as a realistic possibility. Also, the way that Aaron created a whole new persona, combined with how emotional he was able to make the transitions between him and “Roy” and the fact that he was able to perfectly execute and fool everyone, seemed extreme.
ReplyDeleteI do see him as a real attorney. These stereotypes exist because they can be seen in some level of reality and are believable, and Martin shows that. His character shows to demonstrate that stereotype, and yes, is over exaggerated, but still exists in the real world. Lawyers that are egotistical and obsessed with seeing their faces on the front page of the news every day definitely do exist as an extreme of the profession. Even though he is stereotypical, he comes to the court with a plan and seeks to execute such manners and further has success in that area.
Martin comes to court prepared. He’s ready and able to think on his feet and is able to adapt to whatever comes at him. These are things that Kingsfield taught to his students to an extreme. Also, Martin seems to the law itself well. He refers back to other cases to help his own and references the constitution multiple times. Knowing the facts of the legal system was also strongly enforced in Kingsfield’s class, and Martin illustrates that here.
If someone who was found as innocent is actually guilty and then goes on to commit another major crime what then happens to them and what can then happen to the career of their original attorney, and is this a common thing that occurs?
I think something more realistic about Martin is that in the beginning when he met with Aaron, he had no intention on connecting with his client on any sort of emotional level whatsoever. What's realistic to me about this is that if Martin is a big shot lawyer who will defend just about anyone, its best not to connect with the client. It's similar to that it might be easier to defend someone saying their not guilty when you don't know what they've actually done. What’s unreal to me is probably the chasing Alex part, I don't think that an older lawyer would have the capability to sprint after a teenager and get in a fight with him. I also don't think that it's believable to go into the crime scene and switch a tape. Not only do I think that would be a highly punishable offense, but I don't think that he would have the ability to do that, that the security guard would allow him to enter the crime scene of an extremely serious crime, alone.
ReplyDeleteI do believe him as a real attorney. I think to an extent, some stereotypes are built off of some amount of truth. If one is a well off lawyer, one who is well known throughout the press and media, they would make a considerable amount of money. It's no secret that good lawyers make an above average salary. The thing I don't find believable is that his only helpers on the case were an ex cop and an assistant. If Martin is the big shot lawyer that he is said to be, I think he would most definitely have more help than that.
I don't really see that much of Kingsfield teachings in Martin. First, Kingsfield was teaching contracts, which I don't recall being a part of “Primal Fear” at all. I see essentially no overlap between Kingfields teachings and Martins practice.
I was curious as to why it was such a big deal to change the plea during the middle of a trial. Also, Why was Martin not punished when it was said in court that he stole the tape from the crime scene?
The court trail seemed real, and the judge portrayed a legitimate role. That part seemed real because the defendants and prosecutors were at each other’s throats trying to defend their side in a very “intellectual” way. Additionally, the judge, out of all the movies, was very serious at her job was fair to each attorney. The part that seemed unreal to me was the fact that they quickly declared Aaron/Roy to be clinically insane simply because he acted out in the courtroom. I think tests and brain scans that proved that he had a disorder should’ve declared his insanity.
ReplyDeleteI believe that he is a real attorney because as a defense attorney, his job is to prove that his client is innocent regardless of whether or not he truly is. Martin is very good at doing whatever it takes to prove that Aaron is innocent despite the fact that all evidence proves otherwise. He isn’t afraid to get dirty in order to win his case, which is something that I believe occurs in real life.
I don’t really see Kingston’s teachings in Martin. If Martin were a student of Kingston, he wouldn’t have to take other measures to win a case because he would have already studied the case and would’ve prepared himself extensively. Despite the fact that Martin is a “good” lawyer, he isn’t like Ford, for example, who is constantly thinking about cases and has studied it down to a science.
I would like to know if there have been instances (perhaps that Mike has had) where the outcomes, as seen in the movie, are ones that can haunt an attorney or leave them feeling guilty for a long time.