Screenplay: David Mamet, based on the novel by Barry Reed
Released 8 December 1982
Budget: $16 million
Box Office: $54 million
Frank Galvin: Paul Newman
Laura Fischer: Charlotte Rampling
Mickey Morrisey (Frank's friend): Jack Warden
Ed Concannon (the opposing attorney): James Mason
Judge Hoyle: Milo O'Shea
Kaitlin Costello Price: Lindsay Crouse
Bishop Brophy: Edward Binns
From Dan's essay on the film (read the whole essay):
Attorneys are at high risk for substance abuse. Of course this does not mean that every lawyer is going to become a addict, but there are tremendous pressures that come with being an attorney for so many that practice. This is particularly true for Frank Galvin, who is a trial attorney. There are expectations from clients, opposing counsel, the public, and many others that can impose a crushing level of stress that must be managed in a healthy way. As you may recall from The Paper Chase, alcohol is uniquely omnipresent at attorney functions.
According to the American Bar Association, "As many as one in five lawyers is a problem drinker—twice the national rate. While it's uncertain why lawyers experience alcohol disorders at a higher rate, it is clear that alcoholism has devastating effects on a lawyer's career and personal life."
It is clear that Frank's alcoholism is having an effect on him: his shaking hands; his arriving late to the meeting with Judge Hoyle and Concannon; his relationship with Laura. We see him in utter panic when he realizes he's lost his only witness: out comes the bottle. In other words, Frank Galvin is a mess. So:
(AND REMEMBER: place your post in the comments section at the bottom of this post!)
1. What image or scene or moment has stuck with you from the movie—and why?
2. How does Frank compare with the lawyers we've seen so far—ADA Stone in Law and Order, Vinny Gambini, the lawyers-to-be and/or Kingsfield in The Paper Chase? Do we see any of these lawyers in Frank? Or is he a completely different animal? AND—do you find him believable as a trial lawyer?
3. What's the picture of the legal profession that this movie gives us—and what scene or moment really supports your characterization? And do you find this picture a reassuring one—or something else? And how so?
4. Should Frank have taken the settlement? Why or why not?
The opposing lawyers: Concannon vs. Galvin.
1. What image or scene or moment has stuck with you from the movie—and why?
ReplyDeleteThe image that stuck with me the most was his apartment being drab and lifeless. He only had his degree on the wall, and that was the only decor. It shows that he doesn’t have much in his life he’s excited about. He’s depressed, an alcoholic, hates his job, and has no one in his life. All his hard work for law school turned out to be a waste.
2. How does Frank compare with the lawyers we've seen so far—ADA Stone in Law and Order, Vinny Gambini, the lawyers-to-be and/or Kingsfield in The Paper Chase? Do we see any of these lawyers in Frank? Or is he a completely different animal? AND—do you find him believable as a trial lawyer?
I don’t see Frank in any of these people. He is not motivated, and isn’t good at his job. His whole job basically revolves around taking advantage of helpless people. He isn’t funny or lighthearted. He isn’t a good lawyer. He most relate to Kingsfield, but the main difference is, Kingsfield is good and what he does.
3. What's the picture of the legal profession that this movie gives us—and what scene or moment really supports your characterization? And do you find this picture a reassuring one—or something else? And how so?
This movie depicts the legal profession as boring, slow, and depressing. You go around trying to take advantage of grieving people, and in the process, lose everyone you love. This movie has been going on or over an hour and nothing has happened yet. Being a lawyer is boring and stressful.
4. Should Frank have taken the settlement? Why or why not?
He should have taken the settlement. He is not a good lawyer, and if this weren’t a movie, would lose the case. It’s stated that he’s only had 3 cases in the past 4 years and lost all of them. He owes it to his client to give them the best possible outcome, and that is the settlement. His opponents are a giant team of people who all know what they’re doing, and all he has to bring to the stand are a bunch of failed trials.
After watching “The Verdict,” the scene that stuck with me most was when the husband (forgot name) punched Frank and told him how he was ruining their lives. This struck me because Frank refused to listen to the people he was representing, despite their immense pain. He expresses that his wife has been crying herself to sleep every night for the past four years and Frank is worsening this by dragging out the case.
ReplyDeleteFrank and Hart (from the “The Paper Chase” display extreme persistence. Frank shows this especially when he refuses to accept the settlement and works tirelessly on the case. Hart is persistent in his studies and trying to form a relationship with Kingsfield. Both men constantly talk about their situation (the case or law school) with friends and loved ones as if it is all they ever think about. I find Frank believable and , as we have heard, his alcohol addiction is not uncommon among lawyers.
“The Verdict” illustrates a dark and depressing profession that leaves nobody satisfied. Frank Galvin’s drinking problem in general supports this characterization because his everyday job leaves him feeling empty, hopeless, and self-medicating. This picture of the legal profession is the opposite of reassuring. The way this movie portrays being a lawyer would only intensify any doubts and fears one may expect the case to entail.
I believe Frank should have taken the settlement because that is what the victim’s sister and husband wanted and he showed no respect by pursuing the case. On one hand, I do think that no amount of money could ease the pain they are feeling for their loss, but on the other hand, I feel that Frank is not mentally prepared to win justice for them, so some quantity of money to help get their lives back in order is better than nothing. However, this is not Frank’s decision to make.
The scene in the courtroom where the judge started to directly ask the doctor expert witness questions really stuck out to me. The fact that he asked questions and was so hostile to Frank makes it hard to believe that someone who is supposed to be just and fair could be so bypassed. The judge reminded me of the original way that the judge in My Cousin Vinny was portrayed. Both seemed skewed to one side and heavily critical of the other, which quite surprised me.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Vinny and the lawyer in Law and Order, Frank continues to struggle with ethical issues along with having evidence and power people stacked against him. However, he seems to lack the drive and determination to follow through with his ideas and win his case, unlike some of the other lawyers we’ve seen. His situation and the way that he prepares a case is also different and more frustrating than the processes in the other movies we’ve watched. I personally would not want him representing me in a case. Maybe, if he was able to turn his life to a more positive place then he would be more devoted to his cases.
This movie seems to put out a more grim view of the profession. The movie shows a greedier side to the law system, where,for the most part, the people involved in the case seem more set on only trying to benefit themselves from the results, rather than try to come to a true and just conclusion. The scenes with the lawyer who’s working to protect the hospital's reputation, even though its top doctors put a woman in a coma, really illustrated this to me. This view doesn’t do much to reassure me. One would hope that the legal system is fair and the members representing it would try to continue to make it that way, but this movie portrays it to be closer to the opposite.
I think Frank should have talked to the clients before deciding to settle or go to court. They should have been more informed on what his plans were going to be, however, I applaud his effort for trying to do the just thing. I liked how he set his mind on doing the right thing, but it’s not him who’s being directly affected by the hospital, his clients are. Ultimately, he should have talked to the clients and told them that he wanted to do the right thing, and then gone from there.
The repeating scene of Frank playing the pinball machine in the corner of the bar, where he usually finishes his beer, grabs a hard boiled egg and leaves stuck with me the most. This scene stuck with me the most because it shows how Frank deals with his problems and stress in an unhealthy way, that is to say drinking and wasting his money on pinball. I think we see many past lawyers in Frank, but I think Frank is much more extreme than most of the other lawyers. We see the ill preparedness in Frank like we did in Vinny, and the stress levels that we see in Kingsfield. I think overall, Frank is a much better person than Kingsfield, but is going through a tough stage in his life, and as a result of that does not make good decisions. I do find Frank believable as a stressed out trial lawyer, because like Dan mentioned in his essay, it is not uncommon for lawyers, especially trial lawyers, to turn to substance abuse in order to relieve stress. This movie does not promote a good or reassuring image of the legal system. The movie portrays the legal system as a system made for personal gain. A scene that represents this is the scene where Kevin Doneghy confronts Frank and tells him he has ruined his life and that him and all lawyers are “all the same” and only work for personal gain. I think Frank should have taken the settlement because it was enough money for his clients, and he was ill prepared to take the case to court.
ReplyDeleteThe image that stuck with me the most dwas the scene in which the opposing lawyers and their very large team were all preparing to defend the doctors being accused of negligence. Laying in front of them was a table full of papers. This was a very important image, because it showed how the odds were greatly stacked against Frank. He was an unsuccessful lawyer, going against a large team of very qualified lawyers who had many more resources than he had. In some ways, Frank and Vinny are similar lawyers. Although Frank seems much more serious and qualified than Vinny, they both take on cases against very good, qualified lawyers and they both have no idea what they are truly up against. Another similarity between the two is that they are both very passionate about the cases they were working on, and not because of money, but because of justice. I think the soon to be lawyers in the Paper Chase would have been much more professional than Frank. For example, I think they would have consulted those who they were representing rather than making a selfish, irresponsible decision on the spot to go to trial. I do find Frank believable as a trial lawyer. He is extremely stressed due to his job and struggles with substance abuse which is not uncommon for trial lawyers. He also conducts himself in a professional manner in the court room, even though he is not fully prepared. The picture of the legal profession that this movie gives us is how money and power can greatly impact the way cases play out. For example, if there is a big discrepancy between the resources and reputation of legal teams and clients on one side vs. the other, the ruling will most likely favor the team in the better position. Another aspect of the legal profession depicted in this movie is corruption. The wealthy side payed off an expert witness on the other side’s team to leave the country. I don’t find this picture reassuring, but I do find it realistic.
ReplyDelete4. I believe that even though Frank thought that taking the case to court was the “right” thing to do, it wasn’t his decision to make. It was completely inappropriate and probably malpractice for him to not consult the couple that hired him. He also should have at least looked further into what he was going up against, and been aware that a key witness or expert could break their word and not show up. He was not well enough prepared to take on this case. His job was to help the family, and they wanted the settlement. He should have respected that, even if he thought the case should have gone to court.
1. The scene that stuck with me the most was the scene where Frank is about to have sex with Lauren, and she pulls away because she sees the picture of his ex wife on his nightstand. This scene stuck out to me because I found it strange that he just had a picture of her by his bed. They broke up for a reason, and him having a picture of her seems sort of stalkerish. Furthermore, I found it strange that Lauren was okay with this. She just went back to the act as though nothing happened. In my opinion, she should’ve seen that as a sign of him being unstable and left immediately. To add insult to injury, he’s in his 60s and she’s in her 40s. That in and of itself disgusting.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, I don’t believe that Frank is similar to any of the previous lawyers that we’ve encountered except Vinny. ADA Stone and Kingsfield are both so cruel and harsh. They get off on asserting their power over others. However, Frank and Vinny aren’t like this. In my opinion, Frank and Vinny are both just trying to learn (or in Frank’s case relearn) how to be a good lawyer. They both face common, difficult struggles. Whether it be a biased judge or a jury that isn’t in their favor, they both must navigate these obstacles. Finally, do I find Frank believable as a trial lawyer? Well, he certainly used to be. It is apparent that Frank has fallen off the wagon and is desperately trying to get back on it. The skills of a good trial lawyer are most definitely somewhere within Frank. I just think that he has to find them again. Failure and loss came his way, and he crumbled as many of us do. However, it is now time for Frank to grow up and rise to the occasion.
3. This movie definitely depicts a very melancholy, depressing view of the legal world. The film is already very dark, and most of the characters don’t seem happy. They’re all either trying to take down those who are corrupt or are corrupt themselves. Being a lawyer seems to be all about defeating your opponent in court, no matter the cost. Frank suffers from this pressure and stress to be the best, leading him to become a careless alcoholic. This is best represented when he is in his office drunk. He begins destroying file cabinets and picture frames amongst many other things. This film is many things, reassuring is not one of them. This film is honest. Sometimes people are corrupt. Sometimes the odds are stacked against you. If you really want to deal with this world, you must learn that lesson sooner rather than later.
4. Frank should have taken the settlement for many reasons. The first being that he isn’t ready for this case. He started paying attention too late, and I don’t believe he can win (but of course he will because this is a movie). He is out of practice, yet he’s too proud to admit it. Aside from him being unprepared, he’s forgetting that he’s dealing with other people and their livelihood. All these people wanted was to get enough money to leave. They could’ve had that if not for Frank and his ego. Lastly, it would’ve caused less problems. I understand wanting justice for this girl, but what will fighting really do? And is Frank really fighting for her, or is he fighting to prove that he is still capable? At the end of the day, the settlement was the best way to go, and it was the safest decision.
A moment that stuck with me from the movie “The Verdict” is when Galvin discovered that his key witness was not a certified anesthesiologist and that he had no proper education. This stuck out to me because I can sympathize with how frustrating it must have been for him to have his case fall apart in front of his eyes. I also think that there was some humor in this scene and I liked that aspect of it.
ReplyDeleteFrank reminds me of Vinny in the sense that he is kind of a mess. Vinny spent six years trying to pass the bar, and Frank only completed four cases within the span of three years (or vise versa). They both accomplish things very slowly, although I do not think Vinny is an alcoholic. He reminds me also of a few of the law school students at Harvard Law from “The Paper Chase” because they were very serious and did not have great personalities. I think he is believable as a trial lawyer because one in five lawyers have drinking problems, so he is an accurate representation of one fifth of lawyers. I wish that he were not a believable trial lawyer because his opening speech was awful and he did not seem prepared at all. He definitely is believable, though, since there are a lot of bad lawyers in the world.
The picture of the legal profession that this movie gives us is a picture of a sad, alcoholic man who seems to have lost his path in life. For example, Frank is often seen in the bar, drinking and playing pinball alone. This is a depressing image. This further convinces me not to become a lawyer because of how unhappy Frank is and how lonely he is. Furthermore, I do not want to be at a higher risk of becoming an alcoholic.
I think that Frank should have taken the settlement because it is what his clients wanted. His clients wanted to get the money and leave town, but Frank betrayed them, and now they have to undergo an entire trial without a guarantee of getting any money. On the other hand, I think it is the more heroic thing to do because the hospital and its employees need to be exposed for their actions. An innocent girl died because of a mistake made in the operating room and that needs to come to light. Hopefully, the doctor who screwed up will get punished somehow and the family will get even more money than they were originally going to get.
1. 1. What struck me the most was how he was knocking over all of the papers and cabinets in his office. He’s drunk, and its getting to him how scummy ambulance chasing is. This scene sets the whole tone of the movie, where he decides to fight the case because of how bad he feels about himself and his profession.
ReplyDelete2. 2. Frank is a believable trial lawyer, but he really doesn’t compare to any of the lawyers we’ve seen so far. In that he doesn’t try any cases, he’s very similar to Vinny, and because he’s a trial lawyer, he is similar to Stone, but stone is just too on top of his game. He’s really just his own self- a second rate lawyer with not much going for him.
3. 3. This movie really doesn’t make lawyers look good. On one side, we have a trial attorney who bribed a juror and is now a sleazy drunkard ambulance chaser, and on the other side we have another sleazy guy with a team of corrupt underlings. Simply put, this does not make the American legal system look trustworthy.
4. 4. Yes, Frank should have taken the settlement. It’s a good payment, and given that he’s going up against one of the most powerful men in the city, if not the country, he has every reason to take the settlement. If nothing else, he should have acted on his client’s wishes and taken the settlement.
1 The scene that stuck with me was when Frank loses his only expert witness and he realizes that the chances of him winning the case are slim. He completely gives up on the case, and goes to the hotel room where Lauren was staying. He tells Lauren that he will lose the case and that there is no hope. Lauren ends up giving him an angry pep talk (which he totally deserved) about his lack of faith in himself. I especially like this moment because Lauren stands up for herself and it is a good girl power moment!!
ReplyDelete2. All of the lawyers we have seen so far are different- Stone was very professional while Vinny Gambini was not so professional, there were the student lawyers eager to learn and there was Kingsfield, who was cold and strict. Today we saw Frank, the burnout lawyer desperate to win a case and prove justice. But Frank is alike in some ways to other characters- just like Vinny, he is desperate to prove himself as a good lawyer to others. I do find him a believable trial lawyer- much more realistic than characters like Vinny who was somehow able to testify for someone even though he had never been in a courtroom before.
3. The picture of legal profession in this movie casts a dark side on the legal process. We see a struggling lawyer and a unhappy victim+family, and everyone seems unsatisfied. Frank seems to be the only one advocating for the victim while everyone else just wants to draw conclusions and pay for the damages. We also see racism and how people are humiliated in court, like how the anesthesiology expert was humiliated in court by the judge and by the opposing attorney.
4. I do believe that Frank should have taken the settlement. I see where he is coming from and how he does want justice for the woman, but considering that he is on a major losing streak and is not very on top of the case, he should have just taken the money. I think he took on the case to show others how he could win one, but everything is going wrong now (as expected). Also, we learn after he declines the money that the victim’s family would have happily taken the $210,000, and they were devastated to hear that Frank was taking on the case. They have no faith in Frank whatsoever, and now Frank has no faith in himself to win the case, as he expressed to his girlfriend beforehand.
The scene that stuck with me the most was the scene/scenes where Frank makes the decision to try the case instead of settling. This stuck out to me because i think this is a turning point in franks life. From what we have seen, he has waned nothing except for money out of his profession until now. This changes however after he sees the affects of the doctors actions and realizes if he takes the settlement he will be nothing but a "rich ambulance chaser" which is arguably all he wanted to be up until this point. All his career he has been an ambulance chaser but in this scene he sees what an awful thing has happened to the girl and he tries to do the right thing. This is ironic however because it ens up being the most immoral thing he has done.
ReplyDeleteThe lawyer that reminds me the most of frank was Vinny. They both went into the courtroom without much of a case. This was obviously for very different reason, but both of their attitudes leading up to the case were very similar. Vinny had always been optimistic to his clients, sure that he would win. this is the same as Frank. However before the cases they both have a sort of realization that their case is weak. Their backgrounds are also similar. Vinny had never brought a case to trial and Frank had only a very few number of times in the past years and he lost them all. For both of them they had a lot riding on the case. Frank had a lot of money and his reputation, not that he had much of one, riding on the case, and Vinny, as we saw on the porch of the hunting cabin, also had a lot including his marriage, his cousins freedom and much more. The only similarities with the lawyers from Paper Chase that i noticed were +the drinking. The first thing we see hart do when he gets to school after he studies is get drunk.
The picture illustrated of the law profession is quite dim. We have a hopeless alcoholic lawyer trying to do the morally correct thing against a corrupt institution with well put together successful lawyers. Frank is at a rock bottom because of his drinking issues which are undoubtedly a result of the tremendous stress imposed by his profession. The particularly grim thing about this movies portrayal is the morals behind the profession. Before Frank decided to take the moral high ground, all of the lawyers in the movie were not practicing law to uphold the justice system but rather for their own personal benefit. The one lawyer who decides o do what he considers the "Right Thing" has a very small chance of actually winning his case. This is obviously not a very reassuring picture because it shows how badly a procession in law can end.
Finally i do think he should have taken the settlement. It would have put him in a good place financially and also would have put him in a position to help other victims like the one in the case. There is also the obvious reason that he did all of this behind his clients back. I think this decision would have been more difficult if frank had actually had a good case, but his case was bad. I do think he will win just because it is a movie but ultimately no matter the verdict he made the wrong decision.
this is evan^
DeleteThe image that stuck with me was when frank denies the $210,000 because he thinks he can win the case. It stuck with me because it’s sort of dumb of him to do. He hasn’t won a case it like 4 years and there’s no point in him trying the case if he hasn’t won in a long time
ReplyDeleteI sort of see Vinny and the guy from the paper chase. Frank was like the guy from paper chase because he used to be really smart. His current situation is like Vinny. I don’t really see him as a one because he has been drinking and playing pinball for most his years now.
The movie really portrays a droopy and sad background. The movie itself is really dark, and the people in the movie a sort of dark too. You never really see a bright scene in the movie. The movie really describes the sadness in being a lawyer with just the background. It’s always really dark and dreary in the scenes.
I believe the frank should’ve taken the money. I feel like he has no chance of winning this case most because of what he’s been doing most of his life. I also have a feeling that it’ll be like my cousin vinny. I feel like he might win after a couple bad rounds with the judge. This is just a theory. As the movie is going I’m just leaning more towards that he isn’t going to win it.
The scene that stuck with me the most was when Frank went to visit his client’s sister at the hospital and he sat down deep in thought. It stuck with me because I believe that Frank was truly impacted by the state of his client’s sister. Later on, Frank declines the settlement offer because he feels that it wouldn’t be the moral thing to do. He feels that the offer does not make up for the losses of his client. Even though Frank is an alcoholic and his life seems to be going downhill, deep down, he has a heart.
ReplyDeleteAll the lawyers/lawyers-to-be from the movies that we have watched have to potential to become great attorneys and exell in the legal world. Frank reminds me of Vinny Gambini in the sense that they are both unprepared for their cases. However, Vinny does succeed, and with Frank, I am doubtful that he will be successful for this case. I do not find him believable as a lawyer due to his lack of stabilization. His alcoholism results in lack of preparation and willpower to fully prepare for his case.
This movie gives an immensely negative picture of the legal profession. If one is not successful, the legal world can tackle you down, giving way for depression, alcoholism, etc. The fact that Frank drinks every morning and night is an example of how a lawyer’s life can be depressing. I find this picture to be the opposite of reassuring. As someone who wants to become a lawyer, I find it scary that the legal profession places a lot of pressure on lawyers to become successful. If one fails, their life can become like Frank’s.
For the sake of his clients, I believe he should have taken the settlement. If he is not capable of representing his clients and assuring them a successful trial, then he should have taken the settlement instead of leaving his clients in immense doubt of a successful trial. However, I understand why he did not take the settlement, because, as mentioned in a previous question, he felt that it was morally wrong to take a settlement thinking it would pay for all the permanent damages done to his client’s sister.
As so many of you point out, this film is a bleak picture of the practice of law. It is a film noir version of a legal drama. I am reminded of Mike Cooley of the Drive By Trucker's lyrics in a song called "Women Without Whiskey." "I know the bottle ain't to blame, and I ain't trying to, 'Cause it don't make you do a thing, it just lets you."
ReplyDeleteFrank makes choices, but he has choices. Some of the most important choices have ethical rules to guide him, but Frank goes the other way. Is it hubris or righteousness that drives him? That same competitiveness and thirst for justice that set his career on a path to excellence long ago still pulsate within him, but they also may very well have cost him his career and his marriage. As all of you seem to grasp, the alcohol may help explain bad decision making, but it doesn't excuse it.
This is true for many real lawyers. There is no rule that says that all lawyers will become addicts. However, many lawyers work under extreme pressure to succeed at their work, at a case, at everything in such a way that failure is not an option. When someone wins a case, someone loses. Sometimes, the consequences are unfathomably dire for the clients, and for the lawyer. It can seem impossible to leave work at the office when you go home. In other situations, it can seem impossible to share this burden with loved ones. This can be isolating in the rather indescribable way that it is for Galvin. All of this works here within the same background of judicial bias and opposing counsel who is long on resources and merciless when it comes to their own determination to drive Frank and his clients into the mud.
Clearly, self medicating is not the solution, but it is something that is rife in the legal profession. When this all shakes out for Galvin, think about where the film leaves him and leaves us. If you saw Galvin the next day, the next week, the next month, or the next year, what does the picture look like? Is he changed? Was this case his salvation? How is Frank different at the end than he is at the beginning of the film?
Frank is a troubled man, and a character that is hard to root for sometimes. He is an alcoholic, a terrible lawyer, and an irritable man all around. He rarely consults with his clients about their cases, and has had to stoop so low as to become an ambulance chaser. We see him do what he believes is right, as opposed to what his clients wish.
ReplyDeleteA defining scene in the movie so far for me is when Frank has an epiphany sitting in the hospital room with the woman in the coma. We see his demeanor change, he is no longer in it for the money; he has a personal connection to the case now. For most lawyers, this would be a normal occurence, checking out the damages, but Frank doesn't seem like he does it often.
This touching scene causes him to make one of his worse decisions in the movie so far. Instead of taking the 210 grand, or even consulting with his clients, he decides to right then and there become a good samaritin and fight for this comatose woman. Not only was this reckless and ill-advised, he doesn't have any concrete evidence for his case, or his clients' green light: Frank, and Frank alone makes this decision.
His recklessness reminds me of a certain Vincent Gambini, but his brooding, self medicating demeanor takes Galvin to a completely different ballpark. If this movie so far was the only knowledge I had about the American justice system, I'd have little faith in our country. Between the kniving plaintiffs and the alcoholic defense, this film paints a rather depressing picture of a boston court
An image that stuck with me was when Frank came back to his office completely wasted after a night out. He proceeded to destroy his office, breaking glass and overturning his filing cabinet, leaving the office in a complete disarray. I think this image stuck with me because it was the first thing that ignited a feeling of sympathy. Throughout the film, Frank isn't necessarily portrayed as a great and benevolent hero, though its apparent he is supposed to be the protagonist. The scene made me feel something for Frank because it showed him at his most vulnerable self, and to be that drunk pretty consistently meant you had to be in some kind of a hard place in your life, which Frank clearly was.
ReplyDeleteFrank is most definitely a more believable trial lawyer. Though Frank isn't painted as a beautiful person, particularly in his habits, he is portrayed as a more realistic lawyer than the ones we have previously viewed. In essentially every courthouse drama, the protagonist is an underdog who has a sudden epiphany during the trail and wins the case in a matter of minutes. I think that a more realistic take of a win in this manner is that the underdog, in this movie Frank, struggles much more, and it’s clearly shown the lack of resources and the great extent that it puts Frank behind the big-shot lawyers. The similarities between Frank and the prior lawyers we've analyzed is that Vinny and Frank are both underdogs that end up winning their cases, even when it seems as if the odds are stacked against them.
The idea that “The Verdict” shows of a lawyer is extremely hard and not very good for providing a happy lifestyle. I don’t think there’s one specific scene that paints this image but just to see Frank’s life throughout the movie. Again, the fact that Frank is an alcoholic shows that he is going through difficult times. The unimpressive apartment and worn-out office show contrast to the lavish, well off stereotype of a lawyer’s life. Frank loosing his key witness, having a biased jury, being tried by a judge whom is against him, and having a relationship with someone who has been working against him, all prove to be just a few out of many examples of just how difficult rock bottom can be for a lawyer. This picture is definitely not reassuring because of the majority of the media paints being a lawyer as always being an exciting and rewarding profession. However Frank’s circumstances are utterly terrible, and the fact that those circumstances are a possibility of what can come of being a lawyer.
I do think that Frank should've taken the original settlement offer of 210,000 dollars. Of course, this is given that the case was not a cinematic scenario. Realistically, I don’t think that Frank would have won the case, and even if Frank believed that he could, it isn't his place to make that decision on behalf of his clients. His job is to represent on behalf of his client, not make decisions for them