The Verdict (1982).

Review #1935: The Verdict.

Cast: 

Paul Newman (Frank Galvin), Charlotte Rampling (Laura Fischer), Jack Warden (Mickey Morrissey), James Mason (Ed Concannon), Milo O'Shea (Judge Hoyle), Lindsay Crouse (Kaitlin Costello Price), Edward Binns (Bishop Brophy), Julie Bovasso (Maureen Rooney), Roxanne Hart (Sally Doneghy), James Handy (Kevin Doneghy), Wesley Addy (Dr. Towler), Joe Seneca (Dr. Thompson), and Lewis J. Stadlen (Dr. Gruber) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon, #1545 - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead)

Review: 

A combination of a director known for his crafting of actors into diverting character dramas and a powerhouse star and script surely would work out for a fair classic, you might say. The movie is an adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Barry Reed. In addition to writing for American Bar Association Journal alongside novels, Reed had his own legal practice in Boston, Massachusetts and he had a reputation for specializing in medical malpractice, personal injury, and civil litigation. Interestingly, one of his proteges was Jan Schlichtmann, a lawyer noted for his own case that became a book and film about a lawyer taking on a big name (in this case, two companies sued for leukemia deaths), which you might know as A Civil Action (1998). Right before publication of The Verdict, producers David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck purchased the film rights. The two hired David Mamet to write a screenplay based on the book. By this point, Mamet was noted for his array of off-Broadway plays in the 1970s such as American Buffalo. The first produced screenplay by Mamet was the 1981 adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice. It shouldn't be too surprising that there were numerous choices for directors and main stars: James Bridges was the initial choice for director and Robert Redford was the first-pick star, but when Bridges became busy with Urban Cowboy (1980), the producers went with Arthur Hiller as the potential director...before a disagreement with Mamet saw him depart (of course, Zanuck wasn't particularly big on the ending of the original script, which ended before the jury came back with the verdict). Jay Presson Allen came in to try and deliver a new script, and when Bridges had time at last to do a project, he also seeped his fingers into writing for the film, but it all went for naught when Redford and Bridges had disagreements over the nature of the main character (Redford irked at the idea of playing the character with the flaws as written). Not long after, Lumet was asked to do the film, and he elected to go back to the original Mamet script, complete with Paul Newman as star. 

Admittedly, the legal aspects of the film aren't completely on the level, as I suspected from a cursory bout of research. For the record, if you are suing a hospital and they offer you a settlement, your lawyer cannot simply reject the offer (without even consulting the clients), and the opposing council doesn't go around telling the client about offers either. But I suppose if you can buy a film that hinges its big finish on having the jurors challenge their doubts in their beliefs, institutions, and the law itself, you can do almost anything. But the movie as a whole is pleasant as a stone-cold thriller of possible redemption as baptism by fire, utilizing its 129 minutes to general effectiveness. It relies heavily on the performance of Newman, in his only appearance in a feature film with Lumet as director. He pulls off a great performance, plundering the depths of redemption in an understated and powerful manner that never blusters or hits a false note from start to finish, one where burying the case is not the end of his own road. Sure, one could put the highlight as the last scene in the courthouse or even the final shot with a rejected call, but the best one might be a sequence where Newman is taking photos of his client (a comatose victim) before he processes what he is doing when the photo is developing and snaps himself to action without having to say a word. It isn't so much as chewing the scenery as it is just a case of a damn good actor being accompanied by pretty decent support in the cast besides him. Rampling makes a quality counterpart to Newman, since each are wayward spirits to begin with, and the last sequence where they share time together (i.e., not just stare at each other) is quite effective in its shock, while Warden accompanies Newman as the long-suffering lawyer pal in useful character presence. Mason (in the twilight of his career) is the ideal foil to Newman, bringing dignity to a role of slime, which goes just as well for O'Shea in steely impatience. As a whole, it is more of a thriller of the lead character rather than a straight-boiled court drama, which results in a slow burn experience that ultimately shows Lumet and Newman in their proper environments: rehearsed excellence, one that has endured well for itself after four decades. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bird.

Review #1638: Bird.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Charlie "Bird" Parker), Diane Venora (Chan Parker), Michael Zelniker (Red Rodney), Samuel E. Wright (Dizzy Gillespie), Keith David (Buster Franklin), Diane Salinger (Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter), Michael McGuire (Brewster), James Handy (Esteves), Anna Thomson (Audrey), Damon Whitaker (Young Bird Parker), Arlen Dean Snyder (Dr. Heath), Sam Robards (Moscowitz), and Bill Cobbs (Dr. Caulfield) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, and #1550 - Gran Torino)

Review: 

"I'd love to go back in time. To Bourbon Street in the 20's, to 12th Street in Kansas City in the 30's, to 52nd Street in the late 40's."

It was once said by Miles Davis (a legend in his own right in music) that one could tell the history of jazz in four words: "Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." Jazz, one of the great music genres of the times, certainly had plenty of historical figures leading the way, and the key to understanding one of its styles rests with Charlie "Yardbird" Parker. The Kansas City native used his time on this Earth for a variety of impactful compositions that clearly touched upon numerous listeners with his alto saxophone of fast tempos and improvisation before his death in 1954. One of those folks was Clint Eastwood, who heard the musician play in Oakland when he was just 15. The film was made on a budget of $9-14 million and came around years after its script was developed by Joel Oliansky in 1980 (shaped by recollections from colleague Teddy Edwards), and it was originally intended to be a project for Richard Pryor. There would be participation from a variety of people close to Parker, such as his common law widow Chan Parker, provided recordings to Eastwood that she had in a vault. It was the first Eastwood film that he had directed where he did not appear in any form (Breezy (1973) had a cameo of him). This was the first of a group of jazz-related programs that Eastwood would be behind in some form (mostly producing), with 1988 also seeing the release of a documentary of the life of Thelonious Monk. It is the sound that matters most when it comes to this film (particularly with music coordinator and former alto sax at Birdland Lennie Niehaus, tasked with writing for the instruments to play where the original piano music was playing), since the recordings of Parker had to be digitally and electronically isolated from the solos, with modern backing tracks recorded over.

While it was not a success with audiences at the time of its release, it certainly has an appeal for those interested in jazz or for those who yearn to see someone at the top of their craft, struggles and all. The beauty of the film is the rhythm it carries with its tribute to a jazz legend with a biography that depicts selections from his life without rote routine or a judging eye. In a way, it moves like a beat you might hear in a jazz composition with all of the thoughtful moodiness required to make a worthwhile time. All interesting biopics have a performance to carry it and no one should be surprised by Whitaker and his effectiveness in bringing Bird to the screen. This was the first starring lead role for Whitaker, who had entered films and television with supporting roles in 1982 such as Tag: The Assassination Game (1982) and Platoon (1986) after a back injury had him shift focus away from football, although he did do some study in music before doing drama. He is the guiding force that makes the film work as smoothly as it does, one that can justify spending plenty of time with in all the soulful aspects that makes for a fascinating experience. He manages to carry talent alongside pain that we can see play a note alongside play his burden without just finding it easy to take judgement or easy pity for as a man. In other words, we see the genius that comes from the notes in the fragments that come out alongside his highs and lows that came with a struggle with addiction to heroin. Venora plays a worthy settling piece to the times away from the road, one with warmth and reason that come around with various scenes that jump from end to end (whether involving interludes at home or near the ends of the timeline spent). Zelniker does fine in those moments on the road, balancing talent with wracked nerve that obviously strikes a chord with what is needed with Whitaker, whether that means an albino act or struggles with oneself (incidentally, the real Rodney participated in the production and is even mentioned in the credits). Wright does well with following along with the beat required from Whitaker without being stepped on (as one would see coming from another figure of bebop jazz, who was touring at the time of production). David and his time spent are quite fleeting, but he sure does well with setting up one particular scene quite well involving cymbals despite playing a composite. Salinger plays the fateful part needed from someone who invites curiosity (incidentally, the real life Baroness was also featured in the documentary about the life of Monk, which aired the month before her death). I suppose any biography is going to have twiddling with the facts, and there are a few things one might quibble with, which is interesting for a film of 155 minutes. Maybe it depends on how much one knows on the subject to begin with, since one might not know about Parker's other marriages (which I probably should have guessed with the whole common thing I described earlier) or lack of mention to associations Parker had with musicians like Miles Davis. In the end, it just comes down to how much one finds themselves enjoying the experience to be had with an elegy for a legend that captures what it means to move to the tune of one's own beat as a film for all of the musicians.

Next Time: Legends in the fields of laughter come together for a most unusual film with a one-time director. Night time comes for Harlem Nights.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.