Some of the greatest films are based on courtrooms, high-profile lawyers, passionate defense and the travesty of justice
By Somi Das
There is nothing more riveting or gripping than courtroom dramas. It is one of the oldest and most successful genres of film-making. The themes could range from death sentences, juvenile justice system, civil cases to criminal sentences. What makes these dramas so important is that they hinge on justice, and courtrooms are the only place where this can be meted out. We list some of the greatest courtroom dramas of all times. It’s not an exhaustive list but shows the sheer variety of drama based on the issues shown.
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Director Bily Wilder turns Agatha Christie’s short story by the same name into a racy script. Leonard Vole, played by Tyrone Power, is accused of murdering a rich old widow, who supposedly was in love with him and bestowed upon him all her money. The highly respected Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton), who finds his health to be an obstacle in the pursuance of his acclaimed career as a criminal lawyer, agrees to defend Vole. The twist in the plot comes when Christine Vole, wife of Leonard, played by the very charming Marlene Dietrich, becomes a witness for the prosecution and testifies against her husband. However, Robarts proves that Christine testimony is false and she is eventually charged of perjury while securing a “Not Guilty” verdict for Leonard.
However, as the plot unravels, one realizes how ordinary people like the Voles can take the judiciary for a ride. Indeed, Vole had murdered the old widow for her money and his wife was hand-in-glove with him all this while, ready to serve a term in return for the money and her husband’s love. The film ends on a tragic note with Christine killing Leonard for leaving her for a younger woman. Robarts concludes: “She killed him? (No), she executed him!” This sharply brings home the message that it is sometimes justified to take the law into one’s hand and the court would be merciful considering the circumstances in which the crime was committed.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Released the same year as the above film, it clinically rips apart the criminal justice system that relies on flimsy circumstantial evidence to send people who do not have enough legal aid to the gallows.
A teenager from the slums is charged with murdering his abusive father on the basis of circumstantial evidence and two witnesses. The 12-member jury must arrive at a consensus to pronounce the accused guilty or not guilty. On being proven guilty, he will be given capital punishment. The jury comes from different walks of life and is not related to law in any way. They must use reason to come to a conclusion. However, most of them have their personal biases and are convinced that the boy has killed his father. One jury member even gives this bizarre reason for his conviction—aren’t all children from the shanties obnoxiously violent and prone to committing heinous crimes?
Juror number 8, played by James Fonda, is the only one who is ready to argue for the accused. Eventually, through sound reasoning, he destroys the case for prosecution, its witnesses and its evidences—something that the defense counsel should have done all along. Fonda tells his fellow jurors: “It’s possible for the lawyer to be plain stupid”, pointing towards the fact that often government lawyers do not stand up for the accused as they have nothing to gain.
The film also has a stimulating discourse on the juvenile justice framework. Shouldn’t the boy’s background, his social standing, his daily struggles for survival and violence-ridden childhood be taken into account while deciding whe-ther he is guilty and given a death sentence? This film remains relevant even today for raising questions about how differently the legal system treats the rich and the poor.
I Want to Live (1958)
Susan Hayward plays the Oscar-winning role of Barbara Graham, a serial offender and murder accused. This box office hit is based on the real life story of Graham, who was third of only four women in California to be gassed to death. The film draws its facts from articles written by Pulitzer-winning journalist, Edward S “Ed” Montgomery, on Graham’s conviction in the murder of Mabel Monohan, a rich widow.
Dumped by her accomplices with whom she was involved in petty crimes, Graham is left to fend for herself. A single mother, she is left not only to fight a lengthy legal battle, but also face a parallel media trial. The film is a case study on how a hostile media can actually interfere with judicial proceedings and influence the final verdict. A major part of the film deals with the press’s obsession with the Mabel Monohan case and their projection of Graham as an unapologetic, cold villain, even naming her “bloody Bab” for her habit of dressing up glamorously and speaking her mind during the trail.
The last 30-minutes of the film are entirely devoted to the elaborate arrangements being made to execute Graham in the gas chamber. This has a chilling effect. Graham never accepted that she actually had a role in killing Monohan. Death sentence as a form of punishment looks even more hideous when one sees a beautiful, eccentric young mother being gassed to death. Even the heart of the staunchest supporter would melt on seeing how Barbara meets her death despite her tremendous will to live, albeit on her own terms.
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
The celluloid adaptation of Harper Lee’s classic book gave us one of the most beloved lawyers of all time—Atticus Finch—played to perfection by the handsome Gregory Peck. Finch stands up for the rights of a black man, Tom Robin-son, who is falsely accused of raping a white teen-ager, at the cost of his own and his family’s safety.
It would be unfair to call it just a legal drama, for it is much more than that. It is a commentary on the inhumanity that human beings are capable of inflicting on their own kind based on racial differences. And that the justice system is not untouched by the discriminations that rule the real world. The reason Why Mockingbird would always top the lists of legal films is that it has one of the best appeals to the jury made by Finch, wherein he asks a prejudiced jury to “do your duty, in the name of God”.
In Cold Blood (1967)
Here’s another film that makes a strong case against the death sentence. This, too, is an adaptation of a real life incident documented by Truman Capote in his book by the same title.
Two criminals—Perry Smith and Richard “Dick” Hickock, played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson—are out on parole when they hatch a burglary plan in order to live a comfortable life in Mexico. But unfortunately, after taking the Clutter family hostage, they realize there was no huge sum of cash stashed away anywhere in the house. They end up killing all the four members of the family.
Thereafter, the film follows their journey through their arrest, trial and eventual hanging. The linear narrative of the film is interspersed with scenes from Smith’s childhood—part happy, part violent. He often goes into fits while recalling his abusive, alcoholic father beating up his promiscuous mother. In fact, he murdered the Clutters during one such fit. The film provides an insight into the agony of murder convicts waiting for their mercy petitions to be heard. The full impact of the title comes alive right after the hanging of both protagonists—what could be more cold-blooded than the meticulously planned hanging at a predetermined place and time.
The Verdict (1982)
This is the second legal masterpiece directed by Sidney Lumet, who also directed Twelve Angry Men. Paul Newman plays the role of alcoholic lawyer Frank Galvin, who is tired of being an “ambulance chaser” (a lawyer who makes a living out of encouraging victims of accidents to sue for damages). He finds his rhythm when a case of medical negligence falls into his lap. He has to defend a woman in coma, who turned into a vegetable because her doctors, who are highly respected, gave her the wrong anaesthesia during delivery.
Despite all attempts by the bishop, who owns the Catholic hospital where this woman was being treated, and constant pleas from the impo-verished relatives of the victim to settle for a hefty sum, Galvin goes to trial. The odds are stacked against him from the word go. The judge hearing the case has an acrimonious relation with him; his opponent, Ed Concannon, has a huge, intelligent team to back him and the resources to manipulate the press.
Galvin’s portrayal of a struggling law-yer is commendable. The film has some terrific dialogues on judicial system, one being: “The court doesn’t exist to give them justice. The court exists to give them a chance at justice.”
Justice, nevertheless, is meted out in the end. In a moving courtroom scene, a surprise witness—a nurse who was present in the operating room—testifies agai-nst the doctors. The Verdict makes a case for practicing conscientious law.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Directed by Rob Reiner, this box office hit is an old-fashioned courtroom drama. It deals with the court-martial of two US marines stationed in the rough terrains of Guantanamo Bay. They are accused of killing a fellow marine, Santiago, who could not face the harsh Cuban conditions. The film gives an insight into the “American way” of dealing with its military force. It is an expose on the use of extrajudicial practices like “Code Red”, meant to punish any weakness and meekness within the force.
Tom Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career as navy lawyer, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, defending the two marines. The marines say they were only following orders from their superior to give a Code Red. The high point of the film is the “You Can’t handle the truth!” cross-questioning scene between Kaffee and Col Jessep (Jack Nicholson), where the latter is forced to concede that he ordered the marines to give a Code Red to Santiago, leading to his death. It exposes the false dignity that the American armed forces take pride in, while compromising human values and lives.
The Devil’s Advocate (1997)
This film, starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves, takes us into the murky world of giant law firms that exist only to defend the crimes of their corporate clients—chemical weapon deals, toxic waste, money laundering—making a mockery of the justice system.
Reeves plays ambitious young attorney Kevin Lomax, who has never lost a case. This lands him a dream job with a New York shark, headed by John Milton (Pacino). Lomax must kill his soul to win the cases for his clients. He is awash in money and comfort. But the work he does destroys his family life. This legal thriller essentially focuses on Lomax, an attorney whose only fear is losing a case. It has one of the best courtroom scenes, where Lomax, in a flash of brilliance, gets a “Not guilty” verdict for his client, a school teacher and a child molester, by demolishing the credibility of his teenage victim.
A Civil Action (1998)
The film deals with the real life incident of chemical contamination of a river in Woburn, Massachusetts, that led to many children dying of leukemia. It also provides an insight into how law firms actually thrive on personal injury claims and out-of-court settlements.
John Travolta plays a cocky Boston attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, whose firm has made a fortune out of personal tragedies. He even figures on the most wanted bachelors list of Boston. The secret of Jan’s success hitherto had been his ability to sort things out of court. His principle till then has been simple: “A lawyer who shares his client’s pain and suffering does him such a great disservice. He should have his license to practice law taken away.”
But the resolute, pragmatic lawyer forgets his own talisman and gets way too involved with the suffering of his clients, resulting in his bankruptcy.
Jan’s opponent, Jerome Facher, played by the towering Robert Duvall, is also a teacher at Harvard. His lectures to law students provide comic relief as to how law is just a customer-oriented service and not a tool to provide justice to the wronged ones.
Nothing but the Truth (2008)
A scintillating story about a journalist’s fanatical protection of her source, this film gets us straight into the debate on national security vs freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the US constitution gives protection to journalists from revealing their sources. But national security mustn’t be meddled with. So when a reporter, Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) writes a front page story in a national daily, revealing the identity of a CIA agent, she is harassed, apprehended, tried and finally sent to prison, all for protecting the name of her source.
In her report, Armstrong writes that the CIA agent is question was on a fact-finding mission to Venezuela, where the agent found out that the country had nothing to do with an assassination attempt on the US president, thus questioning the justification for military action against it. The government sees it as a direct threat on the nation and appoints special federal prosecutor, played by the devilish Matt Dillon, to investigate the matter.
Armstrong is made to depose before a grand jury and sent to remand. Her case is taken up in the Supreme Court of the US. A 5-4 verdict rules in favor of national security, overruling the great personal sacrifice that Armstrong made to protect her source.
The Judge (2014)
Successful Chicago lawyer and estranged son Hank Palmer (Robert Downey Jr) visits his hometown Carlinville, Indiana, after a long time to attend his mother’s funeral. But he finds himself in a situation where he must defend his father Judge Joseph Palmer (Robert Duvall) in a hit and run case.
In his capacity as a judge, his father had sent him to juvenile detention for causing a massive car accident that had incapacitated his elder brother, a promising baseball player, for life.
During the course of the trial, Hank comes to discover many unknown facts about his father’s life. He secures a non-guilty verdict on charges of first degree murder from the jury. The film ends with Joseph acknowledging that Hank is the best lawyer—an acknowledgment that he has pined for all his life.