Undoubtedly, it’s one of Paul Newman’s finest movies. Sidney Lumet at the top of his game, awesome acting, really moody art production…what’s not to love?
Consider this an open thread.
57 thoughts on “The Verdict”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
what’s not to love?
we’re not talking about M.J., right?
What’s there to say? From what I’d heard of the evidence, my level of surprise was…extremely low.
Not that I’d let my kids sleep with him, mind you, or even get within a few hundred yards.
As always, people leave out the script as the key element. It’s a David Mamet screenplay that holds the film together. Not to take away from Lumet and Newman, but in the beginning there was the word.
Or are we really talking about Michael Jackson….?
At my office they play CNBC all day long, the volume muted except when somebody is interested and turns it up. Yesterday the words “Michael Jackson” broke into my programming reverie and I thought, Oh jeez, not this again…
We used scenes from the movie in Evidence class in law school (as in the prof. stopped the tape and asked “What’s Paul Newman’s objection?” and discussed whether it should have been sustained or overruled). Still one of my all-time favorite courtroom movies, though I liked Adam’s Rib and Witness for the Prosecution better.
As for MJ, this week’s scheduled distraction is over. I guess we need a new runaway bride.
Never fear Dantheman, there’s now Natalee, the woman who disappeared in Aruba.
As always, people leave out the script as the key element. It’s a David Mamet screenplay that holds the film together.
Good point.
I go back and forth on Mamet…loved loved loved State and Main…hated Glengarry Glen Ross …somewhat ambivalent about The Spanish Prisoner, etc.
This seems like a good moment to link to the Poor Man’s excellent story on, well, let’s just say cable news. It’s wonderful.
as someone on that thread noted, hilzoy, the Poor Man is hot lately.
Galvin’s (Paul Newman) summation is brilliant:
What a great speech.
[While that summation is an all-purpose summation, I, at least, am not talking about Jackson.]
I think this is the third Poor Man thread I’ve post I’ve read that came with rave reviews, and I none of them were, to me, even the least bit funny. Must be some missing bit of funny bone, I guess.
Slarti: when you didn’t think the Publius post was funny, I thought: oh well, tastes vary. But how can you not find this one funny? (Actually, one possibly answer is: if you haven’t watched cable news in several years, and thus have no idea how accurate the ‘Where the White Women At?’ thing is.)
I really don’t even want to think about Michael Jackson, so I’ll take the opportunity of an open thread to ask the ObWing collective:
What kind of lesbian are you?
I’m a student dyke, apparently. 😉
How embarassing…I’m a “Pretty-Boi Dyke”…of course, that quiz is slanted!
riffle, I once used Newman’s closing argument as a monologue in an acting class. I didn’t do it one-thousandth the service that Newman does, of course, but it’s a wonderful piece of writing.
One of my favorite movies; every time I see a courtroom drama, or an episode of L&O or something, and somebody calls a mistrial, my brain immediately fills in Miles O’Shea’s voice saying, “You’re not gonna get a mistrial, boy!”
i’m “The Stud” . i had to take a guess at a few of the questions, not having a vagina and all.
The Magic Earring Ken Dyke.
I’d like to consider myself still somewhat edgy/cool. This makes it hard for me to claim that I am still edgy/cool even if I listen to Op Ivy on my way to work in the morning.
I always thought that Newman speech was quite inappropriate, basically and argument for jury nullification.
I conclusively proved that that quiz lacked all validity by turning out to be “The Femme Fatale”.
Well, I came out (Pun! Pun!)to be a granola dyke, which isn’t surprising since I really, truly had granola for breakfast this morning.
I, too, am Magic Earring Ken Dyke.
You’re tough, mysterious and extremely butch. But you love who you are and often consider it a compliment when someone thinks you’re a male.
Slarti: fwiw, I think you’re a male.
“You’re tough, mysterious and extremely butch. But you love who you are and often consider it a compliment when someone thinks you’re a male.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | June 14, 2005 10:26 AM
Slarti: fwiw, I think you’re a male.
Posted by: Anarch | June 14, 2005 11:18 AM”
But does Slarti consider that a compliment?
Hey, if Anarch can sense my maleness all the way over there…compliment, indeed.
Hey, if Anarch can sense my maleness all the way over there…compliment, indeed.
You are a man of extraordinary magnitude.
I am, somehow, reminded of the runner-up in my all-time most unfortunate sentence in a published work contest:
“The glory of his manhood filled the room.”
(First place: “Her breasts glowed like amber melons.” Radioactive amber melons, apparently.)
She had radioactive yellow breasts? Did this cause Our Hero to flee screaming into the night? I mean, after he’d packed in his room-filling manhood. Or did he take this as some sort of sexual caution signal?
Either that, or you’re a man of extraordinary perception. Me, I’m going with the latter.
For courtroom drama, my pick is My Cousin Vinny. Then there’s Miracle on 34th Street.
OK, so maybe “drama” isn’t quite the right word.
“Her breasts glowed like amber melons.”
We have the technology. (Well, in the vaguest sense, that is.)
Of course, if correctly and correspondingly applied, this could also considerably add to the ease of perception of Slartibartfast’s manly maleness at a distance.
I suggest to the soundtrack of John Travolta’s shoes striding along in Saturday Night Fever. Although another movie scene also suggests itself.
SPOILER for The Verdict:
My favorite part of The Verdict (besides that great speech, which is, after all, an argument for jury nullification) is the series of shots of various people reacting as the jury foreman asks if they can award more than was asked for. All of them cynical, tired courtroom folks who seem to be saying to themselves, “What is this? A movie?”
David Mamet favorite (like Edward): State and Main. “Well….that happened.” Also love House of Games, but since it’s so stylized, it’s hard to get anyone else to like it.
Opus, student dyke
This is so sad…but I sort of skimmed over cleek’s first post in this thread, so when I read Slarti’s:
————
What’s there to say? From what I’d heard of the evidence, my level of surprise was…extremely low.
Not that I’d let my kids sleep with him, mind you, or even get within a few hundred yards.
————-
…I somehow thought we were still talking about The Verdict and Paul Newman. And I was very confused. :-/
Now that I’m sane, I agree — what a weak case to take to trial.
Oh, I also loved House of Games. So we’ve got that in common, at least.
JFTR, I don’t think I’d let my girls sleep with Paul Newman, either. But I’m old-fashioned, maybe.
I tend to like David Mamet. I tend to like interesting stylization. I am tending to be liking Damon Runyon, as well.
I liked House of Games. I also enjoyed rewatching over the weekend for the umpteenth time the utterly substanceless Ronin, which nonetheless is a terrific John Frankenheimer action thriller with Jean Reno and Robert DeNiro at their iconic best (and the rest of the cast choices are fantastic). (Is Satan now requiring DeNiro to only take crap roles in more recent years?; what’s up with that?)
I look forward to seeing Spartan sooner or later.
“Spence: You worried about saving your own skin?
Sam: Yeah, I am. It covers my body.”
I’d completely forgotten that House of Games‘ Lindsay Crouse was Kaitlin Costello in The Verdict. Funny.
Dunno if you are or are not aware that at the time of HOG, Crouse was married (1976; divorced ’81) to Mamet. They have two daughters. (Willa and Zosia? Okay.)
“I look forward to seeing Spartan sooner or later”
Spartan been floating around my cable channels. Not very good, IMO, though it is neat to see Mamet write a uber-tough guy action flick.
Liked The Heist with Hackman and DeVito. Classic Mamet, with clever plot twists. Somewhat predictable, but what the hey. Rebecca Pidgeon plays sexy femme fatale. Umm, has Rebecca Pidgeon in it.
My lady watched Spartan last week, and asks me:”Why does Mamet write dialogue like that?” I says:”Cause.” I read an interview with an actor that explained it, maybe rhythms or need for mistake free rapid delivery or something, does anybody know?
Very little of it takes place in a courtroom, but I really enjoyed that John Travolta movie, A Civil Action I think it was called. Them crazy lovable lawyers. Be a nice double feature with The Verdict
Mamet writes dialog that accurately reflects how people really talk. I find it annoying.
We have the technology. (Well, in the vaguest sense, that is.)
Don’t give Fafnir any more ideas, Gary.
Of course, if correctly and correspondingly applied, this could also considerably add to the ease of perception of Slartibartfast’s manly maleness at a distance.
I’m serious: do not give Fafnir any more ideas. Especially these ones.
Mamet writes dialog that accurately reflects how people really talk. I find it annoying.
Quote of the day.
“Mamet writes dialog that accurately reflects how people really talk.”
Wow. That is so completely and utterly untrue. “Mametspeak” is exactly the way people do not talk. People do not, it turns out, speak in precise, whole, statements in the same cadences, with no “uhs,” “ums,” “ers,” stammers, hesitations, repetitions, or confusion of any sort.
As Mamet says:
A key to writing dialogue is to write it so that people have the delusion it is realistic, whereas any decent writer or editor, or simply anyone who listens to people actually speaking, or looks at a transcript, or listents to a tape, recognizes how different the illusion is from the reality.
I have, however, discovered some little known Mamet dialogue.
hmmm…must resist obvious snark…
I took Lily’s point to be that his characters speak, poetically or not (and it’s really not his call, IMO), in a fashion that annoys, just like real people do.
From Wikipedia on Mamet:
“As a drama practitioner, he argues in his book True and False against the practice of teaching drama students the ‘method’ of Constantin Stanislavski. For Mamet, time spent searching for emotion memory or considering character’s biographies is time wasted, and he suspects that it is an academic bluff working to keep actors uncertain.
He recommends a simple, honest style of acting, where the actor’s job is to learn the lines, find their mark, and speak up simply. Work on character, he asserts, is the playwright’s job.”
So an actor does not add emotion to a line reading in a Mamet work. The emotion should be in the words and the context. Which is why it seems robotic and affectless to me sometimes.
But when we read a play or novel, are we confused about Hamlet’s emotions? Ok, not Hamlet, but if dialogue is comprehensible when read, as it must be for actors to perform it, they should not need to add anything to it. Wonder how Mamet feels about gestures and body language.
Mamet’s book on directing film is brilliant actually. In fact, it’s the best primer on telling a story in any medium I’ve ever read. I know someone who was in the course at NYU the lectures that comprise the book were given for, and he swears Mamet was an arrogant uninspiring lecturer, but the book is totally compelling.
“I took Lily’s point to be that his characters speak, poetically or not (and it’s really not his call, IMO), in a fashion that annoys, just like real people do.”
Edward, “I find Mamet’s dialogue annoying” is not only an unobjectionable statement, but a common one, as well. However, it’s no more necessary, or relevant, to assert “Mamet writes dialog that accurately reflects how people really talk” to preface that sentiment of his dialogue being annoying than it is remotely true that Mamet writes dialogue that accurately, etc. One might equally find Shakespearean dialogue annoying, and its alleged “realism” as relevant and accurate.
If Mamet wrote the way people really talk, we wouldn’t need Mamet, or any other writer; we’d just need tape recorders with an editing system.
Mamet writes in one of the most famously stylicized, unrealistic, fashions there is. It’s what he’s most famous for. This is not a nitpicky point. Practically every review ever written of every work of his refers to this.
Read any script of his, see any play, see any movie, and find me people who talk like that.
To put it into another medium, did Edouard Manet or Winslow Homer paint “just like a photograph”?
If Mamet wrote the way people really talk, we wouldn’t need Mamet, or any other writer; we’d just need tape recorders with an editing system.
[…]
To put it into another medium, did Edouard Manet or Winslow Homer paint “just like a photograph”?
Do you mean, does Rackstraw Downes or Gerhard Richter paint like a photograph? Because most people are hard pressed to realize one of their paintings isn’t a photograph until they’re right up on top of them.
Point being: of course writers can write the way people truly speak and have it mean something in the context of art and entertainment. And note, Lily didn’t write how people “truly” speak, but how people “really” speak.
There are different ways to interpret “how people really talk.” Take Glengarry Glen Ross (please!)…the machinegun profanity splattered language was shocking, not because businessmen under extreme stress don’t talk that offesively, but rather because we’re not used to hearing it in the context of entertainment (as opposed to in “real” life). In other words, it’s hyperrealistic…and as such supports Lily’s claim.
“In other words, it’s hyperrealistic…and as such supports Lily’s claim.”
“Hyperrealistic” is not how people “really” speak. They “really speak like they “really” speak. (Which is generally really awkwardly.)
I don’t know how this is even arguable. Are you just trying to wind me up? 🙂
“I don’t know how this is even arguable. Are you just trying to wind me up? :-)”
Well, Gary, one unusual aspect of Mamet’s dialogue I have noticed is that people interrupt each other much more than in the work of other writers. A point for realism.
A point against is the lack of contractions. I also wonder if the non-Method delivery misleads, I would like to read Mamet to see how the dialogue looks on paper.
You scored as The Student Dyke.
Your entire life is defined by two things: your intellect and your sexuality; moreover you often merge the two to lure in women.
The Student Dyke
80%
The Femme Fatale
70%
The Magic Earring Ken Dyke
65%
The Surprise! Dyke
65%
The Stud
65%
I guess I’d better explain myself. I went to a Mamet play, I don’t recall which one. The next day I chaired our SRT meeting at school. People repeated themselves, , talked over each other, failed to get the point and had to be told obvious stuff again and again until I threw a fit and told them all to stop acting like characters in a Mamet play. Really, the simularity was striking. Most writers organize dialog so that communication is much more efficient than in real life. Real conversation, even about simple things, involves many repetitions , which I find very annoying in a movie and sometimes in real life.
I did not mean to start an argument.
that was fun
“I did not mean to start an argument.”
But,but that is what blogs are for! OK, okay than I guess I have to thump Gary and Edward who say some painting doesn’t look like photography and some painting does look like photography but both seem to agree on exactly what photography is supposed to look like.
As a drama practitioner, he argues in his book True and False against the practice of teaching drama students the ‘method’ of Constantin Stanislavski. For Mamet, time spent searching for emotion memory or considering character’s biographies is time wasted, and he suspects that it is an academic bluff working to keep actors uncertain.
And yet, weirdly, look how many Method guys appear in his movies. Quite successfully, too.
I think William H. Macy is like the uber-Mamet actor. His performance in Oleana was so incredibly on-the-mark . . . he’s a real joy to watch spit that stuff out. He carries it over, too; his character arc on the late, lamented Sports Night really had that feel about it. Probably because Aaron Sorkin fancies himself David Mamet, and Macy knew how to go about making it happen.
OK, okay than I guess I have to thump Gary and Edward who say some painting doesn’t look like photography and some painting does look like photography but both seem to agree on exactly what photography is supposed to look like.
As Baldesarri once supposedly said “There’s no such thing as a bad photograph.”
{ducking out before camera equipment starts flying my way}
Someone came up to Picasso and complained about how unrealistic his paintings were. ‘Why look at this portrait of your wife. It doesn’t look anything like her!’ Picasso says ‘I see you have a wedding band, do you have something that really shows what your wife looks like?’. The man says ‘Certainly, here’s a photo of my wife, and this is exactly what she looks like’ and reaches in his wallet and hands Picasso a passport sized photo. Picasso looks a bit baffled and says ‘I hope I’m not being rude, but your wife has an incredibly small head…’
And Mrs. Picasso once said, “If my husband ever met a woman walking down the street who looked lik one of his paintings, he’d fall over in a dead faint.”
Edward_ brings up Gerhard Richter, and since this thread is open I shall regale you all with the following tale: I was vacationing (crashing with college friends) in Buffalo back around 1990. The night before had included trips to both the old and new Pink Flamingos, and I was in one of those rare and rapturous hangovers where no ill effects are felt but all thought is utterly obliterated. Complete peace of mind and open reception to the cosmos. Monks work for years to feel this way (and, I guess, so do drunks).
So we went to the Albright-Knox museum to take in a bit of culture. It was actually my first visit to an art museum, and there haven’t been too many more. I do find some level of appreciation for art, but I am far from a connoisseur. Most of my time spent in art museums consists of vagely feeling things like, “Hmm, pretty art,” or “Hmm, that’s cool.”
But that day I rounded a corner and came to a work by Gerhard Richter. I guess it was one of his more abstract paintings. It was a huge canvass consisting of mostly almost-black brown with a shape of black in the middle and covered over with a brilliant sheen. To try to give it some kind of material reference, it looked like the tail of an airplane on a night that no one would ever fly.
In any event, I stood before that painting for I don’t know how long. Completely transfixed. Clawing myself into the painting pained by my separateness from it. No work of art had ever affected me like that one, and none has since.
So, Edward_, GIS has so far proved fruitless. How can I be reunited with my love!