The Sick Day

I never know what's the appropriate etiquette when on a sick day. Sure there's the day's that you call in sick, where you feel like death and the only option is sleeping. But what about those other days, where you're not well enough to be at work, but after tossing and turning for a few hours, sleep becomes a mythological concept? In these situations is it okay to do chores? Is it okay to catch up on Facebook, read a magazine or write on your blog? Or should we become social recluses, riddled with disease, trapped in the deep dark depths of the bedroom, only to resurface once the last sneeze has sounded? Well today I'm compromising! I've got the dreaded and long lasting summer cold and was unable to drag my sneezing and suffling behind into work this morning. So, I'm lying in bed removing the possibility of contaminating anyone else, but at the same time, I'm writing on here.

I also have to apologise, as it has been quite a few weeks since I've been on here. However, despite my absence, I have continued with the films of 1982 and have two to review. So here it goes.

The Verdict
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O’Shea

The Verdict is a court room drama, starring Paul Newman as broke down lawyer, Frank Galvin. The film opens with various scenes of Frank in bars, drunk in his office and trying to swindle work at funerals (he would approach the family members and claim to have known the deceased and offer his services). Of course at this point he is presented as a very unlikeable character, a maggot, drinking way too much and preying on the grief of others. However, it is quite obvious that there is more to this story then what you are seeing on screen (maybe because it’s Hollywood and there always is more to the story, but I would like to think it is because of a deep insight hehe).

Frank’s friend and colleague, Mickey Morrissey (James Mason), has a soft spot for Frank (we do not understand why at this point) and gives him a civil suit case.  However, due to Frank’s self-destructive ways, Mickey tells him they are through after this case. The case is a medical malpractice case, involving a young pregnant woman, who was given the wrong dose of aneasetic and as a result her baby died and she was left in a coma. Her sister and her husband bought the case to Mickey’s firm. They are suing the hospital involved, which is owned by the Archdiocese. All parties are willing to settle out of court with a settlement fee of $210000 going to the plaintiffs. However, Frank much to the opposition of the sister and her husband, Frank decides the case needs to tried, both because he believes that the woman deserves a chance at a more just outcome and because he desires to restore his reputation as a lawyer.

The film is as much about the case itself, as it is about the inadequacies of the court system. The judge (Milo O’Shea) is nothing less than bias and actively works against Frank, openly telling him that he should have settled, dismisses a key witnesses testimony and actually cross examines a witness himself. The defence buys off witnesses and even goes as far as planting a mole, to spy on Frank and Mickey as they build their case. Her name is Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) and she becomes the love interest of Frank in the film. Both Mickey and Frank confide in her. Mickey tells her about Frank’s background and how he ended up where he did. Frank was once a really strong and successful lawyer, until he found out that witnesses were being “bought off” in a case he was trying. He was going to report it, but those involved found out and set him up. He was arrested for witness tampering himself and was only released from prison after he promised not to report his colleagues. His reputation was ruined after this and this led him to his life style of chronic drinking and ambulance chasing. Laura is eventually caught out by Mickey, after he finds a cheque in her bag from the defence. At this point in the film, the case is going really bad and it is only after Frank seeks out a nurse, who was not testifying for the defence that there is hope for his case. Laura turns over a new leaf and does not tell the defence about the nurse. She is then able to testify and tell the court that her job was threatened by the doctors involved if she disclosed that the patient was given aneasetic one hour after eating, when it should have been nine. They even forced her to change what she had written on the admittance sheet. Based on this testimony (even though the judge told the jury to strike it from their memory, based on some loose precedent allowing him to rightfully dismiss the testimony as evidence) the jury come back in favour of the plaintiff and even ask the judge if they can award a bigger amount then that asked for. We do not find out what that is. The final scene is Frank looking across at Laura from a distance. You get the sense from his look that he is appreciative that she did the “right thing” not revealing that witness to the defence, but that he cannot forgive such a betrayal and they will never be together again.

I really liked the movie. I enjoyed seeing Paul Newman in a film, as being from Gen Y, much like Jane Fonda being the exercise lady to me, Paul Newman is the creator of my favourite spaghetti sauce.

7/10


Missing
Director: Costa-Gavras
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, John Shea

Missing stars Jack Lemmon as Ed Horman and Sissy Spacek as Beth Horman, and is based on a true story. The movie is about the disappearance of Ed’s son and Beth’s husband, Charles Horman (John Shea) during the military coup in Chile in 1973. Beth and Charlie lived there during this period and worked on a liberal newspaper. At the start of the film, they make the decision to return home, deciding that it was becoming too dangerous to remain in the country. The general belief was that American citizens were safe due to an agreement forged between the two counties.

The movie tracks the search carried out by Ed and Beth and the American government’s potential involvement in Charlie’s disappearance. Ed is a high flying businessman and so has good contacts in Washington. At the start of the film he has a strong sense of trust and faith in the American government and is in close contact with staff in the American Consulate in Chile. Beth on the other hand, is very mistrusting, does not believe that Charlie is in “hiding”, which is what the Consulate are telling her is most likely, and is not willing to cooperate in their investigation, opting to find answers herself. Ed and Beth do not have a good relationship at the beginning of the film. It appears that Ed and Charles’ relationship has suffered due to fundamental differences in their politics (Ed is a conservative, believing in the American government, whilst Charles is more liberal and leftist in his politics) and Ed resents Beth, who shares the same views as Charlie.

It is not until Beth and Ed start talking with all those people who were with Charlie in the weeks and days leading up to his disappearance, and through these conversations are able to find out that Charlie was privy to information that could potentially prove America’s involvement in the coup, that Ed starts to question the American government and whether they are doing everything humanly possible to find his son. Despite their differences, Ed loves his son and will do anything to find him. He begs, pleads and offers to be bound and blind folded, if it means he can talk to somebody who knows what happened to his son. The straw that breaks the camel’s back for Ed is when he and Beth uncover the body of one of Charlie’s associates Frank Teruggi. The reason that is the breaking point for Ed is because an official from the Consulate himself, told Ed personally that Frank had left the country, but obviously he had not, as he was dead. Ed finds out towards the end of the film that his son was executed in the National Stadium where the Chilean military were holding people captive. After he finds this out, he takes Beth back to America and sues the American government for negligence. This is the end of the film, however there is a citation just before the credits, that informs the viewer of what happens after Beth and Ed leave Chile. Ed does sue the government, however it takes seven months for them to ship Charlie’s body back to the States making an accurate autopsy impossible. The suit does go to court and after many years of litigation, the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence proving negligence.

The movie was very sad, but I still enjoyed it. Jack Lemon and Sissy Spacek were really good in the film, really bringing the characters to life. I also found it interesting, as I knew nothing of the coup in Chile or the suspicion that the American government may have been involved. In my post viewing reading, I found out that the coup came about potentially because the American government became involved with the Chilean military due to their concern about the socialist regime growing with the Chilean president Allende, being a socialist. He was elected democratically in 1970, however only won marginally, despite America spending nearly half a million dollars supporting National Party leader, Rodriguez’s campaign.

Good movie.
7/10

Until my next entry, “well goooooodddbyyyeeee now, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah” (Natalie, The Commitments)