Primary navigation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/df865/df865f2026d1955c58fecf1a8b8bbb13300d7e76" alt="Cover of Sight & Sound April 1999."
USA 1998
Reviewed by Stella Bruzzi
Our synopses give away the plot in full, including surprise twists.
Boston, Massachusetts. Jan Schlichtmann is a successful lawyer specialising in personal-injury claims. He is contacted by Anne Anderson, a mother seeking legal representation in her fight to win an apology from whomsoever caused the deaths of several children - including her own - from leukaemia by contaminating the well water in Woburn, Massachusetts, with chemical waste. Since the case is difficult to prove, Schlichtmann turns it down, but changes his mind after witnessing the dumping of waste from factories owned by Beatrice Foods and Grace & Co. The motion to dismiss brought by Beatrice and Grace's defence lawyers (Cheeseman and Facher, respectively) is denied, and the case comes to trial.
Schlichtmann and his colleagues are bankrupting themselves to pursue the case, but only two employees from either company will affirm the plaintiffs' story. The defence team is ready to strike a deal, but Jan deliberately demands an unrealistic compensation fee that is refused. The trial falters as Grace is acquitted by the jury. A paltry settlement of $375,000 per family is agreed with Beatrice Foods. Schlichtmann and his firm part company. He goes back on the case, finding another witness willing to testify. The case is brought to the court of appeal (not by Schlichtmann), and this time both plants are closed down. $69.4 million is paid out in compensation and clean-up costs by the companies. Jan switches to environmental law.
Based on a real case concluded in 1990, A Civil Action is - like many courtroom dramas - a conscience film, which constructs a complex narrative from gritty moral material. Its realism is manifested in two distinct ways: through a functional but slick visual style (using montage to show the witnesses' testimonies, but refraining from other flourishes); and a tortuous attention to legal details. It's believable in a way that other courtroom dramas from 12 Angry Men (1956) to Philadelphia are not. Disillusionment-fuelled legal dramas, such as Sidney Lumet's The Verdict (which focuses on an ambulance-chaser jolted out of moral limbo by getting involved in an emotive negligence case) are, of course, common. But given the bad rap lawyers have in the US these days, A Civil Action is not heavy with cynicism. Comments about the system's shortcomings are almost ironic asides: "Trials are a corruption of the whole process," Jan's voiceover observes, while his rival, the defence lawyer Facher, says, "Here you're lucky if you find anything that resembles the truth." Overall, A Civil Action has a lightness of touch uncharacteristic of the genre.
Director Steven Zaillian (who made Searching for Bobby Fischer and is the screenwriter of The Falcon and the Snowman, Schindler's List and Patriot Games) cannily notes that in Jonathan Harr's original book, "All the important events happen outside the courtroom." Liberated from the constrictions (physical and otherwise) of making the trial its foundation, A Civil Action the movie puts its heart into the environmental-disaster case and Schlichtmann's hubristic rise and fall. Most moving is the depiction of the David-and-Goliath struggle between the parents (all lumberjack shirts, big jackets and shapeless cardigans), who simply seek an apology for their children's deaths, and the polluting factories and their haughty lawyers. Cinematic convention in the liberal trial film dictates (see The Accused) that a natural correlation exists between the emotional and the legal: whomsoever the audience identifies with almost always wins the case, with back-slappings, embraces and sanctimony all round. A Civil Action permits this fantasy for a while, only to let us down as the law outsmarts the grieving parents.
The form mimics the inherent cynicism of the script. When the trial is well under way, the judge retires the jury to consider whether or not there is a clear contamination case to be answered. Before they return, there is a protracted exchange between Schlichtmann and Facher. Schlichtmann stands restlessly and ponders the significance of the jury's lengthy deliberations, while Facher calmly eats his packed lunch and casts gentle aspersions on his profession. A legal drama in the celebratory mode would ensure that Facher - too clever, too recognisably the 'homespun' archetype epitomised by James Stewart in Anatomy of a Murder (1959) - wouldn't win. Instead, Schlichtmann is the one who fails and is professionally ruined.
This twist sets up the remainder of the film, encapsulating the realistic premise that worthy cases are rarely capable of withstanding the well-oiled legal machine, an equivocation represented in Schlichtmann himself, a figure vacillating between swaggering superficiality and moral integrity. The only way Schlichtmann can win his final victory at appeal is to lose everything - job, money and possessions - until all he has left is a moral victory, its hollowness echoed by the almost cursory announcement of the settlement in a rapid, intertitled montage at the end. And so concludes a subtle indictment of both the law and its cinematic romanticisation.