Skip to main content

I'm going to need a lawyer. A very, very good lawyer. An expensive lawyer.


Presumed Innocent
(1990)

Harrison Ford’s star power was at a peak when he appeared in this adaptation of Scott Turow’s novel. The 1980s had seen Ford’s defining presence in two franchises (from Lucas and Spielberg) solidified by a shrewd balancing act with material aiming to be both artistically and commercially compelling. As such, he aligned himself with interesting directors (Peter Weir, Roman Polanski) and material (literary adaptations in the form of Paul Theroux’s The Mosquito Coast and Philip K Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) He didn’t over-commit (averaging a film a year, this approach would only see him come unstuck when his choices went awry several times in a row) and had the luxury of tentpoles to return to should a less certain endeavor not bear fruit. He even essayed to a supporting turn in a romantic comedy (Working Girl), which went further to emphasise that he could hardly put a foot wrong.

True, Blade Runner was both a commercial disappointment and an unhappy experience; the science fiction genre had reaped dividends for him in one particular series but it seemed that lightning would not strike twice. Witness probably amounted to the most interesting choice Ford made during the ‘80s, in that it could have been a sign of the Ford of the ‘90s if he had not hedged his bets. A nascent Clooney-type who would use his clout to pick interesting subject matter with thematic depth (unlike Clooney, Ford would not wear his politics on his sleeve, however).

However, following the success of Witness (which, despite its cop central character and rousing climax was no sure thing) Ford made two choices that could arguably be viewed as causing him to retrench when they failed. The Mosquito Coast saw him reteam with Weir for what may be the most interesting character he has played. It was a project brought to him by Weir, but which he cared about (and which his agent most certainly did not). That it met with such public apathy may have stung him, the kind of sting that leads one to the safe territory of playing Jack Ryan. Frantic feels less significant in that it rested more on its director’s shoulders and there wasn’t a huge amount riding on it. It’s a likable little film, but seemed to suggest that viewers did not want to see Ford as the everyman (the attraction may have been that his character is definably non-heroic), yet in some respects it could be seen as a dry run for the huge success of The Fugitive.

Bookending the 1980s was Indiana Jones, and the third in the series appeared to conclude his adventures (on the big screen at least). It also gave Ford the cushion to stretch himself a bit, and he settled on a property that was smart, commercial and gave him a role he could get his teeth into. Predictably, most of the column inches analysed the severe haircut he chose for Rusty Sabich.

Approached with skill, the courtroom thriller can be one of the most appealing cinematic genres. The chance to tease the audience, to show or withhold, and to indulge in dramatic grandstanding, is irresistible. In the previous decade, Jagged Edge became a monster hit. The 1990s would be defined by a legion of John Grisham translations (starting with The Firm in 1993). Presumed Innocent was a reasonably big hit (one of the Top 10 films of its year or release in the US), but it did not catch fire in the way that the most glossy and manipulative entries in the genre have done. Part of that is probably down to Turrow’s source material, which is more morally complex and measured than your average Grisham. Part of it too, is surely the sensibility that director Alan J Pakula brought with him. Pakula made a strong impression with a trilogy of claustrophobic ‘70s thrillers (Klute, The Parallax View, All the President’s Men), after which his choices seemed less assured (Sophie’s Choice attracted the most attention due to Meryl) He would go on to direct the undemanding Grisham flick The Pelican Brief before reteaming with Ford for the problematic but not without merit The Devil’s Own.

It’s not just the tone that may have prevented the film becoming something bigger, it’s that Ford’s character is relatively unsympathetic. Innocent is a more difficult property than Jagged Edge, where the ambiguity does not relate to the central protagonist. Here, we are uncertain whether Sabich committed the crime he is accused of (and, indeed, we are a third of the way through the film before any charges are levelled at him). What is made abundantly clear is his infidelity, the fall-out it has inflicted upon his marriage and the less-than-tempered attitude he takes after Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi) has broken off the affair. Also something of a leap was what we see of Ford; the leading man with his trousers round his ankles, groping his co-star’s breasts? Have we walked into a Michael Douglas picture by mistake?

It’s an interesting role for Ford for additional reason; although he is the lead, he is required to be mostly a passive figure. Others take his case and have the juicy dialogue while he is called upon to simmer pensively, with just the occasional venting. If, on balance, this were a success, the actor would take it too far the following year. On paper Regarding Henry probably looked like Rain Man-esque Oscar bait; leading character reduced to a childlike state within the confines of an overt morality tale. And a reteaming with Mike Nichols. It probably further confirmed to Ford that audiences want him in one sort of role, rather than looking to the script as the culprit (J’accuse, J J Abrams). The retreat to the anodyne safety of Jack Ryan is symbolic of where Ford’s career started to go very wrong, full of second-guessing and lack of inspiration (culminating in a 10 years too late return as Indian Jones). He appears to have chosen a trio of supporting roles with potential in 2013, though, so maybe we’ll yet see another blast of what made Ford such a star.

Good as Ford is in Innocent, it’s the supporting cast that steals all the thunder. Every role is a recognisable “type” (grizzled detective, insufferable prosecuting attorney, idiosyncratic judge, etc) but there is no sense of the filmmakers taking an easy, broad strokes line. The dialogue never talks down to the audience, so one has to pay attention to be clear on the various tangents and lines of investigation that are introduced.

Bonnie Bedelia probably deserves the most credit, investing Sabich’s wife with barely concealed pain and distress at what her husband has done. That, and a flippant, mordant streak of humour. She’s over-qualified but under-fulfilled, both in terms of career and domesticity (her husband, arriving home, mistakes her post-masturbatory glow for exercise). Arriving in quick succession to Holly McClane in Die Hard, it looked briefly as if Bedelia would carve herself a niche in well-written wife roles (the two not usually being synonymous, just ask Anne Archer). Like Ford’s, this is not a scene-stealing turn, but it’s certainly the most resonant performance in the film.

Raul Julia’s collected, calculating defence attorney is the usual lead in a film like this, but he’s only a highly accomplished part of an ensemble of supporting players. Paul Winfield steals every scene he has as the quick-witted, feisty presiding judge while Joe Grifasi’s prosecutor is wonderfully weasely. Future West Wing co-stars John Spencer and Bradley Whitford enjoyably round-out the defence team. Brian Dennehy gets the Brian Dennehy part. As for Greta Scacchi, hers is probably the most thankless role. Her character appears only in flashback, and is your classic cliché of a career girl willing to screw her way to the top (she abruptly ends her relationship with Sabich when he shows disinterest in aiding her trajectory). Yes, she is given a social conscience but it isn’t her most memorable trait. Scacchi was probably at her most visible career-wise at the time (The Player was just round the corner) but she never really escaped type-casting as the elegant girl who was contractually obliged to take her clothes off.  

The other big stars of the film are Gordon Willis’s rich, autumnal photography and John Williams’ strikingly simple but highly memorable theme. It’s difficult to say whether Williams’ “but for Spielberg” retirement is a good thing, as he tends to deliver over-strained syrup for his director’s prestige projects, but his work on Presumed Innocent is a reminder of what an inspirational composer he could be.

Ironically, for a courtroom thriller, the trial itself is quite truncated. Really it would have to be so, as there is still more story to tell. Pakula’s distanced approach to the characters ensures that there is continued uncertainty right up until the moment that the murder’s identity is revealed. And yet it is portrayed as a character moment, not a cheap twist.

Ultimately Presumed Innocent stands as a high-class potboiler, by nature of its structure. There is no opportunity to provide a profound character journey (as in, say, The Verdict) but it manages to be more provocative than the many of its peer group. It leaves the viewer without the certainty of justice served or truth willing out, and is the more interesting film for that.

**** 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.