Counsellor at Law

What a surprise this film was: the boring title hardly leads you to expect much. Barrymore really shows his chops as a pure actor, someone who can bring off a character through expression, gesture, posture, accent, tone of voice, body language, mannerisms, &c. This is an adaptation of a play about an self-made Jewish lawyer in New York. It's hard to believe that Barrymore was, in life, more like his character's wife than the lawyer he plays here. He brings off the self-made man's insecurities in every detail, from his macho way of walking to his fidgety hands and overloud way of talking and laughing. He even drops some of his g's, and I love the way he says "Yeah" (Oscar Jaffe would blanch). The script is full of telling details. Notice how the lawyer offers a guest a choice of cigar or cigarette from an expensive box, and then forgets to offer him a light. Because Wyler is at the controls, these nuances aren't hammered at the audience either.

Many film scholars have claimed that Wyler, maybe because he avoided catfights with his studio bosses, was no "auteur". Wyler never puffed himself up, either, in the way someone like Welles did. Yet the style is already visible here, long before Deep Focus, in the simultaneous double and triple reaction shots, the multiple planes of action, the underplaying and long takes, the natural dialogue, the strong performances from the bit players-- and most of all in the realistic, accurate, detailed design. This is basically a B movie. It's all shot on one basic set, in fact. But what a set! Get all that Art Deco glass and the Socialist-Realist reliefs.

Those who don't think Wyler had a style should check out "Carrie" (1952), separated from this film by almost 20 years and starring this other guy by the name of Olivier-- who always credited Wyler for teaching him how to act in films. Barrymore maybe got a few pointers for his performance here, too. All in all this is a great way to film a play, and a nice Depression period piece too.

While not technically lost, I call it this because very very few people have heard of it and it is not usually mentioned in discussions of John Barrymore's work. I only sought out the video after I saw it listed in the front of my Leonard Maltin guide in his list of 50 seldom-seen but great films. While his list is too heavily influenced by modern movies (more than half the list are movies just made within the last few years), this one one of the few older films listed. And, since I have adore older Hollywood films, I ran out to find a copy ASAP.

What did I like about the film? Well, first I have always loved John Barrymore films (apart from a few turkeys he made just before he died) and he is as good as you'll ever see him. Second, I really liked the film's moral compass. While Barrymore is the hero of the story, he is far from perfect and offers a more 3-dimensional sort of leading man. While he does so much of his work to help the poor and down-trodden, he is not averse to lying, insider stock trading or making a fast buck. Third, the supporting cast was very strong and full of unusual characters (aside from what I felt was an annoyingly written character, the receptionist). My favorite old films always feature a good ensemble cast for support. Fourth, it dares to be different. This lawyer is NOT Perry Mason (Warren Williams' series was very popular at the time this film was made) or like any one I have seen on film. Fifth, while the film COULD have been stagy given that all the action takes place in the building where the law firm is, its brisk pace keeps it from falling flat.

While I loved the pacing, this also brings me to about the only negative in the film. While the action is brisk, sometimes the dialog is a little TOO BRISK. Occasionally I found myself struggling to keep up with the rapid-fire dialog at the beginning of the film! Be sure to turn on your television's Closed Captioning!

It's criminal that this superb melodrama, from a well-made play of the day, isn't better known. Barrymore, all cylinders firing yet giving a perfectly natural, restrained performance, is a hotshot New York lawyer facing personal and professional ruin; he may never have been better in the movies, and some of the magnetism that made him a stage legend shines through. Wyler makes no attempt to "open up" the stage material; he basically confines it to one (very beautiful) set, and his camera unobtrusively follows the legal-office denizens around, seemingly overhearing conversations, Altman-style. There's a lot of social history tucked away -- with commentary about Jews and gentiles, rich and poor, capitalist and communist -- and a whole stageful of compelling characters, who often define themselves in a walk, a smirk, a laugh. And yes, there are contrivances and coincidences, but that's the stuff the well-made melodramas of the time were made of, and they were seldom constructed as neatly as this. I saw it at a revival house, with a smart New York audience, and nobody laughed in the wrong place or grew cynical about the old social conventions that no longer apply. In fact, at the end they applauded good and hard -- after 70 years, this one's still a corker.

What a wonderful film. Just saw it last night for the first time. My first impression viewing the movie was that this was the best performance I had seen from Barrymore. I was wondering if perhaps I had gotten a little carried away, but from reading some of the other comments I see that there is great concurrence on this point. In general this lost gem is fast, funny, poignant and incredibly well acted.

So few films tell the story of a Jewish character, but this one does and very well. Barrymore is a surprising casting choice for the lead, but it is hard to imagine that anyone else could have been as good, much less better. Bebe Daniels is just excellent in the role of the loyal secretary, much better than in her more famous role in 42nd Street. John Qualen and Vincent Sherman are also very good in small roles.

If you are looking for an enjoyable hour and one half that will amuse and also make you think at the same time, jump on this rarely seen jewel. It is reputedly hard to purchase, but TCM recently featured it on its station and hopefully will do so again soon.

Elmer Rice's long running Broadway play about a Jewish lawyer who never forgets his class roots became a hit for star Paul Muni. If the screen rights had been bought by Warner Brothers instead of Universal, I'm sure Muni might have repeated his part. It's a pity we have no record of his performance because I'm sure he was a natural for the role.

Although the casting might seem bizarre John Barrymore does a superb job in the role Muni created om Counsellor at Law. This is a man who did live out the American dream, rising to the very top of his profession by hard work and a natural aptitude for the profession of law. He lives a good life style with a trophy WASP wife and a couple of step children who really don't like him. He never forgets where he came from and is available to many from the Lower East Side Neighborhood from where he sprung, pro bono.

Counsellor At Law with its lead character of George Simon is no doubt based on real life attorney Samuel Leibowitz who at that time was engaged in the biggest case of his career, defending the Scottsboro Boys in Alabama. There are also echoes of another famous Jewish attorney, Louis D. Brandeis who sat on the United States Supreme Court. Like Barrymore's character Simon, Brandeis and Leibowitz both aroused the jealousy and resentment of some of the old time lawyers of the WASP white shoe persuasion. It was some of those who led the opposition to Brandeis when Woodrow Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court.

Here the opposition is in the person of Elmer Brown, your basic bigoted White AngloSaxon Protestant whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower or shortly after and think of America as their private preserve. He's gotten some information that on a previous case that involved Barrymore getting John Qualen off, an alibi witness is saying the alibi he provided was false. Problem is the alibi was false and the witness is saying Barrymore suborned perjury.

Universal was fortunate enough to get Elmer Rice to adapt his own play for the screen and William Wyler does a fine job in directing so much so that you're not conscious of the fact that it all takes place within Barrymore's rather large office. Though it's not shot in those long takes like Alfred Hitchcock's classic Rope, Counsellor at Law has that same feel about it.

It also has several plot lines running at once, very similar to William Wyler's later work, The Detective Story. Barrymore's marriage is on the rocks, wife Doris Kenyon is seeing Melvyn Douglas on the side. Barrymore has also been asked to defend the son of his mother's friend played by future director Vincent Sherman who is a Communist radical making inflammatory speeches in Union Square back in the day when that was the thing to do.

One very ironic scene involves young Sherman with his head bandaged waiting with his mother in the anteroom, where Barrymore's snobbish bratty stepkids are waiting. The young boy stepson is played by Richard Quine who also became a pretty noted film director himself.

There are also some very good performances by Bebe Daniels as Barrymore's loyal secretary and an ironically funny one by Isabelle Jewell as the switchboard operator.

John Barrymore had a very good grasp at screen characters who were reaching the end of their rope. Counsellor at Law very much follows in the same vein as his characters in Grand Hotel and Dinner at Eight.

With Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel Leibowitz very much in the public eye, Counsellor at Law had a built in audience when it was released. Nevertheless 75 years later it holds up very well for today's audience.

I don't think even Paul Muni could have played it better.