सिविल एक्शन

I'm usually put off by courtroom films simply because I associate them with either the tendency for pompous and ornate speech-making a la "A Few Good Men," or cheap audience-manipulation a la "Primal Fear." Yes, they are entertaining, usually with great actors and fine performances - thinking man's thrillers. But generally they remain nothing more than that - a well-done conversation piece.

"A Civil Action" was a pleasant surprise because it is not only like neither of those films, but also because it is a good film starring John Travolta. While he had his moments in the spotlight for good reason (think: "Pulp Fiction") his movies are generally not that great. But that's just a personal opinion and I may be wrong.

Still, "A Civil Action" is a great courtroom film. For one, it's a true story (which doesn't necessarily say much), and it is told with restraint, quietness and respect for the characters involved (which should be saying a lot). It takes the best from "Silkwood" and "Verdict" and it gives us people who are real and who engage in battle the way we imagine real people would. They don't have dramatic moments in the courtroom upon which an unreal stillness descends so as to be shattered at the end of the speech by the thunderous sound of unanimous, emotionally-fraught clapping.

John Travolta is great here and so is the rest of the cast, among them William H. Macy, Kathleen Quinlan, Sydney Pollack, John Lithgow, Stephen Fry (in a small cameo role), Kathy Bates (in an even smaller cameo role) and the great Robert Duvall. In the end, it is Duvall who steals the show in his quiet, unemotional musings, advice-givings and deliberations with Travolta. He embodies the restraint for which the film strives.

"A Civil Action" is quiet in its proceedings and, consequently real. It tells the story of a lawyer who reluctantly accepts a case having to do with the contamination of water and the deaths of many children in a small town and becomes obsessed with it to the point of going bankrupt. His obsession mirrors the self-destructiveness of Paul Newman's lawyer in "Verdict," and it has real results. His adversaries are not evil people, per se (think Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men"), but people who are simply doing their jobs damn well, defending their interests. We shouldn't expect them to cave in to pretty speech-making, nor should the jury.

And watching "A Civil Action" we don't and it doesn't. The personalities clash, personal tragedy is pitted against financial burdens of the legal process, and it yields startling conclusions about the American Justice system. And that is what "A Civil Action" chooses to focus on more so than the true story it tells (though it doesn't ignore it either). The film shows the price of justice and how justice is understood in the legal process. In fact, it draws a very fine dichotomy between non-legal justice and legal justice and shows how hard it is to get "justice" in a legal setting. Needless to say, it becomes a very expensive ordeal full of re-interpretations of the law and annoying manipulations of it. What we can gather from the story, however, is that we should be grateful for people who are willing to go to extreme lengths, at great personal cost, to define justice on their own terms and to fight for it.

Any movie with John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Robert Duvall, and John Lithgow in it has to be good. This was a top-notch legal drama based on a true story with Travolta (in a standout performance) as a lawyer whose firm has to do representation in an environmental case. They handle it brilliantly. It starts off with a monologue presented by Travolta's character about the "worthiness" of clients, shows a case, and proceeds from there. I liked Travolta's role and Lithgow's performance as a judge, as well as everyone else in it and the entire movie in general. This was one of those must-see, feel-good movies that everyone is guaranteed to love.

*** out of ****

John Travolta gives a dandy performance as a cocky Boston personal injury lawyer who heads up a small but burgeoning firm, almost passing up on headline-making case of a major food company subsidiary found to be dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply of a small-town Massachusettes town, causing many of the children there to get sick or die. Neatly directed and scripted film from Jonathan Harr's factual book allows for both legal statistics and some dry legal humor, and avoids exploiting an emotionally-wrenching theme (the death of children) for hug-tugging sentiment. The film is direct and compact, pausing only occasionally for a dramatic character turn, and is handsomely-made if not terrifically entertaining. Travolta and nemesis lawyer Robert Duvall (smiling like the Cheshire Cat) are wonderful to watch sparring with one another, and the specifics of the case are intriguing. **1/2 from ****

Personal injury lawyer Jan Schlichtmann is approached by a group of families who believe they are being poisoned by a toxic waste dump near their water supply as many of their children have developed leukemia. Two of America's biggest law firms defend the case which stretches over 9 years and threatens to bankrupt Schlichtmann's firm and all it's staff.

I approached this film with firm expectations. I work as an environmental consultant and in part of my law training I was advised to read the book as it was a good case study (albeit a 500 page case study) on a environmental case. The book was fascinating if a little heavy in detail. For the film I knew that much of it was going to be trimmed but I didn't realize how much. The `trimmed' bit is the whole case! There is none of the trial instead any court room scenes are more focused on the characters than the case.

As a film this still plays well and is entertaining if not enlightening or interesting. It still carries the mantle of being `true' but without any of the book's case detail it is never more than a Grisham-esque drama despite having a better ending.

The cast are great – easily turning out for a worthy film and they are rewarded because the characters get much better treatment than the facts. Travolta does well but doesn't manage to be as real as the book's portrayal of Schlichtmann. Duvall is good while the rest of the cast are very much support but manage to be deep. When names like William H Macy, Shalhoub, John Lithgow, Kathleen Quinlan, Stephen Fry, Dan Hedaya and James Gandolfini are all in support then you rightly expect it to be a very worthy film.

Overall this is a good film that is entertaining. There is a more powerful, more interesting and moving captivating story at it's heart – anyone wanting that story should read the book.

How to interpret viewer comments on this film:

"Slow-moving" = ...no car chases.

"poor acting" = ...no karate chops

"too long" = ...longer than a music video

"dull" = ...See "Slow-moving"

"A Civil Action" was a fine book, and the film does it justice. No, it's not perfect, but it is emotionally moving, and faithful to the non-fiction account of the case.

Some of the heart-rending short scenes featuring parents of the child-victims (the father at the deposition; the parents trying to revive the dying child in the car) were absolute masterpieces. There should be special Academy Awards available for brief scenes of this kind that are too "small" for Best Supporting Actor awards, but are, in themselves, worthy of acclaim.