O Conselheiro

'Counsellor at Law' is guaranteed to take your breath away, even if you're a child of the so-called MTV revolution of ultra-fast editing and relentless energy. It is more than 70 years old now, and it feels so new and invigorating.

John Barrymore, in the role of a lifetime, plays the brisk and matter-of-fact lawyer who came to his prestige, fortune and society-wife the hard way, cutting corners along the way, meddling in gray areas and doing a bit of shady business on the side. "I'm no golf player", he says, and right he is. In the course of a work-day, the same day that his wife and his two overbearing step-children are on their way to Europe, he is accused of corruption and his whole world collapses around him, as he tries to evade his destiny.

No synopsis of 'Counsellor at Law' can do the film justice. It is a manic, mind-blowing depiction of a breakdown, stressful and paranoiac. Barrymore's character is completely alienated from his own family, because he originates from the working-class, the son a Jewish-German baker. During this one morning at work, before things start crashing down, Barrymore has a visit from a woman who wants him to defend her son who was arrested in Union Square in the middle of an inflammatory Communist speech. And it is not even lunch-time yet.

Rent this movie, even better: Buy it. You will want to watch it more than once. It is a bona fide masterpiece, filmed in William Wyler's usual brilliantly organic style.

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.

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.

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!

John Barrymore, while by no means a bad actor, was a shameless ham, overplaying every role whether it be straight or comic. It is therefore refreshing to see him in Counsellor at Law for once delivering a performance that is restrained and realistic, and probably the best of his career.

It's no surprise then that the director of Counsellor at Law was William Wyler, perhaps the most skilled and respected director of actors in Hollywood history. No less a personage than Laurence Olivier credited Wyler with teaching him how to act for the screen. I can imagine Wyler reining in the over-expressive Barrymore, exhausting him with repeated takes and cutting his performance down to size. But Barrymore is not the only one to be affected by the Wyler touch. Bebe Daniels, who normally played women who were if not villainous than at least a bit dodgy, is the best I have ever seen her as Barrymore's warm-hearted secretary. Even supporting players Doris Kenyon and Clara Langsner, who play Barrymore's wife and mother respectively, turn in incredibly deep performances. Then there's Vincent Sherman, who later became a director himself. His character is a stereotype, and his impassioned speech is the stuff of melodrama, but he almost manages to make the part convincing.

As well as coaxing such great performances, Wyler always put a lot of thought into how he should film the actors to benefit the story. Sometimes this meant violating cinematic conventions, and Wyler was lucky to have made his earliest features with Universal and Sam Goldwyn, two of the more leftfield studios at the time. Counsellor at Law has a lot of bit parts which we have to acknowledge, but not focus on, such as the clients who come and go in the first ten minutes. As often as possible Wyler shoots them with their backs to the camera so we don't dwell upon them. Conversely, he encourages us to take note of significant characters, for example placing Malka Kornstein conspicuously in the background in an early scene before she has properly entered the story. It's worth noting that this was the first time Wyler worked with his long time editor Daniel Mandell, who must have fully respected Wyler's unconventional shooting patterns.

Elmer Rice's play from which the film is adapted works a lot on changing pace. The opening scenes are snappy and bustling, zipping from room to room and one character to the next. Gradually the pace slows and the scenes start to crystalize which, coming after the business and light comedy of the first half, give the important moments more impact. Wyler acknowledges and compliments this pacing, keeping the camera constantly moving in the earlier scenes, and keeping it close to the action. As things slow down his camera keeps still and often hangs back. Unfortunately some of the camera moves are a little shaky, and some of them are not entirely necessary - Wyler's later pictures would be far more subtle in this respect.

Counsellor at Law is mainly worth seeing for Barrymore's understated performance, but there is plenty more going on. The story is not outstanding, but it is well told. And Wyler's direction, while it still had a long way to go to the standard he would eventually reach in Best Years of Our Lives or The Heiress is nevertheless bold and daring, and here teases the drama out of the comedy.