The Big Picture - Objection! Top 10 Courtroom Dramas | The Big Picture

Episode Date: May 5, 2020

Here's the case as it stands: We put the vote to you, the jurors, and you wanted to hear our closing arguments on the best courtroom dramas in movie history. Amanda and Sean, the only litigators this side of the Mississippi who can handle the truth, dig into one of film's most indefatigable genres. They talk through picks from the 1940s all the way through the 1990s, and explore why the courtroom drama has vanished from the movie landscape. Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's episode of The Big Picture is brought to you by DC Universe. DC Universe is the ultimate DC membership. Watch DC content, read nearly 23,000 comics, and connect with other DC fans. Earn tokens to receive exclusive DC swag with the new DC Universe rewards program, launching soon. Watch original series like Harley Quinn and get ready for Stargirl, premiering May 18th. Join DC Universe today with a seven-day free trial plus 15% off your first three months. Just visit dcuniverse.com slash hellopod

and enter code BIGPICTURE at checkout. That's valid for monthly subscription only and it expires on June 30th, 2020. I'm Sean Fennessy I'm Amanda Dobbins and this is The Big Picture a conversation show about handling the truth two weeks ago

I put a vote to you the listener on Twitter with three choices for a future episode revisiting the calamitous 2006 Academy Awards, building the Bill Murray Hall of Fame, or ranking our top 10 courtroom dramas. You ordered the code red. And so here we are, Amanda, ready to talk courtroom dramas. I think a subgenre of movies that is truly in the Venn diagram of our interests.

And I suspect that that's why people voted for this. What do you think? Maybe. I hope that people understand us that well. It is also just a classic 90s genre that a lot of people our age or thereabouts have a real connection to. It's one of the studio adult drama genres that doesn't really get made anymore, but that was still made late enough into Hollywood that a lot of people have connections. I think it's just, they're also fun movies. At some point, there's something for everybody in this list that we have made. It's a fun list. I think it's a list that, it was simultaneously very easy and very difficult to make our choices.

I think what we're trying to do on the show is obviously reflect our personal experience while also reflecting movie history. So our list goes way back into the past. We start in the 1940s and we stop in the 90s, which is probably showing our hand a little bit, but it indicates what you're saying, which is that this adult kind of mid-tier drama that we are always whining about on this show is so absent and with it has gone the courtroom drama. We'll talk a little bit about why that's been the case a little later in the show.

I do think that courtroom dramas are one of the weirdly, even if not in the actual stories themselves, the ideas and the themes that they use are really fungible. And you can have a very different kind of experience inside the courtroom drama. We'll talk about that. I feel like there's a subcategory for every one of these movies and they're doing different things. And I was hoping we'd be able to put a list together that wasn't just 10 John Grisham thrillers, you know, that they gave us a little bit of a different flavor, a little bit of a different style, a little bit of a different taste, mostly of Hollywood. These are largely English language movies that we picked. There are great courtroom dramas in other countries, but we're focusing mostly on those.

When I say courtroom drama, like what's the movie that jumps into your head first? And I don't think you're spoiling the list. Obviously, it's A Few Good Men, which you've already referred to in the introduction to this. And A Few Good Men is an extremely important film to both of us, I believe, and to many of the people who listen to this podcast or who have been guests on this podcast. If you have not listened to Sean's interview with Paul Walter Hauser from last year. I really recommend it. And he also clearly connects with a few good men. And the reason that it sticks in my mind when you say courtroom drama is because the climactic scene and maybe like the one modern, at least,

courtroom drama scene takes place on the stand between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson just yelling at each other in a courtroom. And that scene, and particularly You Can't Handle the Truth, just became a phenomenon even outside of the movie. So to me, that is the number one courtroom drama. I'm going to tell you, when we get to A Few Good Men, which is on this list, because we are ourselves, I have some thoughts about the legal proceedings and specifically of Tom Cruise in terms of learning how to be a lawyer from a movie, which I don't recommend. And by the way, it's not legal in the United States or as far as I'm aware in any other country. But it's definitely part of the appeal, right? You watch it and you think, OK, now I know what to do. And I too can be a lawyer and be victorious in the courtroom of my own life.

There are other movies on this list that do a far better job of laying out how a courtroom works, how the law works, making it accessible, making you understand not just the law system, which again, none of us are licensed to practice law and understand the legal system because of these movies, but they kind of give you the procedural elements. And then there are movies also that maybe explore some of the themes and the morality and the ethical issues that come to mind when you get into a courtroom. There's probably going to be a little bit of personal history here because you are a daughter of lawyers. And so you have a relationship to the idea of the law and lawyers. I'll tell you

one personal anecdote before you have an opportunity to share. So like many people during quarantine, I was trying to find things to do around the house. A few weeks ago, I was cleaning out all of the documents in my home. I've been saving way too many documents for way too long. And so I had a shredding session. And so I'm shredding 12-year-old telephone bills. I'm shredding Christmas cards from 2006. I'm just getting rid of stuff that I've been waiting for a moment like this to get rid of. And in going through all this stuff, I discovered a lot of items from my

childhood. Two of those items were PSAT scores. And I had PSAT scores from 10th grade and PSAT scores from 11th grade. And on the PSATs, I don't know if this was true for you when you took them, but when I took them, they asked, what will be your major or concentration when you attend college? And on my 10th grade PSAT scores, I wrote pre-law. And on my 11th grade PSAT scores, I wrote film school. Now I studied neither pre-law nor film when I went to college. I took film classes and I took actually law classes as well, but I didn't study either of those things. But I think what happened, if I'm remembering correctly, is I was just reading a lot of John Grisham books and then watching movies. And at first,

as I began getting into them and watching The Firm and watching all these movies that I loved, I was like, I should do this as a job. I would be good at this. I'm very good at collecting my thoughts and delivering them clearly. That's one of my only skills, maybe my only skill. And I liked the cut of the jib of all the men in those movies. I was like, that's a style that I like. And then somewhere along the way, I realized that I just like movies and I don't want to appear in a courtroom. And I think that's how we find ourselves here making this episode yes at the end of the day the goal of all of these movies is to be right to argue with people and emerge victorious as the person who is

correct and there is probably nothing that unites uh you sean and me amanda more than the pursuit of being right and having other people know that you're right and having other people have to like admit it in public. And maybe there being an entire system, an institution supporting the idea that we are right. So I too flirted with law for a lot of reasons. Your story reminded me of like an apocryphal, but actually I think true young man story as you said both my parents are lawyers um they're not litigators so they don't have as like much connection to these particular films but i was aware of the law and apparently like in preschool um there was like one of those worksheets that you feel out fill out with like my favorite color is blue my favorite song is whatever whatever. When I grow up, I want to be,

and there is apparently a spreadsheet. When I grew up, I want to be, and I dictated to the teacher, I am a lawyer. So that's where I am. And it's maybe good to think about everything that I say on this podcast and my thoughts about the law with that in mind, that I'm a three-year-old who thought I was a lawyer. So there we go. Your point about being right and the notion of rightness is meaningful, I think, to this conversation because really the only place where that character flaw becomes a positive character trait is when you're a lawyer, is when you're in a courtroom, is when someone literally tells you,

you convinced me, I rule in your favor. And one of the reasons why these movies are so rechargeable and they work so well, and they're so easy to rewatch, but also mostly easy to sort of structure and make, is because they have such an obvious crescendo. They have such an obvious format. Every time you make them, we're just waiting on verdict. As we wait for verdict or we wait for, you know, impactful, meaningful testimony, the movie is kind of, all of these movies that we're talking about are all kind of headlong driving towards that great moment. One of the problems

with movies is when you get to the end of it and you're just immensely disappointed by the conclusion. You know, we talk about it with genres like horror movies sometimes struggle with this. Science fiction struggles with this. A lot of genres have a hard time putting the bow on top of the present. This is one of the few immensely reliable formats for this problem. It's true. I realized while watching this that courtroom dramas are essentially my sports movies. And I also really enjoy sports movies. But the structure is very similar, which is that there

are two sides engaging in a specific field. And there are rules of engagement. And then people battle. And at the end, one person or one side emerges victorious and you can kind of tinker with the various formulas right like there's you can have an undergar underdog that um is morally right or an underdog that it maybe isn't quite morally as correct you know the underdog can win the underdog can lose we all learn something about ourselves we all learn that but it's there and at the end you are always building towards that climactic like game battle or decision. But instead of winning a championship ring, you get to be right. Let's make some very quick rules for this podcast. So we asked for courtroom drama, not legal thriller. And that's important here. And people are going to be, I think,

a little cranky about some of the delineations we've made. But I think it's important to draw the distinction. Now, Legal Thriller, obviously, that disqualifies movies like The Pelican Brief, which is a huge favorite of yours and you'll get a chance to talk about soon, which is a very fun and entertaining Grisham adaptation, but that largely operates almost entirely outside of the courtroom. So that's The legal thriller. But more specifically, this is not a movie about depositions in conference rooms, or excuse me, this is not a podcast about depositions in conference rooms. It's about courtrooms. It's about the actual legal proceedings inside the courtroom. So this disqualifies an inordinate number of movies that I think people think belong on these lists. So most specifically, that includes Michael Clayton, The Social Network, The Insider, and most specifically,

it disqualifies 12 Angry Men. Now, I think we may have 12 angry reply guys when they see that 12 Angry Men is not on our list, but it doesn't happen inside of a courtroom. It's not a courtroom drama in the traditional sense. It's a morality play inside of a side room related to a courtroom. I agree with this ruling. You and I kind of made our independent parameters, and we both agreed that movies like Michael Clayton and Pelican Brief, etc., couldn't be eligible. It really needed to be specific for the courtroom. Now, 12 Angry Men is a technicality. However, this is a podcast about the law and about courtroom dramas and technicalities win. And I think so you got to

accept it. You got to get in the spirit of things now because it's going to get weirder. But I do think also, and we'll talk a little bit more about this, but we wanted to make a list that reflects the history of this genre and all of its permutations, but also does reflect our personal interests. And there is a really specific classic courtroom drama canon that exists. And we actually have a lot of those movies on this list because, again, once your parameters are specific enough, which is like someone yelling like within the confines of a courtroom, you don't have that many to choose from.

And also it is a format that has lent itself to a lot of great actors giving large speeches on a screen. So there are a lot of memorable ones. And so at some point, if we had 12 Angry Men, then the list gets a little samey. So 12 Angry Men is a fantastic film that did not meet the eligibility requirements for this podcast. Fortunately, we are acknowledging the work of the great Sidney Lumet later in the show.

So he's not been cast aside. There's another movie that we're leaving off the list. I understand if there's frustration. I view this movie more like I view Babe Ruth as sort of like a trailblazer in its field that kind of changed the way that movies work but that I personally just don't return to over and over again though I like it

admire its significance and it has recently been recharged because of a stage play written by one of our hallowed members of this this this hall of courtroom dramas that we're building and talking about to kill a mockingbird, which we didn't put here, which, um, I still think has incredible courtroom scenes, uh, and is a very meaningful movie, has an amazing performance by Gregory Peck at the center of it. To me, it feels more like

homework even to this day because of the circumstances in which it was delivered to me. And I think what we're going for on the list is the kind of pleasurability factor of a lot of these movies, the twistiness, the speechifying, the overacting that I think tends to make these movies work really well. But we do acknowledge its importance and its legacy on the genre and the fact that it's such a significant piece of Hollywood history, a significant piece of obviously literary history and the novel written by Harper Lee. So what else do you think of regarding To Kill a Mockingbird? To me, it kind of transcends genre. It is such an important part of film history and also how we're taught film history and how we're taught about literature and racism in this country.

I mean, I definitely was given To Kill a Mockingbird for summer reading one year, as I think many children in America were. And I do also think that there is not as much of that combativeness that I was referencing when I was talking about sports movies and like being right all the time. I mean, obviously the Atticus Finch character like is right, but that is never come. That is with in question within the events of the movie for sure. And it is about how a lot of people in the South can't understand that and how the legal system actually can't under, you know, understand that, which are extremely important lessons, but the movie itself is just um there's never any question as to whether he's right and it's about

um sharing his message with with people who don't understand it so for me it's more important as you want to talk about great movie speeches because he just stands there and gives, I mean, the closing argument speech, but really just kind of one of the great speeches that I've seen in my life. We don't really see that many examples of oration in modern society in that way. And when I understand someone standing up and explaining to me what ideals should be, it's that last scene. So it's extremely important and it is definitely a courtroom drama. I just think it's so much more than a courtroom drama. I agree.

Let's hear a little bit of Peck's speech, his closing arguments. The defendant is not guilty, but somebody in this courtroom is. Now, gentlemen, in this courtroom is. Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts,

all men are created equal. So this to me is a bit related to where I want to take this conversation, which is why do we love these movies? Why do they work so well in quarantine? Is the absence of disagreement, of exposure to differing points of view part of the reason why

it was so easy to connect to these? I think a little bit is that they are at the end of the day just people in rooms talking or yelling at each other. There is, which just makes them watchable at home. And a lot of these are based on or adapted from plays or novels. They are kind of, they're script driven. And I do find at least on a home screen, that's easier for me to follow. I think that we're used to watching at home TV, which is also like a writer-driven medium. So I think that's part of it.

I think also you're right that it is possibly an outlet for the disagreements that we want to share either with the world or with the people in our own homes who we're just trying to get along with on a day-to-day basis. Whoever do you mean? Yeah, I agree. I think there's something... There's like a kinetic feeling about watching two people vociferously disagree in a courtroom setting.

And some of my favorite moments in these movies... I mean, honestly, all of my quote-unquote picks feature moments in which people are just absolutely disgusted by the oration coming from someone else in the courtroom. Like that is my favorite part is the objection. So let's use that to talk a little bit about how you know you're watching a courtroom drama. I think there are some key questions that all watchers of these movies should be asking themselves to confirm that they're watching an effective courtroom drama. I written a few of them down let's trade let's trade these off number one is there a plucky young attorney in way over his head now this isn't always the case

but it is frequently the case that effective movies of this sort really need somebody maybe they look like matthew mcughey, to take on a case that they have no business taking on up against powerful forces beyond their imagination and do their damnedest pro bono to get someone set free. Sure. Everyone just needs their day in court, right? Is a really fundamental premise of these movies. And that also serves a structural purpose, which is that if the young lawyer doesn't know what's going on, then he has to, he, and it, unfortunately in this movie, in this list is like always he with one notable exception, but he, and learning about it will

also explain to the audience, both how the court works and how the case is going to come together. So it's very clever. And again, you're rooting for the underdog. What's the second thing that we look for when we're watching these? Is there a Cracker Jack showdown cross-examination, which is code for, are two people just yelling at each other? Just being like, no, you're wrong. No, you're wrong. But it's allowed and in fact is what's supposed to happen in a courtroom. Actually, that's not true. It's what's supposed to happen in a movie.

I don't think this is ever supposed to happen in an actual courtroom. I do think that probably the I think there are many fallacies, but the big deal cross examination when the witness is just suddenly like, I did it. Yes, It doesn't happen that often in real life. My favorite subcategory, sub-question on this question is when the opposing attorney during one of these cross-examinations objects and that objection is overruled. And that attorney then says to the judge, I don't know what kind of courtroom you're running here. Just very disgusted by the circumstances of this extravagant, dramatic court setting.

The third question we look for, speaking of the judge, is there a grouchy judge, an evil-seeming prosecutor, an unreliable testimony from a psychiatrist? Now, you're not going to get all three of these things in every movie, but you're bound to get at least one in all of them. You're bound to get the opposing counsel that is kind of a shit heel or maybe an out of towner who's a big shot. I've noticed that in some of the movies that I revisited this week. You're definitely going to get a judge who's just an asshole, who's prickly, who didn't have

breakfast that morning, who's got a tea time that he has to get to, or who is close friends with the opposing attorney. And because of that, it's highly unlikely that our hero is going to win their case. And then the unreliable testimony, this is tried and true. This is like, you bring in your expert, I bring in my expert. The prosecution's expert is completely dishonest. And then we have to bring in an out of town or who comes and shines light on the truth of the situation. Which of these three do you like the best? I always like the unreliable testimony because that does lend itself again to the theatrics of being like, you know, you're wrong or isn't it possible that acid dose

of whatever lists would lead to like the breakdown of the i don't know i can't do the few good men thing but you guys know what i'm talking about it has something to do with the cells and the doctor didn't consider the possibility of an underlying medical condition that's another thing i do feel like i've learned a lot about the threats of underlying medical conditions from these movies which is just a good thing to know in your day-to-day life when you're going to see the doctor? You know what? I take those doctor's forms that you got to fill out now really seriously.

I used to be like, why are you asking me all these questions? And now I'm like, oh, you need to know or else bad things are going to happen in a courtroom drama in six to twelve months you know you i feel like i'm just gonna burst out into a few good men dialogue every time we start talking about a new part of this and when you were talking about doctoring all i could hear was and when it went bad you cut these guys loose you had markinson doctor the transfer orders you know just i can't i can't get and that's part of what I love about these movies is obviously aside from the speechifying is the way that they are written because nobody gets to talk this way in their real life. Not even podcasters don't get to talk this way.

They don't get to talk so vituperatively. You know, they don't get to talk so intensely. And I think there is a real like legal courtroom chemistry and rhythm that the good movies can capture. When I was rewatching A Few Good Men last night, which I did not need to do because I've seen it probably more than any other film, but I'll take any excuse. And there is just something about the comfort that Cruise has with the language and the it's, you know, it's almost like screwball 40s dialogue at times, like they're just bouncing back and forth off of each other.

And we don't get that really snappy dialogue as much in movies anymore. And it's fun. They're sparring. Yeah, there's a certain kind of filmmaker. It's often writer-directors who excel at this format. A couple of other key questions every time you're watching a courtroom drama. Does it seem like the defense might actually lose the case as we approach the third act of the movie? Almost always.

Almost always it has to feel like, well, wow, now we're screwed. You know, like this witness committed suicide and won't be appearing here or this piece of evidence mysteriously disappeared at the last minute or any number of plot mechanics that happen during these movies.

And then the fifth one really speaks to what you were addressing at the beginning of the show, which is, do you feel that you could effectively practice law after watching the movie? Now, as I shared in 10th grade, I was like, I am a lawyer as well. You were a lawyer in preschool. I was a lawyer in 10th grade just because I watched a lot of movies. And I still kind of think I know what I'm talking about with the law. And I have no idea. Like, I don't know anything. I'm completely untrained. I have absolutely no idea. Again, I have no legal training. I did take the LSAT, which is in no way a preparation for

law school and did not go to law school. But I do what I feel that I can do is argue my way out of anything in a legal way. And I don't want to say that these movies have taught me anything real. In fact, they've probably only taught me to value like being right and lording it over people, which I would do anyway, as everyone knows. And so that's bad. But I just to believe in my argument and believe that I can find the right turn of phrase or find, you know, the one exception I can, you know, I just I'll attack any contract. I don't really know what I'm talking about at all. But they give you a false sense of confidence.

How about that? Which, frankly, in this moment in time, I accept it. Thank you very much. I need all the confidence I can get. It's a good point. If you find yourself asking, answering any of these questions, yes. And specifically more than one of them, yes. You're definitely watching a courtroom drama and as i said courtroom dramas are are sort of gone right now there have been some this century that we could point out i mean i guess find me guilty

sydney lumetz uh i think that's his final film um you know we talked about molly's game earlier on the show and that's sort of a courtroom drama. The, the, the ignominious, the judge, the Robert Downey Jr. Vehicle, Roman J, Roman J. Israel Esquire, the Lincoln lawyer. None of these movies really made our list. Um, I'm not entirely sure why they don't work anymore. I guess maybe the absence of movie stars means that there's not as much of a reason to set these up.

What do you think it is? I have a theory beyond the basic, these are the mid-budget adult talkie dramas that studios don't make anymore because franchise, international market, you've heard this explanation a million times. And I do think that that's very true. I think that the O.J. Simpson trial and the rise of the true crime economy

changed what we think of when we think of like, quote, legal or crime entertainment that we want to watch. And obviously, the O.J. trial was a massive cultural event, but it also really put cable news on the map. And in terms of people watching these proceedings in a real day-to-day way, and maybe not seeing it as entertainment then, but their relationship to the news changed slightly. And then you do kind of see true crime stories bubbling out of that. And people's involvement in litigating crimes is still there. We're just doing it in different ways and more outside of the courtroom and more in like a sleuthing way. It's a great point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right. We've kind of been

institutionalized to true crime and not imagined crime. And while the sort of legal thriller and courtroom thriller novel, I think is still fairly successful for whatever reason in movies and to a lesser extent on TV shows, we don't see it as much, but I must say, like we talk about all of these Netflix original films and how they all kind of follow a lot of traditional formats. And then they start blending different categories together, different sub genres together. I'm surprised that they haven't taken a crack at one of these I feel like these are these movies are rewatchable they are returnable in so many ways and I just like to have one you know and maybe it's maybe it's a fear of like spoiler culture I feel like a lot of tv shows and movies now try to be almost like spoiler free where the ending doesn't even really matter it's about the

experience of watching the show or watching the film. That's maybe a different kind of episode. I would love to do a best movie endings episode, by the way, that might be a fun thing to do during this period. But for whatever reason, like the ending just doesn't seem as important as it used to. And these movies, as we said, so hinge upon what the outcome is that it might negate the need to watch it if it's spoiled for you on Twitter. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. And I think everything that has such a specific formula as these things do, which I mean, this is like a romantic comedy in terms of the beats and the tropes and it's and or a sports film, as I said earlier, I think that they both lend themselves to streaming because, you know, it's right there.

You just have to fill in the slots. But people aren't as incentivized on streaming for some reason to keep watching things where you know what the ending is necessarily. It's, oh, I got to watch one more. I need this cliffhanger. I need to solve this mystery. I think a lot of thing is that there is so much extracurricular work now in watching these sorts of shows like that. Then you go online to the forum or whatever, and you put together your like carry from Homeland Board. And it's more about the intricacy of the puzzle than like the argument.

So I think it could work. I mean, I would be thrilled if we started making A Few Good Men 2. Like, let's go. Aaron Sorkin, it's your time. And you know, that's interesting. Aaron Sorkin has a movie coming out this year that, Trial of Chicago 7, which theoretically will be in this exact wheelhouse. I mean, I hope so. That's why I've been looking forward to it. It seems like it will be. You know, I was just thinking about TV shows and the way that they do this too. And I feel like Shonda Rimes is really one of the only key figures with how to get away with murder who has kind of leaned into this, but that show specifically did what you're talking about, which is it was much more

about the puzzle. That is all certainly true. And to an extent that not in a courtroom, but just in terms of puzzles and ridiculousness was what Scandal did as well. But Shana Rhimes can still write a speech and she essentially took the courtroom drama out of the courtroom, but still keeps that really idealistic, to the back of the theater, kind of ridiculous, but you love it because you just want to hear someone orating speech. Yeah, I think this is one of the reasons why Law & Order also continues to work. It does kind of scratch that itch for people, and it's probably the most unexpiring piece of TV content we have. My favorite show of this kind, I don't know if you ever watched this,

or this might have been slightly before you got interested in this sort of thing, but have you ever seen the Stephen Bochco show Murder One? No, I haven't. It was a fairly short-lived show that I think only ran for like 40 episodes. It was definitely the show where I was introduced to Stanley Tucci, who's incredible in the show.

And it starred this guy, Daniel Benzali, who didn't really go on to much fame after this show. He's sort of an older guy, bald head. He was kind of the Vic Mackey before Vic Mackey. And it was a legal show legal drama and it was so taught and so fun and so full of all of these speeches that we're talking about and i could really go for a show like this now i don't i don't know why this kind of thing has has gone away but so we don't really get it in tv we don't really get it in movies anymore

but we do have a top 10 to go through so we're going to go through that list chronologically in a moment. But first, let's hear a word from Bill Simmons. Available on Spotify. These are 12 to 15 minute mini podcasts that review the latest TV shows streaming on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, FX, Apple TV, wherever else. We'll preview new shows that are launching. We'll break down the biggest shows that just launched. We'll review the biggest binge watch seasons that drop as they happen. It's our new TV concierge podcast from the Ringer Podcast Network. Think of it like a little bit of a playlist. Pick and choose the ones you want to listen to.

It's available only on Spotify. Okay, Amanda. Do you think it was cowardly that we just decided to do this chronologically? That I decided, honestly, I didn't even consult you. Do you feel okay about that? Do you want to rank them? Well, we have some precedent from the top 10 10 horny thrillers which we did chronologically and i i'm just going to be using legalese throughout this podcast just fyi so i feel okay with it and i i just also i do think

that we both everyone knows what we would put at number one so we don't need to do it yeah we've we've shared our hand here a few times so we agreed on what do we agree on six and then we each chose two yeah so the the first film on this list was your pick what is it it is miracle on 34th street i understand the post office receives thousands of these letters every year. I have further exhibits, Your Honor, but I hesitate to produce them. Oh, I'm sure we'll be very happy to see them. Yes, yes, yes. Produce them, Mr. Gailey. Put them here on my desk. But, Your Honor... Put them here on the desk.

Directed by George Seaton, released in 1947, and technically a Christmas movie, so that you might forget that the climax of the film is in fact in a courtroom. And fair warning, I rewatched the scene this morning and started crying. So that's where I am emotionally. But it is, in addition to being very, very effective, it is a really classic courtroom evidence reveal,

which is that the entire case turns on um they are prosecuting a man named chris kringle who claims that he is the real santa and somehow this makes it to a court and there's a also his friend a very tiny natalie wood who has been taught by her uh strict progressive mother to only acknowledge the truth and so she she's been taught that Santa isn't real. So we're doing the, is Santa real for everyone in the world, but also for tiny, cute Natalie Wood. And it is ultimately determined that because millions, not millions, but thousands of letters addressed to Santa and Kris Kringle are delivered by the united states postal service that therefore if the government in the form of the united states postal service acknowledges that santa is real then santa and chris kringle must be real and there's this great moment when

they just bring in bag after bag of mail and just dump it on the judge's desk because he agrees to allow the evidence thinking it can only be a couple things and then it's just sacks full of mail so it's both one of the the clever we found a loophole evidence type of lawyer things which comes up again and again it's just like well if the postal service says it's true but it's just also um the ultimate fantasy of the the law can protect ideals and that what we believe in can be true and can be protected. And that also that the law protects good things. And I find it really moving every single time.

And also, frankly, great defense. How old were you when you first saw it oh i can't remember i must have been definitely under 10 and it was it's not the first thing i think of what when i think of courtroom dramas but it is definitely there are scenes in the courtroom and it and it hinges on that where do you stand on the 1994 remake of this movie? I saw it. I honestly don't remember a lot about it. I don't want to say rude things, but the 1947 version is the version for me. I seem to recall that version starring Richard Attenborough as Chris Kringle, hot off his performance in Jurassic Park and feeling like that was solid casting but i don't it's it's it's not very memorable yeah i i like the original too i think it falls kind of firmly into a category all its own which is the kind of fantasy kids courtroom drama you know there's not

i wouldn't recommend showing most of these movies to children they're either going to be incomprehensible or inappropriate but miracle on 34 on 34th Street is kind of the starter kit. It's like a way to get interested in the law. And if you're a kid and if you love Santa Claus, here you go. Here's how Santa becomes might by right. He gets told by a judge that he is a legal citizen of the world. It's kind of a genius premise. It's, it's very smart. And it is also, it is a great kids movie, but I do think it works for adults in that they are using an actual legal

defense and a court of law to uphold a thing that we all know is silly. And we all know, I guess, practically speaking, isn't true, but we want to believe. And I think we're going to find in the rest of these movies that, that the wanting to believe in the law and the um the ability of the court to uphold the side of good is a um

is a real theme that doesn't always pay off but in this particular film it does so the next two that we've picked are both from the late 1950s these were shared picks we both easily settled on these and i'm kind of excited to hear what you think about them they're they're i think a useful match because they're both adult dramas that come from very powerful and impressive filmmakers of their time and they're movies that i think really hold up they really like are in in many ways are ahead of the curve the first is witness for the prosecution. In this country, we are inclined to take a rather more serious view of marriage. However, Frau Helm, it would appear, when you first met the prisoner in Hamburg,

you lied to him about your marital status? I wanted to get out of Germany, so... You lied, did you not? Just yes or no, please. Yes. Thank you. And subsequently, in arranging the marriage, you lied to the authorities? I did not tell the truth to the authorities. You lied to them?

Yes. And in the ceremony of marriage itself, when you swore to love and to honor and to cherish your husband, that too was a lie? Yes. And when the police questioned you about this wretched man who believed himself married and loved, you told them. I told them what Leonard wanted me to say. You told them that he was at home with you at 25 minutes past nine. And now you say that that was a lie. Yes, a lie.

Which is written and directed by the great Billy Wilder. It comes kind of right in the middle of, and this may have come up briefly in our movie director game episode with Sam Esmail, but right in the middle of like just an absolute blackout, drunk, great period for Billy Wilder, where in 10 years he makes sunset Boulevard, ace in the hole,

Stalag 17, Sabrina, the seven year itch, the spirit of St. Louis love in the afternoon witness for the prosecution, and then follows that up with some Like It Hot in the Apartment. I mean, that's just obscene. How many great films that is. He's the

best. And I actually think Witness for the Prosecution is one of the, not as one of the most memorialized of these, even though I think it's still one of the best and one of the most kind of richly entertaining. Like Some Like It Hot in the Apartment and Sabrina, like Sunset Boulevard, these are like in AFI, like the most kind of richly entertaining, like some like it hot in the apartment and, um,

Sabrina, like sunset Boulevard. These are like in AFI, like the most important films ever made. And they explain Hollywood in the fifties witness for the prosecution is, um, how to set the stage. So it takes place in England and it, it concerns an American man who is accused of murdering an elderly woman and

who is desperate to find a barrister to defend him and he stumbles by proxy into the office of a famous and ill and in ill health barrister played by charles lawton and charles the movie is worth the price of admission just for charles lawton who is like just on a thousand just setting the tempo for all great over the top prosecutorial kind of lawyer performances. Um, the man who's been accused is played by Tyrone power, kind of a great movie idol of the forties and fifties. And his wife is played by the actress Marlena Dietrich. And she plays a pretty significant role in the story. This is one of the great twisty movies of its era.

I think the twist still holds up. What do you think about revisiting this movie knowing what happens? Well, an important thing that you let me mention, I think that you saved this fact in order to let me reveal it, is that Witness for the Prosecution is adapted from an Agatha Christie play, short story, then play. And so it's very important to me as a person who has read a lot of Agatha Christie. So I knew what the twist was, I think, before I saw it, just because I was an Agatha Christie person.

Or maybe I didn't. But again, speaking of formulas, there is a formula to an Agatha Christie setup that I find very reassuring. But also, you can kind of see some things coming. And even if you don't know exactly who it is, you know what the rhythm is. And you know that three-fourths of the way through, there is going to be another person introduced. And there's going to be a red herring.

And I don't want to spoil any of this at all. So I won't say anymore, just to say that there are some signs if you're an Agatha Christie scholar. But what I thought was really interesting when I rewatched it for this podcast was, and I'd never seen this before in a movie this old, as soon as it ends, there is a credit sequence that's asking the audience to please not spoil the ending of the movie, which is something that I think of in terms of, you know, recent like franchise Marvel or just, you know, the disclaimers that we have to put on the top of every single piece of content that we do. So people don't yell at us, but it does so rely on the twist ending that there it was in 1957, which I thought was kind of cool. It's fascinating. And, you know,

I think the historical example of that that is more well-known than this one is Psycho. There was, I think, actually at the front of Psycho, there was a message from Alfred Hitchcock, which read, please do not spoil the murder of Janet Leigh's character in the first 40 minutes of the movie because the way the movie was marketed

was Janet Leigh is the star of Psycho and she will make it to the end because she is the heroine. But this one is arguably more important frankly in terms of twists and turns and how the story is positioned it's an interesting movie it was celebrated at the time in a hit nominated for best picture director actor supporting actress film editing sound recording and notably I think it's one of the only times that a husband and wife were nominated for performances in the same film

because Charles Lawton and Elsa Lanchester, who movie historians will know as the Bride of Frankenstein, significantly aged here in this film, who plays sort of his caretaker while he's infirmed, were both nominated,

which is just kind of a fun fact. It's a really, really fun movie. I would highly recommend people check it out. What'd you think of Tyrone Power revisiting it? He's very good. And again, I don't, there's only so much that you can say without spoiling. And we've been asked not to spoil, though, can you spoil a movie that is very famous that was released many decades ago? He's really well

cast in this. And I'm kind of at, this is a type of character that is very common in Agatha Christie books, which is the, you know, very charming husband, often American actually. And he's one of the better film versions of it that I've seen. And just kind of making you, making you root for him, which you need to do. Yeah. I think when you think about film icons too, in the movie, obviously Lawton is one of the most celebrated actors of his generation. You've got Marlene Dietrich, who is one of the great screen sirens of all time. She's giving a very showy performance in this movie. Tyra Power is a little bit of the forgotten man in the frame. And this is his last movie. He died at 44 years old. This is the last film he completed. He's really, really,

he kind of jumped out to me watching it again. I was like, wow, this is an incredible performance by him and it's all very sort of melodramatic and I don't mean that in a negative way. Like the show, the film feels like a stage show

which of course it's based on and that's part of what makes it work. There's only three or four settings for the whole story and it works really well. Let's go to the third film. Do you want to introduce this one? Sure. The third is

Anatomy of a Murderer. Your Honor, how she looked is irrelevant. No evidence has been introduced to connect Mrs. Mannion's appearance to a charge of murder. Well, I'm sorry, Your Honor. I just wanted to make sure the prosecution wasn't withholding evidence. Now look here. I just wanted to make sure the prosecution wasn't withholding evidence. Now look here.

I protest to the defense attorney's persistent attacks on the motives of the prosecution. The jury will disregard the remark made by the attorney for the defense. There is no reason to believe that the prosecution has not acted in good faith. Which was directed by Otto Preminger and came out in 1959 and I think that and obviously uh stars Jimmy Stewart the premise is that Jimmy Jimmy Stewart is one of many small town lawyers who is uh approached to defend um a a man a husband who is in the army who is accused of murder for killing the man accused of raping his wife. And this movie is understood by lawyers, I believe, to be kind of like the ultimate trial movie. It's very long. It's almost three hours long. And you really do see the entire

trial. And you see the breaks in between the trials you see them collecting evidence you see the ups and the downs and you see the momentum shift between the defense and and and the prosecution and the judge it's also we should note um george c scott is the is the prosecutor he's the out-of of town prosecutor that you were mentioning earlier. And I think this movie is fascinating because again, you can see all of the trial and also because it really is your allegiances shift throughout this movie. You don't know. I mean, obviously you're rooting for Jimmy Stewart because he's Jimmy Stewart and he's being as charming as can be. And he, but you can even see him using that. He very clearly knows how to work the trial. And this is

a system to be worked in this movie. And everyone is advocating for themselves and their interests. And it's less about who is right and who is wrong and who can game the system the most. It's the kind of movie that when it's over, you walk away wondering who the hero of the movie is. Did this movie have a protagonist? Did this movie have someone we were supposed to be rooting for? It's very cynical and it's very acidic in a way. And even though it's led by this, just the amazingly avuncular Jimmy Stewart, who is so charming in this movie and is so aw shucks and so well suited to this kind of part and he's kind of you know crazy like a fox in his way like he's obviously immensely intelligent and he's a former district attorney who's been voted out of office and who is now getting an opportunity

to have a showdown with the da who booted him out of office but it's just got great performances all around you know you mentioned george c scott very looking very wily in his sort of dr strange love era you've got ben gazzara very young ben gazzara as the accused uh army lieutenant you've got lee remick as his wife really really good cast arthur o'connell is the sort of like boozy sit sitting at the table with the lawyer kind of archetype which we see that now in a lot of movies that follow that i I think both Stuart and O'Connell were nominated for Oscars for this movie. And it's directed by Preminger. Preminger, who I did a lot of reading about Preminger after I rewatched this.

And he's not somebody who has the same name recognition as Alfred Hitchcock or as I don't, you know, who's a contemporary Spike Lee or Quentin Tarantino, but in his day was arguably the most important filmmaker of his time. I mean, routinely made hit movies was a real kind of commander of Hollywood and where it was going. He made movies like Laura and Carmen Jones and Bonjour Tristez and a lot of great films, a lot of socially minded films. This movie to me is like a concerto of taste. You've got Saul Bass, the great title sequence

creator who makes these incredibly indelible images in this opening title sequence. You've got this Duke Ellington score and Duke Ellington actually shows up in the movie, one of the enduring movie soundtracks of all time, his score for this movie, you've got all the right actors. You've got all the, you know, it's a, you're right. It's a very long movie, but it's paced. I think intriguingly, because even though it seems like it's a movie that is hurtling towards that verdict, you come away realizing that that's not actually what the movie was about. Like the movie is actually, it's a bit of a red herring. Like the movie is not about who wins and who loses.

It's about who was on trial and why and who had that trial in their hands. This is a very Captain Obvious, like, or maybe just like, oh, Amanda's stoned point. But the title of the movie is Anatomy of a Murder, which I realized halfway through, you know, putting murder in the title does convey a lot about what this movie thinks about what happened and what it's trying to convey to you and how it's trying to convey it. And yeah, it is. I think it's fascinating. It is.

You wonder who was I supposed to like and who was I supposed to trust and what was going on? I do think it's also interesting. This is based on a real case, I believe, a real trial that happened. And there is a little bit of that very early true crime kind of gawking at what happened. It's both extremely tasteful and dealing with a lot of very serious issues. And also a tiny bit purposefully scuzzy, if you know what I mean. They are, everyone is trying to get theirs

and there's like a whole scene where they're, that's very funny, if also like awkward, whether the judge and the counsel are debating whether you can use the word panties and whether there's like a more appropriate word to be used. And the ultimate evidence is like a pair word panties and whether there's like a more appropriate word to be used. And the ultimate evidence is like a pair of panties. There is something very voyeuristic going on here on

top of everything else, which is certainly part of the appeal of these trials. I mean, we like watching all of them and we like to know all the details, but it's, I mean, it's amazing that this movie was made as early as it was for how relevant it still is now. Yeah. It's way, I mean, it's way out of the curve, the way that it talks about rape, the way that it talks about sexuality, the way that the Lee Remick character is positioned. I mean, Preminger does this over and over again. All of his movies feel like they're 20 years into the future than they are. I wouldn't say it now feels like deeply sophisticated, but for its time, it's almost brazen how openly it's discussing some of these key issues and

it gives the judge some opportunity to talk about kind of decency in the courtroom and you look at how the the gathering audience is kind of tittering at every insinuation of sex or something sexual it's a very cool movie i would highly recommend it even though it is it's a it is a it's it's unusual for a courtroom drama to be this long. They all kind of historically clock in right around two hours, except for the next two picks that we have here. So I'm going to go with my next pick just for the chronological purposes, which is Inherit the Wind. Gentlemen, progress has never been a bargain.

You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says all right you're gonna have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance madam you may vote but at a price you lose the right to retreat behind the power puff or your petticoat which is a 1960 drama directed by stanley kramer speaking of issues oriented dramatists stanley kramer is um perhaps the most renowned of his era for making films that were sort of parables for ideas in the culture um so just in the span of a few years you get the defiant ones which is a sort of a treatise on how a white guy and a black guy can get along, even if they're together in chains.

You've got Inherit the Wind. You've got Judgment at Nuremberg, a movie that just barely missed the list here for us. You've got It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. You've got Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. All of these movies are all kind of stories about, they're basically civics lessons. They're stories about what we can learn from one another, what it means to be a part of a society. Inherit the Wind in particular is about faith versus science. It's loosely based on the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s,

and it features two incredible thunderous performances from its two leads, Spencer Tracy and Frederick March, who play two lawyers on opposing sides of the same case who have a long personal friendship. I would not say that Stanley Kramer makes subtle movies, and this is not a subtle movie. I don't know if you had a chance to revisit this. I did. I think it is worth the price of admission because of the yelling in the courtroom, because of what Spencer Tracy and Frederick March get to do together. Now, to us, literally a hundred years later, we look at the question of evolution and whether evolution should be taught in schools. It's obvious. And now it actually seems almost needling to people who live in the country or in small towns and have faith. Now it seems almost

like it's thumbing his nose at those people. I wouldn't recommend it for that exact reason. I would recommend it though for the intense writing, very stage, stagey, very playlike writing of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee and Ned Rae Keung and Harold Jacob Smith. And honestly, just from Spencer Tracy, just slowly losing his mind in the movie and getting increasingly loud and increasingly sweaty in this brutal courtroom. I had a really fun time rewatching it. I did, too. When you picked this, I think I responded with a big 10th grade English class energy to you, which was unkind.

Though I do think that I, as a 10th grader in Atlanta, Georgia, was made to watch this film for a reason. By the way, I was taught about evolution. Don't worry. But what struck me on rewatching it was the extent to which this movie is not just about those specific ideologies, but ideology and how it can really warp people's minds and also how battles like this and even courtroom dramas become major cultural social events. And again, it's not subtle when they show the rallies ahead of time and the people singing, give me that old time religion again and again, like, you know what it's about. But so many of the movies on this list are really insular and they're about what's happening in the courtroom and what it means for the people in the courtroom. And this does speak to the idea that people become really

invested in these trials as a way to litigate these larger social issues and that they can become like big firestorms. And I thought that was pretty interesting looking at it from 50 or 60 years later and all of them, the many trials that I have watched on cable news in a similar fashion. Yeah. And we're witnessing moments like that right now where it's sort of social movements gather and very angrily react to whatever is happening in anticipation of a legal proceeding. I also thought that this was a pretty neat movie.

I couldn't think of something that came before it, though. I'm sure there's something that exists like it that depicts what it's like to have a frenemy you know in this movie um you know matthew brady who is this famed orator and political candidate who's loosely based on william jennings brian um comes to town and to, to, to sort of defend the teachings of the Bible in schools. And then another equally famous man, um, played by the character's name is Henry Drummond comes to town to defend essentially the setup for the film is that a teacher has been teaching evolution in a, in a class and he's arrested for teaching evolution which is deemed unlawful in this town and so henry drummond comes to town to defend him and there's one other um amusing side plot

to this movie which is the the presence of a gene kelly as a hl mencken style sort of sing songing newspaper man um who at some point in the movie just starts sitting at the table with the lawyer. Did you notice that? What's going on there? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I could do a whole mini podcast about how the very the the tables, the lawyers tables are portrayed in various movies and people just having no subtlety or decorum whatsoever. I had completely forgotten that Gene Kelly was in this movie until I watched it. And I'm always happy to see Gene Kelly. He is incredibly charming in a slimy, off-putting way that must have been very fun for him at

this point in his life. And as someone who is vaguely a journalist, it made me feel sad that this is what the journalists are doing. Though I understood why he was at the table because the Baltimore newspaper, quote, hires the lawyer. So I guess he's just involved. Is that what you want if you're a newspaper? To hire a lawyer and then cover the trial? No, but again, I think things were very different in the news in the 1920s as well as in education. It's a fair point. This is notably one of the most remade movies

of its kind. I think there have been four different versions of Inherit the Wind over the years, in part because it's just catnip for actors. They get to give these incredible speeches and this incredible cross-examination. The culmination of the movie really is when the Drummond character, which is loosely based on

Clarence darrow calls the brady character to the stand the opposing lawyer in the case who is this you know fearless advocate of the teachings of the bible and they have this showdown and i mean it is it is kind of like ludicrously mesmerizing to me just watching these two 68 year old men scream at each other about the teachings of god um i don't know this is another one where i think if you see it at the right age you can't forget it and if you watched it now you might be like this is a little silly but i still love it it's over the top but it's supposed to be i think it doesn't really matter when you see the next one

what did you pick for number five i believe on the 12th of may you were at the tower i was for what purpose i was sent to carry away the prisoner's books did you talk with the prisoner I picked A Man for All Seasons, writ were to be king. Would not you, Master Moore, take me for king? That I would, he said. I picked A Man for All Seasons, directed by Fred Zinneman in 1966. And this is the story of Sir Thomas Moore, who was a lawyer and religious thinker, actually technically a humanist, in England in the 1500s during the time of the protestant reformation and he opposed the protestant reformation and was ultimately i mean i'm going to spoil history i'm sorry guys because this is kind of how western civilization took off for the next three to four hundred years uh he was tried for treason because of some hijinks having to do with Anne Boleyn.

We don't really need to get into it and was found guilty and was executed. And so this movie is about the events leading up to his trial and his quote trial and then what happens after the trial. And so it's a little bit historical fiction, biography, and a lot about the law. There's only the one last climactic scene in the courtroom, even though it's a pretty extended scene and it is important. It's because in the context of these movies, it's one of the few trials that the guy you're rooting for doesn't win um but the whole movie is about the law and how to engage with the

law and what your faith in the in the law itself and the letter of the law versus the intent of the law can or can't do for you. And I think it's a I mean, it's a great movie. It's it's a classic. Thomas Moore is played by Paul Schofield. And I believe he wins the Best Actor Oscar and this one's Best Picture. His one of his nemeses is played by a very young John Hurt, which is I had had forgotten that it was John Hurt. And then I was like, wait a second, that's John Hurt. Just a tremendous Orson Welles scene, who he plays Cardinal Wolsey, who was an early opponent of Thomas More. We're not going to get into it. I will say, I also recently reread Wolf Hall, which is the novel by Hilary Mantel, won the Booker Prize in, I believe, 2009. And it's extraordinary.

And it is about these same events, but it is told from the perspective of Thomas Cromwell, who is the ultimate villain in this film and proceeds over the trial that convicts Thomas More. And Wolf Hall is in many ways just like a repudiation of everything that is explained in this movie. And it presents like very different perspectives about the law and faith and belief versus practicality. And it was very interesting to kind of watch those two things together. If you're looking for a book to read, I really, really, really recommend Wolf Hall. And Wolf Hall also does end with the trial. It's almost the exact same structure, but with the opposite spin.

But I think this movie, Thomas More, has become kind of a shorthand for dying for your ideals and going with your ideology as far as it'll take you. Though I'm curious, Sean, I don't know if you got to rewatch it, whether you think the movie presents his ideology convincingly. Well, that's an interesting question.

I didn't rewatch it. I just rewatched scenes. I've seen it a lot. This was a movie that was a little bit of a gateway drug to Oscar history for me because I had an uncle who repeatedly told me this was his favorite film of all time, a very idealistic man. And he was insistent that I watch it when I started expressing my interest in movies. I have seen it quite a bit. I might have just told you this recently, but I went to the New Beverly shortly before quarantine started to see the incredible heist

movie, The Hot Rock. Had a great time, Went with some friends. But before The Hot Rock started, they played the trailer for A Man for All Seasons. And I was just instantly transported. It was a three and a half minute trailer, those old school long trailers that have this very overstated language in them that always begins with like, the film that every living human is talking about of 1966 it is a man for all seasons um and i seem to remember the first time i saw it after getting that recommendation from my uncle feeling like the ideas are in general are kind of obscured and that your only takeaway from the movie is that you know mostly just that the king is a huge asshole and that robert shaw who plays the king in this movie who fans of films like jaws will know.

Well, um, it's just this extremely extravagant dolt and insistent upon what he wants in the world. And Schofield, who's giving this like fairly internal performance, you know, he's not that over the top,

despite the, like, uh, the power of what Sir Thomas more represents in the story. And then you've got Wells and you've got Leo McCurran as Cromwell. You've got all these like big showy actors. It's interesting that Schofield actually won. I mean,

he, he speechifies, but for whatever reason, he's not like routinely raising his voice and yelling. And almost every other person in the movie is yelling all the time. I think it's, I haven't read Wolf Hall. I did watch the Wolf Hall TV series,

which I thought was pretty good featuring your gal, Claire Foy and Damian Lewis and Mark Rylance um and I guess Rylance was Cromwell right as I recall I believe so yes because it's about it's about Cromwell um and that that that was a little more persuasive to your point because it took eight hours six hours to to talk through the ideas and at the heart of the film. Yeah, and I just thought it was interesting on a rewatch. I remember it in terms of this being this struggle ultimately over the Catholic Church versus the Anglican Church and Protestant Reformation.

And it doesn't really get into as much of the religious stuff. It is actually just Thomas More Schofield just being like the letter of the law says this and I believe the law and a law should say X, Y, Z and the law protects me from this and not that, you know, and ultimately the law only protects him so far, which is a lesson that we learn in every other film on this list as well, that it is malleable and that the whole point is to manipulate it and the people who don't

manipulate it uh don't succeed that may just be me like being deep in wolf hall um but it it was it's a great watch and i really recommend it whether or not you feel the need to also read a 600 page historical novel it's an interesting example too of the good version of hollywood at the dawn of the new ho. Like this is right before you get this wave of influence from young filmmakers coming in. And Fred Zinneman is this very old school style filmmaker. He's a very sturdy hand. He really knows how to stage these scenes effectively. And it's not that like junky overdrawn musical stuff that we read about in books like Mark Harris's pictures of the revolution.

It's like, it's the good version of when the studios could make something really powerful, adapt to play, get great movie performances from an incredible cast. I would recommend a man for all seasons to any, any person that likes movies. The next pick is, uh,

the verdict. If we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves and act with justice. I believe there is justice in our hearts. We talked about Sidney Lumet. I tweeted something about the judge character from the verdict on Saturday night

and I got a text message from Bill Simmons instantaneously. Instantaneously. This is one of Bill's favorite movies of all time. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. Absolute masterclass in movie star performance from Paul Newman. It's about a down on his luck lawyer, which is a very it's very tropey, the movie itself. Well, I was going to say it's very tropey the movie itself well i was gonna say it's very tropey but this also it's foundational if you look at our list this is the movie that changes it and you can't have you really really cannot have a few good men without having the verdict and we can draw those lines but everything that we listed in the how do you know you're watching a courtroom drama

is is from the verdict and this is basically the dawn of the modern courtroom drama. Completely agree. It's notable that we're jumping from 1966 to 1982 because there are vanishingly few courtroom dramas in the 1970s. I have a theory about why that is. Do you want to hear it? I would love to. I think that the purveyors of the new Hollywood that I was just referencing were not interested in old school formats. And this was a very old school format an attempt to break that up they were pursuing different kinds of stories now it didn't stop them from making war movies like apocalypse now which we had in the 30s and 40s and 50s and 60s but for whatever reason there are very few some people will cite injustice for all which is a kind of like totally all over the place arthur hiller movie starring al pacino that that I rewatched thinking I was going to put it on this list.

And I was like, uh, actually, I don't think this works as well as I wanted to. The verdict on the other hand is a diamond. It is like a, such a perfectly formed piece of movie artistry with one rare exception, which we'll talk about maybe.

Yeah. I had blacked that out. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but it's written by David Mamet. It's one of his first screenplays. It is very elegantly written,

but also very accessible and feels very normal. I think Bill loves this movie because of its Boston roots, but also because it's just a, it's a, it's a good story. It's like, it does feel, you're right,

Amanda, like foundational for a lot of the Grisham stories for a lot of the underdog tales about people who've been done wrong by big, powerful organizations or institutions and how to best seek revenge or restitution on those organizations. In the case of this story, it's about a couple who comes to a down on his luck and certainly alcoholic lawyer played by Paul Newman with a case about how a hospital gave their sister, uh, the wrong anesthetic while she was giving birth,

thus, uh, killing the child and rendering the woman, um, brain damaged. And they're suing the hospital to get recompense for this terrible tragedy. And Newman essentially has a choice to make between accepting the hospital and thus the archdiocese because the hospital is owned by the church's deal or pursuing a trial, pursuing a case. Take a wild guess what he actually does here. and getting your shit together and using the law, but also using somehow the results of this movie

are not bound by what a good job he does, but more by the expression of his integrity and his decency, which is an interesting counterpoint to, I think, a lot of these movies, which are about the vagaries of being right and wrong. You know what I mean? Yes. I mean, he gives that incredible closing argument.

We doubt our institutions. You know, he says to the jury, you know, you are the law. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. And today it's about believing in justice and believing. And he's giving a speech and he is giving what we all want to believe is true about the justice system, even though it is so often not. Not some book, not the lawyers, not a marble statue or the trappings of the court. But he is also certainly giving a speech about believing in himself and a single human person's ability to change, to do something, to make a difference, to find an act of justice.

And so it's more personal. You wrote down that it's like a character story, and it very much is. And also just absolutely relies on Paul Newman's just incredible charm. I was watching this and I will be very honest. First 10 minutes, I said to my husband, I don't know, Paul Newman's like a little old in this. Like he might be slightly old for Charlotte Rampling. And 15 minutes into the movie, I was like, no, no, no, it's good. Paul Newman still got it. He's in the conversation for my favorite person to have ever appeared in a movie.

I, you know, not every movie he's made is great. But for whatever reason, he just, some people are just easy in front of the camera. They just fit. You know, Newman just fits. And even though this character is not a good guy. And in fact, at one point in the movie, he hits a woman and it's downright bizarre. It's like, I have no idea why it's in the movie. It's incongruous.

Maybe it clarifies that he is a really flawed figure and has a lot of problems and isn't totally resolved. Maybe it's just the leftovers of a different time when you could hit a woman in a movie 40 years ago. I couldn't. When that happened, it took me out of the movie entirely. But otherwise, it's immensely convincing performance. I had the same thing. I had forgotten that it happens. It happens. And I think that

it's just something that would not be in the movie now. And you could even excise it and it would work fine in this film as well. You know, like it just doesn't, I don't think we need to relitigate and he doesn't need to be a good person. It actually just feels a little bit out of character, which is part of why it takes you out of the story. The Verdict is a great film. If you haven't seen it, you should watch it immediately. Let's go to the seventh choice. I had so much fun with this. I did too, in my own way. The seventh choice is JFK. You know, going back to when we were children, I think that most of us in this courtroom thought that justice came into being automatically. That virtue was its own reward, that good would triumph over evil.

But as we get older, we know this just isn't true. Oliver Stone's 1991 polemic, his counter myth to the JFK assassination. You know, this is really a political thriller as procedural in court. Like so many of these movies, a lot happens before you get into the courtroom. And then I would say probably more than most in this three hour and 25 minute movie happens before we get into the courtroom, though it does culminate in a, in a very, in an extravagant courtroom sequence that's about 35 minutes long. What can you say about one of the most influential things on me in my entire life? I don't say that to say that I subscribe to any of the theories put forth here by Oliver Stone,

because it's been proven time and again, and was proven at a time of release that most of what's in this film is hogwash. I do not care. This to me is the most kinetic, exciting, extraordinary filmmaking. He's doing everything all at once. The writing is brilliant. Every actor is at their peak. I honestly believe that. I think this is the best Costner, the best Tommy Lee Jones, the best Kevin Bacon, the best Joe Pesci. Like it is people just, just going for it. Everyone in this movie is so fearless and they do not care what anybody thinks of what they're doing, which is the kind of movie that I love. I really think that this is like a bizarrely brave act. And to go back and read the material about it, I found to be the stuffiest, most conservative nonsense okay

you you seem dismayed by what i've just said well i was just gonna say it's not the best joe pesci that we've ever seen okay that's it's not it's the hair alone disqualifies it absolutely not sir that's what i have to say i did go back and i'll be honest i didn't re-watch all three hours and 40 minutes or whatever if this is but But I did rewatch key scenes and elements. And I just remember thinking, oh, this is why our brains are broken as a generation. Like, because we all saw this movie at a young point in time and just became just really strident conspiracy theorists. And here we all are. And my brain is absolutely shaped by the absurd thinking and arguing in this movie as much as anybody else of our generations is. It is a preposterous movie. It's absolutely just over the top. The Donald sutherland scene just goes on and on and on and is extraordinary but you really

feel like you are it's transportive right because you're in the brain of someone else who's operating at a very high speed and and thinking about a lot very quickly and you can feel that um i it it felt like strangely intimate in a way that i was like I don't want to be a part of this anymore I don't want to live in this brain and then the courtroom scene is certainly like extremely memorable it is kind of funny to me it's like almost strangely conservative that this movie feels the need to and I understand that it's based on a real trial and a real novel and a real person and so this happened but it's funny that all of these completely out there theories and this anxiety and this suspicion culminates in um in a courtroom that oliver stone or anyone

would trust in a courtroom to even be able to be the place to litigate these sort of things because it's so far beyond the bounds of anything else that goes on in a courtroom. But the bullet speeches, it launched a thousand conspiracy blogs. You know, it really did. Back and to the left, back and to the left. I think that the thing that makes it, I mean, the reason that it takes place in a courtroom is because you you need the Jim Garrison character you need a portal to tell the story to to talk about all the ideas he wants to talk about Garrison um was the DA in in uh New Orleans and was the only man to have brought a trial of any kind in the assassination of JFK and he attempts to insinuate uh Clay Shaw's aka Clay Bertrand into this conspiracy and insinuate that he was working for the CIA and bring charges against him. And he was a resident of Louisiana,

which is why he's brought to trial in this case. But that's just a it's just a very narrow little entry like keyhole that brings us into this big story. But the reason that it's actually a great courtroom drama is not because it has these great courtroom scenes. It's because it's one big long argument. It's just the big listen to me and listen to what I have to say. And even if you don't believe specifically the events that Stone is outlining and whether the military industrial complex specifically organized to assassinate the president, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that there's a lot of truth in the things that the X character played by Donald Sutherland is saying, which is why a movie like this can be radical for very impressionable teenagers like myself when I saw it. I mean, listen, I went back and rewatched it. Then I started Googling when did the JFK files come out? And like, do you think we'll live long enough to know for sure? It's definitely all I want to know is the answer to it. So it's extremely effective. And again, just the influence of it is you can't measure it. Truly, our brains are broken. So there's that. Thank you, Oliver Stone.

I also just miss a roundly controversial film like this. Oh, yeah. Because this movie was either loved or it was hated. Roger Ebert said it was one of the 10 best films of the decade. It was nominated for six Oscars. It won Oscars. It introduces Hank Corwin into the movie atmosphere. We talked about him when we talked about Vice, because I think he helped Adam McKay at advice and this incredible commercial influence flash cutting style that he does in this movie, which, you know, is, is liable to give you a seizure. It's so intense and so aggressive and he's bouncing from film stock to film stock and perspective to perspective. And it's cutting to the Zapruder film and then the recreation of the Zapruder film and then it's cutting to archival footage of Doitie Eisenhower and then it's cutting back to Kevin Costner.

It's moving a million miles an hour the whole time. It's got this incredible John Williams score. Did you read at all about what they did with this score? No. So John Williams was busy finishing up another film at the time. I want to say it was a Steven Spielberg project, something a little bit more respectable, but he had a small window and he composed six separate pieces for the movie without having seen a frame of the movie. So Oliver Stone cut the movie to the music that John Williams provided.

And so that kind of metronomic music that you hear as um as as the garrison character is kind of compiling evidence and then when he's sitting down with x this like that like repeating signature is you might not have gotten that if john williams got to be in the room and say here's what you know oliver still wants this so let's do this like the idea of building around what you have rather than what you want is part of what makes this so good so jfk is it a masterpiece the answer is yes Like the idea of building around what you have rather than what you want is part of what makes this so good. So JFK, is it a masterpiece? The answer is yes.

What's next? Another masterpiece. Nobody could answer that question. Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as an expert witness. Can you answer the question? No, it is a trick question. Why is it a trick question? Watch this. Because Chevy didn't make a 327 in 55.

The 327 didn't come out till 62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four barrel carb till 64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top dead center. It's My Cousin Benny, released in 1992. And for me, you didn't put it.

We kind of made our list of like, quote, important movies and then fun movies. And you tried to slide this into fun. And I'm going to say that it's important. This is both a parody of these types of movies and a parody of the legal system and also kind of the most loving endorsement of everything. It is just all of the things that make these movies pleasurable without any of the actual concerns and has the best witness explaining the evidence scene that you've ever seen. And also notably is like the only time, God bless Marisa Tomei, that a woman gets to do anything in these movies.

And she absolutely nails it. And it's so funny. You want to talk about feeling like you could practice law after watching movies. I really feel that I could examine the back of any Polaroid at this point and find the evidence that I needed to win a case. And it's so accessible that I think that matters as well, because a lot of these movies are translating all of the legal proceedings to things that people can care about. And you do care about everyone in this film. I love this movie. It's a great example of why just because it's a comedy doesn't mean the plot doesn't have to matter. The way that the story is told,

the script here, not just the performances, but the way that every figure is positioned inside the story is so good. And obviously Marisa Tomei won an Oscar for performance in this movie, the rare comic performance that is great. But like every time she's on screen, the movie just brightens, you know, she, she gets all the best lines. It's a really great,

it's a, it's a really great Pesci performance. Maybe I, maybe I've underestimated, maybe it's not good fellas or casino or JFK. Maybe it's my cousin Vinny that is his, his shining achievement. And also every kind of complimentary character in the movie,

especially Fred Gwynn as the small town judge. Herman Munster is so good. I can hear my dad saying to me, did you say Utes? Like the two Utes line being like a common refrain in my household growing up. I love My Cousin Minnie. Also like a peak rewatchable that we'll have to do at some point down the line.

Yes. Colonel. The next movie is A Few Good Men. Lieutenant Kendrick ordered the code red, didn't he? Because that's what you told Lieutenant Kendrick to do. Object. And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose. Your Honor, you have more than just a side of phony transporter.

Your Honor, you doctored the logbook. Damn it, Cappy. You coerced the doctor. Consider yourself in contempt. Colonel Jessup, did you order the code red red you don't have to answer that question i'll answer the question you want answers i think i'm entitled you want answers i want the truth you can't handle the truth is it is it is it perfect we live in a world that has walls and those to me it is perfect to quote the weird uh sign guy from Love

Actually, which seems appropriate at this point in a podcast. Can we get a meme of you holding the sign to Jack Nicholson's Colonel Jessup? To me, you are perfect. Yeah. So this is the best for me for a lot of reasons, but it is primarily because you got tom cruise and jack nicholson two of the all-time great movie stars giving just full-out movie star performances and not just speechifying in a very like grave and profound way but these guys are just going at it and you get at least you get two amazing scenes where it's two of the greatest movie stars yelling at each other and what they are saying to each other does not make sense it do not practice law based on what daniel caffey is doing in this movie like the likelihood

that you're just going to yell at jack nicholson for a while and he's going to be like you're not right i did but that's what happens and you know what I noticed last time when I was rewatching it? Is that he actually yells like, he admits to it and then does a whole other soliloquy about what it means to stand on a wall and then keeps going. Like there is just a lot of Jack Nicholson being like, sure, I'd love to tell you my reasoning for ordering a code red and breaking laws and doing things my way. This doesn't happen, but it's so exciting. And I think maybe it's so pleasurable because it's really what you want to happen in every courtroom drama and also really in every life situation. What you want is an opponent as formidable as Jack Nicholson to just yell, you're so right at top volume.

I think that's really the number one thing that I'm looking for in my life in pretty any situation. And A Few Good Men gives it to you. It's a very strong case, both for the movie and for this podcast. I think, you know my theory about this, right? That the winner of that scene is Tom Cruise and not Jack Nicholson. I think that's true. Like Tom Cruise's performance in that scene, the fact that he is nose to nose, toe to toe with Nicholson, it's like Nicholson has proven it already. Nicholson has all the best lines.

He gets the big speech. He gets to grimace profoundly. He gets to wear that brown suit. You know, it's Cruz who should be on the back foot. And Cruz is thundering his way through the cross-examination. It's incredible. I think he's absolutely mesmerizing in that moment. This to me is his number one performance. And it is not just because he looks so good in that

uniform, though my Lord, Tom Cruise in this uniform was very important to me growing up. But as I said before, the rhythm and the cadence that he has, he is so arrogant and also so intelligent and has total command of the Sorkin lines, which, as we know, are very difficult and not everyone can pull it off. And I think, you know, I made a lot of fun of the the legal showdown itself, which is not really how laws work. But I think this is in addition to just being two of the great actors just sparring for a long time. It's also a very clever movie, and it's a movie within a movie about what law can and should be and what is an order, what's legal, what's illegal, how do we decide what's right and what's wrong? And they're

actually trying that in real time. And I think the actual ideas are possibly slightly more nuanced than the final showdowndown but it's really pleasurable it does also take you through the case and you get to see uh tom cruise being like i think where's my bat where's my bat i i think better with my bat and then he really does think better with that bat you you do get to follow them along it has the underdog quality and he is just tom cruise steals absolutely every single scene you cannot take your eyes away from him okay we'll have to save the rest for another a few good men podcast even though you've already appeared on the rewatchables and we've talked about it three

or four times i'm sure we'll come back to it again at some point soon the last movie on our list is a time to kill deputy looney do you think carly shooting you was intentional no sir it was an accident do you think you should be punished for shooting you. No, sir. I hold no ill will toward the man. Now, A Time to Kill. This came up during our Matthew McConaughey conversation last year. I would say that it is a flawed movie. I would say that all of the John Grisham movies of the 1990s have flaws.

Some of them are too long. Some of them are too credulous about the law. Some of them are ridiculous. Some of them feature overacting. A time to kill is guilty of a lot of things to put a bad pun on it, but it basically takes all of the things that are in all of the movies that we've talked about thus far and puts them in a blender. And it gives you every single thing. It gives you the simple country lawyer.

It gives you the out of town, big shot prosecuting attorney. It gives you the simple country lawyer. It gives you the out-of-town big shot prosecuting attorney. It gives you the down-on-his-luck defendant. It gives you a cranky judge. It gives you an extraordinary interrogation scene. It gives you surprise. It gives you an amazing closing argument from the plucky young attorney. It is basically the whole kit and caboodle. Similarly, like so many of these

movies, it has an amazingly overqualified cast. If you go down the list of people in this movie, it is absurd. I was just rewatching the sequence where Chris Cooper is interrogated on the stand and he's like, he's just amazing in this movie and in that scene. It's so funny. I also just rewatched that scene and I kind of rewatched it at the end of rewatching all of these. So I immediately just like started wanting to object based on the objections that I'd learned from the other movies of like, you can't have a witness offering his opinion. He can't testify to X, you know, but it is, he's so amazing. Chris Cooper just steals every movie that he's been in recently or not recently is the case maybe.

Yeah. I mean, I think if we were being unkind, you could say that we're sort of moving in descending order of greatness of filmmakers. We go through this, you know, we go Billy Wilder and then Otto Preminger, we go to Stanley Kramer and then Fred Zinneman, you know, we get Lumet in there, but then we go to Oliver Stone, Rob Reiner, and then we get to Joel Schumacher here. Joel Schumacher, you know, he's got some hits and some misses. He's got more misses than hits. One thing that he does have is two Grisham movies under his belt. Now, for me, The Client, is it silly to say it's a great film? I remember watching it over and over and over again on HBO for years. I don't even know if it's good anymore. But similarly, stacked cast, Susan Sarandon,

Tommy Lee Jones, Mary Louise Parker, JT Walsh. A Time to Kill is loaded. You would not put A Time to Kill. Would you put A Time to Kill and the client over the firm or no? Give me your Grisham Power rankings. Let me put it that way. I think the firm is like the quote best movie. I think also, again, it's a very, very important Tom Cruise period for me personally. Also, The Firm is a book that I was allowed to read like very, very young. The Grisha movies also to us and I think possibly to a lot of people were our first taste of like quote adult fare and so I the film is actually good I think the pelican brief is also good and I love it and it stars Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington and also speaking of conspiracies

I mean it's like JFK light sort of but JFK if it made sense and I love that movie and but it's not a courtroom drama so it's not eligible so I think I would go the firm a time to kill because the time to kill is so memorable that that closing argument is quite something and has become a joke now, possibly with good reason and not with good reason. But it is a lot of people have borrowed from it, if you will, some to better effect than others. So I would do the firm A Time to Kill the client. Yeah, I think that's a good list.

A Time to Kill, we should note, gave us not just the now imagine she's white meme. It also gave us Dave Chappelle's, yes, they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell. So we really, we got a lot from A Time to die and I hope they burn in hell so we really we got a lot from a time to kill and a lot from Grisham so that's our 10 I think it's a pretty good list

if you haven't I'm sure people have seen most of these movies especially the 90s movies if they haven't seen them I put together a couple of bonus recommendations before we go out uh you may have heard me talk about Rashomon on the Toshiro Mifune episode, which features a different kind of a courtroom, but it is really a kind of legal thriller slash testimonial. I also rewatched Paths of Glory the other day, which I don't think is a great courtroom movie,

but it's just a fucking great movie. Stanley Kubrick's World War I drama. Just absolute bang on perfect movie. Did you, have you seen Compulsion? No, I haven't. This was the one discovery that I made because I had never seen it before. It is a 1959 movie that is based on a real case. It's a 1959 novel.

It's based on the Leopold and Loeb murder trial, and it features similar to a man for all seasons, a kind of extraordinary Orson Wells heat check performance where Orson Wells is the top billed person in the movie, but then he doesn't show up until there's 30 minutes left in the movie. And then he just dominates for the final 30 minutes in a courtroom. Would recommend it if you're an Orson Wells fan. Any other movies you want to cite as bonuses before we go? I did want to shout out Legally Blonde, which is extremely important. Number one, because they actually let a woman do the lawyering, though even within this movie,

that is a subject of great struggle and debate. But she finally gets to break through and it has it is a joke, but it has one of the great witness reveals for a very funny reason that I won't spoil. But it is like My Cousin Vinny, since it comes after My Cousin Vinny, I don't really think that we need to put it on this list. But in terms of understanding the moments of the genre and then having fun with them, it's really up there. And shout out My Girl Reese. I think it's a great call. This is a good list. You feeling good about it? Yeah, I love these movies. Me too.

Thanks for doing this with me, Amanda. We'll be back later this week on The Big Picture to talk about some of our favorite movies that have been released during quarantine. So even though we haven't been able to go to the movie theater, we have been getting new stuff. We have some stuff to recommend to you. We'll see you then.