'Action' deliberates too long on lawyer's civility

Admittedly, courtroom dramas are no simple tasks to produce these days in order for them to really stand out as quality films. With John Grisham's movies having already swept the nation with the many ways in which he exposes the idea of a corruptive legal system, there is almost little else left to squeeze of out of the genre.

This is why it must be said with a slight cringe that the director of "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and screenwriter for "Schindler's List," Steven Zaillian, brought about "A Civil Action" for our viewing pleasure. Based on Jonathan Harris' novel, which was based on a true story, "A Civil Action" does succeed in driving the plot forward in an entertaining way, but fails miserably in making any sort of sense concerning the trial around which it revolves.

Courtesy of Buena Vista Pictures John Travolta contemplates personal importance in "A Civil Action."

John Travolta's character as a money-driven personal injury lawyer who turns into a high-moraled "I'm above money now" evangelist is so utterly overused and contrived that to even attempt to add some spice to this premise would be an impossible feat. Visiting small town Woburn in Massachusetts, Jan Schlichtmann (Travolta) initially sets out to turn down numerous parents wishing to receive an apology from whoever was responsible for the leukemia-related deaths of their children. Initially, Jan cannot accept the case because there seems to be no big business companies (read rich) who can provide a substantial compensation for Jan's effort. He defends/protects his decision by explaining that there is little evidence on what they suspect is the cause of their children's deaths: a foul waterworks system.

But on his drive home (during which he receives two speeding tickets - is this supposed to be funny?) he notices a tannery that is also connected with two hefty food corporations, Beatrice Foods (owners of Peter Pan peanut butter, among others) and W.R. Grace & Co. Suspicious of the fact they are located right next to a river, Jan makes a bold move: He decides to risk ruining his expensive shoes by squishing through some snow and mud and deftly pushing away some branches with his delicate hands. Please. The movie tries so hard to champion Jan's change of beliefs that it is nauseating.

Backed by three associates, one of whom is played by William H. Macy in his typical anxiety-crazed role, the new Jan gives up everything (savings, his home, office and possessions) in order to try this case and seek the justice that the parents of Woburn deserve. Amidst the trial proceedings, the film touches upon the, yep you said it, negative aspects of the judicial process.

Zaillian does cover his bases in showing just about every angle of the film's hell-bent nature, but ironically exaggerates what he's attempting to make so realistic. In one scene, one of the defendant's lawyers tries to persuade his client into believing that the drinking water isn't contaminated. "How do you know?" says his client. "Because I do," says the lawyer defensively. It's hard to believe that a lawyer would make such a comment to his client in light of the fact that he is about to put up an entire defense on his behalf.

Incidentally, "A Civil Action" is so wrapped up in Jan's transformation, that it leaves out important details that would aid in understanding the more complex details of the case. The novel upon which the movie is based, is full of details concerning the land in question, complete with an explanation of how the groundwater actually came to be poisoned. Without this knowledge, the film delivers a very surfaced, vague representation of why Jan thinks he has such a strong argument for the contamination of the drinking water (which he ends up having to re-research after the case has been closed).

On the other hand, we are thankful that Jan has to encounter so many obstacles and lose so much of his material wealth in order to actually win. In this sense, the movie is able to maintain a level of intrigue and entertainment. Robert Duvall's performance as the defending attorney for Beatrice Foods is well done. He portrays a wealthy, well-respected lawyer who simultaneously possesses little quirks that make him more real and not just another materialistically insatiable attorney. His passion for baseball, his cheap old radio and his need for separation from the office indicate that not all lawyers are money hungry vigilantes, but even his character isn't developed enough to understand his own complex nature.

Though "Searching for Bobby Fischer" was able to capture our hearts, Zaillian obviously should have rethought the possibility of a courtroom drama triumph after having witnessed Francis Ford Coppola's disappointing film, "The Rainmaker."

01-11-99