A Time to Kill

Tags

1990's, A Time to Kill, Ashley Judd, Brenda Fricker, Charles S. Dutton, Chris Cooper, Courtroom Drama, Crime, Donald Sutherland, Drama, Joel Schumacher, John Grisham, Kevin Spacey, Kiefer Sutherland, Legal Drama, Matthew McConaughey, Oliver Platt, Patrick McGoohan, Samuel L. Jackson, Sandra Bullock

Film Title

A Time to Kill

Director

Joel Schumacher

Starring

• Matthew McConaughey as Jake Brigance
• Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey
• Sandra Bullock as Ellen Roark
• Kevin Spacey as Rufus Buckley
• Oliver Platt as Harry Rex Vonner
• Kiefer Sutherland as Freddie Lee Cobb
• Donald Sutherland as Lucien Wilbanks
• Ashley Judd as Carla Brigance
• Brenda Fricker as Ethel Twitty
• Charles S. Dutton as Sheriff Ozzie Walls
• Chris Cooper as Dwayne Looney
• Patrick McGoohan as Judge Omar Noose

An incendiary and well mounted adaptation of the John Grisham legal/courtroom drama, A Time to Kill ensures that the moral and ethical debates come through strong, thanks to the story, script and cast.

In the town of Canton, Mississippi, a 10-year-old black girl by the name of Tonya Hailey is walking home after getting groceries from the local store. Suddenly, she is targeted by two sneering and utterly vile rednecks who violently rape and attempt to kill her by hanging. Tonya survives, but the damage to her has been done, which sends shock waves through the community. Tonya’s father Carl Lee is devastated when he discovers what has happened to his little girl and knowing that due to the racism that pervades the town and that the two men may get a light sentence, decides to take matters into his own hands. He responds by gunning down both men on their way to trial, in front of over a dozen witnesses. Arrested, Carl Lee contacts young and idealistic lawyer Jake Brigance to represent him. Jake had previously helped Carl Lee’s brother in the past and feels he must represent him; mainly because he was aware that Carl Lee might have gone through with his retribution after talking with him earlier. Jake is warned that this case will be dangerous and because he doesn’t have that much experience, he is bright and wants to help. Hurdles and stumbling blocks come up as the manipulative district attorney and prosecutor Rufus Buckley, who has his eye on office, decides to seek the death penalty and manages to stir the situation up. The climate of racism and clashing opposition makes the whole thing a powder keg as Jake finds his life in danger, as well as those closest to him being threatened by a resurgent faction of the Ku Klux Klan, brought out by one of the brothers of the men slain by Carl Lee. Yet with all the hostility and violence being thrown his way, Jake refuses to back down and his resolve is strengthened as he is soon in the courtroom representing his client in a case that could spark even more eruptions of unrest and horror for everyone. He is aided by the young law student Ellen Roark, who is a know it all but very passionate and good friend plus occasional divorce lawyer cynical Harry Rex Vonner. Yet getting a fair trial is going to be anything but easy as tensions threaten to explode.

Joel Schumacher impeccably displays a flair for the material; making it both extremely gripping and equally as powerful in what it brings to the table. A Time to Kill raises many moral questions in a series of ways that delve into the quagmire of what is deemed right and wrong, and how there is a difficult grey area in between. There are those that will say that the movie is more in favour of one view than the other, but even if that is true, A Time to Kill deserves credit for presenting issues like justice, fairness and racism with many degrees of thought-provoking effectiveness. I believe that the film tries to show both sides of things. While Carl Lee did kill the men who raped his daughter, you can understand many of the reasons why he did it. A Time to Kill asks us to consider what we would do in that situation, which allows the film to get under the skin deeply. The difficulty in the topic of morality and justice is best summed up by a speech given by Donald Sutherland’s character. He says, “If you win this case, justice will prevail, and if you lose, justice will also prevail”, which perfectly and simply reflects the complex issue at hand. The legal nature of A Time to Kill is pretty compelling to watch as the ethics of lawyers and the inevitable courtroom examinations of whether someone is guilty are put under the spotlight. The build up to the courtroom is equally as excellent, showing just how dangerous a case of this magnitude can be in a climate of uncertainty and intolerance. Yet when the courtroom drama hits, the fireworks really start to occur. The testimonies and confrontations have rippling consequences that influence the society around them, that is already at boiling point on account of racism and violence. The dignified and quick-moving script makes the legal terminology easy to digest, yet doesn’t forget the battle going on between many things within the fabric of the story. And speaking of quick-moving, A Time to Kill runs for two and a half hours, yet interest is kept in check and held throughout most of it. Sure some moments could have been expanded on, but the atmosphere and climate of the piece brings immediate attention and confronting intent to the viewer, that will get them to look at the ethics of the trial intensely. The music provided by Elliot Goldenthal is dynamic and matches the escalating emotions and tensions within the story.

A Time to Kill was the movie that really launched Matthew McConaughey to stardom and it isn’t difficult to see why. With his charming yet astute persona, he naturally plays Jake as a man put through the difficulties of the case, yet spurned on by what he sees as just cause. The gravity of the situation dawns on him after realising how complex events will turn out, but he won’t give up on this case and soldiers through it with unwavering determination. McConaughey is the right fit for the part and his closing speech in the film is powerful stuff that shows just what an excellent actor he is. Samuel L. Jackson is particularly memorable as the man on trial, evoking the self-possessed man whose temper was pushed to the edge by the brutality his daughter endured. Jackson’s work is very subtle and while he has two scenes of outburst( the first when he kills the men and the second in court) he is largely a modulated presence, though behind his eyes the fury and hurt is there as clear as day. This performance impressed me as I usually think of Jackson as manic and loud, yet he delivered a finely tuned performance as the avenging Carl Lee that reveals another side to him. We have Sandra Bullock portraying the over-eager and brainy Ellen with a good mix of sass and smarts, while Kevin Spacey can be discovered slithering his way across the screen, inhabiting the egotistical and ambitious prosecutor. Oliver Platt provides some levity from the intense drama in the sidekick role of being a cynical wise ass with questionable morals, yet also with surprising depth to match. Kiefer Sutherland is appropriately nasty and shocking, starring as the angered brother of one of the slain who riles up the Klan once more and delights in causing horror to all in order to get what he perceives as his own justice. His father Donald also makes a hell of a mark, exuding the wily silver fox persona ideal for his part of Jake’s former mentor, who despite being disbarred from court, manages to aid his young charge. It is interesting to note that Donald and Kiefer never share a scene in the film. Ashley Judd and Brenda Fricker have less to do in the film, but each is good in their respective roles of concerned wife and long-serving secretary. In smaller roles, Charles S. Dutton, Chris Cooper and Patrick McGoohan add their expertise to various people involved in the case and make the most of the time they get to be shown.

A Time to Kill emerges as an engaging crime drama that explores culpability, legality and racism in a powerful way, benefiting from confident direction and a star-studded cast.

Judgment at Nuremberg

Tags

1960's, Burt Lancaster, Courtroom Drama, Judgment at Nuremberg, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, Montgomery Clift, Nuremberg, Nuremberg Trials, Richard Widmark, Spencer Tracy, Stanley Kramer

Film Title

Judgment at Nuremberg

Director

Stanley Kramer

Cast

• Spencer Tracy as Judge Dan Haywood
• Burt Lancaster as Ernst Janning
• Richard Widmark as Colonel Tad Lawson
• Marlene Dietrich as Madame Bertholt
• Maximilian Schell as Hans Rolfe
• Judy Garland as Irene Hoffman Wallner
• Montgomery Clift as Rudolph Peterson
• Werner Klemperer as Emil Hahn

Synopsis: At the end of World War II, a New England judge is sent to Nuremberg,Germany to preside over the trial of four men accused of carrying out Nazi crimes.

Judgment at Nuremberg is the riveting, shocking and powerful courtroom drama that presents a fictional account of one of the many Nuremberg trials. Stanley Kramer, who was known and sometimes decried for his so-called message movies, proved that he could direct a film with real meaning and careful handling of an extremely controversial issue with this film that was nominated for eleven Oscars. The film won two, one for Best Actor for the then unknown Schell and one for Abby Mann’s script. As director and also producer Kramer assembled a once in a lifetime cast headed by Spencer Tracy; no matter how big or small the role is in the movie each actor brings something special to the part.

What I liked most about the film was the way in which it presented a controversial issue and didn’t leave out anything important or cover it up. Whereas some courtroom dramas can drag on and become monotonous, Judgment at Nuremberg kept me glued to the screen throughout its lengthy running time.

Courageous Cameos

One of the most important things that drew me into the film was the various performances. For a movie with a starry cast it didn’t relegate anyone to the side lines but let each member give something unique to the film. In a performance that lasts for around ten minutes, a barely recognizable Judy Garland gives an emotional and heart wrenching weight to the film as Irene Hoffman, a German woman whose friendship with a Jewish man had her imprisoned and him murdered.  The moment, in which she breaks down after being intensely questioned during the proceedings, is sad to watch, one needs only to look at her eyes to see the pain it is causing her.

Montgomery Clift also gives an equally harrowing and poignant performance as Rudolph Peterson; a man considered feeble-minded who was sterilised for this reason by the Nazis. When I viewed the scene in which Clift nervously recounts what happened to him, and vehemently tries to deny that he is not feeble-minded, I was shocked and repulsed at how things such as this could have happened to people.

 Opposing Views

Another aspect of the film that I found interesting was the clear difference of the two men in charge of the proceedings, the American Colonel Lawson and the German Hans Rolfe. One of them wants every Nazi to pay for what they did while the other says that the men accused were merely following the orders given to them.  This presents an interesting point as there are no easily identifiable bad guys in the film and the proceedings that follow are enthralling because of this.  Both Widmark and Schell are outstanding as polar opposites who often verbally clash during the Trials. Marlene Dietrich is also outstanding and convincing in a role not usually associated with her; her general role was as the femme fatale or the seductive cabaret girl. But in this film she portrays a German widow whose Nazi husband was killed during another trial. I think her character is interesting as she is the flip side of what people saw at the time as the stereotype of German people and she tries to convince Judge Haywood that Germans are not all monsters. Although he doesn’t talk a lot in the film (except his two highly dramatic monologues) Burt Lancaster is amazing and barely recognizable as one of the four men accused of carrying out the atrocities. Star Trek fans should look out for William Shatner in a small early role as a captain.

Stereotypes and Identity

Nuremberg investigates the theme of national identity. At the time of the film’s release, German’s where not seen in a good light. This is why the character of Madame Bertholt is featured in the film. She is there to show that not all German’s believed in Nazism during the World War.

Identity is also apparent throughout the court proceedings, it is examined in the case of Irene’s friendship with a Jewish man that had tragic and horrific consequences. The court looks at the way in which Jew’s were treated during the Holocaust.

The horror of the Concentration Camps

The main scene that has stayed with me is when Lawson shows real footage from concentration camps as evidence in the court proceedings; it is a haunting and extremely dramatic scene that lives long in the memory.  Up until this point in time, hardly any footage from the Camps had been shown, so one can imagine the audience reaction when the film was shown in 1961.  I remember how shocked I felt when I watched this scene; it was one of those moments where something is so shocking that you must continue watching it. I thought that it was a bold and brave move to feature this footage as the Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust where issues that needed to be addressed. The film didn’t shy away from dealing with the issue honestly and the results are fantastic and extremely realistic.

The real star though for me is Tracy, he brings a dignity to the character of Judge Haywood who the burden of the case lies on.Tracy brings his usual understated personality to the part and he is the person who is most conflicted throughout the proceedings. In the end the difficult decision falls upon his old and wise shoulders.

Judgment at Nuremberg is a fantastic courtroom drama that deserves to be better known. This film is a prime example of how a drama about a serious issue can still be enthralling and thought-provoking without being boring.