Sidney Lumet's 'The Verdict' (1982)

[00:00:20] Hello, welcome to another episode of Her Head in Films. I'm Caitlin and I'm your host. On this podcast, I share my thoughts and feelings about the films I watch. They tend to be art house and world cinema. What makes this podcast unique is that I weave together my life experiences with a personal and emotional discussion of film. I explore the impact that cinema has on me and why I connect so deeply to it.

[00:00:47] As I like to say, my head isn't in the clouds. My head is in films. If the podcast resonates with you and you want to help it thrive, Patreon is where I'm building a more connected space for listeners. Offering bonus episodes, extra posts, and a direct way to show support for the work I'm doing here. If you want to be part of that community, join me at patreon.com slash herheadinfilmspodcast.

[00:01:13] And as always, leaving a reviewer rating or helping spread the word is appreciated. In today's episode, I'm talking about Sidney Lumet's 1982 film, The Verdict. Paul Newman plays Frank Galvin, a once promising lawyer whose life has been consumed by alcoholism, failure, and regret.

[00:01:34] When he's handed a medical malpractice case involving a young woman left permanently incapacitated after a catastrophic mistake during childbirth, what first appears to be an opportunity to revive his career becomes something far more profound. I talk about the film as a story of salvation, redemption, human frailty, justice, and moral responsibility.

[00:02:00] I also explore what it means to truly see another person suffering, how caring about someone else can transform our own lives, and why The Verdict remains one of the most emotionally powerful and deeply humane films I've ever seen. There are spoilers in this episode. I love this film, and it finally gives me the opportunity to talk about how much I love Paul Newman.

[00:02:30] Next to Michael Hutchins, Jeff Buckley, and James Wilby, I think Paul Newman is the most beautiful man to walk the earth. Most beautiful man who ever walked this earth. I have loved him since I was a child, and I have yet to talk about him on the podcast. I have not covered any of his films. The Verdict is probably a surprising film for me to choose.

[00:02:57] I feel like I'm going out on a limb and being a champion for it, but I think that this film is a stunner. I really do. I know that Sidney Lumet is a well-known director. I really love 12 Angry Men. He has many amazing films that he created over the course of his career, but I think that The Verdict is certainly my favorite by him that I've seen so far.

[00:03:25] And I think this film also has, for me personally, my favorite performance by an actor, by a man. Now, my favorite performance by a woman ever is Renee Falconetti in Carl Theodore Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc. If we broke it up into centuries, then I would say my favorite female performance of the 20th century is Renee Falconetti. And then my favorite female performance for the 21st century

[00:03:54] would be Isabelle Huppert in Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher. Those tower over other acting performances for me personally by women. When it comes to men and male performances, I actually don't watch a lot of films that center male characters. That's just the truth. If you go through the archive of this podcast of over 130 episodes at this point,

[00:04:22] you will notice that it's dominated by films about women. And that tends to be what I am drawn to. There's not a lot in there about men and male performances. But for me, Paul Newman's performance in The Verdict, I think it is Paul's greatest performance. And it is one of my all-time favorite performances by an actor. I would put Gene Hackman in The Conversation.

[00:04:49] I would put them at the top for me personally. Out of the thousands of films that I've watched over the course of my life, I have an episode about The Conversation. And I talk about what Gene Hackman manages to do in that film. And I think Paul Newman went to some very deep and profound places through this performance. And it did not start out that way. I'm going to share a quote by Sidney Lumet,

[00:05:18] where he talks about the rehearsals and how Paul Newman had to dig a little bit deeper to get to Frank Galvin and to really touch the vulnerability that was required for this role. I feel like this film is underrated. I feel like it might be a surprise that I chose it because it's a legal thriller. And it's maybe more of a commercial and conventional courtroom drama type of film

[00:05:45] that I don't normally cover on this podcast, I guess. I have loved this film since I was a teenager. I had the DVD when I was growing up. I watched the film multiple times because of my fascination with Paul Newman and wanting to see different films that he was in, like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, or even a miniseries that I really like him in called Empire Falls that I feel like nobody talks about.

[00:06:15] But it has such a stellar cast in it from Robin Wright to Philip Seymour Hoffman to Ed Harris to Paul Newman. So I think that Paul Newman's like a really fascinating actor. This is my favorite performance by him. And it is an all-time favorite when it comes to acting and when it comes to what a man has put on the screen. But it really like plums the depths of a human soul, I believe. It touches me.

[00:06:44] I cannot quite describe to you why this film makes me so emotional. As I do this episode, I'll try to unpeel and unravel what exactly is so riveting and entrancing about this film to me. I did not plan to do an episode about this film. I made a list at the beginning of this year, 2026, thinking about the different films that I wanted to cover.

[00:07:13] And I've already covered quite a few of them, whether it's All That Heaven Allows or The Red Shoes or Babette's Feast. So far, I like a lot of the films that I've been talking about lately. And out of the blue, I started to think about the verdict. It would not let me go. I kept thinking about certain scenes from it. As I was re-watching it, I was listening to a feeling. Because even though I had the DVD when I was a teenager and I watched it many times,

[00:07:42] I have not seen this film from beginning to end in well over a decade. It might be since I was a teenager, which was like 20 years ago. I'm not quite sure what was calling me back. I was just listening to a feeling. And that's what I tend to do for this podcast when I'm choosing films that I want to cover. I think it's so interesting, the afterlife of a film inside us. And I've talked about that often on this podcast.

[00:08:12] The way a film reverberates long after we have watched it, right? It's like it gets its hooks into us. And we don't always understand why. At first, I wasn't sure. Like, why am I thinking about this film? Why am I thinking about certain scenes from it? But as I started to watch the film, I knew exactly why I was drawn to it. As I started my research and I started to watch it and it was unfolding,

[00:08:39] I knew that this feeling was there for a reason. And I knew that the film was calling to me for a very important reason. Because what this film is about for me is that it is a man at rock bottom. It's the dark night of the soul. It's a desperate and hopeless and vulnerable man who saves himself through caring about another person. Sidney Lumet says this much.

[00:09:07] He says that the film is about salvation. It's about a man saving himself through this case that he takes on. So it's a film about salvation and redemption. And ultimately about finding a way out of the darkness of your own life. And nothing could be more relevant to me right now. As I grope through the darkness myself in my own dark night of the soul,

[00:09:34] feeling shattered and broken in the aftermath of my mother's death over a year ago, I am still in that dark place. I am still in the dark night of the soul. Still annihilated by everything I've been through the past few years. And wondering how I will save myself. How I will pull myself out of this darkness. It's unanswered for me right now. And I think it's okay to say that.

[00:10:03] But I think in Frank Galvin, I found a kindred spirit. I found a man who's broken and hopeless and desperate and scared. He's scared. And it feels like life is over. And he's losing himself in the alcohol and in the numbness and the oblivion that the alcohol brings. And his life has collapsed and fallen apart. And in the ruins, he has to decide who he wants to be.

[00:10:32] And if he is going to keep going toward the death or go toward life, he doesn't do that alone. This case comes along and it challenges him and it asks something of him. It asks something enormous of him, which is to stand up for another human being, to care about another person who has been failed, who has been harmed, who has been abandoned.

[00:10:58] A woman who is fragile and alone and unprotected. It awakens him. It awakens his own moral conscience. And he comes back to life and he saves himself through trying to save her maybe. He can't save her though, right? He doesn't save himself through saving another. The damage is already done to Deborah, the woman who went in to have her child and was given the wrong anesthetic and ends up in a coma.

[00:11:28] The child is lost as well. He can't save her, but he can advocate for her. He can care about her. He can get justice for her and be her voice in the courtroom. It is in this caring for another, this tenderness and gentleness toward another human being that I think wakes Frank Galvin up out of his own spiral, right? Out of his own unraveling, his own psychological disintegration.

[00:11:57] He finds something greater than himself to work toward. Some greater calls to be in service to. And I think there's something just incredibly powerful about that. And as I watched the film and watched his arc, his transformation, and it's slow going, this character. He's not perfect. He's deeply, deeply flawed, even repugnant at times, right?

[00:12:25] Some of the stuff that he engages in, and I'll talk about it in a minute. He goes on this journey, this evolution through the film. It's his own salvation, and it's also a larger fight for justice. When you're in your own rock bottom or you're in your own darkness and you see a film like this, it doesn't make me feel happy-go-lucky or necessarily hopeful or something, but it reminds me that salvation is possible. Redemption is possible.

[00:12:54] That even at the lowest, lowest and darkest moments of our lives, there is possibility. There is the possibility of connection. There is the possibility of salvation. It's not promised, but it's there. It's a man who saves his own soul. He saves his own soul. And I find that to be incredibly compelling about this film.

[00:13:18] So I'm going to talk a little bit about the making of the film or just some tidbits and stuff, just things that I learned in the course of my research. And then I'm going to go through this film. I'm going to talk about certain scenes and try to excavate and dig into what is so powerful about this story. I just think it is a stunner. I want to champion this film. If there are people who haven't seen it, I hope that this episode inspires them to watch it.

[00:13:47] I cannot promise that other people will have the same response. It could be because it's connected to my childhood and connected to when I was younger. I don't know. But I have the most emotionally intense experience when I watch this film. And this rewatch was like overwhelming at times. I don't know. Yeah, it's a legal thriller. And I guess it's more conventional.

[00:14:12] But sometimes films like that can be so incredibly satisfying and cathartic and wonderful to watch. And that is how I felt with this film. As I said, it's directed by Sidney Lumet, released in 1982. It was written by David Mamet. We have Paul Newman as Frank Galvin. We have Charlotte Rampling as Laura Fisher. And Charlotte Rampling is one of my favorite actresses. I absolutely adore her.

[00:14:39] We have James Mason as Ed Concanon. We have Jack Warden as Mickey Morrissey. And that is Frank's partner at the law firm. And he's sort of his right-hand man and helps him with the case and doing the research and interviewing witnesses and all kinds of things.

[00:14:59] We have Roxanne Hart as Sally, who is the sister of Deborah, the woman who was harmed and ends up comatose. We have Lindsay Cruz as Caitlin Costello, really great actress who comes in at the end of the film, testifies. We have Milo O'Shea as Judge Hoyle. We have Joe Seneca as Dr. Thompson. And no actress was given in my research for Deborah Ann Kayee.

[00:15:28] But Deborah Ann Kaye is our victim, essentially. She is harmed by these doctors and she is the center of the case. So I found a really interesting excerpt from Making Movies, which is a book about Sidney Lumet. And I will have links to all of my sources in the show notes of the episode. There was a blog that shared a quote from the book.

[00:15:53] Sidney Lumet talked about how when they were first in rehearsals for the film, things were a bit flat. Paul Newman was at the rehearsals and he was there and all that. He wasn't quite hitting the notes, I guess, that Sidney Lumet wanted him to. Sidney Lumet said, quote, I said that his characterization was fine but hadn't yet evolved into a living, breathing purpose. Was there a problem?

[00:16:18] Paul said that he didn't have the lines memorized yet and that when he did, it would all flow better. I told him I didn't think it was the lines. I said that there was a certain aspect of Frank Galvin's character that was missing so far. I told him that I wouldn't invade his privacy but only he could choose whether or not to reveal that part of the character and therefore that aspect of himself. I couldn't help him with the decision.

[00:16:45] We lived near each other and rode home together. The ride that evening was silent. Paul was thinking. On Monday, Paul came into rehearsal and sparks flew. He was superb. His character and the picture took on life. I know that decision to reveal the part of himself that the character required was painful for him. But he's a dedicated actor as well as a dedicated man, unquote.

[00:17:12] So there seemed to be maybe a little bit of resistance at first for Paul Newman to fully go to the place that this character required him to go to. And Paul Newman talked about some of this in an interview. He said or he took note that Frank Galvin was a very different character from some other men that he had played. Think about somebody like Cool Hand Luke, right?

[00:17:38] Like this calm, cool, sexy type of character that Paul Newman was great at. He said Frank Galvin is frightened. He's not cool. He's an addict, an alcoholic. He's a panicked type of character. He's really unraveling through the film at times.

[00:18:01] And so I wonder if that was part of why it took a little bit of time for Paul Newman to go there, to go to that place of vulnerability, to become a character, a male character in particular, that goes against our expectations of masculinity. That a man would be strong and stoic and not show his emotions.

[00:18:25] Something that I thought about as I was watching this and I was thinking about what performances by men I really love. I said something similar in my episode about the conversation. I think that I don't watch a lot of films that are about men, like I said earlier. I think when I do, they need to be men who, if I'm going to connect with the male character or find him compelling,

[00:18:51] I guess you could say, there needs to be a certain amount of emotional disclosure or there needs to be emotional exposure. That there's something vulnerable about the man. He might be lonely. He might be a loner. He might be an outsider. He might be somebody who doesn't fit in the world. Those tend to be the characters in general, male or female, that I connect to.

[00:19:16] And I think in Frank Galvin, I could even see myself in Frank Galvin at times. The panic, the fear, the inability to handle life at times. And it's not easy for a man probably to show that. To not be the cool, calm, collected version of himself that is expected by the vast majority of people. Frank Galvin is such a totally different character in that way.

[00:19:45] He's vulnerable and raw and emotional. And I think that's what I was responding to with Paul Newman's performance. Paul had to allow himself to go there to be a spiraling man, to go to rock bottom. But also at times to be a repulsive type of man. This is someone going to funerals and giving out his calling card, right?

[00:20:12] Like this is someone who is gleeful at times when he realizes he's going to make a lot of money off this case. David Mamet and Sidney Lumet do not make Frank Galvin saintly. They don't make him somebody that you just automatically like from the beginning of the film. He makes us uncomfortable for a good chunk of the film as well. And like I said in another interview, Sidney Lumet was talking about the film.

[00:20:41] He believes that Mamet, he really transformed the novel. The film is adapted from a novel. I'll get into that in a minute. The producers bought the rights to it in like the 1980s. It's just like your run of the mill legal thriller. And it sounds like when David Mamet wrote his screenplay for it, that transformed it and made it something greater.

[00:21:07] And he believes that it was turned into a story about salvation, about a man saving himself. Lamet also sees the film as being about, quote, self-investigation, self-doubt, self-questioning, self-exploration, unquote. And it is about a man who, quote, plumbs the depths of his own soul, unquote. I love that. I love that idea that this film is really about one human soul.

[00:21:35] A human soul pushed to extremes, right? Pushed to the absolute limit of what he can personally handle, which is so much responsibility for this case and for standing up for Deborah and getting justice for Deborah. And in the process, he has to find his own strength again. But in the end, it is about salvation. And I really love that theme of the film.

[00:22:05] The script by Mamet had been forgotten, really, by the producers. When Lamet read that script, he said that's the only version that he would shoot. He would not shoot like later revisions or like when other writers were brought in. He said, no, I will only do that early version of the script. Some more tidbits that I found out about the film. And this is from the AFI Movie Club.

[00:22:33] So the American Film Institute has some kind of movie club. And they have this interesting page about the verdict with all kinds of little factoids about it. But producers Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown purchased the motion picture rights to the 1980 novel The Verdict, which was written by Barry Reed. And it hadn't even been published yet. And they got the rights, the movie rights for it.

[00:23:00] The film's set in Boston, but a lot of it was filmed in Brooklyn Heights, New York. And I was so fascinated to learn that Robert Redford was originally considered... He was supposed to star in it, but for some reason he didn't. And so Paul Newman was given the role. And at the time there were even rumors that Redford would play the Concanon character, which is played by James Mason.

[00:23:26] Julie Christie was originally offered the role of Laura, but she passed on it and it went to Charlotte Rampling. I think that's interesting. The film was nominated for five Golden Globes and five Academy Awards. So now I want to go through the film and really talk about the transformation that Frank Galvin goes on. Why I find the film just so riveting and compelling.

[00:23:55] There are some scenes in this film that knock me out every time I see them. I mean, I had not watched this film probably for almost two decades. I still remembered so much of it. And it's such a pleasure when I rewatch a film after a very long period of time and it holds up. And maybe it even exceeds my expectations. And I think the verdict did. I knew it was good, but I felt like I was taking a chance on it.

[00:24:25] But I found that it held up very well in my mind. And that it was still just as riveting and fascinating as it was the first few times that I saw it as a teenager. What I noticed as the film started, I remembered so much of it. Like I remembered him playing pinball at the bar, right? I always thought that was such a weird thing. This man is almost 60 years old.

[00:24:55] Paul Newman was around 58 when making this film. Playing pinball, right? And drinking a beer. His world is that bar. He's at rock bottom in his life. His alcoholism is out of control. He's going to funerals. He's finding clients through obituaries. He's finding funerals to go to through obituaries. And then when he gets there, he gives them his card.

[00:25:22] Seeing if any of them maybe, I guess, have died of a motor accident or something like that. Where he can take on their case. This is a bottom feeder. He's rock bottom and he's a bottom feeder in some ways. He has to put mouth spray in his mouth to get rid of the scent of the alcohol on his breath. He's alone. Goes back to an empty apartment. He's divorced.

[00:25:48] We learn at some point in the film, he had actually been a really great lawyer. Graduated second in his class. But he got involved with jury tampering. And some things started to fall apart. The relationship with his wife ended. He has not had hardly any cases over the last few years. This is his last chance. When he gets this malpractice case, it's his last chance to try to make something of himself.

[00:26:17] And to do something redemptive with his life. From the beginning, Frank Galvin is a flawed character, right? He's wounded. Like I said, at times taking advantage of other people. And I also was thinking about, as I watched it, I feel like the film is made up of these quietly devastating moments. With the opening, like the first few scenes, there's barely any words. It's very wordless.

[00:26:45] And we get a sense of Frank Galvin through these different actions. Paul Newman really created such an embodied, visceral performance. The spraying of the mouth spray, right? In his mouth. Playing the pinball. Then we see him at the bar. And he has like a shot of alcohol. He's going through the obituaries. There's a donut. So you can tell it's the morning time and he's already drinking.

[00:27:11] There's this moment where he goes to pick up the shot glass and to take a swig of it. But his hand is shaking so badly that he puts it down. And he leaves the shot glass on the table. And instead, he lowers his head down to the glass of alcohol and slurps it up that way. It's such a moment of degradation, right? It's like this person who has fallen very far. That he's already drinking in the morning and he can't even pick up the glass.

[00:27:41] Put his head down on the table near the shot glass and drink the alcohol that way. I feel like we learned so much about him through that one moment. That one devastating moment. How far down he's fallen. He preys on the grieving. Like I said, he gives out his card at the funerals. And he's even kicked out of one of the funerals. When he goes to each of these funerals, he pretends like he knew the deceased. And he gets found out. The son of the man who's died.

[00:28:10] He says, you didn't know my father. And they kick him out. It's a very low, low degrading moment. Frank Galvin is doing things that like you would be ashamed of. These are like really deplorable actions. He's desperate and he's unethical. Like there's a lack of morality about this man. He is desperate. He will do whatever it takes. And he will compromise his values and compromise his morals in these things that he is doing.

[00:28:40] He's like repugnant to us at times in the film. Distasteful is another word I would say. This is not someone that you're rooting for from the first scene. You see his frailty and his fragility. Then you also see how he is using other people at times. Or he is profiting off of other people's grief and loss and tragedy. So Sidney Lumet gives us a character that we may find repulsive in some ways at different

[00:29:09] moments in this film with his behavior. But as the film goes on, Frank Galvin, who starts out in this immoral type of way or this exploitative type of behavior, as the film goes on, he actually becomes one of the most moral people in the story when he sees what has happened to the young woman, to Deborah. He takes the case at first because he wants the money, but eventually it becomes about more than that.

[00:29:39] It becomes about justice and what is right. What is the right thing to do and what it might cost in the process to do that, but how it's still worth it to do it in the end. But he is in his own spiral, his own dark night of the soul, overtaken by the alcoholism and despair and depression. At one point he gets blackout drunk and he's just trashing the office. This is a self-destructive man.

[00:30:07] And I can see parts of myself in him. The woundedness, the panic, the fear, the self-destruction, the terror at what has happened to one's life. I think many of us can relate to those parts of Frank Galvin, even if we can't relate to some of the more questionable or immoral behavior that he engages in.

[00:30:32] His final chance for salvation and redemption is this case that Mickey gets him, his partner, his friend Mickey. We learn with this case that this is Frank's last hurrah. Like this is his last chance. And he's blowing it at the beginning of the film. He's known about the case for a while, but he's been pretty negligent about it. And now they're two weeks from the beginning of the hearing, right? He's completely dropped the ball.

[00:31:00] But Mickey, this is also a film not just about Frank saving himself, but about when somebody maybe gives you a helping hand. Now that I'm talking about like Mickey is the one that gets him the case, who believes in Frank, tries to get this chance for him. He gets Deborah's sister Sally and her brother-in-law to trust Frank. But he has like not been communicating with them.

[00:31:27] He's really been botching the case and not handling it very well. But this case, we're told from the beginning, this is an easy case. It'll be settled out of court because Deborah was harmed in a hospital owned by the Archdiocese of Boston by the Catholic Church. They want to keep it quiet. They want to settle out of court. So, you know, Mickey has thrown Frank a very easy case. It'll be settled out of court.

[00:31:56] He calls it a moneymaker. That's the word that he uses. And he says, you'll be set up for life. So we learn early on the stakes of this case that if Frank can just get himself together, take the offer, he'll be set up for a while or for life. He will have a win and this should be easy for Frank. But as the film goes on, it gets much more complicated. But the whole reason that Frank gets the case is because of Mickey.

[00:32:25] So there's also that aspect of it of like somebody helping him. But in the end, he has to help himself, doesn't he? So Deborah Ann Kay is the woman who is involved in the medical malpractice suit. She went into the hospital to have her third child and she was given the wrong anesthetic and she vomited into her oxygen mask. That caused her to stop breathing for a time and she developed brain damage and it sent her into a coma.

[00:32:53] And so now she's in a long-term care, like a nursing facility, and she is incapacitated and comatose. She can't move. She can't walk. She can't do anything. She's hooked up to machines and limited to a bed for the rest of her life because of what these doctors did and the mistake that they made. Her husband has left her and taken the children.

[00:33:18] The third child that she was going to give birth to died in the process of all of this happening. She needs to be transferred to a better care home. That's what her sister and brother-in-law are trying to figure out. And they themselves want to move and go on with their lives and they want to put her in a better facility. And that is what the money is about from this case.

[00:33:46] It is about Debra having a better quality of life at a better facility and it's about her sister being able to move on with her life as well. It seems like a slam dunk case. But as Frank gets more involved in the case and he talks to the doctor, Dr. Gruber, who's supposed to eventually testify, but who does not as we learn. Once he starts to learn more about the circumstances of her being given the wrong anesthetic and just

[00:34:15] how negligent the care was, he wants to fight. He wants to fight more and he wants to maybe not take the settlement, not settle out of court and actually go to trial so that this is not hidden or swept under the rug. And also there's the possibility for more money if they go to trial as well. But Dr. Gruber believes that these doctors were criminally negligent and were trying to kill her.

[00:34:44] It was so egregious, the error that they made. She ended up drowning in her own vomit and she lost her child. She's comatose. At one point, Dr. Gruber says that I don't know if Frank asks him, like, why are you doing this or like, why do you care so much? But at one point, Dr. Gruber says, I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do. Dr. Gruber wants to go into court.

[00:35:08] He wants to testify for Frank, you know, and for Deborah and to do the right thing. That's what he says. Then he says to Frank, isn't that why you're doing it? He's really the first character in the film so far, you know, up to that point who talks about it in terms of doing the right thing, of standing up for something greater and doing and doing what's right for Deborah. He's the first character who really has a moral compass.

[00:35:36] And he says, you know, I will get on the stand and I will say all of this. When Frank hears that, he knows, oh, I can take this to trial. We don't need to just settle this out of court. He can prove that there was gross negligence. What's interesting is Frank's response to Dr. Gruber is elation. It's actually not like what you would think. It's elation. I mean, you have this doctor telling him like this woman was almost like murdered. They were trying to murder her.

[00:36:06] That's the language that Dr. Gruber uses. It was so egregious what they did and so criminal. Frank is happy and elated because he knows he's going to win the case. And so he's happy and he's thrilled because he's thinking about himself and how he'll benefit and how he'll make more money. So again, it's an example of how Frank Galvin is not a saintly character. He's not necessarily a good man throughout the entire film.

[00:36:35] He starts out profoundly self-absorbed. I would say he's a more self-absorbed character. He's going through his own stuff and he's thinking about how the case can benefit him at first, how he can get more money. Now, he still wants to bring things to light and not let it be hidden what happened. But he also knows that he can have a big payday. He has seen her at the hospital. He's seen her there hooked up to the machines.

[00:37:03] But he's happy because he can win the case. It's like he's just his empathy has not fully formed yet or just isn't present. He's just thinking about himself for a good chunk of the film and how he can benefit from other people's pain. And it takes time. The film takes its time showing how he changes. And I think that's more true to life. I don't know if there's like a light bulb moment or something like that, right?

[00:37:30] It can make us even uncomfortable as we're watching it. Like here's this character thinking about himself. He's an ambulance chaser, really exploiting people's tragedy at times. There's a gradual transformation through the course of the film. It doesn't happen all at once. And I think this is one of the reasons why I wanted to go back to the film.

[00:37:53] The salvation part of it is central of a character saving himself for sure. But I was also interested in the moral and ethical questions that the film raises. I was interested in how we are affected by the suffering of other people. How we come to feel responsible or implicated in the suffering of others. And I feel like this film gets at that.

[00:38:19] And at first, he's not affected by her suffering the way that we would like him to be. I'm sure he feels sad when he, you know, sees her at the hospital and hears about her story. But he doesn't feel that responsibility toward her or an obligation or a deep sense of sorrow for what happened to her. And that's also what changes throughout the course of the film. Where by the end of the film, he is truly fighting for her.

[00:38:46] Fighting to get justice for this woman. But at first, he's happy for himself of what he'll get from it and how he'll benefit. It's transactional. And I feel like we live in a world that is very transactional and can be. Where there is this level of indifference to each other's suffering. And I've certainly experienced that myself. Particularly in the wake of my mother's death. There's just an indifference.

[00:39:14] I mean, even online, it's quite shocking to me. The way that we can be quite cold and indifferent to one another's pain. And he has some of that indifference. I mean, there's this stunning scene where he's talking on the phone to the sister one night. To Debra's sister. And he's barely paying attention to what she's saying. He is drunk. You can tell he is drunk. Talking to this woman on the phone. And drinking in the process of listening to her.

[00:39:41] And he's looking at this piece of paper with all these large numbers. 200,000. 250,000 are written on it. And he's just circling it. You know, he's full of glee. Like all the money he's going to make. And the sister says something. I couldn't tell everything that she was saying as it came through the phone. But she said something about Debra being at that hospital. And how she was unprotected. Something about that word stayed with me.

[00:40:10] I find Debra to be a very haunting character. And I think this is what pulled me back to the film as well. Is that she is profoundly unprotected and fragile. This film, I think, got under my skin from an early age. Because of the vulnerability of Debra. Which speaks to our own vulnerability. Our own frailty. Our own mortality. She's in that hospital all by herself.

[00:40:39] Her husband is gone. And has left her. And with their remaining children. Her sister and brother-in-law want to move away. They don't really want to have to deal with all this. Part of that money is going to be used to put Debra in a better facility. And the chances of them actually going and visiting her day after day are very slim. Particularly if they want to move. She is in that hospital alone. She will live out her days in that bed.

[00:41:06] And she will live out her days in a facility where she will most likely not be visited by anybody. And this was a woman who had her life ahead of her. This was a woman who was about to have her third child. It was stolen from her by these doctors. It's not fully connected to it. But I was a caregiver for my mom the last five and a half years of her life. From 2020 to 2025 when she died.

[00:41:32] I was caregiving for her for things unrelated to why she died. She had cancer at the end. She was diagnosed with cancer unexpectedly. And it was a very aggressive form of it. Becoming a caregiver for her was the big reason why I went on hiatus with this podcast for a few years. Why I stopped consistently making episodes.

[00:41:56] And my life really fell apart once my mom started to have health issues. It fell on me to take care of her, advocate for her. So I understand what it's like when the human body starts to deteriorate. I understand what it's like to watch somebody you love suffer. And so my mom became severely disabled. One of the things that she was terrified of was ending up in a facility.

[00:42:24] She did not want to be somewhere by herself or like, you know, having to live around strangers or not knowing how doctors or nurses would treat her. So I took care of her at home because it was just her worst fear to end up at a facility. I made sure that that didn't happen to her. And one of the things that I hold on to right now in my life is that she never ended up at a facility.

[00:42:53] And she was not alone. She never ended up somewhere where she was around strangers or around people she didn't know. I take pride in that, that I cared for her at home and I protected her all the way to the end of her life, as painful and difficult as it was. But I did that for her. I found a strength inside myself. And I did that for her. And I didn't want her to end up somewhere alone and unprotected.

[00:43:20] I saw my mom's own frailty and vulnerability and suffering. And it has changed me forever to witness that. And I feel like Frank Galvin goes through something similar in this film where he sees a woman suffering and he is transformed by it, by somebody's fragility. Because we are profoundly fragile creatures. You may be healthy and doing great one day and all of it can be taken from you the next day.

[00:43:50] And don't ever think that you are above that. Don't ever think that it can't happen to you. I watched it happen to my father when I was a teenager. He had an injury at work that changed his life. And then I watched my mother's help go downhill. All of us are vulnerable. All of us are fragile and none of us are above it. You can get in an accident tomorrow and everything can be taken away from you.

[00:44:17] And I wish that we could understand that. There's so much judgment in the world. There's so much victim blaming. And I think it's because people are terrified of being vulnerable. And so they have to blame other people. If they get cancer, if they get sick, if they get disabled, well, it's your fault. It couldn't happen to me. Oh, it can happen to you. It can happen to anybody. You can get in a car tomorrow, right? And something can happen. Anything can happen. We have to hold on.

[00:44:46] I think a lot of people have to hold on to this fantasy of invulnerability and that they have 100% control over their lives and their health. And you don't. And your health or your able-bodiedness doesn't make you better than anybody else because it's a temporary condition. And at any time, it can be taken from you. Deborah goes into the hospital, a normal, healthy woman. And she ends up in a coma and in a nursing facility.

[00:45:14] She ends up in a place that looks like a nightmare. And I'm proud that I prevented my mother from ever ending up somewhere unprotected. But nobody would want to live the life that Deborah has in the film. She's in this room with a bunch of other strangers. She's unprotected. She's kind of disposed of. And I think that that's the part of the film or one part of the film that has always haunted

[00:45:40] me is Deborah in that bed, in that hospital, unconscious. She's so vulnerable, so defenseless, isn't she? And all these people are thinking about how they can benefit from her pain. The Archdiocese wants to cover up the tragedy and the neglect. Frank Galvin at first wants the moneymaker. The sister and brother-in-law, I'm compassionate toward them. I understand that they don't know what to do, but they want to move.

[00:46:10] They want to go on with their life. And I'm not saying that the sister doesn't care about her. Of course she does. It's a terrible position to be in. It's painful and it's heartbreaking. But is anybody really fighting for Deborah? What happened to Deborah could happen to any of us, like I said. That's what's so scary about malpractice or about things like this, is that anybody who goes into a hospital could go through something like this.

[00:46:37] If they're given the wrong medications, if the doctors don't act properly, or you're not taken care of the way that you should be. In an instant, your life can be taken or nearly destroyed and you could end up in that facility. You could become disabled because of the choices that somebody else makes. And that is a terrifying thought in and of itself. And so I think that's part of why the film got under my skin. It's that human frailty that the film taps into.

[00:47:07] And I think Frank has more in common with Deborah than he realizes. Deborah is in that bed and she's very vulnerable. But Frank Galvin is also very fragile with his own drinking. I mean, he's drinking in a way that could harm him, right? Could cause a medical episode for him. He's frail himself in a way. The cornerstone of the film for me and the scene that has haunted me the most from this

[00:47:34] film, and it is probably the scene that I most wanted to talk about, it's why I chose to do an episode about this film, is when Frank goes to the hospital the second time to see Deborah and he's taking Polaroid photos of her. He's going to show those photos to the archdiocese when it comes to the settlement or like the money that they want to offer and settle out of court.

[00:48:00] He wants to take these Polaroids and show them what condition Deborah is in and make them look at her. And there's something about the act of taking these Polaroids. This is the scene where something starts to shift inside of Frank and you can see it through Paul Newman's performance. It is a masterclass, I think. I think the whole film is a masterclass of acting and it's not just Paul Newman. It's all of them. It's everybody. It's a fantastic cast.

[00:48:29] An acting masterclass as well, I think. This is the scene where he finally sees Deborah and maybe holding the camera is a way of seeing her. And I find that interesting. Almost the way that through the film camera, through watching a film at times, we can be more empathetic. I mean, I think it was Roger Ebert who called cinema an empathy machine. And through the camera, we are able to see the humanity of other people in a different way.

[00:48:59] And it's almost like through this Polaroid camera, through this sustained intense attention on Deborah and her condition and her body. He sees her finally. She's not just a case anymore. She's not just a payday or a moneymaker. When he visited her the first time, he sat near her. But was he really looking at her? I don't think so. He has to look at her crumpled in that bed, connected to the machines and the tubes, completely alone and unprotected.

[00:49:29] Vulnerable. Fragile. It's a stunning scene. And you can watch on Paul Newman's face how deeply, deeply affected he is by looking at her in that bed. You feel it with him. I don't know if I've ever quite felt something like it, right? He's so affected that he has to sit down. It knocks him out for a moment. And then we watch the Polaroids as they develop. There's something so eerie about that.

[00:49:56] How it goes from nothing there to gradually the shape of Debra materializes on the photo. And we see, and it's ghostly. Because isn't she like a ghost? Isn't she in the comatose? She's almost in a liminal space between life and Del. What will life be like for her? I mean, what will life really be like for her? It's like she is a ghost.

[00:50:25] And we see the photos develop. It's so powerful to me. And we see this woman crumpled in that bed. And she will never leave it. And as he's sitting there, a nurse comes by and says, you're not really supposed to be in here. And he says, I'm her attorney. And that's when we know he's locked in. It's like he claims her. He's going to be her advocate. He's going to take on the role. He steps into it. The case is asking something of him.

[00:50:53] And sometimes maybe that's the jolt that we need. Is that we go about our lives and we might numb ourselves. And we might feel very depressed and dulled by life. Like everything feels... I mean, this is particularly how I've been feeling a lot lately since my mother's death. I feel like a light went out inside of me. There's no color anymore. Now that she's not in the world, there's a diminishment about life.

[00:51:20] And I just feel like I'm kind of on autopilot or in survival mode. I'm just skimming the surface, I guess you could say. You can live like that for a long time. There's a numbness and a dullness that can take over. And I feel like Frank was in that with the alcoholism and all of that consumed by his own addiction. This case comes along and it's a jolt. It asks something of him. It requires effort. It requires care.

[00:51:50] It requires risk and getting involved, doesn't it? He rises to meet the challenge. He rises to meet the moment. He steps into it. She's unprotected and he wants to advocate for her. She's been harmed and he wants to fight for her. He wants to be there. He wants to, in a way, be her voice because she can't speak anymore. She can't do anything. Somebody has to speak for Deborah.

[00:52:17] And it's like in this moment, it's so powerful to me where he says, I'm her attorney. It's like he's implicated. He's invested. He's involved now. He's implicated in somebody else's suffering. He's not going to just walk past it. He's not going to just make money off of it. He's going to try to do the right thing. Not the lucrative thing. Not the thing that will make the most money. He's going to try to do the right and the just thing. He's affected by her.

[00:52:47] He's changed by this woman's suffering. And so he goes to meet the archdiocese and they give him an offer and they expect him to settle out of court. And he says something very powerful when he turns it down. He says, I came here and I was going to take your money. But if I take the money, I'm lost. So his salvation becomes intimately tied to this case. That he knows that it's his own soul that is on the line. His own soul is on the line.

[00:53:15] That if I take this money and I let them sweep it under the rug, not only does Deborah lose and her family loses, but I will be lost. There's something spiritual about that, isn't there? So this case is more than just a case. It is about what we owe one another. It's about empathy. It's about caring about somebody else. It's about taking a risk, making a sacrifice, fighting for another, caring about another.

[00:53:45] I think the film is showing us that the salvation, it's not found in isolation from other people because Frank Galvin's salvation comes from helping somebody else, putting somebody else above himself, right? Isn't that what he's doing through this case? He's putting somebody else above himself. It's the decentering of the self, perhaps, that can bring about salvation. It's working in service to something greater than you.

[00:54:15] And maybe that is one way that we find salvation. And that can come in different forms in our lives, can't it? That's why I think some people go on after loss because they have children. I mean, I think about after my father passed away and my mother and me kept going. She kept going for me. I would imagine that I was her greater purpose, like as her child. And then, of course, she was my greater purpose as well. Caring about other people is highly moral.

[00:54:45] And it's spiritual. And it matters to care for one another, to care about the suffering of each other. And I feel like we live in a time where we're estranged from that. We're desensitized. I think social media is one of the most powerful forces conditioning us in this way. And one must be very, very careful about it and must protect one's soul when you are on it. Because it is so desensitizing and dehumanizing at times, I think.

[00:55:13] The way we scroll past each other and scroll past each other's pain. I experienced that myself. Sharing about my mother's death and not getting much of a response to it or much compassion or kindness from people who I thought I would receive it from. We cannot be indifferent to one another's suffering. Because we're lost, just like Frank would be. We are lost if we don't care about each other. But increasingly, we are living in a world where there's a lack of care.

[00:55:40] And so he refuses the money and he decides, I'm going to win this case. That he's going to fight for her. That will be his salvation and his redemption. Is to stand up for this woman. I also think that Frank Galvin's last name is very interesting. Galvin reminds me of Galvanize. He's galvanized and electrified by the case. Maybe brought back to life in some ways. He gets that spark again. He gets that fire.

[00:56:10] Because he believes that he can win it. He puts all of himself into it. He also gets involved with Laura. I haven't talked much about that relationship. But as we know, if you've seen the film, Laura is a plant by the, you know, by Con Cannon. And the lawyers, she works for them. She was wanting to come back to practice law. And this is the assignment they gave her. Laura is played by Charlotte Rampling, like I said earlier.

[00:56:39] And that relationship is important to Frank. I mean, we could argue that the salvation comes in different forms for Frank. It comes through the case. Comes through Mickey giving him the case. And then falling in love with Laura. I don't see it as a casual relationship. Particularly what happens at the end. He is very vulnerable with her. Very exposed emotionally. And sensitive. And seems to let her in. And trust her.

[00:57:08] In a way that maybe he's not done with other women. It seems to be an important connection and relationship for him in the film. And maybe her love and, you know, the love they feel for each other in that relationship. That's also a form of salvation. Frank takes the risk to take this to trial. Because he thinks he's going to win it. Thanks to Dr. Gruber testifying. But then gradually things start to fall apart. Dr. Gruber is nowhere to be found.

[00:57:38] Right? He's off on a Caribbean island. The odds start to stack against him. The judge won't give him an extension to find somebody else. He can't get one of the nurses to talk. And he has to go with a lesser qualified doctor. As his expert witness with Dr. Thompson. Everything starts to fall apart. And there's this amazing scene. I mean, this one really stunned me.

[00:58:06] This is when everything is really crumbling. And he tries to contact the archdiocese again or the lawyers and say, Well, you know, we turned down that, you know, settlement. But we'd like to take it. Because once Dr. Gruber disappears, he knows that he can't win the case. Or he fears that he can't win the case. So he tries to reverse course, but he can't.

[00:58:32] It's this wide shot of Frank and Mickey in Frank's office. And he's making phone calls. And once again, Paul Newman's performance is so visceral and bodily. Like you can hear him breathing heavily. His literal breathing is labored because he's panicking and he's scared. He even says at one point after he gets off the phone, he says, He's like taking big gulps of air and breathing heavily. And he says, I can't breathe in here. Right?

[00:59:01] It's like this character is such a raw nerve. He's the furthest thing from stoic. You know, and usually that's what we expect of a man. This is why I love the performance. I love raw, vulnerable performances by men. I guess those are the men that I am drawn to. I like men who are deep. Men who have substance. Men who are not afraid of emotion and emotional exposure.

[00:59:28] And I think that's why I just, it's hard for me to connect to men. Because like I need emotional doubt. I need that. And it's very hard to find in the world today. But those, those are the types of men I'm drawn to. Like deeply emotional men. And Gene Hackman gives that in the conversation. Or I guess, I don't know if Gene Hackman is necessarily emotional in the conversation.

[00:59:55] But he's a little bit like Frank Galvin where he doesn't quite fit in. And he at times is psychologically disintegrating. So I like men who are more vulnerable and show their emotions. And you feel that so powerfully in this scene. How frantic he is. How panicked. And he doesn't hide it. Some men would hide it. You know, like some men would be very unemotional.

[01:00:22] I really can't connect with or deal with very like cold, indifferent men. Like it bothers me. It kind of scares me. Men who cannot connect to their own emotions. He just can't hide it. It's so exposed. Like I said, he's like a raw nerve. Just such a naked, raw, vulnerable performance by Paul Newman. And I can see why it took him a little bit of time to access that.

[01:00:50] A very wounded man as well. And there's this other powerful scene. It's a little bit later on. And after Frank meets Dr. Thompson and stuff, he just can feel that he's going to lose the case. It's like the eve. It's like the eve of the trial. And he is terrified. And he goes to Laura. And he thinks he's going to get sympathy or like gentleness or something like that and be comforted. But she's quite brutal with him.

[01:01:19] And she's like, you know, I'm not going to say her exact words. But basically, she tells him, you want to be coddled. You want my sympathy. You want me to take care of you. And she's not going to give it to him. Right? She's like, the trial hasn't even started yet. And you're already saying that it's over. It's not over until the jury comes back. And she's like, I'm not interested in dealing with someone who's a failure. I don't want failure. Right? Like, I'm just paraphrasing her. She's very stern.

[01:01:48] She's like, very brutal. He is stunned by it. He's shaken by how cruel and cold she is toward him. It shatters something in him. And you can tell he has to go into the bathroom and tell her to like, to go away, essentially. He is having a breakdown. He is unraveling. Because he knows he's going to lose this case or he fears he's going to lose it. And he says something like, please don't pressure me.

[01:02:17] Please don't pressure me. And he's just like, at the bathroom door telling her that. He won't let her come in. You know, he puts that barrier between them. God, it's so fragile. It's the human soul in total crisis. Like, this man is in crisis. The stakes are so unbearably high. Everything is riding on the trial. And he's like, please don't pressure me. He's crumbling. He's going within himself.

[01:02:46] It's just like, I almost had tears in my eyes at times. Again, this is one of those films where I'm so emotional about it. And then I never see people talk about it. And then I wonder, is it just me? And maybe it is. I don't know. Maybe I just like am accessing something in this film that a lot of other people are not. I guess because I've been like that. I've been on the edge. I've been unraveling.

[01:03:12] I know what it's like to feel like everything around you is disintegrating. And you're just falling through the void. You're just falling through space. And I still have those moments now in my life where I feel like I can't do this. I'm not strong enough. I can't do it. I'm like, I'm not able to handle this. I've reached my limits in terms of what I can bear.

[01:03:38] And I think that's what this film explores is like, what do you do when you reach that point? How do you pull yourself out of it? How do you pull yourself out of that darkness and connect to something that allows you to keep going? Because he has to show up the next day. And he even I mean, think about it. He walks into that courtroom with the full belief that he is going to lose this case. And he still walks into that courtroom.

[01:04:06] And he still does his opening speech. And he still decides to fight for Deborah. I mean, that's why I said at the beginning, I know exactly why I was drawn back to this film. Because that's what it's showing us. Is how do you show up? Even when you think or know that you may lose, but it's still important to show up. It's still important to fight. Even though you don't know the ending, you don't know what's going to happen.

[01:04:33] He's still going to be there for Deborah. I am her attorney. He claims it. He steps into it. He takes ownership over it. I am her advocate. I am her voice. I will get justice for her. I will fight for her even if I lose. How powerful is that? We learn about Caitlin Costello, the intake nurse. At first, she's protected. But Frank eventually finds out about her.

[01:04:59] It's very important that like what is put down for when Deborah ate. Eventually, it comes out that Laura has been working for Con Cannon. I love this relationship fascinates me. Because Laura, I think, goes into it with no emotion about Frank at all. I'm going to use him. I'm going to get info. She 100% falls in love with this man. And you can tell that she falls deeply in love with him over the course of the film.

[01:05:29] And he loves her too. I believe that they have fallen in love with each other. I believe that Frank's relationship with Laura is vital to his own redemption and his own salvation. Not just his care for Deborah, but his love for Laura. And that is why when he finds out the betrayal, when he finds out that she's been working for Con Cannon, that is why he has the response that he does.

[01:05:55] I do not condone the violence of the scene or hitting a woman or anything like that. The scene shows us that Frank Galvin is at times a morally murky character. He can fight for Deborah and he can also hit Laura. This is someone who is deeply flawed and out of control when he hits her. Right? This is someone unraveling, psychologically disintegrating, pushed to his limits.

[01:06:23] And it shows you also just how out of control he is. That he would go to that place. It's a dark place. I think this is why Paul Newman was not fully able to access it at first. Like he had to prepare himself to be this type of character. I think he feels betrayed. And he was betrayed. This is the woman that he loves and now he can't ever trust her again. The trust is shattered and the relationship is over.

[01:06:52] He was vulnerable with her. He was raw and naked. And I believe he showed parts of himself that maybe he had not shown anybody else. And so to find this out is quite shattering for him. And that is why the scene itself is so violent. There's heartbreak on both ends because they love each other. But that love grew out of a lie. It grew out of deception. And so it cannot survive it. I don't believe that it can survive it.

[01:07:21] So on the one hand, Frank can be an advocate for Deborah. And then he can also show this other part of himself. It's very powerful over the course of the film how once he gets involved in the case, the drinking falls away. Right? It's like once he gets involved in the trial, he's galvanized, like I said earlier. He'll take a shot now and then. But he's not getting blackout drunk or anything like that. He has given himself over to the case.

[01:07:50] Surrendered himself to it. It's almost spiritual in that way. This is why I think there's something ethical and moral and almost spiritual about the film. It's about working for something greater than yourself. And everything he does is for the case. I think he shows what can happen when you are in service to something else or to someone else.

[01:08:14] He's working in service to Deborah and to the case and to justice itself, to righting a wrong. It's not just about the money. It's way beyond the money at this point. By the end of the film. It's about this is wrong. And this needs to be exposed and acknowledged. And it needs to be repaired in some way. And he wants to be part of that. When Caitlin Costello is introduced and takes the stand, she reveals that on the intake form,

[01:08:44] Deborah had told her that she ate one hour before the delivery, before coming in. The doctor who was performing the operation or doing the delivery for Deborah, he later admits that he admits to Caitlin he didn't look at the chart. So he gives her the anesthesia without looking at the chart. He says he's been working, you know, and he's exhausted and he's had lots of difficult deliveries.

[01:09:12] In a lapse of judgment, he didn't look at the chart. And that is the reason why she vomits in her mask. And she ends up with brain damage and ends up comatose. And the doctor wants Caitlin Costello to change the one on the form to a nine. And Caitlin Costello does, but she Xeroxes the original. And she wants to admit it into evidence, but the judge won't allow it.

[01:09:39] Her testimony is thrown out and the jury is instructed, you've just heard all this, you know, that the doctor asked this nurse to lie and to change the intake form. But we're throwing that out. We're throwing out her testimony and this evidence. And it's a huge blow. And now the jury is put in their own ethical dilemma. You've just heard all this and you're told to disregard it. But will they? And I don't think they do.

[01:10:07] I think the verdict is a direct result of hearing that testimony. I don't think they did disregard it, honestly. A lot of people make sacrifices in this film. Frank Galvin, but also Caitlin Costello. She wanted to be a nurse. This event changed her life. And she had to lie. But she gets on the stand and she tells the truth, even though she knows there will be a cost to it. There's so many shades of gray throughout the entire film.

[01:10:33] It's not just Frank Galvin who is given very deep flaws and wounds and imperfections, right? At times a deplorable man. At times a man with integrity and a moral compass. It's also in the doctor that, yeah, it's criminal what he did. But when you hear, well, he had all these bad deliveries and he was exhausted and it was a human error.

[01:11:03] It was not this doctor waking up that day saying, you know what? I want to put a mother of three into a coma and destroy her life, right? It's like, I don't think the doctor woke up with that intention. And when it comes to Laura, I mean, it's very easy to think, oh, she's this femme fatale, you know, and she was using Frank and all of this stuff.

[01:11:30] And it's like, yeah, she started out deceptive, but she actually developed feelings for this man, right? Like she fell in love with this man, even though she was doing a dirty thing, a dirty job for Con Cannon. She had sold her soul. And it's like, she's trying to get it back in some way. She's trying to get Frank to forgive her. Will he? I mean, it's unanswered at the end of the film. Will he forgive her flaws?

[01:11:59] Because he certainly has his own imperfections and his own major flaws. But can he not forgive her? Can he not allow her to be flawed and human? Nobody is strictly evil or villainous in this film. Everybody is complicated and frail. They make mistakes. And at times those mistakes are like criminal, right? Sometimes the stakes of it are very, very high.

[01:12:27] But nobody is all bad or all good. And that to me is often the hallmark of a really great film. Because there are people who are also just trying to do the right thing in the best way that they know how. Whether it's Frank standing up for Deborah, Caitlin Costello testifying. Even Dr. Gruber at first before they got to him. But he was the one that set this in motion. He was the one that said, I'm doing this because it's the right thing. Isn't that why you're doing it?

[01:12:55] I mean, he was at least the first ethical voice, even if he sold his soul in the process. This film is made up of these very ordinary people choosing to stand up for something at great cost to themselves. Because this is the harder path. Truth and justice and empathy and caring about something. Those are harder paths. They're always the harder paths. It's always easier to just go along.

[01:13:22] To just accept the offer and not go to trial. Right? To turn away from the suffering. It's harder. It takes work to do the right thing. The moral and ethical thing. It's harder. It's harder to care. But it matters that we care. It matters how we treat the weak and the vulnerable and the sick and the disabled. It's important how we treat the unprotected of society.

[01:13:52] It's easier to just not care. It's easier to put them away somewhere. To pretend that they're not there. In some ways, I feel like a film like this, I don't know if it would be made today. I don't know if we talk as much about morality and ethics. Right? It seems so difficult to be moral or ethical in the world that we live in today, doesn't it? It's like we've thrown our hands up about a lot of stuff. The response to the pandemic was inadequate.

[01:14:22] There's war and genocide happening right now, isn't there? We're not dealing with climate change. I mean, we've pretty much given up on doing anything about that. We're not doing anything about economic inequality. Doing nothing about the healthcare system and the issues with that. All the things that need to be changed about our country and our society. But I think a film like this is maybe even more important as a result. These legal implications, the legal thriller, the ball or courtroom thriller.

[01:14:51] I think it's cathartic for that reason. Where there is justice provided. It's sort of like this imaginative space that we don't get to have in our daily lives. It's that David and Goliath type of thing or the underdog where the underdog doesn't always win in real life. Today it feels like almost impossible. But when we watch a film like this, we kind of get that vicarious feeling of justice is done.

[01:15:20] When I don't feel like we live in a just world right now at all. Or a moral or ethical world. The verdict comes in and it's in favor of Debra. And I think it's clear that the jury did remember Caitlin Costello's testimony. And they want to give a very large award. They ask if they have any limits. And they're told that they don't. And I think some people would say this is maybe like a sappy ending.

[01:15:49] It's a happy ending. It's what we would normally get from an American film like this. And yeah, you know, we get the ending of, you know, Debra is awarded the money and Frank Galvin will get a third of that. But I don't know if it's like sappy necessarily or even though it is, even though he wins, right? Like maybe a more complicated film would not give the win to Frank.

[01:16:18] But they decide to. They give us this victory. It's a hopeful ending, don't you think? And sometimes we need that. We need that catharsis. That somebody like Debra is acknowledged. That justice is done for her. That Frank Galvin gets his salvation. We get the verdict, but it's short. I mean, it's not like a really long scene. But yeah, we get our happy ending to a certain extent.

[01:16:46] I feel like the film is more complicated than that. Because it doesn't just end with the reading of the verdict and the award of the money. It follows Frank into his life after where he sees Laura. He doesn't go toward her. So their relationship is unclear what's going to happen with it. It ends in such an interesting way of him at his office and then Laura calling him. And it's just ringing over and over and over again.

[01:17:15] And we don't see him pick up and we don't know if he picks up. It's a bit of an ambiguous ending where we're not quite sure will the relationship be okay? I mean, will he take her back? Forgive her flaws? Will he extend grace to her potentially? And the relationship continued despite the deception. So I don't know if it's really a happy ending necessarily. There's victory involved.

[01:17:42] But I would argue that it's not necessarily a happy ending. Because the thing is, is that Deborah is still going to be in a coma and live out the rest of her life in a hospital bed. Frank stands up for her and he gets justice for her. But he can't really save Deborah. Nobody can save Deborah. And that's the tragedy at the heart of the film. Is that she's not going to wake up and she's not going to be restored.

[01:18:11] He can't restore her, can he? He can try to repair some of the damage that the doctors did. There's reparation, but there's not necessarily restoration. Her children will never have her again. The husband will move on. She will be forgotten, won't she? The sister will move away and Deborah will remain in that bed. Hopefully in a better facility where she won't be neglected.

[01:18:36] But her life is over and nobody can change that. Frank may not continue with Laura. He may not get to have that love. So there's that aspect of it too. And Laura seems like a very broken soul at the end of the film as well. Frank's future is not clear. What will happen to him after this case? There's something melancholy about the ending for me. I guess there's just something about him sitting in that office

[01:19:03] and the phone just ringing over and over again. I don't know. It just, he wins. He gets that victory. He's going to get that money. He has stood up for Deborah. But there's still something melancholy about it. Just the ringing of that phone. But ultimately Deborah, Deborah can't be restored. She can't get out of that bed. And I think that's what makes a case like this and the medical malpractice, particularly heart-wrenching and tragic,

[01:19:33] is that there can be reparation, but there can't be restoration. But I do think that ultimately Frank saves himself and he resists being completely lost or losing his soul or selling his soul. I just love in that scene where he says, if I take the money, I'm lost. He knows in a way that there's no way back. That if he settles and he takes the money and he compromises himself, there's no way back from that. And so instead he decides to fight

[01:20:02] and he decides to care about something greater than himself. And I just think that it's a beautiful message. I think it's one that I needed, particularly in these dark times. I hope that there was some value in this episode. I don't know if I was as articulate as I wanted to be, but these were just my feelings about the film. Until next time, keep watching great films.