Based on a real case, the film follows lawyer Jan Schlichtmann, and his team, as
they fight the case of families who have lost their children to leukaemia in
Woburn, New England through aledged water pollution.
As a cynical, and realistic, Personal Injury lawyer, Schlichtmann is loathe to
take on the families' case; they want an apology, the area cleaned up and
nothing more, compensation isn't important.
As Schlichtmann knows though, compensation is the name of the game; playing the
courts to win a moral victory is unwise and expensive.
With little chance of being able to make any money from any obvious defendants,
he turns the case down only to discover, by chance, that the suspected polluters
are subsidiaries of multi-national, multi-million dollar companies.
With the possibility of suing someone with substantial funds the game is
afoot.
Unfortunately, with massive costs incurred as the case is investigated, the small
firm of lawyers is faced with impending bankruptcy and struggles to bring the
case to a satisfactory, financially benefiting, conclusion.
The focus is not on the courtroom battlefield but on the investigations which
occur in the background, the collecting of evidence, the depositions and the
effect the case has on the firm and its staff.
The film has been praised for showing the change in Schlichtmann as he shifts
from cynical opportunist to an alturistic defender of the people; I'm not sure
that such a change hasn't been exaggerated.
American, and most Western, civil justice systems are based on the premise of
compensating for wrong doing, not on securing apologetic statements or as a
forum for gaining moral victories.
Whilst compensation may equate to chastisement of the offender and may make for
a moral victory per se, an apology for offence is rarely offered.
Schlichtmann's motive for pushing for a higher and higher compensation package,
"If they can afford eight million, they can afford more", may not be as
alturistic as some have portrayed; at the end of the day, the size of the
compensation is the measure of success, at least in court.
His downfall shows not so much that he had a change of heart or belief
but that the system truly is based upon the economics of cash at the end of the
day.
Even when a victory was finally achieved, the families received, as far
as can be seen, no apology; the fact that the offenders were made to pay to have
their environmental mess cleaned up was, simply put, compensation.
As an insight into how the civil court works it offered nothing new, although
it may be surprising to some; viewing it in terms of a moral victory is
presumptuous. As the curtain closed, it was clear that the courts do what they
have always done, and it's what they will do tomorrow.
As for condensing an eight year court case into a two hour film it was
excellent; the characterisations were good, the plot fluid and it was certainly
watchable and entertaining.
The courts have been described as stages where actors perform without knowing
their lines in advance; the court scenes here were delivered realistically and
with restraint. No sudden surprise witnesses, no surprise evidence and no
turning round to accuse a member of the public of the crime.
Well put together, and well worth watching. Even though it may not have been
the most dramatic of films I have seen.
