I remember seeing him on IFC’s “A Decade Under the Influence” series by Ted Demme. Lumet was talking about Dunaway’s character in the movie Network. He said something to the effect that he knew she was going to ask him where her characters weakness was, and he said, “She doesn’t have one and if you try to put one in there, I will cut it out of the film.” It is strange because Dunaway has a really compelling scene where she breaks down and begs for William Holden not to leave her, but I guess in analyzing her scene, maybe she doesn’t quite know why she needs him, and maybe only wants him because he is leaving? Perhaps her breakdown just came from a real organic place and he left it in?

I think Network is an even more important movie today. It was as if Lumet is Sybil the Soothsayer.

Well worth your time.

[7] Thanks, Greg and you’re welcome!

The Verdict and Newman in his incredible performance revealed a lot of personal demons that my father was carrying. Newman was certainly at his best in the role, and although he didn’t win the Oscar until The Color of Money, this was probably his most challenging and seamless role. At the end when the juror announces the judgment it still brings tears to my eyes in every viewing.

While Pacino always brings an intensity similar to DeNiro’s to his roles. Deniro and Pacino are like freight trains, but I have always admired actors like Newman and Robert Duvall who in their subtle action convey the whole story with just a look.

Directors like Lumet are in short supply in Hollywood, especially in the age of the blockbuster. He left his mark in some of the finest movies in Hollywood, and I am very glad that you featured this one. Thanks Matt!

[2] Yes, and not just a risk for them, but a huge risk of his own. That’s the one part of the movie that isn’t quite realistic.

The client is supposed to make all decisions related to settlement offers. The lawyer is supposed to be the adviser, not the decision-maker. The client may tell the lawyer what is OK to accept and what’s not OK to accept – but that means the decision is still up the client.

Of course, in the end, its all OK because Galvin wins. (You wouldn’t normally sue your lawyer for malpractice when you win, unless you’re a masochist, or a fool.) But if Galvin had lost, his license to practice law was as good as gone.

The sister and brother-in-law could have fired Galvin when he told them he was taking the case to trial, and hired a different attorney who would have settled. But that wouldn’t have made for much of a movie. =)

That swooping crane shot when the verdict is read gets me every time.

Plus it completely tore down the Boston Archdiocese long before Cardinal Law made it fashionable!

I also love Newman cracking the egg into his beer. That bar was supposed to be in Boston, but they shot it at 7B in the East Village. That fence across the way from Newman and his pinball machine is Tompkins Square Park.

I’m not lawyer but didn’t the Newman character take a big risk for his clients in not settling and going to trial?

I’m no movie buff, so I had no idea who Sidney Lumet was until I started reading what everyone’s posted about him. Thanks for this, Matt.