This summary by a reviewer on imdb.com expresses my take on the film as well.:
This enjoyable and inspiring movie is a worthy contribution to the courtroom movie genre. It memorializes the great Thurgood Marshall (who later won Brown v. Bd. of Education and sat on the Supreme Court). The film brings to life a forgotten rape case in Connecticut that Marshall tried early in his career when he was the solo staff lawyer at the NAACP. The story focuses on the plight of a black man accused of raping a white woman and it highlights issues of racism in the courtroom and on the streets. The movie recalls the classic films "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which also involved a black on white rape case) and "Anatomy of a Murder" (which also involved sexual issues and in which--like many real trials--we're never sure just what actually happened and who is telling the truth). The writing is sharp and witty and the acting and direction are great. Particularly strong is the emerging partnership and friendship of Marshall and the local lawyer, Sam Friedman, who had never tried a criminal case and thought he would just sit next to Marshall during the trial and do nothing. But the judge forces Friedman to conduct the trial with Marshall serving as his adviser--and he rises to the occasion.
Here's an excerpt from another imd.com review:
The actors in this intelligent film are all first rate and believable in their roles. Film is strong in mystery and suspense. The film is part of history but very entertaining from start to finish. It's an uplifting and positive film for everyone to enjoy. There are great believable interpersonal relationships. The film is high quality production including the music score. There is no detail that was spared. Plenty of great symbolism in the film for example the images in wall frame pictures in court room. I do expect actor and/or actress and other film awards in the future. Marshall 2017 is a must see film.
One feature of the film, which takes place around 1940, is the reminder that blacks were not the only people discriminated against. Jews were not permitted into certain establishments, country clubs, etc. You may recall Jack Nicholson in the film Chinatown asking if the nursing home accepted Jews.
Near the end of the film, the prosecuting attorney tries to work a plea bargain with Sam, the attorney forced by circumstances to defend this black man charged with rape and attempted murder of a white woman. Friedman's response is one of many great lines in the film.
Loren Willis: "I thought Jews were supposed to be smart. You sound just like the Negro."
Sam Friedman: "That's the greatest compliment you could have given me."
In the closing arguments, as Sam trickled drops of ink into a glass of water, I thought of Perry Mason's manner of making vivid a point he wished to get across to the jury. And though we never saw the discussion that took place when the jury deliberated, I imagined the Henry Fonda film 12 Angry Men, and how what appears an open and shut case can become altogether other when honest dialogue occurs.
The DVD is available on Netflix. It comes with my highest recommendation.
Related Links
Marshall @ imdb.com
Emmett Till
In reality, according to the article linked at the bottom,
ReplyDelete"Most Americans are under the mistaken impression that when the government accuses someone of a crime, the case typically proceeds to trial, where a jury of laypeople hears arguments from the prosecution and the defense, then deliberates over the evidence before deciding on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. This image of American justice is wildly off the mark. Criminal cases rarely go to trial, because about 95 percent are resolved by plea bargains. In a plea bargain, the prosecutor usually offers a reduced prison sentence if the defendant agrees to waive his right to a jury trial and admit guilt in a summary proceeding before a judge.
...
"From a defendant’s perspective, plea bargaining extorts guilty pleas. People who have never been prosecuted may think there is no way they would plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. But when the government has a “witness” who is willing to lie, and your own attorney urges you to accept one year in prison rather than risk a ten-year sentence, the decision becomes harder.
..."
Then, shockingly, there is a situation in real life in your own county in which the "public defender" didn't even tell the (falsely) accused who the "witness" against him was, nor they they tell him that there is a witness in his favor, and that the Sheriff's investigators have REFUSED to DNA-test the former sheriff's son who met every clue the investigators said they were looking for. Instead they induced a "confession" by quoting the unnamed "witness".
And nobody cared. The media, both mainstream and "alternative", stuck their fingers in their ears when they were told about it, and refused to print anything at all except the "official story".
But there will be real Justice, some day. And there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/devils-bargain-how-plea-agreements-never-contemplated-framers-undermine-justice