Review of ...And Justice for All (1979) by Josh G — 07 Dec 2008

Here's your pull-quote: It's a testament to how good ...And Justice for All is that it manages to stand as a good movie, despite the fact that it had no idea what in the hell it was trying to accomplish.

Roger Ebert is the only critic that I read regularly, although I admit that it's probably because he's the most well-known name in the business. Sometimes I agree with his assessment of a film, but other times I am flabbergasted by just how off-the-mark he was. I suppose that would be the case with practically any critic. Nevertheless, what I want to say here is that Ebert got everything about ...And Justice for All just spot-on.

The movie, if you need to summarize it, is about a lawyer named Arther Kirkland (Pacino) who is so dang moral in his ideas of justice that he doesn't even see any other ethical dilemmas on the path to putting criminals behind bars and setting innocent men free. If a breach of client-lawyer confidentiality is what it will take to get a murderer imprisoned, so be it. It's interesting that he has chosen this one specific set of morality judgements to stand above all others in his mind, but that decision is never really questioned in the film.

What the back of the box will tell you is that Arthur has his views radically challenged when he is forced/blackmailed into defending a judge that he despises against charges of rape. Oh no! He assumes right off the bat that the man is guilty, and spends some time questioning whether he can convince himself that it is reasonable to defend a man who is guilty, and more importantly, an asshole.

But that's not really what the movie is about. I mean, it is and it isn't. This movie is instead set up as a series of several different subplots, with the major overriding theme being that the American justice system is completely screwy. It's pretty obvious that this is the idea behind the film: one scene shows an argument with Pacino and the prosecution lawyer interspliced with a courtroom trial wherein a mugger admits to beating an old woman, but complains that it was her own fault because he just wanted to take her money -- not hurt her. He is sentenced to a year's probation.

It's that sort of satire that runs throughout the length of the movie, although there are certainly times when it crosses into a broad comedy that doesn't work (the 'suicidal judge' subplot is pretty terrible). It's not hard to sympathize with the idea that both Kirkland and the film itself have, this idea that innocent people are not properly represented and guilty people too often go free. But that's not really a very profound statement, now is it? And unfortunately for ...And Justice for All, it doesn't really have any constructive answers for how to reform the judicial system. All it knows how to do is hurl insults.

There are basically two things that save the movie from being an under-wrought empty-message movie.

First, there are the occasional scenes that really transcend the slightness of the film's 'purpose'. One that sticks out in particular is a lengthy moment with Arthur in bed with his girlfriend Gail, who is on an ethics committee which is investigating lawyers to discern which ones are corrupt. They erupt in a violent argument about whether Arthur's partner Jay is competent enough to serve as a lawyer because of how the cases have been affecting him. Their argument is so realistic, it draws you in and you forget momentarily that you are watching a movie. They quit arguing, not because they have resolved their disagreement, but because they are repeating themselves and have run out of things to say. It's quite a breath-taking scene.

And then there is the courtroom monologue, which takes me into reason two for why this movie manages to overcome its inconsistencies: Al Pacino. Pacino is a celebrated actor, of course, so it should come as no surprise that he is able to hold this mess together and give his character so much dimension. He can seem totally in control when necessary, and hopelessly lost when the scene calls for it. Near the end of the film, he delivers a stirring monologue ("No, you're out of order!") that is cathartic in the way that it gives a middle finger to that dang ol' justice system, even if it doesn't really offer anything productive. Can we all agree that Pacino is the king of the Monologue?

To be sure, ...And Justice for All is kind of a mess. But the scenes which do hit spark are absolutely fantastic, and the actors' performances manage to hold together those scenes which are less easy to be enthusiastic about. The coffee may be bitter, but there's so much sugar you can hardly taste it.