Website of Jonathan O. Dewbre

I just saw “The Verdict” and wanted to get my thoughts out about it while they’re fresh in my mind. I hope not to spend too long talking about it.

I’m not a David Mamet scholar and there’s a reason for that - I haven’t liked anything of his that I’ve seen, so I purposefully avoid seeing anything he’s written. Lit scholars love Mamet, and I just don’t get it. “The Verdict” and “The Untouchables,” for example, are two films that encourage us to root for their anti-heroes. Never once are we given reason to believe that the outcome will be any different than it is, or that good won’t triumph over evil. At best I’d call this trite, and at worst I’d call it populist trash. Mamet pulls his punches, I’ll admit, but his punches are telegraphed so far in advance that they’re easy to duck. Which brings me to the first reason why I hated “The Verdict”…

Paul Newman punches Charlotte Rampling in the face. Every anti-hero has a dark side, some more than others, but at some point that “hero” moniker no longer exists. Violence against women is a reprehensible act, and can carry no excuse. What’s worse, Newman’s character faces no consequences or moral qualms for what he has done, which is completely against the nature of reality. How does he not get disbarred for this? At some level, we are supposed to accept this act of violence with satisfaction, as retribution for what Rampling has done. I don’t buy it. I simply think Mamet is an ass, which, like most celebrated writers, he is, and that he’s sexist. I am given no reason to believe that he’s examining the nature of heroics or doing anything but throwing candy to his audience.

If such a superficial reason for disliking “The Verdict” is unacceptable to Mamet fans, then let me offer a more substantial critique of the plot, in true “lit criticism” style. What is the connotation of an American lawyer fighting not only the British legal system, but the British medical system as well? Consider also that almost every foreign character is presented as snide (the judge), self-interested (the prosecuting attorney), conniving (the wife) and corrupt (the accused team of doctors). To me, this smacks of nationalism and xenophobia, something present in “The Untouchables” as well. I also have to take umbrage with the way that Mamet not-so subconsciously forces us to hate these characters. Whether it’s through the prosecutor’s merciless interrogations, or the judge’s impartial decisions in the trial, or the anesthesiologist’s weakness under the pressure of both interrogation and surgery, there is no gray in the black-and-white world of “The Verdict.” That’s not necessarily bad, but it is typical of what I have seen of Mamet’s work, which is why I dislike him so much. I don’t like being told what to think.

Just as an aside, I didn’t even realize that “The Verdict” was a Mamet film until I’d watched it and looked it up on the Internet Movie Database. I was recently at a gala featuring Stephen Sondheim, and learned that David Mamet had been the guest at the previous year’s event. When asked how I felt about Mamet, I was unable to come up with an answer other than that I disliked the subjects he writes about. Now if anybody ever asks me about David Mamet, I’ll just point them to this blog entry.  Or maybe I’ll avoid dialogue altogether and simply punch them in the face.