Overall I thought this was a good movie, good acting, decent script but I could not wrap my head around the ending. I understand what the movie was trying to do but the phone ringins was just irritating and it went on for an awkard amount of time. It made you think there was going to be more but there wasnt and in some movies it works but in this one it was just plain frustrating.
shareYes, I agree. I also didn't understand that and hoped for more. I guess he didn't want anything to do with her, since she betrayed him.
It made me wonder whether they had sex or not. It isn't explicitly made clear, but it would seem to me as a strange deal for her to make (to her dad??).
[deleted]
The ending is the whole point of the movie. What is the verdict of the audience? Should he answer the phone or not?
shareYes, good point.
As to the final sum awarded to Galvin's clients, I fail to see how this detail really matters. We know they have won and won big!
And at this stage, to the viewer, it's about so much more than just money. For Galvin it has been a journey of redemption and a real David Vs. Goliath battle from which he has emerged victorious, and he can now start to get his life back on-track.
I heard an interview with Lumet once (about the final scene) in which he said the scene with the telephone ringing was not actually in Mamet's original script, but he decided to add it himself. Mamet's ending was that scene outside the court afterwards, when Galvin catches a brief glimpse of Laura before she quickly vanishes.
Personally, I really like Lumet's additional scene. It leaves us guessing as to what Galvin is going to do next.
It's also interesting that Galvin is the one who is sober, in control and appears to be "in a good place". While Laura is a mess, making a drunken phonecall from her bed while struggling to hold a large drink in her other hand. This is in stark contrast to an earlier panic attack scene in the apartment, when a weak and demoralised Galvin flees to his bathroom to escape Laura and pleads with her to stop "pressuring him".
I like your interpretation. Depending on the context, I may prefer ambiguous endings as opposed to neatly wrapping everything up.
In this case, not answering the phone seems to indicate that life goes on for him and that there's no closure to his life even after the black of the screen. Perhaps he has gotten past his relationship with Laura, or he may decide to answer the phone. Whatever his decision, life goes on beyond that phone call. It all depends on what Frank decides as he is now finally in control, at ease, and can decide things for himself. Prior to answering the phone, he was resting with eyes closed and legs up on the table.
"...sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” ~ Cool Hand Luke
And what's in his cup? Booze or coffee? It's a great ending.
shareI guess that detail explains all. After seeing the character holding only glasses and cans full of alcohol, why is he holding a cup of coffee in the very last scene?
There's your change. Subtle and ingenious.
And what's in his cup? Booze or coffee? It's a great ending.
I believe it's booze. He's finally accomplished something and can crawl back into the bottle. FWIW, Paul Newman was asked and said it was coffee.
shareimdb trivia has a listing that says that newman said it was in fact coffee.
shareAbsolutely right. Seems like everybody these days needs to have every nuance explained, every joke analyzed for content, and their asses wiped for them...I mean, why leave the audience to fill in the blanks? Way too much pressure there. Didn't wrap it up with a nice bow for ya? Too bad, Sparky. While most movies usually follow a "circle" route and wind up where they started, some proudly stay linear and somewhat unfinished, leaving the audience to write their own ending.
Personally, I always thought this was Paul Newman's best performance. That scene where he shuts himself in the bathroom---(no dialogue, just that look on his face)---was worth the price of admission all by itself.
So true in every respect: from the imaginary problem with ending which I loved (the ending, not the imaginary problem), to Paul Newman's performance, which was great throughout the film, but incredible in that bathroom. I got chills during that scene.
shareI couldn't agree more.
share> Galvin winning and Galvin moving on in life...
So true! It's also about Laura losing Galvin's love by betting on the wrong horse.
I was rather disappointed in this film. I'm not sure that Galvin changed his life after winning.
The story, I felt, was rather weak. I thought that Laura's true role was hinted at rather early on. It also came as no surprise at all that Galvin won the case.
I suppose you could call it more a character study, but I didn't really care very much for either of the two main characters.
I think that's the whole point. Even after his win, when he's walking through the courtroom building, he doesn't look too elated.
Galvin winning was definitely a lock, but the road to victory was rocky.
David Mamet has certainly written a lot better films than this one - it was only his second screenplay.
Once it became known that Galvin would be involved in this case, it was immediately clear that he would, against all odds, win it. The difficulties he faced were just dramatic devices to make the final victory seem that much more difficult.
Laura showing up in a pub that is frequented by alcoholics seemed odd. When she showed up a second time, it was quite clear that she had an agenda.
The film lacked drama - too much was either given away or followed too closely the "formula".
Having watched it once, I doubt I'll subject myself to it a second time.
Of course he knew she "had an agenda" by turning up at the pub the second time. He knew she was there to see him -- just didn't know she was there to betray him. Who would know? You'll often find "dramatic devices" in a movie -- they're what make for drama. If this movie is beneath watching a second time for you I'd love to know the ethereal art forms you do frequent.
shareDavid Mamet has certainly written a lot better films than this one - it was only his second screenplay.Which makes it a bit ironic that Mamet's script didn't reveal the jury's verdict. As I understand it, this is the only change that Lumet made.
Once it became known that Galvin would be involved in this case, it was immediately clear that he would, against all odds, win it.
She hasn't "lost his love". He's still thinking about whether she can be trusted in a relationship. He's already had a failed marriage because of a treacherous b*tch. He's wondering, is this love worth risking another?
shareI usually do not like ambiguous ending, but the ending of the verdict was perfect! My guess is that Galvin DIDNOT pick up the phone. I really feel bad about Laura, but Galvin did not pick up phone...
shareI just watched this I found that the ending left too much of the story unfinished. I was expecting a conversation with the clients, a meeting with the nurse and a confrontation with the woman.
shareThe Mamet script actually had a different ending, at least as far as the details. The verdict is indeed revealed similar to the film although the question dealing with the amount of the award is more dramatic in the original script. What happens after that is quite different than the film. I don't want to go into much detail, but there is no scene with Galvin alone letting the phone ring.
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/the-verdict-script.html
The film gives a clear impression that Galvin WILL eventually pick up that phone, he just wants to let Laura sweat a while longer.
The writing was top notch. A Mamet script with Lumet directing and Newman starring is a can't miss. I don't know why anyone would find this film lacking, especially given the crap that has been coming out of Hollywood for the last several years. My only criticism is some of the stuff that went on in the courtroom probably wouldn't fly in the real world but all movies use license on stuff like that.
"Well you may not know this, but there's things that gnaw at a man worse than dying." Charley Waite
I'm really puzzled about the end. I'd seen the movie in 1983 and the DVD I recently saw was every bit as wonderful. But somehow my mind stubbornly insisted that it had a totally different ending; one in which the jury found for the defendant and then decided to award them a single dollar. I'm obviously wrong, but which two movies do I garble? Can anybody help me out here?
shareThere are other unanswered things about the ending besides the size to the judgement and the relationship between Galvin and Laura.
>Who would pay the judgement, the doctors and/or the diocese? If both, what share for each. And, what about the loss of licenses to practice medicine?
>What about the legal ethics of placing a spy lawyer in the plaintiff's law firm? It sounds to me like a major violation of legal ethics and the giant law firm's attorneys could be subject to disbarment.
>What about the crooked judge? Some of his rulings could be found not only erroneous but biased and thus subject to discipline or impeachment. Furthermore, his judgement on the validity of the nurse's testimony was based on an Indiana precedent not one from Mass.
Of course there might be an appeal, but it seems the bishop wonders about whether the change in the hospital admission document was fact and he might not appeal the verdict.
This is a movie about Frank Galvin, not all that other stuff.
shareThe three top posts on this thread are definitely the three dumbest posts I have ever seen sequentially on any forum thread ever..... it boggles the mind....
"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing