MovieChat Forums > A Civil Action (1999) Discussion > Odd question

Odd question

posted 18 years ago by ten_lbs_poop
9 replies | jump to latest

Was anybody else mad at the mother a(or near) the end scolding the lawyers for not giving her the justice she wanted. I mean i know lawyers arent always the greatest people and the only reason they agreed to the suit was to get money but they did give their all for it.
I mean I know they didnt get what she wanted and she lost her son, didnt get an apology blah, blah, blah, but she did get something and they pretty much destroyed their practice for her. I thought a thank you for trying or something wold have beenmore endearing, now I just think of her as a greedy, selfish, bitch. Whatever just a rant

[–] ErGel 18 years ago

I agree. I can understand her frustration and state of mind. I don't blame her for reacting the way she did. However, the lawyers pretty much destroyed their lives for her, although only Jan really wanted to do so, and they deserved much better.

[–] alless626 18 years ago

I so agree with your comments. I thought I was the only one shocked at her lack of gratitude for their hard work and HUGE sacrifice,(both personal and professional). I agree that attourneys' behaviour is so often less than honourable, but in this particular situation, the profit motive effectively ceased to exist very early on. A fact that she, as one of the plaintiffs, working closely with these men, was well aware. And, whilst she did not receive her wished for results, she did receive some benefit, and eventually, due to Jan's diligence, did see the EPA force those responsible to pay for the price for the cleanup. That was, after all, her burning desire, which she did, eventually receive, along with monetary benefit.
Yes, after a time, she did get her wishes and it seems she might have been thankful to a firm of solicitours, who through the trying of the 'Orphan' case, lost all they had. And, as this is a true story, this is not an unimportant point.
Thank you for taking the time to post on this. It has always bothered me and i've never seen or heard it mentioned before.

It is, but a short step, from the sublime to the ridiculous!

[–] aqualicy 18 years ago

Curiously enough, I came to this board for precisely this reason; I was wondering if anybody else was as annoyed at her as I was. This was one of the reasons I didn't like this movie very much -- the entire scene screamed overdramatization, and the whining mom just really ticked me off.

- Nobody else wanted the case. Finally, Jan's firm took it, knowing the risks.
- The lawyers sacrificed everything for the families and failed where everyone else wouldn't even TRY.
- The families got SOME compensation - a minor victory, which is far better than none - which also proves the families had it right.
- Jan shows true compassion and care.

"Oh, none of that stuff matters. You're all still worthless idiots and it's all your fault. LOOK AT ME, THIS IS ME NOT SHOWING AN OUNCE OF UNDERSTANDING OR GRATITUTE. Kthxbye."

What. The. Hell.

Screw this movie. If it was me, I'd have ignored the entire case from that point on; if I got that kind of attitude after all I'd done for them, I would have turned my back on humanity as a whole. I couldn't at all identify with that tantrum-throwing witch of a woman. It bothered me so much that a month after I'd seen it I wanted to come to this board and whine about it. That should tell you something.

Yawn.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dottierodman 17 years ago

Did we watch the same movie? The only reason Schlichtmann takes the case at all is because he knows that both Beatrice and Grace, the companies, have deep pockets. He says early on that "a dead child is worth the least of all." I don't recall any scene in which Anne Anderson whines; in fact, she is mostly a silent observer. She states early on that all she wants is an apology from whoever caused her son's death, that she's not interested in money. Look at how grateful she is for neighbor and tannery employee James Gandolfini's apology! Schlichtmann loses the case because of pride (recall Robert Duvall's lecture to his students) and because, despite the wishes of his partners, all of whom he bankrupts, he's too stuborn to settle, which even he knows is the way that these cases are "won" (read the posted quotes). He's his own "fool" with "something to prove." A clear case of hubris. But he does learn his lesson well and writes that letter to the EPA. Thankfully.

[–] tyosh 17 years ago

Well said Dottie. That's the real point of the story: how Schlichtmann lost his way, got caught up in the frenzy of the case, and let his personal pride get in the way of sound decisions.

[–] ten_lbs_poop 17 years ago

Yeah but didnt he keep persuing the case because the mother wanted an apology and not money, he wanted to give her justice. So it was her pride just as much as it was his.

I mean when you settle thats like giving up your free speech; you agree to not talk about/pursue legal action, they give you a bunch of money. Thats why rich people do it all the time if they didnt get anything out of it why settle?

I think Schlichtmann found a more rewarding path, actually helping the needy regardless of personal gain, yeah he might have gotten a little prideful but I think that was the main point. His old way was to settle and just make as much money as possible, not exactly a model person.

[–] jafoleyiii 17 years ago

I'm new to the practice of law, and I can already see 2 things here. People frequently want things, like an apology, that the courts are just not set up to give them. The other is that clients are rarely happy. I did want to choke her nonetheless.

[–] bitherwack 16 years ago

The other thing we shouldn't forget was at the very beginning she was on the radio talking rather challengingly at him telling him how he doesn't really feel his clients pain, etc. That was a very manipulative thing to do. I think she did a good job of manipulating Jan's emotions.