There are many great law-related movies, but the one that has special resonance for me is A Civil Action (1997).  In fact, back when I taught Civil Procedure, I required students to watch the film, and we had some really terrific class discussions about it.  The plot centers on a lawsuit brought by a group of residents of Woburn, Massachusetts, against several industrial polluters.  At the heart of the film is the confrontation between an up-and-coming plaintiffs’ lawyer played by John Travolta and a grizzled, big-firm defense lawyer played by Robert Duvall.  The Duvall character seems an avatar of the amoral corporate lawyer, whereas the moral status of the Travolta character seems more uncertain and may evolve over the course of the movie.

Both actors deliver deeply engaging performances, as do several other top-flight character actors in supporting roles.  (James Gandolfini is especially good as a blue-collar employee of one of the defendants who must decide whether or not to cooperate with the plaintiffs’ lawyer; he doesn’t have many lines, but he exudes this barely subdued rage, looking as if he would like nothing more than to punch somebody out, if only he could decide at whom he should really be angry.) 

But, in addition to great acting and a compelling story, there are lots of other reasons this movie really works for me. 

A phenomenon called “court tourism” has emerged.  Growing numbers of individuals are going to their local courthouses for several hours at a time to prowl the halls, watch the proceedings, and contemplate the human stories being played out.  Many of the “court tourists” are unemployed or retired, and almost all have no legal backgrounds.  A few were recently interviewed on the Canadian public radio program “Definitely Not the Opera,” and the interviews can be downloaded from the December 13 broadcast at http://www.cbc.ca/dnto.

The phenomenon intrigues me.  I don’t think it compares to the practice dating back to the earliest decades of the Republic of gathering to watch major trials.  After all, the great majority of proceedings in today’s courthouses are not trials, and the court tourists watch whatever they can find, regardless of how trivial it might be.  Perhaps court tourism was prompted by the extensive media coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials.  Alternatively, court tourism might be inspired by the ubiquitous pseudo-court shows such as “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown,” to name only two.   Whatever the inspiration, today’s court tourists want to be entertained.  A trip to the courthouse is cheap recreational activity.

We must surely have become a postmodern society when legal proceedings no longer seem the path to justice, but rather serve as a source of escapist titillation.