Project description
Movie Reaction Assignments: There are two movie reaction assignments for this course. Reactions should be short but thoughtful. No outside research is required or suggested. However, a mere factual summary or review of the movies does not meet the assignments requirements. This assignment is NOT a film review, but an expression of your reactions to experiencing the movie. Guided Viewing Questions are provided to help students focus their reactions(BELOW). Your reaction should express what you have learned about the legal system or what opinions you have formed about the legal system or what previously held opinions about the legal system have been either challenged or confirmed as a result of this assignment. Guided Viewing Questions are only examples and suggestions of the kind of issues the student might encounter in the movie and contemplate for the paper. You do NOT need to answer any of the Guided Viewing Questions for your paper. If they help you, use them. If not, write about what else you considered. Reactions should be approx. 600 800 words long (maximum of 3 pages double-spaced)
2. A Civil Action is available on line, at no charge,. It is also available on reserve in the library as a DVD.
A Civil Action trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRXGQhpib8
Guided Viewing Questions
A Civil Action
Peruse these websites to learn about the actual persons involved in the Woburn case and commentary.
Jan Schlichtmann:
Kevin Conway:
http://www.ccandh.com/profile_detail.asp?empno=1
Jerome Facher:
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jerome_facher/
William Cheeseman:
http://www.peachpit.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=89DBC639-F7A3-4059-BCD9-2EB29969E8F0
Charles Nesson:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=48
http://legalstudiesclassroom.blogspot.com/2013/09/file-sharing-judgment-of-675000-upheld.html
Judge Walter Skinner:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/05/11/judge_walter_skinner_77_oversaw_woburn_grace_case/
Woburn Skeptics Page:
http://www.walterolson.com/articles/civilact.html
1. Truth lies at the bottom of a bottomless pit, says Facher. At one point, Facher lectures Schlichtmann about the relationship of truth and court proceedings. The truth? he mocks Schlichtmann, I thought we were talking about a court of law. Court isnt that place to find the truth. Youll be lucky if you find anything around here resembling the truth. This case stopped being about dead children as soon as it entered the justice system. What is going on here? Is he a cynic, a pragmatist, or a visionary?
2. Fachers strategy to win the case was to make sure that the plaintiffs never testified in court. He masterfully pulls off his strategy. Is he a good lawyer? Is this an example of the system working well or did he beat the system to win for his client? Once again, what is the role for truth?
3. In an important scene in the movie, Facher appears to offer Schlictmann $20M to settle with his client by presenting Schlictmann with a $20 bill and proposing to add six zeroes to it. Schlictmann appears to reject this offer out of hand without discussion with his clients. In the book upon which this movie is based, Fachers $20 bill presentation happens much earlier in the case and appears to be something far short of an offer an attempt merely to get Schlictmann to make a settlement demand in a specific amount to begin negotiations. In the same conversation, Facher tells Schlictmann that he could not offer as much as $1M for a settlement. During trial, Fachers associate asks Schlictmann if he would consider settlement for $8M if authority for such an offer could be wrested from Beatrice. But still, no firm settlement offer was made. What is the impact of Schlictmanns off-handed rejection of Fachers offer in the movie? Does it make Schlictmann seem unreasonable? Does it complicate our understandings of his motivations, his professional responsibilities, his strategy or was it always just about the money? Why include this offer in the movie if it never happened in the real case?
4. The economic costs to have a chance of proving this case are enormous (Note: this portrayal is much more realistic than that in Erin Brockovich). Likewise the costs in human effort, time, emotion, and lost business is inestimable. The movie portrayal here is extremely accurate not overstated for emphasis. How does this fit with the general public perception of people filing lawsuits for easy money? How and why is this misperception so prevalent?
5. Schlictmanns firm ultimately runs out of resources to prosecute the case. The defendants in this case expected that and banked on it in their strategy. Yet throughout, Schlictmanns firm had to try to maintain an appearance of wealth and financial health in order to maintain credibility. Is the civil trial system just a big game? Is there role or place for justice?
6. In the book on which the movie is based, Schlictmann speculates on what he hopes to accomplish as a lawyer. Getting rich isnt hard; getting famous isnt hard; doing good isnt hard but rich, famous AND doing good now, that is what is truly difficult. Why doesnt our legal system facilitate doing good? Is our system an example of good guys finish last? Why are public interest lawyers the lowest paid? Why must lawyers constantly be put in the position of having to choose between their ideals and their income? Is there a solution?
7. Once again, we see dissatisfied clients – even after Schlictmann goes bankrupt prosecuting their case. What did they want? Why did they expect that to be possible? Does the system really provide what the plaintiffs wanted in this case? Did the plaintiffs have a real understanding of the legal system? Why or why not?
8. Although the plaintiffs received a multi-million dollar settlement, the case was perceived by the plaintiffs and their lawyers as a dismal failure. Yet the press reported the settlement as if the plaintiffs had become millionaires. Must we always wait for a book and a movie to get the real story? Why cant the press get it right?
9. Ultimately, the EPA stepped in and ordered the most expensive environmental clean-up in the history of the U.S. Were the plaintiffs vindicated? Did they ultimately get what they wanted from a process outside of the civil justice system? Would you categorize this as a success story?
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]