Oh, dear. Well – you know how I love Meryl Streep. So you won’t mind my asking….what was she thinking when she agreed to do THE IRON LADY? You can’t say I wasn’t warned that it was not a great piece of filmmaking. But, I assure you that you needn’t see this one. I have seen it for all of the people of the village.
What can you, as an attorney, learn from my experience of seeing it (since you yourself are now off the hook)?
Specificity of story. This is a film about Margaret Thatcher. Okay, I don’t like Margaret Thatcher as much as the next person…but…I assumed that by watching this film I was going to be learn all about her and why I should change my mind. Or at least learn what made her who she was and why she ticked.
It was basically a film about an old woman with dementia. That was all we really ever knew about her – that she was some sort of generic old woman with dementia. Now I am not saying that Streep wasn’t brilliant (she was, of course, how could she not be?) and that the make up wasn’t sensational (it was amazing) but The Story. The Story. The Story was missing.
When you look at the trial story of the case you have in front of you – what is it that makes this story unique? Special? One of a kind? Have you done the same case so many times that nothing is interesting or special about this one? Only the name of the plaintiff or defendant has changed?
I’m here to tell you, you can have Meryl Streep as your plaintiff or defendant…your “star” witness…but if you aren’t tuned into the unique details of this case it really won’t matter.
TIP: What is the story that makes this case unique?