From Katherine:

You know how much I love documentaries about The Law. If you are smart, you will find a way RIGHT NOW to see The Loving Story. If you are brilliant, you will find a way that once you see it, that you make sure others see it, too.

The story of how Richard and Mildred Loving started out life together as two people who simply loved one another and married one another and ended up as the subjects of a U.S. Supreme Court is the provocative subject. The amazing filmmakers, Nancy Buirski and Elisabeth Haviland James have taken footage of the time (1957-1965) as well as commentary from the major players looking back in time and woven it into a love song to law, justice and civil rights. They simply say, “Our documentary film tells the dramatic story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple living in Virginia in the 1950s, and their landmark Supreme Court Case, Loving v. Virginia, that changed history.”

I don’t think a lawyer can watch this film and not be deeply affected by it. The footage of the two young ACLU attorneys who tried the case and took it all the way to the Supreme Court brought me to tears. It reminded me of how, every day, I get to sit in rooms with attorneys who are doing their best to get justice for their clients without the benefit of hindsight. I was also especially moved by Richard and Mildred Loving. I kept wanting to reach back in time and help Richard Loving express himself – but – in the end his expression was just right. “Tell the court that I love my wife,” he said to his lawyers when they asked if he had anything that he wanted them to tell the U.S. Supreme Court.

A wonderful young attorney, Courtney Morgan, wrote an amazing piece about the impact that this film had on her. We are going to reprint it next week as Part 2 of this blog post on this most important film.

TIP: Is the case you are working on the case of a lifetime? Your client thinks so.

From Katherine:

Okay. So I have, of course, been watching Martin Scorsese films since Mean Streets. And as time has gone by I have come to associate his filmmaking less with his Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore and more with his Goodfellas. In other words, I have stopped recognizing his huge variety as an amazing auteur. I have been thinking blood and guts for decades. Blood and guts have never been my kind of catharsis, in case you haven’t picked up on that from this blog. So when the advertising campaign for Hugo kept touting this as “the film Scorsese has always wanted to make,” I got a picture in my head of blood, guts, death and destruction all set in Paris. When people I knew and trusted said it was great and that I should definitely check it out I thought, “Yeah. Right. Whatever.” Actually, it was only because I was in a hotel room somewhere in America and I had promised you that I would see Oscar movies a few blogs ago that I thought, “Huh. Hugo. Okay. If it sucks, I can always turn it off and check out the little bottles of scotch in the mini bar for entertainment.”

I was so wrong. This film is a brilliant adaptation of Brian Selznick’s The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Every moment is written, acted, produced, shot, edited, and, especially directed, with such love.

What can lawyers learn from this wonderful film? Hat in hand, I must say that you should learn not to assume. Don’t think just because you think you know this case, this opponent, this client, this judge, this — well…ANYTHING — that you actually do. Inhale, exhale and try to look with fresh eyes at the case in front of you right now that you are regarding with jaded eyes. And please run, do not walk, to see this one. It is simply magic!

TIP: When you “assume” you make an “ass” of “u” and “me.”

A Note From Katherine:

In last week’s post on MONEYBALL I told you that we have already given you tons of reasons to see (or stay home!) from this year’s crop of Oscar contenders. I still have some films left that I am dying to see (ALBERT NOBBS with Glenn Close and Janet McTeer is the biggie). There is at least one that I loathed so much that I couldn’t even think of a single thing to say about it that would lead to a tip, other than, “If you ever are reincarnated as Ted Mack and want to revive Amateur Hour from when I was a little girl, don’t bother going to Hawaii. It’s been done.” Special thanks to Shilpa Mysoor from our creative team for summing up our blogs and tips thus far this Oscar season:

THE HELP – What Can Lawyers Learn….. RELATIONSHIPS

In this film, the relationship between the two main black women, characters played by the stunning Viola Davis and the equally compelling and strong Octavia Spencer is what helps propel the narrative…the story. And their relationship with the character played by Emma Stone, the development of that relationship is what makes us care and helps drive us into and through the story. What can lawyers learn from this? What the jury follows is relationship.

TIP: Are you aware of your relationships with your clients and with your witnesses? Are you aware of how these relationships are perceived and of what story they tell?

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS – What Can Lawyers Learn….. MENTORING

When I first started working with attorneys, I saw that young lawyers were all imitating their mentors. Playing their version of their own personal and deeply influential “The Woody Allen Character.” Do you have a mentor? Now…look at how Owen Wilson plays “The Woody Allen Role” in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. You absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the base and root of that character is Woody Allen. But – the heart and soul is Owen Wilson. Every expression of delight, heartache, longing, and surprise is his – but we sure do know that Woody Allen is an integral part of what he is doing as an actor.

TIP: Is your mentor showing up in your delivery? And is it a good thing?

MONEYBALL – What Can Lawyers Learn….. CONFIDENCE

So I put everything aside and searched for what I thought attorneys could learn from it. It was an overriding theme: confidence. The main character (Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane) has spent a lifetime trying to overcome his lack of confidence…and at the same time has spent his entire adult life trying to inspire confidence in others. What really struck me is that this is what every lawyer I have ever worked with does in every case. The roller coaster ride of trial –from accepting the task of representing a client through verdict — is a daunting task that seems on a daily basis to shake the confidence levels of attorneys on a “sunrise, sunset” schedule. However, their job is to instill confidence in everyone on the team from the paralegals to the witnesses.

TIP: On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you in this moment? …how about this one?

THE ARTIST – What Can Lawyers Learn….. FULL RANGE OF COMMUNICATION

As you watch this film, feel and see how much is communicated and conveyed WITHOUT ANY LANGUAGE. Even the subtitles are sparse and sometimes, I felt, were an interruption. Watch the full array of human emotion, the full impact of STORY, powerfully given to us without words.

TIP: Are you accessing your full range of communication? Are you using your heart, your emotions, your body and your mind…or are you trapped in only language?

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN – What Can Lawyers Learn….. ARCHTYPES

Now – what can lawyers glean from this piece other than learning more about acting styles?

Because the film is told from one point of view, that of the “go-fer” kid Colin Clark, the impressions of many of the cast of characters might be criticized as being two dimensional and flat. I started to see the characters as “Archtypes.” As in “the good mother” or “the hero” or “the villan.” I was recently speaking at a conference of the National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers. One of the topics was “Archtypes and Persuasion”. The speaker highly praised one of my fellow trial consultants from The American Society of Trial Consultants, Joseph Guastaferro for his unique work in this area. I highly recommend that you get in touch with Joe to find out more about how he uses “Archtypes” in his trial consulting practice. And, if you want to experience some very clear Archtypes first hand, you can do so by watching this highly entertaining and wonderful film.

TIP: Look at the cast of characters in your trial. See any Archtypes?

BRIDESMAIDS – What Can Lawyers Learn….. PLAYING LAW LIKE A GIRL OR WITH THE BOYS

If you are an attorney, you should go see BRIDESMAIDS just because you are working MUCH TOO HARD and you need to laugh until you cry. I don’t think I have ever seen anything from a woman’s point of view that was this funny. I don’t think anyone else has, either. Ever. It is relentlessly female. Relentlessly funny and female.

What can lawyers learn from the experience of seeing BRIDESMAIDS on the big screen? Women are different from men. I find working on a case with a woman or women in charge very different from working with men. Men are often very top down. Whoever is lead counsel in a case in which I am the only female on the trial team can choose to stay on the top of a pyramid and dictate from that position. Roles are assigned and to stray from the role one is assigned is simply never done. I call this “Playing Law With The Boys”. On the other hand…women are often team players. When lead counsel in the case is a woman, all of us sit around a table and she will throw a problem out and everyone brainstorms it. At the end of the day, she will decide what course to take with the problem – but she wants everyone’s opinion, ideas, and advice. I call this phenomenon “Playing Law Like A Girl.” Think about your own style of trying cases. Do you sit at the top of the pyramid at all times? Or are you more of a collaborator?

TIP: Are you already “Playing Law Like A Girl”? If not, maybe it is time you did.

THE IRON LADY – What Can Lawyers Learn….. TELL A STORY

What can you, as an attorney, learn from my experience of seeing Iron Lady (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 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?

IDES OF MARCH – What Can Lawyers Learn….. MAKE YOUR STORY UNIQUE

What can lawyers learn from this? I think there is a fine line from telling a tried and true mythic tale in the courtroom and telling a unique story that needs help from this group of jurors right now. THE IDES OF MARCH made me think about the number of times I’ve been in the room with an attorney who says, “I always tell the story this exact same way” or “I always tell this part of the story identically in every case like this.”

Really? Because this case is unique. So is the story.

TIP: Find the uniqueness in the story you are telling in this case.

MARGIN CALL – What Can Lawyers Learn….. POINT OF VIEW

This film traces a fictitious Wall Street firm’s “selling out” the rest of the marketplace in one day…and the decisions that lead up to it. Told mostly through two person scenes we learn how the characters each make his or her decision to join their CEO and sell, sell, sell – knowing that they are going to bring their colleagues and friends down with them. And that there is a good chance their own careers are going down with these choices, too.

The story unfolds not in big scenes of what happened next…but in little scenes between. Scenes between two people. Each one of those scenes is a moment of decision for either or both characters.

Attorneys need to watch these scenes with care. One of the principles that we believe in at ACT of Communication is that a trial lawyer needs to tell his or her trial story from the point of view not of the client – but from the point of view of the “other” guy. The other guy’s client. In our workshops and casework I refer to a story of “the other team’s bad crappy choices.” This film is literally a gift to attorneys/storytellers who are looking to tell the story of bad crappy choices. One by one. About halfway through the film you realize that this disaster, like the disasters that lead to many lawsuits, are made not of one crappy choice, but a series of crappy choices.

After seeing the film, I know you will want to re-examine your cases for the storytelling scenes of the bad, crappy choices. I know I did.

TIP: What bad, crappy choices did your client’s opponent make that led to this lawsuit?

From Katherine:

Yes, it is Oscar Season in our town. When I look at all the reviews that we have written about Oscar nominated shows, I realize that we have covered a goodly number. Of course, even a quick glance at the list for Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress shows quite a number that we haven’t seen. At first, I was going to make a commitment to see all the ones in these categories and report back to you. Then I realized that there were a number that I had absolutely no desire to see. I thought, “Great! I’ll make Alan do those!” Of course, he didn’t want to see a lot of the “leftovers,” either. So I am only going to attempt to report what I think you can learn from the ones I actually had a desire to see – but had not yet seen.

You’ve heard a lot about MONEYBALL no doubt. It’s the movie about baseball and economics. It is also nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Actor (Brad Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Jonah Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay (from the book by Michael Lewis), Best Sound Mixing and Best Film Editing. For a film that everyone who I know who saw it told me, “It’s not so bad” that’s a helluva lot of nominations. Maybe you are or are not a Brad Pitt fan. Maybe you do or do not see a reason for Jonah Hill to garner a nomination in a field filled with extraordinary actors. Maybe when a big honking fact is left out of the story, like the fact that the character Pitt plays was actually gay in real life, it makes you just plain mad (our older son who is an attorney was thoroughly miffed by that big “E” on the scoreboard).

So I put everything aside and searched for what I thought attorneys could learn from it. It was an overriding theme: confidence. The main character (Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane) has spent a lifetime trying to overcome his lack of confidence…and at the same time has spent his entire adult life trying to inspire confidence in others. What really struck me is that this is what every lawyer I have ever worked with does in every case. The roller coaster ride of trial –from accepting the task of representing a client through verdict — is a daunting task that seems on a daily basis to shake the confidence levels of attorneys on a “sunrise, sunset” schedule. However, their job is to instill confidence in everyone on the team from the paralegals to the witnesses. One of the major messages I get when I help with witness preparation is: “You gave her so much confidence!” Or as a desired goal of attendance at one of our workshops: “I came here because I wanted to get more confidence!” Or at the end of a workshop a common comment is, “Wow – this really boosted my confidence level.”

As you watch Moneyball, look at the delicate dance that Billy Beane through Brad Pitt’s interpretation of the role plays between the one who needs confidence while instilling confidence in others. See yourself there?

TIP: On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you in this moment?
…how about this one?

From Katherine:

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?

From Katherine:

How I missed Christopher Hampton’s stage play The Talking Cure is beyond me – but luckily I didn’t miss A DANGEROUS METHOD, his screenplay adaptation. Actually, it is a double adaptation, I guess, since he adapted John Kerr’s The Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud and Sabina Spielrein.

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. That’s one for each of the three wonderful actors in this piece – Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen and Michael Fassbender as Spielrein, Freud and Jung respectively. The story of the foreparents of modern psychology is captivating and filled with pride, envy, love, fear – oh – yes — and the lust is not for the faint of heart. It’s told in these beautifully rendered two person scenes that appear to be completely pristine – perhaps because whenever two people are talking together there is complete silence. No soundtrack. Life flows along at the pace of another time – early twentieth century Europe.

This is a must see for all attorneys and trial consultants. We are all the descendants of Freud and Jung as we wend our way through preparing witnesses, figuring out judges, analyzing jurors, getting into the minds of the other side. Why not get a fabulous glimpse into how it all began? It is the Psychology 101 class I thought I was signing up for freshman year at Illinois Wesleyan. Instead, we made rats bar press for a semester. What can I say? What I learned from this “living history” in two hours is much more valuable a lesson to me both as a theatre artist and as a trial consultant than all those days with Pink Eye (of course I named our team’s rat) could ever have been.

TIP: When do you NOT use psychology when you try a case?

From Alan:

THE ARTIST is that rare gem of a film universally lauded by both critics and the public. And the praise is well deserved. The translucent expression of the lead actors and the powerful support of the entire cast offers a glimpse into the human soul. ALL WITHOUT WORDS.

When we teach attorneys, one of the points we always make is that in the evolution of human communication language is the last piece. Impulse, expression and then language. So, the challenge for the attorney is always to learn to ignite and access the full range of vocal, physical and emotional expression, ALWAYS IN THE SERVICE OF THE LEGAL THEORY AND FACTS OF THE CASE.

Legal education is based upon understanding, evaluating, parsing and specifically using language. And of course we agree that language is important. Often, however what we see are attorneys who have cut themselves off from most other expression except language. Not consciously, but often completely. There is an incorrect fear that other expression is somehow “not appropriate” in the courtroom. Well, that is just wrong. Full human expression is not only welcome, it is essential.

There is much talk lately about the Reptile. Among others, David Ball offers workshops on this concept. The idea that our more primitive brain is what lawyers want to reach….the part of us that reacts, recoils, protects and punishes. The part of us that is, in a sense, pre-verbal.

As you watch this film, feel and see how much is communicated and conveyed WITHOUT ANY LANGUAGE. Even the subtitles are sparse and sometimes, I felt, were an interruption. Watch the full array of human emotion, the full impact of STORY, powerfully given to us without words.

I admit that the music helps a lot.

TIP: Are you accessing your full range of communication? Are you using your heart, your emotions, your body and your mind…or are you trapped in only language?

From Katherine:

In honor of the season, I want to tell you just why I believe every lawyer should watch Miracle On 34th Street at this time of the year.

I think that the essential attorney-client relationship is reflected in this wonderful film. Is there a client better suited to a lawyer than Kris Kringle to Fred Gailey? Fred takes on a real challenge when he agrees to represent Kris.  First, he and Kris are friends. He has already extended himself in friendship by allowing Kris to live in apartment. Some lawyers would say, “I need to find another attorney for you – I am too close to you to have any kind of distance.” But Fred is able to remain Kris’ friend AND represent him. There are some amazing attorneys with whom I work who are able to do this, too. And they are in my heart whenever I watch this film.

The next thing that Fred does is that his decision to represent Kris causes his big firm to decide that they can do with one less associate. They want him to relinquish the representation. But he refuses and opens his own firm instead. There are wonderful attorneys I know who at this very moment are either happy they did the same thing at some point in time. There are others who are standing on the brink at this very moment. They are in my heart this season as I watch this film.

The brilliance of that court room series of scenes – how Fred is able to come up with his amazing and creative way of “pulling it off” is truly inspiring to me every time I see this film. So many attorneys are just amazing to me – the fantastic ideas they come up with – the creative breaking with “the norm”. They are in my heart always.

 
TIP: Take a moment to reflect on how proud you are of what you have done this year.

From Katherine:

Oh…my…gawd. You know when you think something is going to be bad and it is even worse than you thought it was going to be? Think transition in childbirth without drugs. Been there! And now I’ve also been to ANONYMOUS.

Yes, it is true – I was set up to hate it. As the daughter of a Shakespearean scholar, of course the idea that someone other than Shakespeare wrote his plays is going to be a hard premise for me to swallow. BUT if the fiction created from wild speculation and rumor made a good film, I might have had a good time. Come on, who didn’t adore SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE? BUT THESE FILMMAKERS ARE NO TOM STOPPARD. Browne Greene, who saw the film with us said, “It’s like Oliver Stone meets Shakespeare!” Perhaps he said it best. Of course, most of the folks who have suffered at the hands of Hollywood filmmakers in the “retelling” of their life stories are alive and can complain. Nothing like folks in this film who have been dead since the 1600s and can’t possibly speak up and say, “Are you insane???”

How inauthentic is it? Let’s say we were telling the story of my life. I happened to be in San Francisco studying at The American Conservatory Theatre during the time the Patty Hearst was held hostage in the Bay Area. If these folks were telling that story, not only would Patty and I meet – we’d be first year students together at A.C.T. Heck, we’d do a Friday scene together – probably something from a Tennessee Williams play. No doubt we’d rehearse in SLA headquarters and I would be none the wiser, although I might clean her gun for her. GOT IT?

Now, what can lawyers learn from ANONYMOUS? Don’t make stuff up. How often have I been in a room and an attorney says, “The facts are the facts are the facts?” I like that about the law. Once in a while I’m in a room and an attorney says, “We haven’t got any evidence of this, but we can set it up and imply it.” Maybe if that is your inclination you should stop practicing the law and start making ridiculous “historical fiction” films instead.

TIP: Don’t make it up. The facts are the facts are the facts.

From Katherine:

Of course Alan and I loved MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. What is not to love by two actors in the telling of this wonderful bit of show biz lore – the infamous filming of “The Prince And The Showgirl” which starred Marilyn Monroe and Lawrence Olivier? (By the way, looking at Larry Olivier’s profile picture on IMBD makes me want to only allow shots of myself before 1975 to ever see the light of day). This is a loving screen adaptation of Colin Clark’s memoir of the same title, it is beautifully shot, magnificently acted and a definite “must see.”

Alan loved the amazing performances by a who’s who of British acting royalty. If you go on the movie site right now and look at the cast list, and you are any kind of a fan of Britsh actors, you are going be drooling immediately. This is in addition to the simply ravishing performance of Michelle Williams as Marilyn. Yep, from Dawson’s Creek. If you enjoy the history of modern acting, you will truly enjoy the faithfully executed difference between the “methodical” Brits and the “method” American…and you’ll see why American actors learn stage technique from Brits and Brits learn subtle interior work from American film actors.

Now – what can lawyers glean from this piece other than learning more about acting styles?

Because the film is told from one point of view, that of the “go-fer” kid Colin Clark, the impressions of many of the cast of characters might be criticized as being two dimensional and flat. At first I was a little taken aback that, for example, Dame Judi Dench’s Sybil Thorndike was like everyone’s vision of what a kindly old granny might be. Or that Julia Ormond’s Vivien Leigh seemed to be so…well…down to earth and, frankly, sane.

Then I started to see the characters as “Archtypes.” As in “the good mother” or “the hero” or “the villan.” I was recently speaking at a conference of the National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers. One of the topics was “Archtypes and Persuasion”. The speaker highly praised one of my fellow trial consultants from The American Society of Trial Consultants, Joseph Guastaferro for his unique work in this area. I highly recommend that you get in touch with Joe to find out more about how he uses “Archtypes” in his trial consulting practice. And, if you want to experience some very clear Archtypes first hand, you can do so by watching this highly entertaining and wonderful film.

TIP: Look at the cast of characters in your trial. See any Archtypes?