From Katherine:

Oh, dear. And I wanted to love this movie SO MUCH. Political movies where someone learns about “the system” – I remember how much I loved and love Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and The Candidate, etc., etc., etc. I love innovation – a new twist on an old story. I was totally psyched with this one touted as “An idealistic staffer for a newbie presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.” I am a sucker for almost anything George Clooney. And he is not only in it, he directed and produced it – so my hopes were high. The cast is amazing – from Ryan Gosling to Paul Giamatti etc., etc., etc. Just go to the official website and drool over this dream of a cast.

Everyone is brilliant. BUT – the story – NOT. It’s the same story we’ve seen a million times. And maybe that’s the point for the filmmakers. However – there are wonderful opportunities NOT to make this the same story. If you promise to see it and THEN email me, I’ll tell you where the first place I went, “Oh, no – missed opportunity.”

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.

From Katherine:

Snatched from the day before yesterday’s headlines, MARGIN CALL is a brilliantly disturbing film by J.C. Chandor. 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 cast is filled with stars giving fabulous performances – Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Simon Baker, Mary McDonnell, Demi Moore, and Stanley Tucci. 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:

The controversial legal documentary HOT COFFEE is gaining all kinds of momentum and it certainly bears watching by attorneys who try cases for a number of reasons. The McDonald’s Case, which launched a great cultural tidal wave in the way that Americans look at courtroom justice, is the subject matter. If you try cases you know that you deal with this case and the OJ case – and will do so into the future. It really doesn’t matter if you are a proud consumer attorney or loathe them and call them “ambulance chasers”, the movement surrounding this film is growing and real and you need to pay attention to it.

Some facts, counselor — director/producer Susan Saladoff spent 25 years as an attorney. The film was a selection at both Sundance AND at Silverdocs. It has been featured on HBO Documentaries, is coming out on DVD November 1st, and Ms. Saladoff appears on The Colbert Report October 25, 2011 in addition to her many other television and radio appearances.

Now, my opinion, counselor. If you use visuals in the courtroom – and if you don’t, then the jurors believe that you are everything from “cheesy” to “uncaring” to “unprepared” (just to quote a few) – this is the ULTIMATE courtroom storytelling video. As you watch it, please think to yourself from time to time, “I wonder if I could get away with showing something like this in court?” Challenge yourself. This is unrestricted persuasive visual courtroom storytelling. Before you say “no way can I do this with my cases!” ask someone. There are many visual consultants who do trial work – you can find a number of them on the American Society of Trial Consultants website who can help you.

TIP: Are your visuals telling a compelling story?

From Katherine:

It is happening again. Our second (and last!) child is getting married and part of my mother of the groom preparation involves watching my favorite wedding movie of all time: the 1950 version of FATHER OF THE BRIDE.

I love this movie. I can it watch any time, anywhere. I am not alone – it is considered a beloved classic by many film buffs. It was directed by the great Vincente Minnelli and stars the always brilliant Spencer Tracy and the breathtakingly young Elizabeth Taylor.

I don’t know how in all the times I’ve seen this movie I didn’t think about the fact that Spencer Tracy’s character, Stanley T. Banks, is an attorney. His profession is not important in the film except to establish him as someone who is wealthy enough at the end of the day to pay for the every growing price tag for his daughter’s wedding. But I think that the lesson of that professional choice for a character bears fruit for attorneys who watch it.

When the film was made, the studio system was still in place. Spencer Tracy’s deal was with MGM. He was obligated to make the films that they wanted him to make for the most part. Father Of The Bride was one of those obligations. In fact, the lore is that he loathed the script, the making of the film, everything about it. He thought it was ridiculous, and that his whole career was going down the drain and that he would never be taken seriously as an actor again. A consummate professional, he turned in a spotless performance, even while thinking that it was his acting death knell. Instead, it turned out to be the film and the character for which he is best known and best remembered and best loved.

Sometimes when I work with the real life Stanley T. Banks of the world they feel just that way about the case. More than one time a panicked attorney will say to me, “The reason you are here is so that when this whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket no one can turn around and sue me for not pulling out all the stops.” And, in spite of fear, terror, and the risk that their futures are on the line, they pull themselves together and do their consummate professional best where it counts – in the courtroom. And I am thrilled each and every time. Just as I am when I watch Spencer Tracy’s performance in this film.

Whether watching it for the first or millionth time there is one scene that attorneys should watch with care. It takes place in the kitchen in the middle of the night. Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor find themselves together, both victims of jittery wedding nightmares. But Tracy puts his terror aside easily and instinctively and comforts his daughter. It is a scene I find played out in preparation rooms all over the country and for all time between attorneys and their clients. When watch this scene, know that I am giving you a standing ovation every time you replicate it in your own practice.

TIP: Never let them see you sweat.

From Katherine:

I don’t know how we missed SALVATION BOULEVARD when it came out this summer – but was surely glad we found it in a hotel room this week. Filmmaker George Ratliff offers up a dark comedy exploring the modern day phenomenon of mega churches. It’s clear from reading the reviews of others that many didn’t get as big a kick out of the plot of this one as I did…but what we all agree on is that the cast is not only amazing, but individually and collectively they shine brighter than the sun. In fact, I think that it is for one and all one of the highlight performances of an already stellar career. And that’s a lot to say of a cast that includes, among others, Pierce Brosnan, Marisa Tomei, Greg Kinnear, Ciáran Hinds and Jennifer Connelley.

Why?

They are clearly having the best time of their lives doing this film. We’ve seen each and every one of these stars in other films. We know that each is brilliant and can be pretty darned funny. BUT it is one thing to be funny.  It is another to have fun while doing a project – so much fun that it spills over into your performance. So much so that each performance sparkles with delight.

What can attorneys learn from this?

Clearly George Ratliff, when he was directing this show, made the set a pleasure. Each actor was given just what she or he needed in order to feel confident, secure, and free to simply have a blast. Take it as far as possible while keeping it real. Allow each individual to soar – and thereby – making the whole even greater than the sum of its parts.

How often have I worked on trial teams that operated just this way? Always when I have this experience there is a leader at the helm who truly wants each member to shine, and fosters an atmosphere that allows “magic” to happen.  Is there a greater joy or pleasure?

As you watch this film, the “best work” of everyone is clearly evident. It is as good a measure of leadership for any trial lawyer as I have seen in a film recently. Oh – and enjoy!

TIP: Are you getting sparkling performances from your trial team?

From Katherine:

When Ron Clark, A Distinguished Practitioner in Residence at Seattle University School of Law asked us to blog about his “movie” for Legal Stage we were intrigued. He said, “Write about Freck Point Trial and Garage Movie – you’ll find it in the back of the third edition of the law school textbook I co-authored, Trial Advocacy: Planning, Analysis and Strategy.”

What a great education tool for law professors and law students!

You know how in most trial advocacy courses, you have a professor lecturing about various aspects of trial advocacy and students learning by doing? Can you imagine if you added to this, students also getting to watch a whole trial, conducted by top notch trial attorneys, demonstrating everything from style, to substance, strategy and to how to use up to the minute technology in the courtroom? Can you imagine as a law school professor, getting to comment on all the aspects of trial as demonstrated by this great repertory company of your colleagues? From Voire Dire through Closing Argument, students and professors can watch and discuss every aspect of this “Trial Demonstration Movie.”

I was clearly impressed by many things about this great educational tool. For example, The Voire Dire demonstration showed many commonly asked courtroom Voire Dire questions. But what I really enjoyed was the true to life facial responses of the jurors when thinking about the questions. Most attorneys I know say that the first time they really understood that jurors need to be “read” was the first time they struck a jury.

I also was really impressed by the attorneys “outside the courtroom” discussing their strategy, their feelings about the judge, etc. with the “interviewer.” Again, this gives the student a real life experience and the professor the opportunity to comment on that real life experience.

Finally, I want to point out that every single attorney doing the demonstrations during this “mega” trial had a completely different style and demeanor. How great is this both for the student to learn that there are “many” ways to be a great lawyer, and for a professor to be able to comment on various styles. We meet every stripe of trial lawyer from one who loves being an intense demonstrative storyteller, to another who is just friendly and relaxed and a “best friend”, to another who is respectful and business like, to yet another who is the essence of “reason.” Brilliant.

It is clear that this isn’t a movie made by professionals from Hollywood. But it is more than abundantly clear that this is a film made by legal professionals who want students to get a leg up on what the real world is all about. I highly recommend it.

TIP: If you are teaching trial advocacy, think way outside the box!

VIEW A FILM CLIP OF THE FRECK POINT TRIAL AND GARAGE MOVIE

From Alan:

THE DEBT is an adult, intelligent and captivating thriller. International intrigue and WWII and Nazis and Israeli agents from Mosad…the pace, the cutting, the music, the plot and the extraordinary acting all combine to make this a film for thinking people. And it is a continuous build of suspense. Which brings me to my point…what can lawyers learn from this film?

Of course there is a great story, that is essential. But it is the SEQUENCING in the telling of the story that is what you should look to, if you can remember while being propelled and sucked in to this remarkable journey.

Every story has a beginning, middle and end. And, in court, as we have always advocated, the end should instruct the jury, arbitrator, mediator or judge. But the question always arises as to, where do you begin the story?

We have always suggested starting at the juiciest place…the “sexiest” part…a grabber. And one classic way to do this is how THE DEBT begins…with what seems like the end. This is a tried and true and very effective way of having a narrative unfold. Begin at the end. And in the case of this film, a very dramatic, action-filled and gripping end. Then, rewind, as it were, and tell the story leading up to that first image/section. The audience/listeners will have a sense of familiarity, of being in on it, and there is a lot to be gained by this.

Another complication in this particular narrative is that the story takes place in two different times…with the same group of characters. During WWII and in 1997. So, there are two simultaneous narratives developing. And both of these employ this same principle of moving back through time. From the end to the beginning. And eventually, some of that conflates in the contemporary plot. By then, we are so taken in and caught up that we rejoice, or at least Katherine and I did, in knowing and hoping and wondering and being surprised by what is happening.

Often, in your cases, there are complex, interweaving narratives. When telling a story live, in court, it is essential to have some physical anchor, a place where you stand in the room, for each of these narratives. With this physical anchor clear and secure, it is possible to have multiple narratives unfold, intercut and happen at the same time. In film, of course, the editing, the cutting, allows the filmmaker to move us in place and time. In court, you have the burden of doing that yourself. Of course if you try it and become adept you will feel the power and synergy of building the narrative and suspense of multiple stories simultaneously. Try it. Rehearse. It will be hard at first, but it will get to be fun. And it is very effective.

TIP: Try telling your story from the end first, then rewind back to the start. And, try telling multiple narratives simultaneously. Rehearse, practice. Choose a case that benefits from these techniques. You will gain so much.

From Alan:

Adaptation is very difficult. And to move from one form, a novel say, to another, like film, is even more difficult. Each form carries its own rules and structure. And within each form achieving a high level of expression requires different techniques and a different kind of storytelling. Coleridge once said that great literary criticism is a poem in response to a poem. With adaptation, the same is true. So, the film of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is quite a masterpiece of both storytelling as a film and of adaptation.

If you speak to most lawyers of my generation and before, I am almost 59, the novel of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD often serves as an inspiration…both for lawyering and for the quiet, gentle, active nobility of spirit and deed for which men strive. Having just reviewed the wonderful documentary HEY, BOO about the novel, film and the life of Harper Lee, it seemed fitting, actually necessary, to review the film of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

I had not seen this wonderful film in many years. The artifice and style of the time made it seem quaint to me when I was a young, arrogant actor. Well, now that I am older and slightly less arrogant, I was startled by the immediacy and contemporary quality of the film, the acting and the story. Of course, there are some moments that seem “old fashioned,” but overall this film far exceeds so much of contemporary filmmaking.

What can lawyers learn from this film? Gregory Peck’s character, Atticus Finch, is the man who defends people no one else will defend. The neighbor, beautifully played by Rosemary Murphy, says something like, “There are people who do all the things none of us wants to do but that need doing…your father, Atticus, is one of those people.” That character trait is what inspires so many lawyers. And yet there is something else to be learned here. Something about telling a story.

What struck me most watching the film this time was how much silence there is. Between characters, within scenes, within exchanges. What is left out, what is not said and not shown has so much impact. The space in between. Silence and gesture where language is felt by us, the audience. The filmmakers have allowed room for the audience to fill in the emotional and narrative story by leaving out words.

Even in the filmmaking itself there is much omitted. It is customary in modern films to usually “turn around” and show the reverse angle in a scene. If we see one person talking, the camera will usually flip so we can see the reaction and watch the other person talking. In TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD these “reverses” are very rare. We watch the character’s back. We “make up” the response. We hold on the “empty” space of someone’s back or in a wide shot and this allows us, the viewer, to participate; to supply so much of the story. In the silences and in the empty spaces the listener, the audience, the jury, fills in the story.

Of course, this requires a lot from the storyteller. Leading up to and away from these silences, these “empty” spaces, the story must be succinct, compelling and strong. Active, in both an emotional and narrative sense. And if you have created such a story, then you must learn to welcome and value the silence.

TIP: Are you letting the jury particpate and become involved? Do you value the silence and use the empty space as part of your story?

From Katherine:

Remember how much I loved the adaptation of the novel WATER FOR ELEPHANTS? Stand back. I love the adaptation of Kathryn Sockett’s amazing novel. From the moment our creative team member, Shilpa Mysoor, put it in my hands I was hooked. A brilliant new voice in the wonderful tradition of Southern American writers! I looked at the movie poster the first time I saw it with more than a little bit of trepidation…I hate it when my favorite books turn into horrible movies. Thank heavens that my fears were assuaged from the first frames of the film – just like the novel, the film of THE HELP had me at “hello.”

What can attorneys learn from seeing this amazing film? So much – but I am going to concentrate on only one aspect. It is the amazing portrayal of how people get other people to tell them their stories. This is what attorneys do with their witnesses all the time. I am especially moved by one of these relationships we get to follow in the film. It is between the young would-be journalist, Skeeter (Emma Stone), and her first interview subject, the maid Aibilene (Viola Davis). The arc of the relationship reflects how sometimes, as a lawyer, you have to “hang in there and keep trying.” Emma has to first learn that getting the story wasn’t going to be easy. She then has to be willing to be quiet. To listen. To be open. To earn the respect of her “witness.” How often have I been brought in to “open up” an Aibilene because a Skeeter hasn’t been willing to put aside ego, preconceived notions of how things “must be,” and to put her/his honor on the line to earn trust. The arc of this relationship changes each of them individually, their relationship, and ultimately this country.

TIP: Are you willing to find the way to get this witness to “open up” and tell you the story?

From Alan:

I most certainly agree with Katherine. THE HELP is a remarkable film with outstanding performances. Performances that stayed with me.

What I want to talk about here is RELATIONSHIPS. What we follow, as an audience, are the relationships among the characters. The stronger the relationships, the more they change and matter to us, the more we care about the story. How we follow a story is through the development of these 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. To an outsider, a juror, the courtroom is a foreign world. Despite all the lawyer shows on TV, we all come into this world with expectations, preconceptions and distortions. Part of your job is to be our guide. To take us, and take care of us, through the journey of the trial. And we will learn about this world and about the story you want us to follow through how you treat your client and your witnesses. And also, how you treat the judge and bailiff and all the all the other characters who populate the world of the courtroom. Your relationship to all of them and to us, the jury, will inform and shape our understanding and caring of your story.

And make no mistake. Do not underestimate the effect of your behavior, your relationships with everyone in the courtroom – and in the lunchroom, in the hallway, in the parking lot. You may be observed and those observations will lead to judgments about you and your case and your story.

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?

From Alan:

This week I bring you another remarkable and insightful talk from the TED conferences. Take some time and browse their site for the more than 900 lectures they offer….your time will be well rewarded.

For this week, I am offering Shekhar Kapur’s talk about storytelling. It is called, WE ARE THE STORIES WE TELL OURSELVES.

Those of you who have followed our work understand that story is at the heart of what we teach. Indeed, we believe story is at the heart of the way humans interact, process and understand the world. Here, a remarkable filmmaker talks about his understanding of story and how he arrives at the story he tells.

In breaking down his approach, he talks about the many levels of story: the psychological, historical and mythological. These levels are found and revealed in so many of the stories that we know from our childhood, our religious texts and of course in our films. And, they are all present within any one story and, as Kapur points out, they are sometimes at odds with one another. Finding the harmony within these levels of story is the conscious and most importantly unconscious job of the audience, the listener, the jury.

We have spoken often of the need to find the story within your case. And we have spoken often of the need to find many ways to tell that story – narrative, visual, emotional — and here, Kapur offers the idea that these various ways need not be repetitive. In other words, the visual story may be complementary to the narrative as well as illustrative. The emotional story may be underlying the narrative and even at odds with the visual. In finding the truth of each of these the truth of the whole story will be made clear to the listener….the jury.

TIP: While analyzing your case, determine what is the story you want the jury to come away with. What is the “tune you want them singing” as they leave the courtroom.