It's not in this clip but I've never forgotten her anguished shout near the end of this scene, speaking of the 2 doctors who forced her to change the "1" to a "9" to protect themselves and throw her under the bus: "Who were these men?! I wanted to be a nurse!" Crouse practically stole the movie in just one scene.
Yes, her testimony sent Ed Concannon scrambling, forcing him to fully deploy the partisan judge and get her copy of the unaltered admission form thrown out of consideration by the jury. In a later scene, Concannon's maneuverings was called "brilliant," by the hospital's legal advisor. For me, there was a brief moment of faith in people and organizations when the Catholic cleric of the hospital diocese asked the advisor if he believed Ms. Costello Price was being truthful. Although, I knew the hospital would concede nothing, it made me feel good that the cleric seemed genuinely concerned about truth, and not just the legal maneuverings that his side could get away with. I remember thinking that there is yet "hope" for humankind.
James Mason. What an incredible actor. I always loved his voice, so cultured. His pacing was genius. I actually saw him this morning in North by Northwest.
@@brianwalsh1401 Concannon made the same mistake Galvin made earlier. As Morrisey (Jack Warden) said 'Never ask a question you don't know the answer to' Concannan asked (on the fly) how do you remember after 4 years? And Price said "Because I kept a copy" Concannon wasn't expecting that.
James Mason's character did not make the mistake of asking a question to which he didn't know the answer. He THOUGHT that he knew the correct answer. What he did not know was that the document that he thought was genuine was actually altered. During the discovery process, before the trial, Mason's character no doubt went over the document (stating that the patient didn't eat for 9 hours) with the doctors on trial. So, that means that the doctors also lied to the defense attorneys because the doctors knew that the document was altered. Mason's character simply got trapped because of his own lying clients.
Loved this movie and it really captured the essence of the city of Boston back in the seventies and early eighties. So nostalgic and loved all those old beautiful buildings. Nothing fake or plastic about them.
And in the Fell's Acres case (1984), a Boston jury sent to prison an atypical defendant (a grandmother) based on testimony from small children. There's no reason to believe a jury would not have convicted a pedophile priest. No reason to have not brought such a case to trial.
The buildings are vintage they don’t build them like that anymore!! Now they have no character or substance to them just walls & windows!!!! The buildings today are lifeless there’s no talent the architects back then were brilliant! Just like the movies & music today everything is dull & lifeless sad!!
My favorite scene too. She shouts "Who were these men! I wanted to be a nurse!" Someone upthread says that the cast broke into applause when she finished this scene. It's rare you can actually feel someone's anguish through a screen but she managed it.
He was Striker (the human who clears the way and prepares for the "master" vampire Mr Barlow) in the original TV version of Salem's Lot. And he played a deviant who liked to get it on with a little under aged girl that he takes on "vacation" with him in Lolita. These are hard, mean spirited, career ending (but never forgotten) roles.
Thank you! But how about the entire scene? This confrontation is the key moral confrontation in the movie. Notice how Paul Newman gave way here for art. Lindsay Crouse is so fantastic here. Sidney Lumet, the director, said after her performance the cast spontaneously broke into applause, something he had never witnessed before in all his years. Available here on youtube.
Not in all areas. Wonderful acting and drama. But as a law film, it gets so many things wrong that it is distracting to anyone who knows anything about the practice of law and, in particular, trial practice.
I just watched this. All I could think was since Mason got a ruling that said only the original mattered, then the original should be forensically examined to see if it had been altered, ie the one turned into a nine.
Lindsay Crouse was married to the scriptwriter, David Mamet, at the time. It is unfortunate that the scene was ruined because of the unbelievably clunky editing of this clip.
So have I. On flash drives buried everywhere (including parks), and I paid individuals to take pics and vids from my phone to a flash drive. You are going down HARD WV law enforcement, Mike ROmano, Armstrong, and those at the local courthouse who took part (and many, many others).
She should not have changed the numbers and a nurse today would not do that but back in the day, I am sure this went on to protect a Doctor. They were treated and respected like Gods. It was a different time and world back then. A doctor intimidating a nurse or anyone back then would not have been prosecuted or punished at all. Different times in the twenty-first century.
He was objecting to the admission of the copy. The problem is his objection was immature because the copy hasn't been formally offered yet. As a law student, I can no longer enjoy these types of movies without seeing these erroneous details.
And even if he did object at the right time, his objection could have been overruled because the nurse is alleging that the original has been tampered. That is one exception to the rule on original documents (IDK what it was called in this State).
Maybe this is for some lawyer to answer: How come a judge dismiss the discovery of a copy of a document that shows that the Original was altered? Still with the witness testimony that the original document was altered. What for are the frigging archives and copies then? So anyone can alter an original, and because is the original is the 'official", so archived copies to verify document integrity are null in value? Go figure, what stupid law !!! No need to present the copy, your honor, we have the original. !!!
Here's the answer -- the objection and the ruling were complete BS. You are correct, by the analysis set forth in the film, a purported original is always sacrosanct and unimpeachable. Utter nonsense. Under the federal rules of evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Fact is, the impact of the testimony was enough to alter the outcome of the case and, in this film, it is plain that it did. Essentially, the jury ignored the judge and decided accordingly. However, since there would have been no other basis for the verdict, if the objection and ruling had actually been proper (and they were not -- the point of law was made up and completely nonsensical), then that verdict would not have survived an appeal.
The hospital offered a settlement of $270,000. Newman's character got a sudden attack of conscience and turned it down, much to his clients' annoyance. I suspect he could be disbarred for bypassing his clients like that. Edit: It was $210,000.
@@SAVETHEKIDS-bn5zo IIRC, the jury asked if they could award more than the sum requested in the complaint and the judge said they are not bound by anything. This was for dramatic purposes of course. In real life the ad damnum clause in the complaint would request damages in a sum "not less than X" and if the jury was not clear, the request for clarification would be sent to the judge in writing and promptly answered in writing. Of course what they don't mention is the likely appeal to be filed, both on liability and on damages. Frank Galvin ain't seeing a dime for quite a while, if ever, unless the defendants offered a post judgment settlement to end the whole thing.
I'm not a sociopathic farter ...nor a psychopathic farter ...I, I, don't fart that way ...I fart with empathy, and compassion ❤ Ohh, I know there are sociopathic, and psychopathic farters out there ...buttt, l'm not one of them ...I will apologize if I fart, and you smell it 😏..."sorry about that farttt, something I ate, I guess" ...I will ask you, if I feel safe, "ahhh, did you enjoy the smellll? What do you think of fart aromaaa? What pallett of fragrances, did you smell 😳 through your lovely nostrils, and up into your brain, 🧠 and sopped up by your spirit? Which usually gets me the response, "eewwwww!! And, "are you playing with a full deck buddyyy!" And "ohhh my Goddd Vincenttt! Your insaneee!" And then I'll reply, "I think the fart fragrance, had a sprinkling of roasted chicken, 🐔 with a touch of leaf 🍃 lettuce, and head lettuce ...there was a smattering of carrots, 🥕 celery, and mushrooms 🍄...with just a fluttering of salt 🧂& pepper ...and perhaps, a twinkling of strawberry, 🍓 blueberry, and pear 🍐 juice ...what do you think? "You need to be committed pallll!!" He runs away I don't believe in, "fart safe spaces" Fart equityyy? Now, that's an interesting question 🤔 The issue of farters, should be debated, in amongst our public houses of political rancor Should we have, Closed, or Open Borders, in regards to fartersss? Hmmm ...question of our Times really, yes? I mean, how many farters, can one nation handle, before collapsing, under the weight of so many farters? And so many divergent religious farters? Hmmm, interesting 🤔 👀 "To fartttt, or not to fartttt" That is the question, yes? Free fart speech 💬 Hmmm ...I wonder
@@kdohertygizbur There is no way this testimony would have been “disallowed” simply because she was using a photocopy of the original. Testimony that directly bears on the accuracy of the original document is admissible. And even if it wasn’t, the testimony regarding what the defendant said to her would also be admissible (document or no) as a party admission exception to the hearsay rule. So I was trying to reassure the OP that this is a very, VERY far-fetched and legally false scenario- that the testimony would have been stricken. No way, no how.
Развлечения
The look on James Mason's face, the realisation that his case was sunk, the fastest objection ever entered!! hahaha...Brilliant acting!
He made Dr. Grüber "disappear".
James Mason.
@stormyweather9917 indeed! Thank you, I have corrected it. (Funnily enough though, I just checked, and his father was called John!) 😁
It's not in this clip but I've never forgotten her anguished shout near the end of this scene, speaking of the 2 doctors who forced her to change the "1" to a "9" to protect themselves and throw her under the bus: "Who were these men?! I wanted to be a nurse!" Crouse practically stole the movie in just one scene.
Great job Lindsay Crouse
Yes, her testimony sent Ed Concannon scrambling, forcing him to fully deploy the partisan judge and get her copy of the unaltered admission form thrown out of consideration by the jury.
In a later scene, Concannon's maneuverings was called "brilliant," by the hospital's legal advisor. For me, there was a brief moment of faith in people and organizations when the Catholic cleric of the hospital diocese asked the advisor if he believed Ms. Costello Price was being truthful. Although, I knew the hospital would concede nothing, it made me feel good that the cleric seemed genuinely concerned about truth, and not just the legal maneuverings that his side could get away with. I remember thinking that there is yet "hope" for humankind.
Absolutely and this is the one scene that I till this day still quote
Best scene in the movie!
Powerful scene that's why jurors gave plantiffs more. That was corruption from judge to lawy😢
Acting at its best. Brilliant film, cast, director and screenplay. A masterpiece of cinema.
James Mason. What an incredible actor. I always loved his voice, so cultured. His pacing was genius. I actually saw him this morning in North by Northwest.
James Mason squirming after the witness said she made a copy is just brilliant.
He wasn't use to being the position of not having everything under control.
@@brianwalsh1401 Concannon made the same mistake Galvin made earlier. As Morrisey (Jack Warden) said 'Never ask a question you don't know the answer to' Concannan asked (on the fly) how do you remember after 4 years? And Price said "Because I kept a copy" Concannon wasn't expecting that.
Forgot about this classic. Mason and Newman. Simply superb.
James Mason's character did not make the mistake of asking a question to which he didn't know the answer. He THOUGHT that he knew the correct answer. What he did not know was that the document that he thought was genuine was actually altered. During the discovery process, before the trial, Mason's character no doubt went over the document (stating that the patient didn't eat for 9 hours) with the doctors on trial. So, that means that the doctors also lied to the defense attorneys because the doctors knew that the document was altered. Mason's character simply got trapped because of his own lying clients.
Good analysis
Duh
DOCTORS KNOW ORGANIC CHEMISTRY..SOME FAILED ETHICS
Always make copies. You never know.
@@m.e.d.7997 Exactly.
That day two lives were ruined: the patient's and the nurse's.
Lindsay Crouse was great. I want to see a clip of her "Who are these men?" speech. Especially, today.
Her dad was Russell Carousel. Married to David Mamet. Brilliant actress
Oh the look in his eyes when she told him she had a copy:) Priceless !!
James Mason's facial expressions are the real star of this scene.
Loved this movie and it really captured the essence of the city of Boston back in the seventies and early eighties. So nostalgic and loved all those old beautiful buildings. Nothing fake or plastic about them.
And in the Fell's Acres case (1984), a Boston jury sent to prison an atypical defendant (a grandmother) based on testimony from small children. There's no reason to believe a jury would not have convicted a pedophile priest. No reason to have not brought such a case to trial.
The buildings are vintage they don’t build them like that anymore!! Now they have no character or substance to them just walls & windows!!!! The buildings today are lifeless there’s no talent the architects back then were brilliant! Just like the movies & music today everything is dull & lifeless sad!!
Did you notice the bicentennial trash barrel on the street?
Excellent piece of acting from Lindsay.
this scene contains one of my all time favorite movie quotes ," WHO ARE THEASE MEN ". sublime script writing by the great DAVID MAMET .
I've been saying that quote in my head over and over when watching the Chauvin trial in Minn.
The quote is, "Who WERE these men".
@@howarddamico1237 one of my favorite movies.
My favorite scene too. She shouts "Who were these men! I wanted to be a nurse!" Someone upthread says that the cast broke into applause when she finished this scene. It's rare you can actually feel someone's anguish through a screen but she managed it.
@@anyviolet this is why consider movies to be the greatest art from . it encompasses all the others and then some.
My favorite courtroom drama EVER!
James Mason was the best in this movie! Love him as an evil snd cinical lawyer
He is the prince of darkness
He was Striker (the human who clears the way and prepares for the "master" vampire Mr Barlow) in the original TV version of Salem's Lot. And he played a deviant who liked to get it on with a little under aged girl that he takes on "vacation" with him in Lolita. These are hard, mean spirited, career ending (but never forgotten) roles.
Lindsay Crouse was just excellent in this scene.
So memorable
Agreed
Little tear right there.
I wish she was better in House of Games
This scene is a classic example of the old saying, "There are no small parts, only small actors." Crouse is anything but small in this scene.
James Mason brilliant actor!
One of those great distinctive voices.
Thank you! But how about the entire scene? This confrontation is the key moral confrontation in the movie. Notice how Paul Newman gave way here for art. Lindsay Crouse is so fantastic here. Sidney Lumet, the director, said after her performance the cast spontaneously broke into applause, something he had never witnessed before in all his years. Available here on youtube.
I think it's the greatest scene in a GREAT movie.
@@leifjohnson617 Well the movie turned on this scene. And nobody was expecting that bombshell.
Yeah. I've always believed it was predetermined that Two Classically Trained Actors should handle this delicate scene. 😂
James Mason. Incredible actor. Love Lou Gossett but Mason should have won the Oscar.
I agree. Loved him in Salems Lot & The Last of Sheila. Btw, my dad was a Jack Scanlon 😊
Objection! On what grounds? It's devastating to my case!
Mason. Superb actor!!
The greatest legal movie ever made.
I think Erin Brokovich is in the big leagues also, especially being based on a real case.
One of the greatest movies of all times!!!
At 1:14 , it is Bruce Willis in the background.
And Tobin Bell is back there too
Bruce and Tobin were smart to get themselves into Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens for the filming that day.
Masterpiece in all areas.
Yes! I need to watch this movie again. It is that good.
Not in all areas. Wonderful acting and drama. But as a law film, it gets so many things wrong that it is distracting to anyone who knows anything about the practice of law and, in particular, trial practice.
I just watched this. All I could think was since Mason got a ruling that said only the original mattered, then the original should be forensically examined to see if it had been altered, ie the one turned into a nine.
She just added the loop to make it a 9, probably. Nothing to examine.
Great actors. This movie is my favorite.
James Mason doing his best James Mason. Before Christopher Walken, James Mason was the one everyone tried to imitate.
Frasier Crane did a good one too
This was a GREAT movie. Newman & Mason at their best!!!
Jack Warden said Concannon (Mason) was the Prince of fucking Darkness and he was right.
OBJECTION!
Never ask a question which you don't know the answer.
What a great court room moment
what a great classic film
Lindsay Crouse was married to the scriptwriter, David Mamet, at the time.
It is unfortunate that the scene was ruined because of the unbelievably clunky editing of this clip.
Lilly Braden from Slapshot. She and Newman played totally different characters.
I always wondered why this wasn't discovered during deposition, but it makes for entertaining drama!
Con Pol se llena la pantalla esta brillante en esta película me encanta las expresiones de su rostro😗
The volume is very low! However, it's a great scene in a superb movie. Probably Newman's most perfect characterization.
he makes the most basic legal blunder of asking the witness a question he doesn't already know the answer to.....he walks right into his own trap
He thought he knew the answer. His clients lied to him.
true his clients had lied by altering the original paperwork, but still he knew he was treading into strangely contradictory if uncertain territory
Objection! - LOL
Objection your honor! We can't let the truth be heard in this trial!
Really good movie.
Never ask a question of a witness unless you are sure what answer they will give.
In a civil case, at least.
When they're good. They're good forever. The truth hurts.
So have I. On flash drives buried everywhere (including parks), and I paid individuals to take pics and vids from my phone to a flash drive. You are going down HARD WV law enforcement, Mike ROmano, Armstrong, and those at the local courthouse who took part (and many, many others).
This was a crucial moment in the movie that turned the case in favor of Frank by the Jurors.
A bit of trivia...Bruce Willis is one of the people in the courtroom audience but he does not appear in the credits....
Why has this movie stuck with me
Top scene. And a perfect example from the lawyers guidebook..............NEVER ask a question that you don't know the answer to !!!!!
He had to. It was in the script.
1:14 Sally's reaction here was so good.
The copy should have been disclosed to the defense before trial. Mistrial, or at least a continuance.
Not if the defense attorney had no prior knowledge of it.
But, of course, Galvin didn't know about it either.
Ned Braeden's main squeeze on the stand
There's very few actors...today as good as. Mason..Newman..whole cast..
Shame on him for getting blindsided by a witness he should have deposed first.
Never ask a question in which you do not know the answer forthcoming. Mason made that mistake.
She and Paul Newman played totally different characters in the earlier movie Slapshot
She should not have changed the numbers and a nurse today would not do that but back in the day, I am sure this went on to protect a Doctor. They were treated and respected like Gods. It was a different time and world back then. A doctor intimidating a nurse or anyone back then would not have been prosecuted or punished at all. Different times in the twenty-first century.
She didn’t say she changed out
She later confessed the doctor called her and demanded she change the number or he would fire her and avoid her practice as a nurse.
She was in Slapshot with Paul Newman!
haha pwned,
fabulous acting.
They also have the power to alter, edit recordings.
When she said she had the copy James Mason knew he was fucked, lol!
Emotionally yes
Trial lawyers NEVER ask a witness a question the lawyer doesn't already know the answer to...
Great movie, don't make them like that.
Wonderful film. The first time Newmann looked old and haggard.
I didn't know a lawyer can object to his own questioning.
Well, now you know.
Can you object to your own witness cross examination?
He was objecting to the admission of the copy. The problem is his objection was immature because the copy hasn't been formally offered yet. As a law student, I can no longer enjoy these types of movies without seeing these erroneous details.
And even if he did object at the right time, his objection could have been overruled because the nurse is alleging that the original has been tampered. That is one exception to the rule on original documents (IDK what it was called in this State).
Was she called by the defense? I don't recall
Funny
Here from Rewatchables
Maybe this is for some lawyer to answer:
How come a judge dismiss the discovery of a copy of a document that shows that the Original was altered?
Still with the witness testimony that the original document was altered. What for are the frigging archives and copies then?
So anyone can alter an original, and because is the original is the 'official", so archived copies to verify document integrity are null in value?
Go figure, what stupid law !!! No need to present the copy, your honor, we have the original. !!!
Here's the answer -- the objection and the ruling were complete BS. You are correct, by the analysis set forth in the film, a purported original is always sacrosanct and unimpeachable. Utter nonsense. Under the federal rules of evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Fact is, the impact of the testimony was enough to alter the outcome of the case and, in this film, it is plain that it did. Essentially, the jury ignored the judge and decided accordingly. However, since there would have been no other basis for the verdict, if the objection and ruling had actually been proper (and they were not -- the point of law was made up and completely nonsensical), then that verdict would not have survived an appeal.
@@gmh471 based on what ruling , the law is open to many interpretations , so which ruling are you citing
Hospital should have settled earlier to avoid the latter public scandal.
The hospital offered a settlement of $270,000. Newman's character got a sudden attack of conscience and turned it down, much to his clients' annoyance. I suspect he could be disbarred for bypassing his clients like that.
Edit: It was $210,000.
They offered $210,000 but Frank was asking for $600,000.... Winning the trial won them over a million.... A million back in 1980 I wish!
Frank was playing for higher stakes than $210k. He wanted moral reclamation and a chance to prove he was professionally competent.
@@SAVETHEKIDS-bn5zo IIRC, the jury asked if they could award more than the sum requested in the complaint and the judge said they are not bound by anything. This was for dramatic purposes of course. In real life the ad damnum clause in the complaint would request damages in a sum "not less than X" and if the jury was not clear, the request for clarification would be sent to the judge in writing and promptly answered in writing. Of course what they don't mention is the likely appeal to be filed, both on liability and on damages. Frank Galvin ain't seeing a dime for quite a while, if ever, unless the defendants offered a post judgment settlement to end the whole thing.
yes the church would have been more concerned about their reputation than the cost
Everyone
Every
Breathing
Person
Lies.
cool.
Still true
I'm not a sociopathic farter ...nor a psychopathic farter ...I, I, don't fart that way ...I fart with empathy, and compassion ❤ Ohh, I know there are sociopathic, and psychopathic farters out there ...buttt, l'm not one of them ...I will apologize if I fart, and you smell it 😏..."sorry about that farttt, something I ate, I guess" ...I will ask you, if I feel safe, "ahhh, did you enjoy the smellll? What do you think of fart aromaaa? What pallett of fragrances, did you smell 😳 through your lovely nostrils, and up into your brain, 🧠 and sopped up by your spirit? Which usually gets me the response, "eewwwww!! And, "are you playing with a full deck buddyyy!" And "ohhh my Goddd Vincenttt! Your insaneee!"
And then I'll reply, "I think the fart fragrance, had a sprinkling of roasted chicken, 🐔 with a touch of leaf 🍃 lettuce, and head lettuce ...there was a smattering of carrots, 🥕 celery, and mushrooms 🍄...with just a fluttering of salt 🧂& pepper ...and perhaps, a twinkling of strawberry, 🍓 blueberry, and pear 🍐 juice ...what do you think?
"You need to be committed pallll!!" He runs away
I don't believe in, "fart safe spaces" Fart equityyy? Now, that's an interesting question 🤔
The issue of farters, should be debated, in amongst our public houses of political rancor
Should we have, Closed, or Open Borders, in regards to fartersss? Hmmm ...question of our Times really, yes?
I mean, how many farters, can one nation handle, before collapsing, under the weight of so many farters? And so many divergent religious farters? Hmmm, interesting 🤔 👀
"To fartttt, or not to fartttt" That is the question, yes?
Free fart speech 💬 Hmmm ...I wonder
Typical lawyer bullshit. They object to any evidence presented, but they expect their lies and innuendos to be believed.
This is not an accurate portrayal of what would happen in a factual scenario like this.
@@tommym321 how do you figure
Well, that is what lawyers do, win at any length
Wouldn't you want your lawyer to win for you
@@kdohertygizbur There is no way this testimony would have been “disallowed” simply because she was using a photocopy of the original. Testimony that directly bears on the accuracy of the original document is admissible. And even if it wasn’t, the testimony regarding what the defendant said to her would also be admissible (document or no) as a party admission exception to the hearsay rule. So I was trying to reassure the OP that this is a very, VERY far-fetched and legally false scenario- that the testimony would have been stricken. No way, no how.
Spoken by someone who knows nothing about how law is practiced but buys into false stereotypes in order to feel superior about himself/herself.
Over ruled, counselor. You opened the door to this haymaker......
OBJECTION!!!