|
WHERE'S THE BEEF? EVELYN
SHAKY ON LEGAL ISSUES
By Paul Bergman
Desmond Doyle is something
of a stock Irish character: an often out-of-work construction
worker who has too much fondness for the drink. Desmond's wife
runs off with another man, leaving the couple's three school
age children in Desmond's care. With no mother in the house and
Desmond's ability to provide for the children in serious doubt,
the Government/Church (pretty much one and the same entity) place
the children in orphanages. Desmond pulls himself together. But
his efforts to regain custody of his children are thwarted by
an Irish law that regards a motherless home as unfit for raising
children. With the help of three lawyers who impress on Desmond
the likely futility of a legal challenge, Desmond petitions for
the return of his children. The case ends up in front of three
judges on Ireland's Supreme Court, who award custody of the children
to Desmond by a 2-1 vote.
 In
contrast to many recent films, lawyers can be proud of their
portrayal in Evelyn. The lawyers who take on Desmond's
case do so for reasons of principle rather than remunerative
gain, and formal legal rules give way to the demands of justice.
Indeed, lawyers can even be humble. Desmond's solicitor Michael
Beattie seeks aid from Nick Barron, an Irish-American barrister
with rights of audience in court, and Tom Connolly, a family
law expert who comes out of retirement to fight what he sees
as an unjust law. Movie viewers would be hard pressed to find
a more positive portrayal of a team of lawyers in recent years.
While I enjoyed the story of
Evelyn and left the theater feeling as good as the rest
of the audience, I was nonetheless frustrated by the film's simplistic
treatment of the legal issues. I felt that the filmmakers' operated
from the premise that "we can either make audiences think
or feel good, but we can't do both." As a result, even though
the law preventing Desmond from regaining custody of his children
must have had positive social consequences, the film says nothing
about them. Instead, the government lawyer asking the court to
uphold the law is reduced to a nasty cross examination of Evelyn,
Desmond's eight year old daughter. The cross examination makes
it appear that the crux of the case is whether Evelyn told the
truth in a letter to Desmond describing a beating that she suffered
in the orphanage at the hands of a nun. (Just the image the Catholic
Church needs at a time when many priests have been exposed as
pedophiles!) Seemingly, the cross examination serves only to
magnify the audience's delight in Desmond's victory.
The character of Tom Connolly
further exemplifies the film's inattention to serious legal issues.
Tom is supposedly one of Ireland's greatest family law experts,
one who has spent the better part of his career trying to fight
unjust laws. Connolly warns Desmond that he's fighting an uphill
battle, but unfortunately has little to say that sheds light
on the legal issues. The lawyers actually institute two legal
actions on Desmond's behalf. The first one concludes with a non-appealable
trial judge's order that Desmond's children remain in their orphanages.
The lawyers then file a second action on new grounds that aren't
foreclosed by the earlier adverse judgment. This is the case
that results in a favorable outcome for Desmond in the Irish
Supreme Court, with the same judge who decided the case against
Desmond in the first action issuing a dissenting opinion in the
second action.
These are tough, meaty legal
issues. Why is the first order non-appealable? Why is the Irish
Supreme Court listening to witnesses, and how can it be that
the same judge who decided the case against Desmond the first
time around is one of the judges hearing the second case? What
is so different about Connolly's legal theory that underlies
the second action, and how come the supposedly-impregnable legal
establishment can't prevent the second action from going forward?
Had Evelyn trusted its audience, we might have witnessed
a few fascinating moments of lawyer strategizing and dramatic
courtroom arguments. Alas, nothing like this is in the film,
and movie goers have to be content with good feelings that are
likely to dissipate by the time they've left the theater.
Posted January 21, 2003
|
