If the successes of movies like "The Firm", "A Few Good Men", and even television dramas like "The Practice" tell us anything, then it must be that court dramas are very interesting. Seeing an underdog lawyer fight for justice is appealing to us, in spite of our general despise for real-life lawyers. Maybe that’s why we see these fictional lawyers fighting fictional cases: if we can’t find a decent honest lawyer in the real world, might as well find it in a fake one, right?

      Then enter movies based on real-life lawyers who fight a David vs. Goliath court battle. Oh my, a real honest lawyer? Court movies based on real court cases seem to try to reassure us that, yes, there is an honest lawyer out there, somewhere. In this case (no pun intended), the non-fiction lawyer is Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta), who reluctantly agrees to defend a number of families whose children died of leukemia after drinking the town’s water supply. He persistently goes after two corporations responsible for the contaminated water, risking not only his career, but also those of his colleagues.

      Integral to the attraction and appeal of any movie courtroom drama is the appeal of the actual lawsuit. Here, the severalty of the drinking water and the deaths it causes makes us feel for the victims and hate the people who caused it. After all, if it could happen there, it could happen here, right? However, as much as we do relate the paramount caused by the drinking water, compared to other courtroom dramas, one may find it easy to complain that this case lacks the tension and the all important kill-the-lawyer mentality. But given the nature of the case, attempting to attack lawyers here is hardly logical or necessary. The bulk of the movie, therefore, involves the frustration and trials of Jan and the obstacles he faces with the dogged pursuit of making the corporations pay for their wrong doing. As a result, there is actually little courtroom drama at all, which this picture could have used due to the lack of emotional climax. This is rather surprising, considering that t! he movie is aiming to stir up our emotions. Instead, it stirs up very little else other than a slight sympathy for the families whose children died.

      John Travolta is obviously the selling point of "A Civil Action"; disappointingly he doesn’t quite pull off the role f a man who is once known as an "ambulance chaser" to a man now known as a defender of the truth. He seems to delineate a role of a sly, sneaky lawyer instead of a sneaky lawyer turned righteous. It might have been actually more interesting to see Travolta in Robert Duvall’s character instead. Duvall plays Jerome Facher, the more experienced, intimidating and most bizarre of all the lawyers. He represents one of the two companies who are being charged for contaminating the drinking water. He is most interesting to watch; he does many John Cage-ish types of eccentrics. However, though his character provokes a lot of interest, the movie fails entirely to develop him further. There is no mention of why Facher does these odd things, no mention of exactly how he or his company feels about being sued in the first place…all this seems to be left up to the audience’s co! njectures. The rest of the cast, including William H. Macy playing a very stressed out financial advisor to Jan (traces of Jerry Lundegaard can undoubtedly be found) gives good support, especially considering how the rest of the cast is underdeveloped and not nearly as exciting to watch.

      The entire story, from beginning to the somewhat unpredictable ending (certainly not your typical Hollywood ending) holds just enough interest to keep us awake. By the time it’s all over, though, we realize that yes, there are good, heroic non-fictional lawyers, but there is a reason why people flock to the fictional reality of John Grisham.

Tien Nguyen, 1998