"THE PELICAN BRIEF" (1993) Review
In my review of "THE FIRM", I had once referred to the period in which bestselling novels written by attorney-novelist John Grisham as "Age of Grisham". This same period - mainly the 1990s - also saw the release of movie adaptations of Grisham's novels. Released in 1993, "THE FIRM" was not the only Grisham released that year. Another Grisham adaptation was released six months later - "THE PELICAN BRIEF".
Directed by Alan J. Pakula and based on Grisham's 1992 novel, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" told the story of a Tulane University law student named Darby Shaw writes a legal brief detailing her theory on why two Supreme Court Justices had been murdered. The elderly and infirmed Justice Rosenberg, a liberal, had been shot inside his home, along with his nurse. The Republican-appointed Justice Jensen was found inside a gay porn movie theater, strangled to death. Both had been murdered by a paid assassin named Khamel. Out of curiosity, Darby engages in research of Rosenberg and Jensen's records and writes a legal brief speculating they were not killed for political reasons. Darby links the assassinations to an oil tycoon named Victor Mattiece, who wants to rearrange the Supreme Court in order to win a case. Matticece had discovered oil beneath a Louisiana habitat in the marshlands but was blocked from drilling due to a lawsuit filed to protect an endangered sub-species of brown pelicans. Because Rosenberg and Jensen were both pro-environmentalists, Darby suspected they were killed. Mattiece also has ties to the U.S. President, due to being the latter's biggest financial contributor. At the same time, Washington Herald reporter Gray Grantham receives a call from an informant named "Garcia", who claims to have information about the assassinations. Although Gray manages to snap a photograph of "Garcia", the latter disappears without a trace.
Matters eventually grow worse for Darby. She gives the brief to her law professor and lover Thomas Callahan, who in turn gives a copy to his good friend Gavin Verheek, Special Counsel to the Director of the FBI. It does not take long for Darby's brief - dubbed as "the Pelican Brief" - to circulate among the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the White House. Not much time passes before a car bomb kills Callahan at a New Orleans parking lot. Since Darby was outside of the car during the explosion, she manages to avoid Callahan's fate. Realizing that her "Pelican brief"may have been accurate, Darby goes into hiding and reaches out to Verheek for assistance and Gray for more information about the brief's circulation. Unfortunately, Verheek ends up murdered in New Orleans. Darby finally decides to meet with Gray before the pair sets out to find "Garcia" in Washington D.C., the one person who has the evidence to link Mattiece with the justices' deaths.
With a running time of 141 minutes, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" is a pretty long movie. I do wonder if today's younger moviegoers would have the patience to watch a political thriller that runs over two hours long. Personally, the movie's running time did not bother me. I thought it gave director/screenwriter Alan J. Pakula enough time to explore the film's narrative in great detail - Rosenberg and Jensen's murders, Darby's research and preparation for her legal brief, how her brief ended up being circulated around the nation's capital, Gray's attempt to connect with and later find "Garcia", Darby's evasion of the attempts on her life, the pair's search for "Garcia"'s identity and his evidence against Victor Mattiece. I am happy to say that Pakula did not take any major shortcuts to transform a three hundred-and-eighty-seven-page novel into movie that ran over two hours. Some might suggest that Pakula could have shortened the movie a bit. I am not certain I would agree with that. I would not have enjoyed the film more if he had edited the narrative. However, I do wish Pakula could have stepped up the pacing a bit. I have seen movies that were just as long or even longer than "THE PELICAN BRIEF". And yet, they moved at a faster pace and were never in danger of putting me to sleep.
The idea of a CEO or business tycoon sanctioning one or two political murders for the profit may seem a bit implausible to some. It seemed more than plausible to me. One only has to study either U.S. or World History to realize how business or corporate greed has played a role in politics, wars, crime or the combination of all three. But what I found a little implausible about Gresham's plot was the idea of a law student's legal brief about the recent murders of two Supreme Court justices being circulated about the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the White House. One, why would Darby research the two murders and create a legal brief that accuses a powerful CEO of sanctioning the murders? As if she was engaged in a school project? And why did Thomas handed over her brief to a F.B.I. official, who happened to be a close friend? As an incentive for the agency to investigate? I found that hard to believe, considering that Thomas' attitude toward the brief seemed to be that of a proud boyfriend revealing how clever his girlfriend is to a friend. What I am saying that the vibe behind Darby's initial investigation and Thomas' decision to circulate the brief seemed wrong . . . to casual. I wish Greham had created a stronger reason for Darby to investigate the two justices' deaths and for Thomas to pass her brief to the F.B.I. Or Pakula could have created stronger reasons behind both actions, when he wrote the adaptation.
"THE PELICAN BRIEF" featured several action sequences that I found pretty solid. Most of these sequences occurred in the movie's first half and featured a team of assassins hired to kill her. I found them rather tense, especially the chase scene that led into a crowd celebrating Mardi Gras in New Orleans' French Quarter. But they did not blow my mind. The one action sequence that really impressed me proved to be the last one that featured the assassins' attempt to kill both Darby and Gray. I found it odd that the assassins, who had been following the pair for nearly 24 hours, did not make any attempt until after they got their hands on "Garcia"'s evidence against Mattiece and the latter's law firm. A relative of mine had suggested the assassins not only wanted to kill Darby and Gray, but also destroy the evidence they had acquired. Perhaps she was right. If so, I do wish that the movie had indicated this. If it had, would someone please point out the scene?
I must admit that there is something about the film's settings I found unusual. "THE PELICAN BRIEF" is set in New Orleans of the Deep South and Wahington D.C. and Maryland, which are part of the Upper South. Yet, I never sensed any Southern vibe in this film. Not even when the film focused around New Orleans' famous French Quarter. There seemed to be something ethereal about Pakula's filmmaking style that made me forget this movie is set in the South. Perhaps it was Stephen Goldblatt's sleek cinematography or the movie's slight generic tone. This strikes me as a pity, considering the movie's two major locations - New Orleans and Washington D.C. - usually convey more colorful and atmospheric vibes in other films.
But I must admit that I enjoyed Pakula's portrayal of the political characters in this film. The characters radiated an ambiguous, yet cynical vibe that hinted Darby and Gray's mistrust of them. This especially seemed to be the case of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. Directors' attitudes toward the White House and the President's controlling Chief of Staff Fletcher Coal. The two agencies' reactions to Darby's legal brief struck me as very interesting. F.B.I. Director Denton Voyles seemed to relish the idea of investigating the connection between the President and Mattiece, due to his dislike of Coal. Yet, he had allowed the President to convince him to delay the investigation as long as possible. On the other hand, C.I.A. Director Bob Gminski seemed to have a more paranoid reaction to Rosenberg and Jensen's deaths, along with Darcy's brief by assigning agents to shadow Darcy in the immediate aftermath of the brief's revelation.
The White House officials featured in this film - from the slightly high-strung President to his cool and calculating Chief of Staff, and finally to the array of smarmy White House officials and private lawyers who either expressed disbelief that a law student may have solved the mystery behind the two justices' murders or amusement over the brief's potential impact on the President's administration. The cynicism that permeated from the politicians and lawyers in this tale seemed to touch the journalists featured in the movie. Even the leading man, Gray Gratham, seemed to harbor a touch of cynicism, despite his somewhat "noble" facade. As for his editor-in-chief, Smith Keen, the man and his tongue seemed to radiate cynicism - despite any fondness he might have for Gray. It occurred to me that the cynicism, ruthlessness and desperation from the characters featured in the Washington D.C. served the movie's narrative very well, especially for its Washington D.C. setting.
The performances featured in "THE PELICAN BRIEF" seemed to range from solid to first-rate. But if I must be honest, there did not seem to be any performance that really impressed me, save for a handful. What was it about the acting that failed to blow my mind? I believe this situation had a lot to do with some of the dialogue featured in the movie. How can I put this? There were times when I found myself wincing from some pretty pretentious dialogue that struck me as unnecessary. Despite these occasional bursts of pretentious dialogue, I had no problems with the cast's performances. Well . . . most of them.
"THE PELICAN BRIEF" featured solid performances from the likes of Sam Shephard, Tony Goldwyn, Cynthia Nixon, John Heard, Anthony Heald, William Atherton, Jake Weber, Nicholas Woodeson, Casey Briggs, Christopher Murray, Ralph Cosham, John Finn and Stanley Anderson. There were some performances that I found entertaining or interesting. John Lithgow gave a witty and entertaining performance as The Washington Herald's editor, Smith Keen. Sonny Jim Gaines struck me as equally entertaining in his brief role as Gray Grantham's White House mole, Sarge. Hume Cronyn gave an effective performance as the ill, yet sharp-tongued Justice Rosenberg. James K. Sikknig's portrayal of F.B.I. Director Denton Voyles struck me as very skillfully ambiguous. But I believe the film's best performance came from Robert Culp, whom I believe gave an excellent performance as the President. The latter did an excellent job in portraying a slightly weak, yet vacillating head-of-state who depended too heavily on his Chief of Staff for decisions.
You might ask . . . what about the film's leads, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington. I thought the latter gave an excellent portrayal of the stubborn, yet stalwart Gray Grantham. There were times when I found Washington's Gray nearly too ideal. But I would attribute that flaw to Pakula's screenplay and not the actor. Thankfully, both the screenplay and Washington managed to infuse a little ambiguity in Gray's character during his first hunt for the informant "Garcia". I thought Julia Roberts gave a very solid performance as the film's other protagonist, Darby Shaw. I was impressed how her performance transformed Darby from an outgoing and warm woman, to one who became withdrawn and paranoid through grief, and her struggles to stay one step ahead of assassins. But I have two major problems with Roberts' performance. One, her Darby Shaw seemed another one of her characters throughout the 1990s that were put pedestals by the end of her films. And two, although she seemed to be a competent actress, there were times I found her performance slightly wooden. Whenever Darby experienced an emotional trauma, Roberts had this tendency to change her performance - but without any smooth or gradual transitions. Her mood changes almost seemed a case of "acting by the numbers or the beat". Fortunately, it did not take Roberts very long to outgrow this trait.
I have never considered "THE PELICAN BRIEF" as my favorite adaptation of a John Grisham novel. One, I feel that the movie's pacing struck me as a bit too slow, especially in the first half. The movie's screenplay featured some unnecessary pretentious dialogue. I wish the film's settings could have been a bit more colorful. And there were some acting decisions that I found questionable. Fortunately, the movie's virtues outweighed its flaws. Thanks to Alan J. Pakula's screenplay and direction, along with an excellent cast led by Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" proved to be a first-rate political thriller that featured a very interesting and original tale.
