Review: Primal Fear

Richard Gere is cocky lawyer Martin Vail, a cynic who cares less about his client’s innocence and guilt than he does the money and publicity that comes along with the case. Well, Vail’s attached himself to an absolute doozy of a case here: An aw-shucks 19 year-old altar boy named Aaron (Edward Norton), accused of the murder of a popular Chicago Catholic archbishop (played by Stanley Anderson). Corrupt State’s Attorney Shaughnessy (John Mahoney) warns Vail against any embarrassment to the good name of the archbishop, whilst the prosecutor is Janet Venable (Laura Linney), Vail’s not terribly friendly ex. And he constantly needles her every chance he gets, and you just know he’s going to ignore Shaughnessy’s warnings entirely, if need be as well. However, there’s plenty of twists and turns in this case, and everyone needs to be on their game. Andre Braugher and Maura Tierney are Vail’s underlings, Alfre Woodard is the no BS judge, Terry O’Quinn plays Linney’s jerk of a boss, and Frances McDormand plays a shrink crucial to the case.

***** SPOILER-HEAVY REVIEW. PROCEED WITH CAUTION. SERIOUSLY, DON’T BLAME ME *****

Although it seemed a bit more substantial in 1996, this twisty legal thriller from debut film director Gregory Hoblit (who went on to the decent “Fracture” with Anthony Hopkins) still holds up well-enough. Boasting one of the greatest debut film performances I’ve ever seen from Edward Norton, and featuring a perfectly cast Richard Gere in one of his best turns, it also features a bunch of twists and turns that have not proven problematic to me on subsequent viewings.

It’s a slow starter, with some time-wasting nonsense involving Gere’s dealings with a local bar owner which frankly just eats up screen time, slightly relevant or not. I also think Laura Linney, in addition to being assigned a thankless task, has been instructed to overplay her character’s bitchiness to a distracting and off-putting degree. Think about it. Her character’s position is that Norton’s character is guilty of killing a pervert priest who forced him into performing sexual acts with two other people while he filmed it, right? So sure, in her eyes Norton deserves to be punished for committing a crime (if guilty). But why the nasty, smug attitude towards him? It doesn’t fit at all, and only some of it can really be passed off as ‘I hate this guy’s attorney ‘coz we used to be together and now we’re not’. Most of it is just unreasonable bitchiness. The bulk of it is simply because it’s what Linney has been directed or written to convey on screen.

Thankfully, whenever the film focuses on the preparation for Norton’s trial and his interactions with both Richard Gere and the shrink played by Frances McDormand, the film is on much surer footing. I find Richard Gere incredibly smug, and that’s perfect for his role here, giving the best performance of his career. Playing an arrogant lawyer who is either too lazy or too cocky in his abilities to win cases, the guy doesn’t bother to care whether his clients are innocent or guilty. Then he meets Edward Norton’s sweet, stuttering, aw shucks altar boy and for once he (slowly) starts to believe in his client’s innocence for real. Gere’s not playing a villain here, but his character and the film are an indictment of lazy, cocksure lawyers who only care about their ability to win for their client and their own record/publicity. Norton’s debut is absolutely astonishing, and one of the pleasures in re-watching the film is that you find new pleasures to appreciate in Norton’s performance. He’s utterly believable in all facets of his character. Although the normally outstanding Terry O’Quinn suffers from much the same issue as Linney and is pretty much one-dimensional, the rest of the top supporting cast here do rock-solid work. Andre Braugher and Maura Tierney are good as Gere’s support team, while “Frasier” grumpy old man John Mahoney impresses in a humourless role as the state’s attorney who wants Gere to leave the Catholic Church alone (Speaking of “Frasier”, it’s funny how I actually really liked Linney in her guest stint on that show, but hated her here). I’m not a huge Frances McDormand fan, but when she’s good she’s very, very good. Here, like in “Mississippi Burning” and the later “Three Billboards”, she’s excellent playing a compassionate shrink. As usual, Alfre Woodard’s talents are far greater than her role here affords her to show, but as the no-nonsense judge she does more than respectable work.

Based on a William Diehl novel, a courtroom thriller that touches on sex scandals in the Catholic Church is great fodder for a film plot. In fact, it’s just as relevant now as it was back in 1996. This isn’t a great film, but it is entertaining in its twists and turns, and features two excellent characterisations by Gere and especially a debuting Norton in an astonishingly assured performance. How he was able to accomplish such a brilliant feat in a very complex role in his first film role is truly, truly astonishing and a great credit to the actor who has perhaps never improved upon this performance since. Definitely one of the better twisty thrillers of the mid-to-late 90s, and re-watching the film knowing all of the twists doesn’t ruin the film’s value either. The film was scripted by Steve Shagan (the underrated “Voyage of the Damned”) and Ann Biderman (“Copycat”, creator of TV’s “Ray Donovan”).

Rating: B-