manuel-pestalozzi Despite of the sad and tragic subject matter, this movie is actually an enjoyable experience as it often focuses on the absurd elements of this true story. It is about Court Life and much less about the notorious O. J. Simpson case. It resembles more Larry Gelbard's brilliant TV movie script about corporate greed than classical court room dramas like To Kill a Mockingbird.What is the American Tragedy? What does this (certainly not very objective) movie showcase? After watching it I have to conclude that the tragedy is the court system that seems unable to cope with high class lawyers and the media hype. The results are, as this movie shows, truly devastating. You have a police force that is distrusted and ridiculed as a whole, you have forensic experts who will probably never again touch a sample without consulting a lawyer first and - worst of all - you have judges „presiding" over proceedings who come through as impotent bystanders. And in the end you have jurors who decide on impulse, on a gut feeling, about guilt and innocence. This renders the whole judicial system useless.It would be easiest to blame it all on those rich, slick lawyers. As highly paid court jesters and authors of books about this case they virtually feed on dead bodies. I think one of the strong points of this movie consists in showing clearly that the defense team - despite all the highlighted human failings there may be - acted within the boundaries conceded by the system and that the blame has to be put on that system. If you have large parts of the population which do not trust the police as an institution, then something must have been wrong for a long time.The acting is great all around, I particularly liked the relationship between Johnnie Cochran and his sidekick Carl (those two actors should team up for other projects). The most memorable scenes are the jury selection process in which members of the jury are pushed around like pawns on a chess board and Johnnie Cochran's speech after the prosecution asked for a ban on the „n word" in the court room. It is a marvelous example of Orwellian doublespeak if anything. In the end he apologizes to the whole nation ... for what? Hey, who cares, all that counts is that an apology has become necessary.

Robert Kroning Trimark's 'American Tragedy' tracks Marcia Clark's book, 'Without A Doubt' so well I wondered if she hadn't cooperated in the screenplay. It bothered me that this movie is not listed in Maltin's Movie Guide and I wondered why, but then I see here that it's a TV production, and Maltin does not list those. Much of course was left out, most of which would have been even more incriminating. The movie is very well done, quite restrained and objective in my view. It is 'without a doubt' and at the very least a damning testimony to the flaws in our jury system. The one strong point in the book that the movie glossed over or even gave a wrong impression about was Judge Ito's marked favoritism toward the defensive team of lawyers throughout the trial. All in all, a very interesting and important film.

Bill ("A Cat's Full Nine") Drake- ¤ Norman Mailer's brilliant teleplay deserves to stand alongside the finest work that he has ever done. Adapted from Lawrence (`Perfect Murder, Perfect Town') Schiller's book in collaboration with newcomer James Willwerth, it almost dispels the stigmas that the media conviction imposed on the OJ trial from the beginning.There are some disappointments from the cast - possibly because expectations were so high based on Ving Rhames' dazzling embodiment of Don King, and the backgrounds of some other stellar personages present here.Most deficient is Bruno Kirby as Barry Scheck; wrong for the part physically and inflectionally.But Ron Silver is as on target as Robert Shapiro as he was as Dershowitz in `Reversal of Fortune.' You can't say more than that, can you? Mailer explores at great length the facets of Shapiro's courage and genius contributing to the defense, and only fleetingly touches upon the jerk he became later on. Christopher Plummer does not look like F. Lee Bailey, and the characterization never attains the stature of its depictee. Bailey was and is one of the towering figures of the 20th century, the Disraeli and Dreyfuss and Clarence Darrow of modern times.The two female leads are magnificent. The gifted and beautiful Sandra Prosper is Shawn Chapman, a fledgling figure inside the team - a dips**t girl spouting caucasiphobic cliches who grows into an insightful woman adept at absorbing and reflecting and expanding upon the greatness that surrounds her. And Diana LaMar is 100% at recreating the imperious and acerbic Marcia Clark.Rhames' delivery of Cochran's soaring summation equals the oration of Chaplin at the end of `Great Dictator.'The verdict of `Not Guilty!' - an anthem that rings out across the world declaring to the power-driven starched and cleanshaven deranged sadists who believe that people should be herded into groups and burned: `Rightly or wrongly, you will not always have your way!'

dvanhouwelingen WARNING- SPOILERS MAY BE INSIDE THIS REVIEWAMERICAN TRAGEDY is a fascinating look at the OJ Simpson trial, from the point of view of his legal defence team. The four main characters are Johnnie Cochran (Ving Rhames), Robert Shapiro (Ron Silver), Barry Scheck (Bruno Kirby) and F. Lee Bailey (Christopher Plummer). These are some of the best legal minds in the world- and when they get together they act like bickering children. The only one who comes out the mini-series looking good is Scheck- he stirs clear of the conflict, probably because he knows his place is secure. He's the only one who understands the DNA evidence, so they can't fire him. The rest look like petty people. Cochran is a big-headed blow-hard who tries to act like he's just another brother. Shapiro is a petty man who is hurt when everyone seems to think Cochran should be the lead lawyer- after all it was his case first, even if he had never tried a capital case before and his strong suit was making pleas. Bailey comes across as a feeble-minded old man- who is next to incompetent when it comes to trial work. The DA's office is not a major characters- yet they still come off as not that bright. A key piece of evidence is excluded because they simply did not turn it over to the defence. The actor playing Simpson himself is never seen. We just see the back of his head, or hear his voice on the speaker phone. As the trial progresses he gets more and more angry, until he explodes at Cochran before closing statements. The acting is flawless. Christopher Plummer embodies Bailey and with the aid of make-up looks much fatter then he really is. Ving Rhames deserves another Golden Globe for Actor in a TV movie, hopefully this time he'll keep it. This film is a fascinating look at the trial of the century- and shows us all why this happened in the first place.