DECEMBER 2024:
A Civil Critique…
Directed by Steven Zaillian, A Civil Action (1998) adapts Jonathan Harr’s meticulous 1995 book chronicling one of the most significant environmental legal cases in U.S. history. With a powerhouse cast led by John Travolta and supported by Robert Duvall, the film delves into the human cost of environmental negligence, the moral complexities of litigation, and the ultimate price of justice. While the film failed to meet commercial expectations, its layered storytelling and compelling performances warrant critical examination.
![Harr lives and works in Northampton, Massachusetts, where he has taught nonfiction writing at Smith College. In 2008 he was writer-in-residence at the University of Chicago.[3] He is a former staff writer at New England Monthly and has written for The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine.[4] Harr spent approximately seven and a half years researching and writing A Civil Action,[5] which was published in 1995, and subsequently nominated for a National Book Award, and awarded the National Book Critics Circle Award. John Travolta and Robert Duvall starred in the film of the same name, and Robert Redford was on the production team. Harr later wrote The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece in 2005, which became a best seller. The New York Times named it one of the ten best books of 2005.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Jonathan-Harr.webp?ssl=1)
![The residents of Woburn, Massachusetts sued Beatrice Foods, the operator of a tannery; Cryovac, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace and Company; and UniFirst, a laundry service, for dumping chemicals that contaminated nearby groundwater. The occurrence of a cancer cluster and other negative effects on health led to revelations of water polluted primarily with trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. The first trial included contentious disputes over "splitting" the trial into separate liability and damages phases.The Court decided to let the jury decide first whether there was enough evidence to hold the defendants liable for the water contamination, and which defendants would be held responsible for any proven damages to the plaintiffs as a result of the contamination. This is called bifurcating the trial. If any of the defendants were determined by the jury to not be liable, then they would be dismissed from the second part of the trial to determine damages. W.R. Grace was found liable, and Beatrice was found not liable. Judge Walter Jay Skinner granted a motion for a mistrial put by W. R. Grace. Woburn residents then appealed that motion, along with Beatrice's not liable verdict. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The district court then found that a discovery error made by Beatrice impaired the plaintiffs' preparation process, but recommended that its earlier denial of motion for relief from judgment be sustained.[clarification needed] On appeal, the circuit court judge held that: first, the district court did not abuse its discretion by its determination regarding pretrial discovery, namely, the district court had determined that the operator's failure to disclose a report during pretrial discovery did not warrant relief from judgment.[clarification needed] Second, the judge held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the operator's nondisclosure of a report was roughly equivalent to residents' improper continuation of prosecution of their claim, and thus that monetary sanctions should not be imposed upon either party. Finally, the judge found that the operator's nondisclosure of report did not constitute “fraud on the court” which would trigger entry of default. On 22 September 1986, W.R. Grace settled with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount of money. However, many sources report that it was around $8 million (equivalent to roughly $22 million in 2023).](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Anderson-v.-Cryovac.jpg?ssl=1)
Overview of the Case—Anderson v. Cryovac
![The residents of Woburn, Massachusetts sued Beatrice Foods, the operator of a tannery; Cryovac, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace and Company; and UniFirst, a laundry service, for dumping chemicals that contaminated nearby groundwater. The occurrence of a cancer cluster and other negative effects on health led to revelations of water polluted primarily with trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. The first trial included contentious disputes over "splitting" the trial into separate liability and damages phases.The Court decided to let the jury decide first whether there was enough evidence to hold the defendants liable for the water contamination, and which defendants would be held responsible for any proven damages to the plaintiffs as a result of the contamination. This is called bifurcating the trial. If any of the defendants were determined by the jury to not be liable, then they would be dismissed from the second part of the trial to determine damages. W.R. Grace was found liable, and Beatrice was found not liable. Judge Walter Jay Skinner granted a motion for a mistrial put by W. R. Grace. Woburn residents then appealed that motion, along with Beatrice's not liable verdict. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The district court then found that a discovery error made by Beatrice impaired the plaintiffs' preparation process, but recommended that its earlier denial of motion for relief from judgment be sustained.[clarification needed] On appeal, the circuit court judge held that: first, the district court did not abuse its discretion by its determination regarding pretrial discovery, namely, the district court had determined that the operator's failure to disclose a report during pretrial discovery did not warrant relief from judgment.[clarification needed] Second, the judge held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the operator's nondisclosure of a report was roughly equivalent to residents' improper continuation of prosecution of their claim, and thus that monetary sanctions should not be imposed upon either party. Finally, the judge found that the operator's nondisclosure of report did not constitute “fraud on the court” which would trigger entry of default. On 22 September 1986, W.R. Grace settled with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount of money. However, many sources report that it was around $8 million (equivalent to roughly $22 million in 2023).](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Anderson-v.-Cryovac.jpg?resize=525%2C668&ssl=1)
1. Introduction to Woburn, Massachusetts
Woburn, Massachusetts, a suburban town just 10 miles north of Boston, became the epicenter of one of the most significant environmental legal battles in U.S. history during the late 20th century. Known for its industrial roots, Woburn had long housed tanneries, manufacturing plants, and other businesses that utilized and disposed of hazardous chemicals. By the late 1970s, the consequences of these industrial practices began to surface in an alarming way.
Woburn residents started noticing an unusual cluster of childhood leukemia cases in their community, particularly around the East Woburn neighborhood. Families such as the Andersons faced devastating personal tragedies, leading to growing concerns about the town’s drinking water. Wells G and H, which supplied water to the area, were suspected of being contaminated by industrial waste. What followed was a groundbreaking legal case that exposed the systemic failures of industrial oversight and the devastating impact of environmental negligence.
![cancer cluster is a disease cluster in which a high number of cancer cases occurs in a group of people in a particular geographic area over a limited period of time.[1] Historical examples of work-related cancer clusters are well documented in the medical literature. Notable examples include: scrotal cancer among chimney sweeps in 18th-century London; osteosarcoma among female watch dial painters in the 20th century; skin cancer in farmers; bladder cancer in dye workers exposed to aniline compounds; and leukemia and lymphoma in chemical workers exposed to benzene.[2] Cancer cluster suspicions usually arise when members of the general public report that their family members, friends, neighbors, or coworkers have been diagnosed with the same or related cancers. State or local health departments will investigate the possibility of a cancer cluster when a claim is filed.[3] In order to justify investigating such claims, health departments conduct a preliminary review. Data will be collected and verified regarding: the types of cancer reported, numbers of cases, geographic area of the cases, and the patients clinical history. At this point, a committee of medical professionals will examine the data and determine whether or not an investigation (often lengthy and expensive) is justified.[4] In the U.S., state and local health departments respond to more than 1,000 inquiries about suspected cancer clusters each year. It is possible that a suspected cancer cluster may be due to chance alone; however, only clusters that have a disease rate that is statistically significantly greater than the disease rate of the general population are investigated. Given the number of inquiries it is likely that many of these are due to chance alone. It is a well-known problem in interpreting data that random cases of cancer can appear to form clumps that are misinterpreted as a cluster.[5] A cluster is less likely to be coincidental if the case consists of one type of cancer, a rare type of cancer, or a type of cancer that is not usually found in a certain age group. Between 5% and 15% of suspected cancer clusters are statistically significant.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Cancer-Cluster.jpg?resize=525%2C276&ssl=1)
2. The Plaintiffs: Families of Woburn
The lawsuit was initiated by Anne Anderson, whose son, Jimmy, was diagnosed with leukemia and tragically passed away at age 12. Anne Anderson’s relentless pursuit of answers about the possible causes of the cancer cluster led her to uncover evidence suggesting that contaminated drinking water was to blame.
She was not alone in her grief. Several other families in Woburn had experienced similar tragedies, with their children succumbing to leukemia or battling severe health complications.
These families came together to file a class-action lawsuit against three major corporations they believed were responsible for polluting the groundwater:
Beatrice Foods, the operator of a tannery in the area.
![Beatrice Foods Company was a major American food conglomerate founded in 1894.[1][2] One of the best-known food processing companies in the U.S., Beatrice owned many well-known brands such as Tropicana, Krispy Kreme, Jolly Rancher, Orville Redenbacher's, Swiss Miss, Peter Pan, Avis, Milk Duds, Samsonite, Playtex, La Choy and Dannon.[3][4] In 1987, its international food operations were sold to Reginald Lewis, a corporate attorney, creating TLC Beatrice International, after which the majority of its domestic (U.S.) brands and assets were acquired by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts,[5] with the bulk of its holdings sold off. By 1990, the remaining operations were ultimately acquired by ConAgra Foods.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Beatrice-FOods.jpg?resize=462%2C462&ssl=1)
Cryovac, a division of W. R. Grace & Co., which manufactured food packaging and used industrial solvents in its operations.
![SEE, legally the Sealed Air Corporation, is a packaging company known for its brands: Cryovac food packaging and Bubble Wrap cushioning packaging.[2][3][4] With over $5.5+ billion in revenues in 2023, it is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States, led by Chief Operating Officer Emile Chammas, President, Dustin Semach, and CEO Patrick Kivits](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Cryovac.jpg?resize=525%2C350&ssl=1)
![W. R. Grace and Co. is an American chemical business based in Columbia, Maryland. It produces specialty chemicals and specialty materials in two divisions: Grace Catalysts Technologies, which makes polyethylene and polypropylene catalysts and related products and technologies used in petrochemical, refining, and other chemical manufacturing applications, and Grace Materials and Chemicals, which makes specialty materials, including silica-based and silica-alumina-based materials, which are used in commercial products such as sunscreen[2] and in chemical process applications.[1] For much of its early history, Grace's main business was in South America, in maritime shipping, railroads, agriculture, and silver mining, with 30,000 employees in Peru. In the 1950s, Grace began to diversify and grew into a Fortune 100 worldwide conglomerate. After emerging from a prolonged bankruptcy period of 12 years in 2014, the company spun off its other major operating divisions. In 2015, Grace separated into two independent public companies. Its Catalysts and Material Technologies business segments remained in Grace, and what would later become GCP Applied Technologies Inc. held its Construction Products and Darex Packaging Technologies businesses. In September 2021, Standard Industries acquired Grace (the Catalysts and Material Technologies business segments).](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/W.R-Grace-and-COmpany.png?resize=330%2C153&ssl=1)
UniFirst Corporation, a commercial laundry service.
The plaintiffs alleged that these companies had improperly disposed of hazardous chemicals, specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), which leached into the groundwater and contaminated Wells G and H.
![Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a halocarbon with the formula C2HCl3, commonly used as an industrial metal degreasing solvent. It is a clear, colourless, non-flammable, volatile liquid with a chloroform-like pleasant mild smell[3] and sweet taste.[9] Its IUPAC name is trichloroethene. Trichloroethylene has been sold under a variety of trade names. Industrial abbreviations include TCE, trichlor, Trike, Tricky and tri. Under the trade names Trimar and Trilene, it was used as a volatile anesthetic and as an inhaled obstetrical analgesic. It should not be confused with the similar 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which was commonly known as chlorothene.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Trichloroethylene.jpg?resize=525%2C525&ssl=1)
![Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene[a] or under the systematic name tetrachloroethene, and abbreviations such as perc (or PERC), and PCE, is a chlorocarbon with the formula Cl2C=CCl2. It is a non-flammable, stable, colorless and heavy liquid widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics. It also has its uses as an effective automotive brake cleaner. It has a mild sweet, sharp odor, detectable by most people at a concentration of 50 ppm.[6] Tetrachloroethylene is regarded as a toxic substance, a human health hazard, and an environmental hazard.[5][7] In 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency stated that "tetrachloroethylene exposure may harm the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and reproductive system, and may be harmful to unborn children", and reported that numerous toxicology agencies regard it as a carcinogen.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/perchloroethylene.webp?resize=500%2C500&ssl=1)
3. The Defendants and Their Industrial Practices
Beatrice Foods
Beatrice Foods operated a tannery that had a long history of environmental violations. Tanneries often use toxic chemicals in their processes, including chromium salts and organic solvents, which are highly hazardous to human health and ecosystems. Despite regulations, the tannery had reportedly disposed of its waste in unlined pits and other unsafe methods, leading to contamination of nearby soil and water sources.
Cryovac (W. R. Grace & Co.)
Cryovac’s operations involved the use of industrial solvents like TCE, a chemical used for cleaning machinery and degreasing metal parts. TCE is known to be a potent carcinogen, particularly when ingested over time. Investigations revealed that Cryovac had improperly disposed of large quantities of TCE, allowing it to seep into the groundwater.
![Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a halocarbon with the formula C2HCl3, commonly used as an industrial metal degreasing solvent. It is a clear, colourless, non-flammable, volatile liquid with a chloroform-like pleasant mild smell[3] and sweet taste.[9] Its IUPAC name is trichloroethene. Trichloroethylene has been sold under a variety of trade names. Industrial abbreviations include TCE, trichlor, Trike, Tricky and tri. Under the trade names Trimar and Trilene, it was used as a volatile anesthetic and as an inhaled obstetrical analgesic. It should not be confused with the similar 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which was commonly known as chlorothene.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Trichloroethylene-1024x1024.jpg?ssl=1)
UniFirst Corporation
As a laundry service handling large-scale cleaning for industrial clients, UniFirst utilized perchloroethylene (PCE), another solvent with severe health risks. Although UniFirst’s contribution to the pollution was smaller in scale compared to Beatrice and Cryovac, it still played a role in contaminating the local aquifer.
![Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene[a] or under the systematic name tetrachloroethene, and abbreviations such as perc (or PERC), and PCE, is a chlorocarbon with the formula Cl2C=CCl2. It is a non-flammable, stable, colorless and heavy liquid widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics. It also has its uses as an effective automotive brake cleaner. It has a mild sweet, sharp odor, detectable by most people at a concentration of 50 ppm.[6] Tetrachloroethylene is regarded as a toxic substance, a human health hazard, and an environmental hazard.[5][7] In 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency stated that "tetrachloroethylene exposure may harm the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and reproductive system, and may be harmful to unborn children", and reported that numerous toxicology agencies regard it as a carcinogen.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/perchloroethylene.webp?ssl=1)
![Beatrice Foods Company was a major American food conglomerate founded in 1894.[1][2] One of the best-known food processing companies in the U.S., Beatrice owned many well-known brands such as Tropicana, Krispy Kreme, Jolly Rancher, Orville Redenbacher's, Swiss Miss, Peter Pan, Avis, Milk Duds, Samsonite, Playtex, La Choy and Dannon.[3][4] In 1987, its international food operations were sold to Reginald Lewis, a corporate attorney, creating TLC Beatrice International, after which the majority of its domestic (U.S.) brands and assets were acquired by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts,[5] with the bulk of its holdings sold off. By 1990, the remaining operations were ultimately acquired by ConAgra Foods.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Beatrice-FOods.jpg?ssl=1)
![SEE, legally the Sealed Air Corporation, is a packaging company known for its brands: Cryovac food packaging and Bubble Wrap cushioning packaging.[2][3][4] With over $5.5+ billion in revenues in 2023, it is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States, led by Chief Operating Officer Emile Chammas, President, Dustin Semach, and CEO Patrick Kivits](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Cryovac-1024x683.jpg?ssl=1)
4. Discovery of the Cancer Cluster
In the 1970s, Woburn’s public health data began revealing troubling patterns. According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the incidence of childhood leukemia in East Woburn was significantly higher than the national average. Between 1965 and 1986, at least 12 cases of childhood leukemia were reported in the area, a strikingly high number for such a small population.
These cases were clustered geographically, with most families residing in neighborhoods served by Wells G and H. Additionally, residents reported other health problems, such as respiratory illnesses, miscarriages, and chronic skin conditions, further suggesting an environmental cause.
Community activists, including Anne Anderson, began pushing for investigations into the water quality. Initial tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed the presence of TCE and PCE in the wells, triggering public outrage and demands for accountability.
5. Legal Journey Begins
The plaintiffs turned to the legal system for justice, eventually securing the services of Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer with a reputation for taking on challenging cases. Schlichtmann initially hesitated to take the case, recognizing the immense financial and legal risks involved. However, the compelling evidence and the families’ stories convinced him to proceed.
The legal battle would focus on proving the connection between the defendants’ actions, the contamination of Wells G and H, and the subsequent health impacts on the Woburn community. This task was monumental, given the scientific complexities of groundwater contamination, the defendants’ denial of liability, and the financial resources of the corporate giants involved.
6. Scientific Investigations and Challenges
The Role of Groundwater Studies
At the core of Anderson v. Cryovac was the challenge of proving a direct causal link between the industrial practices of Beatrice Foods, Cryovac, and UniFirst Corporation, and the contamination of Wells G and H. Groundwater contamination is a notoriously complex subject, requiring precise scientific methodologies to trace the movement of pollutants through soil, rock, and water over extended periods.
The contamination in Woburn involved trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), both dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). These chemicals have unique physical properties that complicate their detection and analysis:
High density: DNAPLs sink through groundwater to form persistent pools in aquifers.
Low solubility: They dissolve slowly, releasing toxic concentrations over decades.
Mobility in soil: TCE and PCE can migrate horizontally and vertically through soil layers, making it difficult to identify their source.
Environmental experts employed methods such as hydrogeological mapping, soil core sampling, and chemical fingerprinting to establish the contamination pathways. These studies revealed that the pollutants had likely traveled from industrial sites operated by the defendants to Wells G and H, making the water unsafe for consumption.
Health Impact Studies
To strengthen their case, the plaintiffs needed to link the contamination to the health problems in Woburn, particularly the unusually high incidence of childhood leukemia. This required collaboration between epidemiologists, toxicologists, and physicians.
Key findings included:
Correlation between TCE/PCE exposure and leukemia: Studies had already established a potential link between long-term exposure to these chemicals and increased risks of cancer.
Geographic clustering: The affected families lived in neighborhoods primarily served by the contaminated wells, strengthening the argument for environmental causation.
Latent health effects: TCE and PCE are known for their long latency periods, meaning illnesses can take years or decades to manifest, complicating the timeline of causation.
However, establishing causation in court proved challenging due to the “burden of proof” principle, requiring the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the contamination was not only probable but definitive in causing the health crises. This ambiguity became a major battleground in the litigation.
7. The Courtroom Drama
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
Led by Jan Schlichtmann, the plaintiffs’ legal team crafted a case centered on the negligence of Beatrice Foods, Cryovac, and UniFirst in their handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals. The argument rested on four pillars:
Duty of care: The defendants had a legal and moral obligation to prevent harmful substances from contaminating the environment.
Negligent disposal: Evidence showed that the companies failed to adhere to safe waste disposal practices, allowing TCE and PCE to infiltrate the groundwater.
Scientific evidence: Hydrogeological studies linked the contamination directly to the defendants’ industrial sites.
Human impact: Testimonies from Woburn families highlighted the devastating consequences of the contamination, particularly the loss of children to leukemia.
Defendants’ Counterarguments
The defense teams, particularly Jerome Facher (Robert Duvall’s character in the film), adopted a strategy of discrediting the plaintiffs’ claims at every turn. Their approach included:
Questioning scientific validity: The defense argued that the groundwater studies were speculative and failed to prove a direct connection to their clients’ activities.
Challenging causation: They contended that there was insufficient evidence linking the chemicals to the health issues in Woburn, citing alternative potential causes.
Diluting responsibility: Each defendant sought to shift blame onto the others or onto broader systemic factors, making it difficult to isolate liability.
Facher’s meticulous and methodical approach played a significant role in undermining the plaintiffs’ case, showcasing the power imbalance between well-funded corporations and resource-strapped individuals.
Key Moments in the Trial
Expert Testimony: One of the trial’s pivotal moments involved expert witnesses presenting complex hydrogeological and medical evidence. While these testimonies bolstered the plaintiffs’ case, the defense effectively exploited minor inconsistencies to sow doubt.
Anne Anderson’s Testimony: As a plaintiff and grieving mother, Anne’s testimony was one of the emotional highlights of the trial. Her account personalized the tragedy, putting a human face on the legal proceedings.
The Wells G and H Debate: The origins and management of these wells became a focal point, with both sides presenting conflicting narratives about their safety and contamination.
8. The Verdict and Its Implications
After months of grueling litigation, the case concluded with mixed results. While the jury found that W. R. Grace & Co. was liable for contaminating the groundwater, Beatrice Foods was exonerated. The verdict was a bitter disappointment for the plaintiffs, who had hoped for broader accountability.
Settlements and Aftermath
Following the trial, W. R. Grace & Co. settled with the plaintiffs for $8 million, a fraction of what Schlichtmann had anticipated. The settlement barely covered the plaintiffs’ legal expenses and left many families feeling that justice had not been fully served.
Legacy
Despite the partial victory, the case set a precedent in environmental litigation, inspiring stricter regulations on industrial waste disposal and raising public awareness about groundwater contamination. It also highlighted the financial and emotional toll of such cases, with Schlichtmann’s firm facing bankruptcy as a result.
9. Broader Impacts
Policy Changes
The revelations from Anderson v. Cryovac contributed to the strengthening of environmental policies, including the expansion of the Superfund Program, which aims to clean up contaminated sites.
Cultural Significance
The case became a touchstone for discussions about corporate accountability and environmental justice, influencing subsequent lawsuits and advocacy efforts. Its adaptation into Harr’s book and Zaillian’s film ensured that its lessons reached a wider audience.
Public Awareness
The tragedy of Woburn resonated with communities across the U.S., many of which faced similar challenges with industrial pollution. The case demonstrated the importance of grassroots activism and the power of collective action in the face of systemic injustice.
The Film’s Plot and Structure
The narrative follows Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta), a once-idealistic personal injury lawyer, whose small Boston firm takes on the Woburn case. Initially motivated by financial gain, Schlichtmann’s journey evolves into one of moral reckoning as he becomes deeply invested in the plight of the affected families.
Robert Duvall plays Jerome Facher, the wily and calculating defense attorney for Beatrice Foods, whose understated performance earned him an Oscar nomination. The courtroom drama is interwoven with scenes depicting the Woburn families’ suffering, the lawyers’ strategic maneuvering, and Schlichtmann’s unraveling as the case strains his personal and professional life.
Themes and Analysis
Environmental Justice and Corporate Accountability
The film highlights the devastating human toll of environmental neglect. It vividly portrays the long-term effects of corporate irresponsibility, where the pursuit of profit blinds companies to their ethical obligations. Cryovac and Beatrice Foods’ alleged actions underscore a systemic issue: industrial practices prioritizing cost-cutting over public safety.
The contamination of Wells G and H led to tragic health outcomes, including leukemia cases in children. These events underline the precarious balance between industrial growth and environmental stewardship, a theme that resonates decades later in an era of growing ecological crises.
The Ethics of Litigation
“A lawsuit is a small price to pay for polluting the earth,” Schlichtmann remarks early in the film, reflecting the transactional nature of modern law. Initially portrayed as a somewhat smug opportunist, Schlichtmann undergoes a transformation as he confronts the real stakes of the case. His initial belief that justice can be monetized is challenged by the human suffering he witnesses.
Meanwhile, Duvall’s Facher exemplifies a cold, pragmatic approach to the law. For him, winning is about avoiding liability at all costs, regardless of the ethical implications. This stark contrast between Schlichtmann and Facher raises questions about the role of morality in legal practice.
David vs. Goliath
The story captures the inherent imbalance in resources between the plaintiffs and the defense. Schlichtmann’s small firm faces multinational corporations with deep pockets, endless legal teams, and the ability to drag out litigation indefinitely. The film demonstrates the emotional and financial toll this imbalance takes, particularly on Schlichtmann, whose obsession with the case leads to bankruptcy and professional isolation.
Performances
John Travolta delivers a nuanced performance as Schlichtmann, oscillating between arrogance and vulnerability. While his transformation is sometimes rushed in the film’s pacing, Travolta conveys the weight of his character’s moral journey effectively.
Robert Duvall’s Jerome Facher is a masterclass in subtlety. His portrayal of the seasoned litigator is both disarming and formidable, earning him an Oscar nomination. Supporting performances by James Gandolfini, John Lithgow, William H. Macy, Kathleen Quinlan and Tony Shalhoub add depth and texture to the film, though some characters could have been developed further.
Cinematography and Direction
Steven Zaillian’s direction, paired with Conrad Hall’s Oscar-nominated cinematography, imbues the film with a somber, reflective tone. The muted color palette and precise framing amplify the bleakness of Woburn’s situation and the isolating nature of Schlichtmann’s quest. However, the pacing sometimes falters, with courtroom scenes occasionally feeling more procedural than dramatic.
![Conrad Lafcadio Hall, ASC (June 21, 1926 – January 4, 2003) was a French Polynesian-born American cinematographer.[1] Named after writers Joseph Conrad and Lafcadio Hearn, he became widely prominent as a cinematographer earning numerous accolades including three Academy Awards (with ten nominations), three BAFTA Awards and five American Society of Cinematographers Awards. Hall won three Academy Awards for Best Cinematography for his work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), American Beauty (1999), and Road to Perdition (2002). He was also Oscar-nominated for Morituri (1965), The Professionals (1966), In Cold Blood (1967), The Day of the Locust (1975), Tequila Sunrise (1988), Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), and A Civil Action (1998). He is also known for Cool Hand Luke (1967), Fat City (1972), and Marathon Man (1976). In 2003, Hall was judged to be one of history's ten most influential cinematographers in a survey of the members of the International Cinematographers Guild.[2] He has been given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.](https://i0.wp.com/moviestohistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Conrad-Hall.jpg?resize=525%2C342&ssl=1)
Historical Accuracy and Impact
While A Civil Action adheres closely to the facts of the case, it simplifies some legal complexities for cinematic purposes. The real litigation, for instance, was even more drawn-out and convoluted than depicted. Despite these adjustments, the film succeeds in raising awareness about environmental issues and the challenges of holding powerful entities accountable.
Legacy and Reception
Critics lauded A Civil Action for its performances and moral complexity but criticized its dense narrative and lack of mainstream appeal. The film’s failure at the box office underscores the difficulty of translating intricate legal battles into commercially successful cinema. Yet, its critical acclaim and lasting relevance as a cautionary tale solidify its place in the pantheon of legal dramas.
A Civil Action is a sobering exploration of environmental injustice, corporate ethics, and the human cost of legal battles. While its pacing and narrative density may alienate some viewers, the film’s themes and performances make it a compelling watch. It serves as both a courtroom drama and a moral parable, reminding audiences of the fragile balance between progress and accountability.
A Civil Action is available now to rent on all streaming platforms!
