A Few Good Men (1992) Review: Courtroom Drama at Its Finest
A Few Good Men (1992) Review: Courtroom Drama at Its Finest
Few legal thrillers ask a more difficult question than A Few Good Men: When does obedience to authority stop being an excuse for harmful conduct? This is a great legal thriller but the twist is that this takes place in a military court and not in your standard courtroom. All the parties, including the jury, are military. The only exception is that some of the witnesses are civilians, along with the family of the defendants. Thus, it’s like a courtroom that you see on television, but the rules are different because it’s not a regular court we see in typical courtroom dramas. This uneasiness keeps the viewer on edge.
One of the key storylines is the main character’s transformation. Tom Cruise plays Lt. Kaffee – son of a famous civil rights attorney – who is always compared to his now deceased father. Kaffee, who has made a career of plea bargaining all his cases, represents two poster cover Marines accused of murdering a weaker Marine. While Kaffee manages to get them both a sweetheart plea offer of 6 months incarceration, which they both refuse as they did nothing wrong.
Conflict builds as Kaffee continues to pressure the Marines to take the deal instead of risking a life sentence, while the Marines do not understand why Kaffee is afraid to fight for what is the truth. The Marines embrace the deeper principles of the Marines Corps – Unit, Corps, God, Country; The unit is the most important aspect of the Marines’ lives, followed by the Corps, God and then Country. Their intent was to train the victim of the principles they hold dear. Kaffee, while in the Navy, is more detached from these beliefs – probably because he is not trained to serve in battle, but in a court room.
Throughout the story, Kaffee is forced out of his comfort zone and has to give the Marines the best defense possible. While he makes attempts to fight this, by saying he will ask for a new attorney to be appointed, he ends up doing the right thing. It appears that Kaffee is afraid to be compared to his famous father. Eventually he overcomes his own fears and moves forward with a very difficult trial.
As the case proceeds to trial, evidence begins to implicate that Colonel Nathan Jessup, played spectacularly by Jack Nicholson, ordered the two Marines to discipline the victim, which accidentally resulted in his death. However, Colonel Jessup is about to be appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and cannot afford to have this matter blemish his career at that his juncture.
The writing in this film is pure genius because it examines interesting questions in military law, such as difficulties of following orders from the chain of command versus taking individual accountability for following or issuing those orders when they result in others being hurt. The Marines accidentally killed a substandard Marine in the process of teaching him to be a better soldier. Their argument is that they were following orders. Everyone above them deny giving them the order, making this look like an intentional murder with a motive.
The courtroom drama becomes less about statutes, legal procedures, and law; instead, it begins to focus on whether someone should be held accountable for their actions, in spite of the orders.
Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessup is fantastic as he explains how the victim’s death is tragic but actually saved lives in the long run. Jessup is all about the need for the rules and the chain of command, as these procedures are necessary and save lives. The character is genuinely evil, but he masks and justifies it under his own bureaucracy that ultimately serves his needs and goals. Jessup feels so powerful and justified that his own ego eventually becomes his downfall.
While the movie has a few twists and turns, it does not rely on twist endings or surprise evidence. Instead, the drama builds as the jury is introduced to more and more evidence exploring the boundaries of following the chain of command vs. exercising one’s own moral beliefs.
This movie has been around for over 30 years and continues to be a benchmark in the legal thriller genre. It is one of Rob Reiner’s best films, along with Stand by Me and When Harry Met Sally. I believe that the movie is successful because it asks a difficult question about to what extent one should follow orders. It does not offer a simple answer but raises more questions such as whether obedience to authority can excuse harmful conduct and whether leaders should be judged differently than the people beneath them.
TF’s NOTE:
One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Noah Wyle is being cross examined by Kevin Bacon. Bacon asks Wyle where in the procedures is it written that one of the duties of a Marine is give a ‘code red’. Wyle explains that it is not in the book. Bacon made his point that code reds are not Marine procedure. Tom Cruise then shoots down Kevin Bacon by asking, “Where in the procedure manual does it say where the mess hall is?” Wyle explains that it is not in the procedure manual either. Cruise then asks if he ever had a meal on the base. Wyle explained he ate three meals a day. Bacon’s point was discredited.
This is fun to watch and is very realistic because this constantly goes on during a trial. A trial is often about discrediting every point the other side is trying to make to the jury. It becomes a game we play during trial and every lawyer gets caught-up in it. I’m glad they added this to the scene.