The Paper Chase

Rating:
Summary: An 'interesting' movie.
Review: I just saw this movie on PBS tonight. First of all, good thing I didn't go to law school! Well, I didn't even have a choice anyway. I only like movies that interest me in a mysterious way and this is one of them. Professor Kingsfield's daughter Susan(played by Diane Wagner)'s character seemed very interesting. And the mysterious relationship between the father and the daughter which by the way the movie leaves upto you to imagine is particulary interesting. This is one of those movies that you can't describe in words. You must see it for yourself. I am glad they didn't make Susan ill to death in attempt to turn it into another love story.

Rating:
Summary: Accurate look at the life of a 1L (first year law student)
Review: I recently watched this movie after not having seen it for many years, and I am amazed by the accurate portrayal of life for 1Ls and of the "types" of people you will encounter in your first year of law school, regardless of whether you attend Harvard or any other law school. John Houseman gives an outstanding performance as the curmudgeon Prof. Kingsfield. He succeeds in rattling Hart (equally well portrayed by Timothy Bottoms) and teaching contracts using the Socratic Method, a torture device until students learn how to play the game and begin to think about the nuances of the law.
Some viewers have commented about how dated the film is, but I must respectfully disagree. The hair, clothing, and some of the attitudes are dated--after all, the movie was made in 1970! At that time, both men and women had long hair, wore flares (jeans and cords), lots of browns & beiges, etc. That was the style, pure and simple. Racial, gender, and ethnic diversity in the classroom was pretty nonexistent, and the virtually all-male student body accurately reflects those times as well. What has not changed is the portrayal of how 1Ls adjust and adapt to law school (it is so very different from the undergraduate experience, as the unfortunate Mr. Hart learns on the first day of class!), learn to help eachother master first year subjects such as contracts (emphasis on contracts in the movie), property, civil procedure, criminal law, torts, and constitutional law, or turn on eachother as they realize just how important those first year grades are to their futures as law students (competition for an invitation to serve on the Law Review) and attorneys. This is what makes this movie as pertinent now (for law students and would-be law students, at least) as it was in 1970, because the types of students in the class will remain the same, the huge learning curve, the Socratic Method, the study groups and obsessive outlining, and the way that the law permeates every thought are timeless. Unless law schools institute substantial changes in law school pedagogy, this movie will be accurate 100 years from now.
The romance between Hart and Susan is not what drives this movie, but adds human interest to this look at the lives of 1Ls.
Remember, "you enter law school with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer!" Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Accurate look at the life of a 1L (first year law student)
Review: I recently watched this movie after not having seen it for many years, and I am amazed by the accurate portrayal of life for 1Ls and of the "types" of people you will encounter in your first year of law school, regardless of whether you attend Harvard or any other law school. John Houseman gives an outstanding performance as the curmudgeon Prof. Kingsfield. He succeeds in rattling Hart (equally well portrayed by Timothy Bottoms) and teaching contracts using the Socratic Method, a torture device until students learn how to play the game and begin to think about the nuances of the law.
Some viewers have commented about how dated the film is, but I must respectfully disagree. The hair, clothing, and some of the attitudes are dated--after all, the movie was made in 1970! At that time, both men and women had long hair, wore flares (jeans and cords), lots of browns & beiges, etc. That was the style, pure and simple. Racial, gender, and ethnic diversity in the classroom was pretty nonexistent, and the virtually all-male student body accurately reflects those times as well. What has not changed is the portrayal of how 1Ls adjust and adapt to law school (it is so very different from the undergraduate experience, as the unfortunate Mr. Hart learns on the first day of class!), learn to help eachother master first year subjects such as contracts (emphasis on contracts in the movie), property, civil procedure, criminal law, torts, and constitutional law, or turn on eachother as they realize just how important those first year grades are to their futures as law students (competition for an invitation to serve on the Law Review) and attorneys. This is what makes this movie as pertinent now (for law students and would-be law students, at least) as it was in 1970, because the types of students in the class will remain the same, the huge learning curve, the Socratic Method, the study groups and obsessive outlining, and the way that the law permeates every thought are timeless. Unless law schools institute substantial changes in law school pedagogy, this movie will be accurate 100 years from now.
The romance between Hart and Susan is not what drives this movie, but adds human interest to this look at the lives of 1Ls.
Remember, "you enter law school with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer!" Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: The Perfect Antidote to "Legally Blonde" (and "Ally McBeal")
Review: I recommend this film to all the young women (and men) who found "Legally Bonde" and "Ally McBeal" hilarious and thus think they'd like to go to Law School, especially Harvard. I learned the hard way (HLS '87) just how accurate this portrayal is...although the student body is now MUCH more diverse than the white males portrayed in this film.

Rating:
Summary: Quite Good for present, future, and past law students...
Review: I watched it after just finishing my first year of law school, so I was quite emotionally attached to the subject matter. I thought it was funny, charming, and enjoyable. It was a perfect distraction after a year of law school. Luckily, my first year wasn't as miserable as the characters of this movie. END

Rating:
Summary: so dated
Review: I'm sure everyone associates this film with the John Houseman's performance. Well, he's not onscreen long enough to justify seeing this film. Nothing happens in this film really except people having to study during their first year in law school. Be warned there's a staggering amount of beige corduroy(sp?) - some of it on Lindsay Wagner. Think carefully about that. END

Rating:
Summary: One of the BEST films ever...
Review: If there's only one 1980's drama to watch it's , 'The Paper Chase' I've seen so many movies and this one's a CLASSIC!

Rating:
Summary: 70s drop-out culture clashes with law school discipline
Review: If you want to be inspired to go to Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School (they both use the same intimidating case study technique), this is the film to watch. It is the fear of having your name called out by the professor -- from the hundred students in the lecture theatre -- with his request that you lay out the case, that drives you to prepare well into the early hours the night before.

Harvard is ultra-competitive -- it marks on a bell curve, with the bottom x% of students being automatically chucked out. (That x% may be 10%. The film doesn't spell it out, perhaps because 1973 cinema-goers weren't ready for lectures on the normal distribution.)

The law school culture clashed conspicuously with the student background of the 60s/70s -- i.e. drugs, rock and roll, protests about Vietnam etc -- although little is made of this in the film. Instead we follow a year in the life of Hart, the Nice-but-Bright law student who idolises Professor Kingsfield -- determined to know everything about him, to the extent of bedding his daughter (played by Lindsay Wagner in her pre-Bionic Woman form).

In this film, the lecture theatre experience (studying Contract Law with the Prof) turns out to be a breeze, compared to participating in the Study Group, which contains some really unlikeable individuals. By the end, three of the six students have dropped out of the Study Group -- one even tries to shoot himself.

In the end, this film probably would be better if it didn't try also to be a romance. (I guess it was competing with 'Love Story' at the time.) Its highlights come in the lecture theatre and the study group. This is the potential for a very dark story, and I feel the director missed that opportunity.

On the other hand, no accommodation is made for the audience unfamiliar with contract law -- in other words, there is plenty of technical language -- but this adds to the authority of the drama.

I guess we're unlikely ever to see again the TV series of the same name that this movie spawned. So enjoy this while it's still available. For a similar experience on the page, get hold of a copy of Peter Cohen's 'The Gospel according to the Harvard Business School'.

Rating:
Summary: A movie with a plot!
Review: It so rare to come across movies with an actual plot these days. If you are in the mood for a legal drama without the courtroom battles, this is for you. Timothy Bottoms is great as Hart a 1st year law student finding out the hardway what it takes to succed at Harvard. John Housman is phenominal as the Contracts professor who is as hard as they come. Excellent story, and some humor. The obligitory love spiel is ok. I like Lindsey Wagner, but its flighty at best, and semi detracts from the film. So with a complaint, why did I give it 5 stars? Because the movie earned it. Its gripping from the start, and holds you to the end. Very enjoyable.

Rating:
Summary: Contracting excellence...
Review: John Houseman was part of the entertainment world for decades, working with such heavyweights as Orsen Welles, but perhaps popularly he will be best remembered for his portrayal of Professor Kingsfield, a conservative, dour Contract Law professor at Harvard Law School, who, for all his professionalism and singleness of purpose, lets a bit of humanity creep out from beneath the surface. Houseman won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for this role.

Timothy Bottoms played Hart, the idealistic young 1-L (first year law student) who comes to Harvard from the midwest primarily because of his fascination with Kingsfield. He forms friendships and relationship with a circle of friends, each of whom is eccentric, driven, and slightly certifiable (which fits most of the law students I've known). His problems increase as he meets and begins a relationship with Kingsfield's daughter (played by Lindsay Wagner).

This movie provided the inspiration for a television series, which followed some of the same characters from the film, in necessarily a different time-frame and different situations. Houseman reprised his role in this, and became a 'star' by this vehicle.

My favourite scene in the film has to be (being the bibiophile that I am) the time Hart breaks into the closed stacks in the library (which contain the personal papers of the professors) to look for Kingsfield's early work, including his original notes from when he was a student in Contracts. Hart's reflection on Kingsfield's philosophical musings ('Can one make a binding contract with God?' Kingsfield had written) almost convinced me to go to law school in America (and indeed, I took the LSAT and did well).

Houseman found the role of Kingsfield a double-edged sword, that, while fueling his stardom and exposure, also obscured the real person behind the role. He became typecast. Even when he went on speaking tours (coming once to my university to speak before a standing-room-only crowd at the auditorium) his Kingsfield routine was what the audience wanted; they tended to drift away as he spoke about his own life, and that was sad.

Make a contract with yourself to see this excellent film, and, should the series be repeated on cable, check that out too. You'll be glad you did, or your money back (contract void wherever prohibited).