You can already tell from a title where the story will take you. If it's the name of a character like Dan Gilroy's "Roman J. Israel, Esq" you might be in the safe side if you anticipate a character study. The eponymous protagonist, played by Denzel Washington, is a lawyer as the Esq. (abbreviation for Esquire) indicates. With his Don King-like hairdo, he looks like a man who stuck in the early 70s, a time that meant business in terms of political activism. In a way, he's an anachronistic individual but his ideals are still relevant in a prejudiced time where law procedures advocate plea bargaining for African-American defendants, because a trial wouldn't benefit them.
(On a side-note, I'm glad I watched "A Civil Action" a few months ago so I was a little familiar with all these offers and counter-offers system and I quickly figured that a man of convictions as Roman, with a certain ethos governing his action, would be a tough nut to crack on that matter, both a deal and a ball breaker)
The film makes a social commentary but never exceeds its character-centered scope, it's all about Roman, a lawyer confined in the certitude that the exercice of justice is beyond deals and bargains. He embraced activism and law like priesthood and the purity of his heart and his phenomenal memory (he can recite articles and amendments like Rain Man counts cards) makes him an outcast. He used to work on briefs with his partner, a respected professor, but after his mentor's death, he is hired by one of his former students George Pierce (Colin Farrell) and given a valuable counsellor position in a bigger law firm. George values Roman's encyclopedic knowledge and principles, although his social skills earns him a few clashes with senior partners. Despite the incident, George keeps trusting Roman.
There's another person who is in awe with Roman, Maya (Carmen Ejogo), a network activist who can see behind the lack of social skills and borderline autism that Roman isn't a brainwashed political robot but a free soul. This is a man who doesn't complain like most people of her generation, he doesn't deem the Law as unfair but dissects it in a way that makes the options of protesting and fighting not only viable but the only effective ones in the long term. There's a catch though: Roman's philosophy implies that his interlocutors should know as much about the Law as he does. We see it in the earlier scenes: Roman is focused on little technicalities that any judge would rather overrule but Roman knows it too well: the devil is in the details.
It is fair to say that this is a film whose highest point is certainly Denzel Washington who, once again, totally disappears in his role, managing to create the unlikely mix of charisma and pathos in one character, enough to make Maya venerate him but not so that the two could fall in love (a romance would have damaged the film's credibility). And Roman is such a fascinating individual indeed that I wish the plot could have provided more momentums. We see him handling a murder where the actual shooter escaped but his accomplice Derrell Ellerbee (DeRon Horton) was arrested. Roman asks him to reveal the whereabouts of Carter "CJ" Johnson (Amari Cheatom), and then make a phone call to negotiate a plea deal with the D. A. Rejecting the counter-offer because of his poor lack of judgement, he just signs Ellerbee his death warrant. Without any protective custody, he's knifed for being a snitch...and here's my main problem with the film.
This is a story that implores us to value the treasure that is Roman's knowledge of the legal system and deplore his behavior. However by making him the center around which everything is orbiting, the scope is diminished, it's not about an ideal application of the law but Roman's ideals and their theoretical applications. I wish we could have seen the crime committed or have a scene where the defendant is killed, so we could have a real glimpse on the case, one deprived of judicial considerations. When I heard his client was killed, I didn't feel any emotion, it was treated in a very casual way, only there to start Roman's descent into cynicism. It's good the film could portray him as a three-dimensional character also capable to yield to the temptation of misusing the law and make money out of it but such extreme acts needed a bigger shock value. Ultimately, when we feel sorry for Roman, it's because he starts blaming himself.
Yes, this is the mark of a great actor to carry the film alone, and watching him go through this self-questioning and indulging to an amoral choice and then be both lawyer, defendant and judge of his own plea for being disbarred, was fascinating. But for all the intellect mobilized to approach him, for all his great monologues and speeches, it all comes down to a rather thin script; Roman makes a mistake, he loses his ideals and does something bad, and then redeems himself. When you have such unpredictable characters, it's a pity to have them used in plots whose conclusion can be seen miles away. As logical as the ending was, there was something too 'obvious' about it.
I still enjoyed the film and I absolutely loved that scene where he started a political speech about activism only to be berated by two girls who didn't like the patronizing way he asked two men to give them their seats. The way his gallantry was perceived as patriarcal is certainly one of the films that best captures how 'irrelevant' he's become for a generation that also sees the devil in details, but not the right ones.
This is a moment where I could relate to Roman and I wish there were more moments like this. Most of the times, Roman is too inaccessible to warm up to him.
(On a side-note, I'm glad I watched "A Civil Action" a few months ago so I was a little familiar with all these offers and counter-offers system and I quickly figured that a man of convictions as Roman, with a certain ethos governing his action, would be a tough nut to crack on that matter, both a deal and a ball breaker)
The film makes a social commentary but never exceeds its character-centered scope, it's all about Roman, a lawyer confined in the certitude that the exercice of justice is beyond deals and bargains. He embraced activism and law like priesthood and the purity of his heart and his phenomenal memory (he can recite articles and amendments like Rain Man counts cards) makes him an outcast. He used to work on briefs with his partner, a respected professor, but after his mentor's death, he is hired by one of his former students George Pierce (Colin Farrell) and given a valuable counsellor position in a bigger law firm. George values Roman's encyclopedic knowledge and principles, although his social skills earns him a few clashes with senior partners. Despite the incident, George keeps trusting Roman.
There's another person who is in awe with Roman, Maya (Carmen Ejogo), a network activist who can see behind the lack of social skills and borderline autism that Roman isn't a brainwashed political robot but a free soul. This is a man who doesn't complain like most people of her generation, he doesn't deem the Law as unfair but dissects it in a way that makes the options of protesting and fighting not only viable but the only effective ones in the long term. There's a catch though: Roman's philosophy implies that his interlocutors should know as much about the Law as he does. We see it in the earlier scenes: Roman is focused on little technicalities that any judge would rather overrule but Roman knows it too well: the devil is in the details.
It is fair to say that this is a film whose highest point is certainly Denzel Washington who, once again, totally disappears in his role, managing to create the unlikely mix of charisma and pathos in one character, enough to make Maya venerate him but not so that the two could fall in love (a romance would have damaged the film's credibility). And Roman is such a fascinating individual indeed that I wish the plot could have provided more momentums. We see him handling a murder where the actual shooter escaped but his accomplice Derrell Ellerbee (DeRon Horton) was arrested. Roman asks him to reveal the whereabouts of Carter "CJ" Johnson (Amari Cheatom), and then make a phone call to negotiate a plea deal with the D. A. Rejecting the counter-offer because of his poor lack of judgement, he just signs Ellerbee his death warrant. Without any protective custody, he's knifed for being a snitch...and here's my main problem with the film.
This is a story that implores us to value the treasure that is Roman's knowledge of the legal system and deplore his behavior. However by making him the center around which everything is orbiting, the scope is diminished, it's not about an ideal application of the law but Roman's ideals and their theoretical applications. I wish we could have seen the crime committed or have a scene where the defendant is killed, so we could have a real glimpse on the case, one deprived of judicial considerations. When I heard his client was killed, I didn't feel any emotion, it was treated in a very casual way, only there to start Roman's descent into cynicism. It's good the film could portray him as a three-dimensional character also capable to yield to the temptation of misusing the law and make money out of it but such extreme acts needed a bigger shock value. Ultimately, when we feel sorry for Roman, it's because he starts blaming himself.
Yes, this is the mark of a great actor to carry the film alone, and watching him go through this self-questioning and indulging to an amoral choice and then be both lawyer, defendant and judge of his own plea for being disbarred, was fascinating. But for all the intellect mobilized to approach him, for all his great monologues and speeches, it all comes down to a rather thin script; Roman makes a mistake, he loses his ideals and does something bad, and then redeems himself. When you have such unpredictable characters, it's a pity to have them used in plots whose conclusion can be seen miles away. As logical as the ending was, there was something too 'obvious' about it.
I still enjoyed the film and I absolutely loved that scene where he started a political speech about activism only to be berated by two girls who didn't like the patronizing way he asked two men to give them their seats. The way his gallantry was perceived as patriarcal is certainly one of the films that best captures how 'irrelevant' he's become for a generation that also sees the devil in details, but not the right ones.
This is a moment where I could relate to Roman and I wish there were more moments like this. Most of the times, Roman is too inaccessible to warm up to him.