The Paper Chase (1973) User Reviews

It captures the essence of the law school experience

[upquist · 8/10 · 29 December 2012]

It's been almost 40 years since I entered law school during which this movie was released and viewed with great interest by just about everyone in my class. For some, it was a fairly accurate depiction of the emotional drain first year law school can bring about. We didn't see these folks again after the Christmas break.

For most, however, it was a bit 'over-the-top' fun - strategically useful to impress family and friends who always seemed to be oddly curious about the academic rigors involved in becoming a lawyer.

Our law school sponsored a frosh-night just before the first week of classes and, after the movie was released it was played as the highlight of the evening. For those of us in second and third-years who were also invited, it was great fun to observe the incoming, first-year students squirm and grimace as if it were they who were called-upon to recite the facts and finding in Carlill & Carbolic Smoke Ball.

Housman's performance, while undoubtedly brilliant and, indeed, a major dramatic focal-point of the film, would have been rather softened in reality. The students in my class (and no doubt the ones both before and after) were superbly aware of their own social rights and responsibilities and they certainly were no wall-flowers by any stretch. They would have very quickly and resoundingly stood-up to that sort of intimidation and it wouldn't have happened again.

And yet, now, some 40 years later, having just seen the movie again, I must say, upon reflection, it really does capture the essence of the law school experience. It is a jealous mistress; romantic relationships, sports, hobbies, casual fun - all of it becomes secondary to the almost overwhelming curricular demands. As is suggested in the film, it is not just a question of learning material, memorizing statutes and jurisprudence; it is more than that. It is a matter of changing the way one sees reality. To this day, even though I am a retired lawyer, I look at a vehicular accident and I think 'tortious liability'. I hear an ambulance and I think 'wills and estates'. I watch Dads alone and fumbling uncomfortably with their kids in MacDonald's on Saturday morning and I remember the 'custody and access' battles in which my clients were engaged.

To me, the movie is as fresh and evocative today as when I first saw it.

law school pressure and the pre-bionic woman

[george-devlin · 8/10 · 4 February 2003]

I have friends who have gone to law school and their subjective descriptions of how intense an experience that was seem to be validated in this now 30-year-old film. Houseman and Bottoms shine, the rest of the cast (while a bit too stuffy) seem to compliment them without flaw. I liked seeing a very young (unspoiled) Lindsey Wagner in her pre-bionic woman days. Truthfully, though certainly dated at this point, this film still held my interest. I was, however, disappointed in the last scene, for although it may have meant to be liberating for the Bottoms character to shift his priorities the timing, (upon receipt of his final grades) seemed ill chosen. Still, one can't help but root for him through all of this. In the end one wonders if while retaining his idealism he sacrificed his sanity.

A great movie, especially for those considering law school

[tripleo · 8/10 · 12 August 2003]

A lot of what this movie contains jibes with the exact things I've been researching in my quest to figure out if I'd like to try law school. Socratic Method, Case book studies, study groups, 1st year hell, Finals Uber-crunch time...and the lack of a life outside of law school. The romantic element adds a nice touch and serves as a necessary plot line to keep this from becoming just a boring law school trials and tribulations flick. It is actually relevant as it addresses the issue of maintaining relationships while in the midst of pursuing what is, for many, a lifelong dream in one of the most rigorous programs of study existing in post graduate education.

Keep in mind, however, that this IS just a movie. I can see this movie discouraging 90% of potential law school students from giving it a try. The main "antagonist" is a BEAR of a professor who is legendary for his role in humiliating students in class. At one point, he gives the movie's main character a dime as he says "Here's a dime. Now go call your mother and tell her that there is serious doubt that you will ever become a lawyer."

This film is almost worth giving a look-see just for the dated 70's hairdo's alone. Keep an eye out for the character by the name of Bell. So obnoxious and pompous you love him. The Paper Chase is a classic which needs to be seen by all.

Graduate school exposed

[MiguelMoniz · 28 September 2001]

I cant say this movie is anything at all like law school, but I have been in a PhD program for seven years and I know this: The Paper Chase is far and away the most accurate representation of the first year of graduate school as depicted in film. Not there are really *any* depictions of graduate school in film, at least this one gets it right. The students at once detest and seek approval from a professor who cares very little about whether or not they make it. They must rely on one another to get through the year but in the end it is up to each one as individuals whether or not they succeed and go on, or even if they want to continue. Some may knock what might appear to be a cliched cast of first year law students(not unlike a World War II movie) including the arrogant one, the kooky one, the rich guy, the brainy one, the selfish one, the self doubting one--but honest, all of these stereotypes exist in every first year grad program in every department across the country.

If you think you want to go to grad school, this movie may (and hopefully will) cure you.

A Good Film About Academe

[henryonhillside · 7/10 · 16 September 2016]

I offer 10 random observations about this watchable film. (Writing random observations is MUCH easier than writing a coherent review.)

1. Early in the film, Lindsay Wagner playfully bites her new boyfriend. This was quite a charged moment in 1973. Audiences gasped. Boys went home from seeing this picture and dreamed of being bitten by Wagner and/or a substitute. Girls tried this idea out. Is this perhaps the first time when a woman bites a man in an erotic way in a mainstream Hollywood film (i.e, other than in a vampire movie)? Has some student majoring in Film Studies possibly written a paper about bites in the movies? Today, Lindsays's bite is a "meh" moment with zero punch. Times change, eh.

2. Every good college in America has a Kingsfield or two or three on the faculty - i.e., a legendary prof who is the object of student obsession (i.e., a mixture of awe, love, fear, lust, lust for knowledge, etc). At Brown University in the 1970s and '80s it was Edward Beiser of the Poli Sci Department. Beiser was at his peak in 1973, and more than one person on the Brown campus speculated about whether or not he had influenced the Kingsfield portrayal. (Highly doubtful that he did, but the possibility was a major topic of conversation in Hegeman Dormitory over pizza from Domino's and Michelob beer.)

3. Check out the hair in this film! OMG! Lots of hair! This is exactly how people wore their hair circa the early '70s. Ford's hair is epic. Hart's hair is long throughout, but seems to change subtly in appearance several times, possibly reflecting some of his internal struggle to come to grips with his conflicts about life, love, ambition, being human.

4. There's a light seasoning of things nautical in the film: Kingsfield's ship model. His ship painting. The captain's chairs used by the study group. I have no idea if this has any meaning; probably not. I mainly mention it because I love captain's chairs and these examples are first-rate (to use a nautical term). BTW, I believe Hart should have knocked over Kingsfield's ship model during his intimate encounter in the study. This would have given him the opportunity to try, desperately, to piece the thing together in 30 seconds after Kingsfield arrives home - a nice parallel to the impossibility of his weekend research assignment. Alternatively, I think Hart and Susan should have done the deed in the study and been caught in the middle of it. Or how about this: they do the deed in the study and knock over the ship's model. Kingsfield hears this as he walks in, glances toward the study, sighs mightily, and walks wearily up the stairs. He's heard that very sound before, he knows what's going on in there - Susan, dear Susan, is banging another of his students and knocking over his ship model.

5. The actress Regina Baff is perfect as Asheley Brooks, wife of the gifted-but-out-of-his-depth Brooks. Baff seems not to have had much of a career in film after this performance. Odd, that.

6. Which leads me to my next question, what the heck ever happened to Timothy Bottoms? I know he's made a lot of pictures over the years but his career never again remotely approached the fabulous heights of 1971 to '73 ("Last Picture Show" and this film). He perhaps entertained the thought that he could become the next James Stewart. (Tom Hanks got that gig.) Timothy! Timothy! Where on earth did you go? (And if you recognize THAT pop culture reference, you get major points from me.)

7. We learn that Kingsfield sat with the president of the United States at a Yale-Harvard football game. This moment is described by Susan while she and Hart romp through the mostly-empty stadium. The president is not named. Judging from various clues, it must have been John F. Kennedy. We are curious, as we watch, which president it was; we are left to our own devices to figure it out. I don't see why the script doesn't just say it. The script mentions Adlai Stevenson and shows a picture of Ike; why is it so shy about Kennedy?

8. At least two major films of the early '70s showed Ivy League-educated young folks rebelling against, but eventually joining, the Establishment - this one and "Love Story." (Admittedly there's some ambiguity about Hart's final decision but I think we know the path he'll choose.) Thus America reassured itself that its institutions would be perpetuated.

9. To follow-up on item (1) - 1972-73 was a peak for the sexual revolution. It was during the '70s that the ferment of the '60s reached down into the general population and affected the behavior of not merely a few elite people like the Beatles and the Grateful Dead but millions of people. This fact contributes to the quickness with which Susan beds Hart. The Susan role can really be seen as a pivotal one in the sexual liberation of women in the movies.

10. One of the central challenges of the script is, how much case law should we include? How much recitation of the law will the audience tolerate? I can well imagine long discussions among the filmmakers about this. I think they present exactly the right amount of law and exactly the right kind - i.e., a modest amount of juicy, interesting, and basic stuff.

MISTER Hart............

[RNMorton · 10/10 · 5 February 2005]

Story of Bottoms and cohorts trying to make it through first year of Harvard Law. Of anything I ever saw this is the one movie that made me want to go to law school. It's one of those treasured movies I feel like I lived; I actually used to set my watch, sit back and smile before my exams just like my boy Timothy. Bottoms perfectly captures the feel of a smart, hip and modest kid from the sticks trying to hang tough in the pressure cooker. Houseman was a behind-the-scenes movie guy who became an overnight sensation with his portrayal of the brilliant, caustic Professor Kingsfield. Wagner is hauntingly beautiful as Bottom's elusive love interest. I don't know how someone first viewing this film today would look at it, but it still has a classic, timeless quality for me and I highly recommend it.

The craziness of the first-year law student...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 20 January 2007]

Timothy Bottoms battles through his first year at Harvard Law School, attempting to stay one step ahead of his no-nonsense professor, but inadvertently falling for the instructor's comely daughter (Lindsay Wagner, pre-"Bionic Woman"). Director/screenwriter James Bridges adapted the script from John Jay Osborn, Jr.'s book, and does a pretty good job realizing the many pressures of academia. Bridges was the perfect director to work in 1970s cinema, and, with Gordon Willis' cinematography, he brings a gritty yet unshowy style to the movie that looks good without ever seeming pretentious. On the other hand, there's nothing very colorful about lectures or study groups no matter how polished the handling. Certainly worth-seeing for the acting alone, with John Houseman giving an Oscar-winning supporting performance (he was later tapped to star in the television spin-off). **1/2 from ****

as a film school staple.

[ptb-8 · 9/10 · 13 October 2005]

Thirty six years ago (!) before multiplexes and without the blunting effect of Tarantino and Bigelow, regular effective and intelligent movies like THE PAPER CHASE were made by film companies who co-existed in a gentleman's game called production and exhibition. Films like this were made as stand alone statements about life and love and education, and were shown in luxury cinemas that had furniture (lampshades, even!) in the foyers and well dressed, informed adult staff. Today, in this clever new century we have an industry that has sawn off its own creative head in order to film the blood spurt, and reduced movie-going to all the elegance of a supermarket. Other comments here will tell you the whole story, but as with this comment, each distill down to one thing: THE PAPER CHASE is an excellent and interesting film made in a year of truly exceptional memorable films. Sadly THE PAPER CHASE has not been seen on TV or in cinemas for three decades either, a calamity hopefully balanced by a DVD release so new generations can discover what sensible life and times 1973 was....and how life had hope and success within reach. Timothy Bottoms and Lindsay Wagner have never really gone on to anything better either. The late great John Houseman reinvented a career at aged 71 in this film and won an Oscar for his withering excellence. What a great script and performances, and a defining film in many ways. Students in film schools everywhere should study THE PAPER CHASE ...perhaps along with LOVE STORY and CARNAL KNOWLEDGE two other films of the same period that fit the look and style and success of this film. I would love to sit in on a discussion by today's 20 year olds who having seen each of those three films can explain their success.

1973 was a great year for movies, Oscars notwithstanding

[Boyo-2 · 7/10 · 26 August 2004]

I started seeing a ton of movies in '73, which was mostly cause of "The Exorcist", which was an extremely big deal that year. I saw it twice the night I graduated from grammar school so after that, my Mother could hardly say that anything else was too 'mature' for a 13 year old.

1973 was also an interesting year for movies in general. Several 'low-key' movies like "Scarecrow", "Cinderella Liberty" and "The Paper Chase" represent the year (for me) much more than one of the most puzzling Best Picture winners, "The Sting."

I had enjoyed Timothy Bottoms in "The Last Picture Show" and sensed this deep, inner sadness in the characters he portrayed. I never felt that coming from another actor. Its like he's brooding to the nth degree, but you don't mind.

Four things happen: (1) Timothy goes to law school, a class run by John Houseman (2) Timothy tries to have a relationship with Lindsay Wagner (3) Timothy obsesses about John Houseman, and (4) Timothy goes to study group and socializes w/some study group buddies, It may sound dull but for some reason the movie is extremely watchable. And for some reason I found it fascinating that someone would brush their teeth and shave while in the shower, and have been doing both ever since I first saw this movie. 8/10.

In The Case Of Hart vs. Houseman

[Lechuguilla · 8/10 · 6 January 2008]

I shall recite the facts of the case, forthwith. An idealistic first year law student from the Midwest, named Hart (Timothy Bottoms), along with several other students find themselves unprepared for the academic rigors of Harvard Law School. Their insecurities bump up against the high standards of the renowned and intimidating Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman) who teaches a class in contract law. Further, Hart happens to become romantically involved with a woman named Susan (Lindsay Wagner) who initially fails to tell Hart that she is Kingsfield's daughter. Complications ensue.

"The Paper Chase" is a rather slow moving drama laced with occasional humor. The dispassionate story is simple and straightforward, if perhaps slightly contrived. It lacks emotional intensity, especially by today's standards. But that's somewhat to be expected for a setting that is so cloistered and cerebral. Characters are stereotypical, but still interesting.

And the "heart" of the story is the discourse between student and professor, especially as Hart relates, or fails to relate, to the demanding Kingsfield, a man who never smiles. Kingsfield has a one-track mind. He lives, breathes, and sleeps contract law. He expects his students to do the same. Always impersonal, he's like an intellectual robot. And half the fun of the film is listening to John Houseman's monologues, as he "fills the room with (Kingsfield's) intelligence".

The film's color cinematography is fine; camera "takes" are very long. The film's visuals do look dated. Guys have long hair. And students use ... typewriters -- yikes! Background music is intermittent and mostly classical. Overall acting is fine. Both Timothy Bottoms and Lindsay Wagner give credible performances. And, of course, John Houseman is terrific. I can't imagine anyone else in that role.

Low-key, and nostalgic in its view of education, "The Paper Chase" is a good film to watch for its high technical quality, for its theme of the individual trying to measure up to society's expectations, and of course for the wonderful performance of John Houseman.

A Guide For a First Year Law Student

[vertigo_14 · 7/10 · 6 July 2004]

Potential law school candidates, don't freak out when you see this movie. This movie wasn't quite like my first year of law school, but that's because I didn't go out of my way to spend all of my time trying to impress one (let alone any more) professors.

It is likely that your professors are not going to behave like total bastards as Sir John Houseman did in this movie as Timothy Bottom's contracts professor, since your teachers are obviously pretty willing to help you out and guide you through three very rigorous years of study. But, then again, law school is much different from other levels of education, and the first year is the hardest because you're being trained to think like a lawyer and get in touch with that part in your brain where you can critically analyze things. And, as this movie suggests, when you do feel yourself slipping and/or falling behind, do not suck up to your teacher or kid yourself that everything is alright. The point is to go into things with your head on straight. Think realistically and don't panic!

And yes, contract law is going to be one of the roughest first year courses.

The story here concerns a first-year student's trials and tribulations at Harvard law school. He seems to be running around in circles sometimes, trying too hard to stay on top of things. John Houseman plays his stubborn and defiant contracts law professor who he consistently butts heads with, especially when it comes to dating the guys daughter and trying so hard to impress him.

The story is actually pretty ridiculous. But then again, it would probably be pretty boring to watch an hour and half movie about a kid with his nose buried in the books as most first-year law students are. It is definitely worth a shot if you are considering law school, but don't freak out.

This was one of the great films of 1973,and it shows in grand detail.

[rcj5365 · 9/10 · 17 December 2004]

The year was 1973. The top ten films of that year were sure fire Oscar contenders and some were one of the highest grossing pictures of that year. The Best Pictures of 1973 were "American Graffiti","The Sting", "The Exorcist","Save The Tiger","Cries and Whispers","Paper Moon", "Cinderella Liberty","The Way We Were","Papillon","Serpico","The Last Detail","A Touch Of Class",not to mention the several movies that shattered the box office receipts that were the best of the genre,the action flick/marital arts adventure smash hit "Enter The Dragon",and the Southern crime drama "Walking Tall",and the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar". The movie that took home the statues that year was "The Sting",which won seven Oscars including The Best Picture of that year,1973.

And the one movie that defined a generation,even some who have never seen it,it is still one breathtaking piece of cinematic work,and even 30 years after its release,it still has that impact,and that motion picture,"The Paper Chase" still holds that stance to this day. This was a film that had some great performances,literate screen writing,sensitive direction and handsome production. This was a tale of a young law school student from Minnesota,in his first year of Law at Harvard,is confused by his professional calling versus his inner evolution as a human being,may seemed a bit timeless yet dated,but instead goes into the vortex of his experiences as a student as he goes through the motions here,which gets the audience a series of sideways though entertaining of the thespian declamations. James Bridges directs his own adaptation of the novel by Jay Osborn. Jr. But the performances here are sensational,with Timothy Bottoms,who is excellent as the puzzled law student,Lindsay Wagner as the girl who plays not only his love interest,but is the daughter of a tyrannical college professor. But the one who steals the show is John Houseman,who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1973 gives a outstanding performance as a hard-nosed but urbane law professor. A man who looms over students like a quietly arrogant Goliath. The three players here constitute the pervading plot triangle that gives the picture its intensity-Houseman as the classroom dictator,Bottoms the uncertain supplicant,and Wagner,who plays Houseman's daughter. This is a film that in some places,particularly on college campuses in shown as a midnight movie for student and it is available on video for those who really want to know what the experiences of being a law student is really like. A must see. It is to note,that Houseman later replayed his role of the college professor in a much-respected and Emmy nominated television series based on "The Paper Chase",which ran for six years on television.

The Socratic Method

[thinker1691 · 6/10 · 18 June 2007]

In America, there are only a handful of prestigious school which when mentioned, acquire the status of sacred centers of learning. Harvard Law school is one of those. In this film a young, naive, Midwestern, farm boy, James T. Hart, (Timothy Bottoms) enters with all the expectations of a wide-eyed innocent opening a present. His goal is to eventually graduate with all the honors associated with the prestigious school. But like running directly into a plate glass window, Hart discovers that acquiring said distinction is to be had only with diligence, hard work and a successful Socratic encounter with a no-nonsense professor, one, Charles W. Kingsfield Jr. (John Houseman who is superior in this role) To his credit, Hart accepts his quick losses with a determination, never to repeat his mistakes. Along the way, he meets Susan, (Lindsay Wagner) a major distraction, and unbeknown to him the professor's daughter. The film is quite interesting while in the arena of legalities and with a troublesome study group. However, his romantic interludes serve only to obstruct his personal ambitions to get his life "organized." Graham Beckel plays Franklin Ford III, Kevin Brooks is James Naughton and Edward Herrmann is Thomas Craig Anderson, all members of his circle of learning. A good film depicting academic life on the grounds of Harvard. ****

The Paper Chase on Reel 13

[eplromeo8 · 4/10 · 14 January 2008]

The programmers at Channel 13 made an interesting choice to kick off their new (and kind of exciting) Reel 13 project in selecting James Bridges' 1973 paean to law school THE PAPER CHASE. I realize that 2008 marks the 35th anniversary of the film, but if it's anniversaries they're interested in, why not select a film with a little more punch – say THE STING or American GRAFFITI – or even if they wanted to go back 50 years to show us GIGI or VERTIGO – something that opens this new initiative with a bang.

But THE PAPER CHASE is what we got and so THE PAPER CHASE is what we'll deal with. I hadn't seen THE PAPER CHASE since I was fourteen years old or so and mostly remembered it as being boring and a little dull. I was excited to re-watch it on Reel 13 because I felt that now, as a more educated and hopefully more sophisticated viewer, I could fully appreciate it for the important work of art that it was supposed to be, but…no – it's still pretty boring.

I don't mean to be flip about it. The more educated version of myself can now see why the film didn't work for me and ultimately, I think it boils down to the episodic nature of the piece. The film follows first year law student James T. Hart (Timothy Bottoms) on a series of misadventures and anecdotes mostly revolving around his borderline obsession with one of his professors, but also dabbles in his relationship with a local woman he meets, the lives of some of his fellow students, the pressure of finals, etc., etc. There are a number of good and interesting scenes in The Paper Chase (I particularly like the scene on the frozen lake and most of the study group scenes), but as a whole, they don't add up to much. The film doesn't have a sufficient overall arc or thru line and the result is a jumpy and disjointed narrative.

Part and parcel with all that is the trouble with the romantic relationship between Hart and Susan, as played by Lindsay Wagner (who two years later would become television's original Bionic Woman). Firstly, they meet when Susan comes up to him randomly and abruptly on some Boston street and asks him to walk her to the corner because someone's following her. And he says he'll walk her all the way home. What??!?? Are you kidding? This is how our romantic leads meet? Then, on the walk home (we never see the alleged stalker, btw) all he does is ramble and babble about law school – the Bionic Woman looks (appropriately) bored and disinterested. A few scenes later, he lurks outside her house, builds up the courage to knock on the door and she instantly invites him in. Cut to a light turning on when they are naked in bed. I mean, really??? I know the seventies where freewheeling and everything, but this is ridiculous (or am I the only person that these things don't happen to?). And then, in this post-coital scene, he starts philosophizing about law school AGAIN. I swear – the BW has only had two or three lines of dialogue to this point. And wouldn't you know it, guess who's daughter Susan turns out to be? It's contrivances like those that can ruin a script/film. Furthermore, I have long maintained that writers and filmmakers need to take the time to build a foundation for the important romantic relationships in a film. We need to understand and feel why two people like each other and are together. Bottoms and The Bionic Woman have absolutely zero chemistry together as actors and neither is their relationship strongly supported by the script. As one of the key (albeit tenuous) conflicts in the film is the balance between Hart's romance with Susan and his pursuit of good grades at Harvard Law School, the lack of effort put into the former does serious damage to the overall impact of the film. (Sidenote: The relationship had some potential in the sense that both characters seemed to be separately obsessed with the same person. I thought this was kind of an interesting (and unique) idea and a potential building block for them, but the film doesn't capitalize on it nearly enough, instead letting it linger drifting in space).

The film is mostly remembered for the performance by John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield. He won many accolades for the performance, including the Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor of the year. Now, Mr. Houseman's performance is fine – after all, he was a stodgy and imperious professor at Julliard for twenty years before this so playing a stodgy and imperious professor at Harvard was hardly a stretch (as Neal Gabler jocularly hinted at during his opening remarks) – and he has a lot of snappy, quotable lines of dialogue. However, I hardly felt he was Oscar-worthy. Houseman won the Oscar because he was a legendary theater producer and director (he worked with Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater, etc.) and it was a fun story that he was making his acting debut at the age of 71. If you really look back at that year, I think you have to say that the best supporting performance was Jason Miller as Father Damien in THE EXORCIST. I mean, he was amazing – subtle and displayed lots of range. I would even rank Robert Shaw in THE STING, Jack Gilford in SAVE THE TIGER and hell, even, Paul LeMat in American GRAFFITI all above Houseman here. (Does anybody have any thoughts on this? I'd love to have a revisionist Oscar vote here – weigh in with your comments and postings on the Best Supporting Actor of 1973 if you get a chance).

(For the rest of this review, check out our myspace page at www.myspace.com/realthirteen.)

An education about getting an education

[Ajtlawyer · 24 October 2001]

Have there been any other movies that are as good about the process of getting an education? Yes, you can guess from my login name that I'm a lawyer. I didn't go to Harvard but I can attest that the student/faculty struggle the movie depicts is realistic (and thankfully confined only to a few traditionalist Socratic profs now). The stress and tension involved in getting a law degree is accurate, too. We had a saying, the first year they scared you to death, the second year they worked you to death, the third year they bored you to death. I'd seen the movie years before I went to law school and then I watched it again a few months after I graduated. I actually started getting sick to my stomach and shifted uneasily in my chair as I watched the classroom scenes. It was the one and only time a movie induced a "flashback" for me and I can understand now why some war veterans cannot watch war movies.

John Houseman hadn't been in a movie in years when he made this one and he got a deserved Oscar for it. Having a babe like Lindsey Wagner would've made law school easier but I wasn't that lucky. On the other hand, the romance in the movie depicts a dilemma that many people find themselves in---they're caught up in an important part of their life such as getting a degree, dealing with a very challenging job, and then suddenly an opportunity for romance comes along. Do you let the romance distract you from your larger cause? "The Competition" was another movie that dealt with that romance vs. Career theme and did it well.

Pretty good but overrated by some

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 11 February 2005]

Story about first year law students at Harvard Law School. Movie primarily focuses on James Hart (Timothy Bottoms) and his dealing with tyrannical law professor Charles Kingsfield (John Houseman) while romancing his daughter (Lindsay Wagner).

This is a good film but wildly over praised. The script is very good, it's well-directed and acted...but this tells me nothing more deep than other college movies. I always knew where this was going. Also the romance plot between Bottoms and Wagner is sort of ridiculous--no way would she fall for him. And Bottoms looks horrible with a 70s Afro and mustache. Still this is worth seeing.

It's very well written and (partially) directed in Cambridge MA (where Havard Law School is) which really gives the film a good shot of realism. Also the acting is good by almost everybody except for Wagner. She's very beautiful but lousy. Bottoms is just great but best of all is Houseman. He deservedly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role. This movie is just worth seeing for him. Also it was surprising to see how casually sex was treated in this picture--but this was long before AIDS came around.

So it is good and worth seeing--but no masterpiece.

How much are you willing to sacrifice?

[Tequila-18 · 8/10 · 16 September 1999]

As hard as it is to believe, this film makes studying exciting. The Paper Chase shows the difficulty of a first year law student. The endless studying sessions are followed by frustrating classroom encounters. The point of this film is that to succeed one must not sellout their ideals. People are changed by their experiences in this film. To win, one must place perspective on the pursuit of academic goals. Are good grades worth sacrificing love and friendship? Is flunking out truly the end of the world? At the end of the film Hart has come to realize that he has been just chasing after a paper diploma.

Grueling Rituals.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 11 September 2010]

It must be tough to get through Harvard Law School. Everybody says so. And I have a friend who was flunked out. Too dumb to make it. The poor guy had to go on and get a doctorate in history from Columbia. I'm sure Marine Corps boot camp is harder but it only last a few months, not a few years.

Timothy Bottoms is a first-year law student at Harvard. He must deal with three issues. One is his class in contract law, given by the stern, brilliant, Socratic Professor Kingsfield -- John Houseman, in a career-making role. Everyone is having trouble with the class because Houseman, though a thorough egghead and friend of presidents, is a supercilious and abrasive teacher. Bottoms adores him.

The second issue is Bottoms' far-fetched love affair with the peachy Lindsay Wagner. He spends a few minutes walking her home when they first meet. The next night he knocks on her door and before we know it they're taking a breather in the sack. What a gal. She turns out to be Kingsley's daughter but it hasn't got much to do with the story except that, after all her experiences with lawyers -- her father, her estranged husband -- she's become contemptuous of rational, organized life and enjoys spontaneity. This sets up a nicely joined conflict with Bottoms and his agenda, because if he intends to get through his relentless and demanding schedule, there's not much room left for the improvised life.

Probably the most dramatic and well-written issue is that of the study group that Bottoms joins. It consists of six bright and industrious young men. Bell is the cutting and selfish one who refuses to release his notes to the others, as promised. He's too good for the others so he quits. Another guy quits. A third guy, who has a photographic memory but a cognition block, and who is saddled with a pregnant wife too, almost commits suicide before he leaves school. The interplay between the six members of the study group is pretty interesting.

The movie takes us through Bottoms' tribulations from the beginning of the first semester to the end. What a Herculean task it is. People bite their fingernails to the bone and run around in a frenzy. It must take not only drive but personal pride to so thoroughly discipline one's self. Thymos, the Greeks might have called it -- spiritedness coupled with the desire to be recognized. A Harvard law degree makes you part of a brotherhood. It opens doors. All true, and all understandable.

Yet there's some quality about this movie that seems adolescent. The story comes across as one of those autobiographical adventures dealing with the conflicts and achievements of one's youth, and in fact the writer, John Jay Osborn Jr., was a graduate of Harvard Law. (And the "John Jay" is no accident.) The movie begs for an appreciation of all the trials Bottoms undergoes in pursuit of that ancient magic.

It's the kind of thing that's hard to write without the loss of some dignity because it can't help looking a little self-congratulatory. And, after all, the protagonist makes it through with an A on his finals, whereas the blockhead with the photographic memory tries to shoot himself. It's tough alright. But you want to hear MY sob story? At a semi-fancy graduate school -- oh, not HARVARD -- but "that other place" in New Haven and still another place, I was enrolled in a program in which classes began at eight in the morning, six days a week, and ran until four in the afternoon. We collapsed doing homework at our desks at about one in the morning, and the assignments were still incomplete. In the movie, somebody tries suicide before quitting. I simply gave up the scholarship and quit the program. Emotional maturity means, among other things, the ability to keep your spiritedness and your physical appetites harnessed by reason. The Greeks said that, too.

I swear, there's a scene in which Bottoms and his buddy creep into "the red set room", the sanctum sanctorum, a depository in which all the notes and rough drafts of all previous Harvard law students are kept locked away. Bottoms has a brief, reverent speech about the passing on of wisdom, the beatitudity of it all. And it's filmed more breathlessly than Keir Dullea's dismantling of HAL's electronic brain in "2001." Well, it's still an interesting movie and mostly believable too. God knows that Parris Island and Camp Pendleton have had their share of movies about initiation rites. So let's have one for Harvard Law. Harvard was the first university established in the United States. Next up: a tense exploration of the trials of a law student at William and Mary, university number two on the list.

This movie seemed to validate my life

[rlcsljo · 8/10 · 27 December 2000]

I had dropped out of Harvard Law school in 1969, not because of a girl, but because I wanted to see life before I saw Vietnam. I later found out about the Marine Reserves and avoided Vietnam, but I had always wondered if I had made a BIG mistake (I did have a successful career in data processing, however).

When I saw this film, I immediately knew I had made the right choice. Most of my professors were just blustering blowhards who were trying as much to intimidate me as teach me (Kingsfield must have taken lessons from one professor of mine in particular, although Houseman was not half as intimidating as he was!).

Hart's realization that experience is almost as important as education( although sometimes not as lucrative) was a turning point in my life, and I have never looked back.

Not enough credit is given to Lindsay Wagner in without a doubt what was her best performance--brava!

Mildly interesting

[grantss · 6/10 · 21 March 2016]

Mildly interesting.

The trials and tribulations of a group of first year students at Harvard Law School. Focuses on one student in particular, James Hart (played by Timothy Bottoms). He immediately finds himself out of his depth, particularly in Contract Law where the teacher is a curmudgeonly, stern man who has taught the subject for 40 years, Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman). However, through hard work he starts to cope. Then he starts a relationship with Susan (Lindsay Wagner) and it is soon apparent that he may have to choose between her and passing his courses. To make matters worse, she's the professor's daughter.

Reasonably interesting. The slog that is University life, especially in a tough course in an incredibly prestigious institution, is well shown. Also well examined are the effects of the pressures on students, and how some manage to cope and even thrive, and some not.

However, the story is quite dry. Never really becomes compelling or truly engaging. Feels clumsy at times. The romantic side is quite dull and some sub-plots go nowhere.

Performances are mostly quite solid, especially in the main roles. John Houseman got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance as Professor Kingsfield.

The movie spawned a TV series which ran from 1978 to 1986.

Very well crafted movie.

[Jetset971 · 9/10 · 26 September 2010]

This is the movie that introduced me to the unique acting styles of John Houseman. His acting persona was miraculous, in the sense that it was minimalistic yet overwhelmingly mesmerizing. Believe me, anybody can underact a part, however, the trick is to do so while walking the fine line between deadpan delivery and just lifeless drek. Actors that always underact and always bore us are like Chuck Norris and Steven Segal. They could never achieve that subtle nuance of a master like Houseman. As for the rest of the movie, Bottoms is top notch, Wagner is very convincing and the other supporting cast do a very credible job. However, its Housemans performance that deserves the most credit here.

Do you have a hairy hand that needs fixing?

[wutangv · 6/10 · 7 April 2012]

Do I think you should watch the Paper Chase? "You bet your a** I do!" Timothy Bottoms showering with two other dudes in a dorm shower, going shirtless whenever possible, creeping outside the professor's daughter's apartment? It's got it all! Timothy Bottoms' 'stache and curly hair withstands the test of time. Great side characters include Pimp and Robot Pimp. Timothy Bottoms does not need an invitation to your house. Before you know it, he's already there preventing your friends with photographic memories from committing suicide. This film has helped me reach the upper echelon of law school by taking the following steps: (1) Get it on with your professor's married daughter after walking her home for ten minutes; (2) Arrive to class early, like before the school opens, just so you can stare wistfully at your professor through a crack in the door; (3) Always break and enter into the library; (4) Study by writing "S" on the wall of your dorm; (5) Call your professor an SOB in front of the class - it's the most intelligent comment you'll say all year; (6) Keep your priorities straight - unsuccessfully writing a paper is more important than having an affair with your professor's daughter; (7) Your outline should not be shorter than 800 pages. Just remember, although your professor may forget your name, he will never forget the inappropriate, obsessive man crush you had on him.

So do YOU want to become a lawyer?

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 25 December 2005]

Law may be a prestigious profession, but "The Paper Chase" makes it look as though the process of getting there is something else. James Hart (Timothy Bottoms) is a first-year law student in Harvard. He's in a class taught by stuffy Charles W. Kingsfield Jr (John Houseman). To further complicate matters, Hart is in a relationship with Kingsfield's daughter Susan (Lindsay Wagner). Needless to say, Hart's life proves more and more difficult.

Houseman won Best Supporting Actor for his role, and you can see why. Embodying the old order surrounded by the new generation, he brings a snide but understanding presence to the screen. At the helm is James Bridges, who also directed "The China Syndrome". Whether or not you seek to become a lawyer, you might want to watch this just to know what law school is like. Interestingly, while Houseman won Best Supporting Actor for this, Best Supporting Actress that year went to another paper-related movie: Tatum O'Neal for "Paper Moon".

THE PAPER CHASE (James Bridges, 1973) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 9 March 2014]

I used to have a copy of this, recorded off Cable TV, but never found time to sit down and watch it; eventually, I upgraded to this DVD-sourced edition (complete with accompanying full-length Audio Commentary, but which I had to forego on this occasion!). A renowned Oscar-winner for theatre and film producer John Houseman's belated star-making Supporting Actor turn (though not his debut, since he had played a bit part in John Frankenheimer's superb political thriller SEVEN DAYS IN MAY {1964}), the movie was also justly tied up via the poster tag-line with other successful "youth" movies of the period, namely THE GRADUATE (1967), GOODBYE COLUMBUS (1969), SUMMER OF '42 and THE LAST PICTURE SHOW (both 1971) – with the last of which it also shares leading man Timothy Bottoms. With respect to the latter, the late Roger Ebert opined that his natural performance here exposed the mannerisms of actors like Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight...yet, after an impressive initial run of pictures, Bottoms' career took a nose-dive in the 1980s and never recovered!

The title is very apt, since it deals with the grueling academic life of first-year students at Harvard law school (the whole ambiance being impeccably caught via the Oscar-nominated sound recording); still, even if they have several subjects related to the matter, we only ever see them attending the "Contracts" classes presided over by severe Professor Houseman (whose intrinsic coldness leads him to not recognizing pupils outside the auditorium!) – however, it may well be that, when the novel was turned into a TV series (which ran from 1978 to 1986, and for which Houseman reprised his signature role), the faculty was better represented! Since the myriad aspiring lawyers are divided into study groups, we obviously follow the one which protagonist Bottoms (whose locking horns with Houseman extends to after-school activity, since he starts romancing the old man's divorcée' daughter – played by TV's future "Bionic Woman" Lindsay Wagner!) forms part of: these include one coming from generations of lawyers, a bully, a married man who has a photographic memory but no understanding of the topic (who, having failed his first test, attempts to commit suicide on his birthday!), etc.

The film, then, is good-looking (lensed by the respected Gordon Willis), well-acted (though Houseman is not required to do much other than pontificate and patronize, there is no denying the power of his presence and delivery here!) and, while necessarily heavy, clearly intelligent (the Oscar-nominated adaptation was by director Bridges, whose brief career in the latter capacity only saw one other notable title i.e. THE CHINA SYNDROME {1979}). It also, as I said earlier, embraced the socio-political concerns of the era – so that Bottoms is both a longhair and a rebel, who not only infiltrates the segregated part of the library so as to unearth the Professor's own notebook from way back, takes up residence in a hotel room away from sycophantic colleagues and aggravating staff by making an unholy mess of it and, at the very end, even throws away the all-important exam results without bothering to look at his grades!

Doesn't stand up on appeal

[apboy2 · 4/10 · 5 May 2003]

The acting was very good. The photography was good. So why didn't I like this movie? Because the script sucked. Are we supposed to believe at the end that Hart chucked the entire Harvard Law experience ... for what? To make a paper airplane out of the envelope containing his grades? Great symbolism if you're watching this and you're 20 years old (as I was in 1973), but nowhere up to that point do I have any reason to think he's going to become anything but a hotshot lawyer who's screwing his evil professor's daughter for good measure. The rest of the characters were so underdeveloped as to make the movie seem amateurish. Beyond John Houseman's acting, I don't understand the acclaim it got.