Q&A – 0 stars (incomplete)

I recently watched a documentary on the estimable Sidney Lumet and ran across one of his later films on one of my streaming queues. Q&A is a New York City potboiler about an idealistic and ambitious young assistant district attorney (Timothy Hutton) and his quarry, a corrupt, enigmatic detective (Nick Nolte). The film opens with Nolte executing a perp and planting a gun. Hutton is brought in by the district attorney (Patrick O’Neal) to investigate the shooting.  It is clear from the outset that Hutton is supposed to play ball and not dig too deep. Hutton is more than happy to perform the task.

Then Hutton has lunch with an old mentor (Lee Richards). Hutton tells Richards that O’Neal is tough but fair, and decisive.

Richards, who once worked with O’Neal, does not tell Hutton to be wary. Rather, he tells him that O’Neal is a prick, a racist and an anti-Semite who manufactures evidence to put people in the electric chair. He also tells Hutton a story. In one case, O’Neal went to go witness one of the black defendants he railroaded “fry” at Sing Sing, and when he came back to the DA’s office, he crowed about it, telling the other lawyers that he sure hoped that the guy was guilty. Hardy har!

“Fuck him. Now and forever,” says Richards. 

To this, Hutton eats his corned beef sandwich. He does not object. He does not ask any questions. He does not say to his mentor, “Come on. You must be exaggerating.”  He just eats. 

Then Richards tells Hutton that the case he drew is all wrong, suggesting that Nolte must’ve planted a gun, because the decedent never carried a .45, only a .32. 

More chewing of corned beef.  Ho hum.

That is when I turned this intolerably stupid film off.

22 minutes in. 

We already know from the outset that Nolte is dirty, and now we know that the district attorney is even dirtier and everyone knows Nolte is dirty.

At 22 minutes, we also know that the script is dogshit and the Hutton character may have been lobotomized.

On Tubi.