News

Eddie Redmayne cast as partner of top US law firm in next film

By on
13

Hollywood heartthrob set to play namesake partner of Cravath, Swaine & Moore

lead1

Oscar winning actor Eddie Redmayne may need to pop over to Blackwell’s for an intellectual property statute book, as it’s been revealed he’ll be playing a top litigation lawyer in his latest film.

According to the good folk over at Above the Law, the British actor will be playing Paul Drennan Cravath — the lead character in the film The Last Days of Night and the partner named in top New York-headquartered firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Our readers may recognise the firm as one of the key players in the growing MoneyLaw trend. In June, Cravath — which has offices in Moorgate, London — upped its junior lawyer pay from $160,000 (£110,000) to a pretty staggering $180,000 (£124,000), making it one of the best paying firms in the City.

Though he has no legal background, we hope Cambridge graduate Redmayne will be willing to swot up on his legal principles and case law in prep for the film.

Based on a book by Graham Moore, the film follows one of the most interesting intellectual property disputes in history. Seen through the eyes of a 26-year-old Cravath, viewers will explore the rivalry between inventors George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison in the late 1800s as they squabbled over the patent for the electric lightbulb. Just 18 months out of law school, Cravath was drafted in to represent defendant Westinghouse in the epic, $1 billion legal battle.

Redmayne and co will start filming early next year. We cannot wait.

13 Comments

Anonymous

The book (and film) is set in 1888. How can that possibly be said to constitute “the late 1800s”? Do you mean the late 1880s? Or perhaps the late 19th Century?

(4)(30)

Anonymous

Is 88 years not late into the 1800s?

(24)(2)

Anonymous

No, it’s late into 19th century. Late into the 1800s would (for example) be 1809.

Describing 1888 as the late 1800s makes as much sense as describing 1997 as the late 1920s – i.e. it doesn’t make sense.

(2)(33)

Anonymous

Soz, I left my brain at home today.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Are you serious?

(5)(0)

Anonymous

If someone said to me “the late 1800’s”, I would instinctively think of 1875 up to 1900. Do you know why I would do that? Because it makes complete fucking sense to do that, you absolute moron.

(28)(0)

Anonymous

Congratulations. You’ve successfully failed the kindergarten level comprehension assessment.

It’s perfectly reasonable (and very easily understood) to describe 1888 as in the late eighteen hundreds.

(9)(0)

Anonymous

If it was described as being late in the eighteen noughties, I would be inclined to agree with the odd ball OP, however it wasn’t. So I won’t.

(4)(0)

Tory Powermouse

This is the best comment chain I’ve seen on LC.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Stop trying to make ‘MoneyLaw’ happen. It isn’t going to happen

(4)(0)

Anonymous

The Anonymous commenter who started this thread would be right if the article stated the ‘late 18th Century’… perhaps that’s where the confusion lies

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Confusion lies with the commentor being a spaz.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

When I was an undergrad historian, every professor insisted that 1800s meant 1800-1809 and 19th century meant 1800-1899. I hadn’t heard of that usage before I got to uni, but once there it was just standard. Maybe it used to be taught in schools but isn’t any more.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.