Nuts 1987

In a tense courtroom drama with sharp moral questions, Claudia Draper, Barbra Streisand, kills Allen Green in self-defense, a moment that sets off a collision between personal history, public judgment, and the harsh gaze of the legal system. Her mother Rose Kirk, Maureen Stapleton, and stepfather Arthur Kirk, Karl Malden, scramble to shield the family by seeking to declare Claudia mentally incompetent, hoping to bury the incident under the veneer of illness rather than a courtroom verdict. Yet Claudia is fiercely determined not to disappear into a mental institution; she wants to be seen and heard on her own terms, and she fights to be deemed fit to stand trial.

The defense in this perilous case is initially upended when the attorney hired by her parents quits after Claudia assaults him in court for attempting to move to commit her. The judge, faced with a high-stakes situation and limited time, appoints public defender Aaron Levinsky, Richard Dreyfuss, to take the case. Levinsky is overwhelmed by the caseload, but he refuses to engage with the defense team without first speaking directly to Claudia. The young woman is openly hostile at first, resisting his presence and signaling that she will not concede to the court’s expectations. Yet Levinsky’s persistence—paired with his refusal to take the easy route—begins to reveal a patient, probing mind beneath the surface of her distrust. He makes clear that he will listen to her, and that listening could be the key to understanding the circumstances that brought her to this point.

As Levinsky digs into Claudia’s past, the film unfolds in a careful, methodical way. He begins to piece together a life that seemed outwardly poised and respectable—rooted in a seemingly stable, upper-middle-class milieu—but that hides a tangle of experiences, traumas, and emotions that help explain how she ended up in a courtroom. The investigation becomes less about defense tactics and more about reconstructing a person who has learned to survive by suppressing pain, fear, and anger. Throughout this process, the audience is invited to consider how a person can be judged harshly for choices made under duress, and how surrounding myths about femininity, sexuality, and power can shape a verdict before a single witness speaks.

In the psychiatric ward, where Claudia waits for the next steps, she experiences a nightmare that revisits the day of the killing. The memory is vivid: her assailant begins to physically attack her when she refuses to spend more time with him and to let him bathe her. The vivid recitation of fear and struggle underscores how quickly danger can escalate from coercion to self-defense, and how the line between victim and survivor can blur under pressure. When Claudia’s mother testifies, she brings a different kind of memory to the stand—a flashback in which the mother’s door is closed on Claudia, leaving her to face her distress alone. The moment is charged with a sense of abandonment and the miscommunication that can fester between a parent and child.

Cross-examination also reveals a darker layer of Claudia’s childhood. Arthur Kirk testifies, and the process reveals that Claudia endured sexual abuse by a family member beginning in her youth and continuing until she was sixteen. A flashback echoes the courtroom’s questioning as someone in the memory tries to force himself into the bathroom, while the mother’s reaction on the stand signals how these revelations shake the family’s façade. The resulting trauma adds to the audience’s understanding of why Claudia might appear to deviate from society’s expectations of how a woman should behave, and it complicates the question of whether insanity or sanity should govern her fate.

Claudia eventually takes the stand in her own defense, and her testimony is a direct challenge to the idea that sanity must fit a certain image. She asserts that being sane is not about conforming to stereotypes or appearing “proper” in public, but about being able to articulate her truth and face the consequences of her actions. The courtroom becomes a space where questions of power, gender norms, and personal history are weighed against the legal criteria of competence and responsibility. Throughout, Levinsky remains a steady, thoughtful presence, insisting that Claudia’s voice deserves to be heard in full and not filtered through assumptions about who she should be.

As the trial unfolds, the judge, Judge Stanley Murdoch, James Whitmore, must decide whether Claudia is competent to stand trial. His ruling—whether she is capable of participating in her defense and understanding the proceedings—becomes a pivotal moment for the entire case. The narrative follows her journey from a locked mental ward to the possibility of returning to the courtroom, highlighting the tension between protectiveness and accountability. In the final act, Claudia walks out of the courtroom on her own recognizance, signaling that she is awaiting trial rather than being remanded to a hospital cell.

The film closes with a concise, definitive note: Claudia faced a trial for first-degree manslaughter, with Richard Dreyfuss as her attorney, and she was acquitted. The ending leaves viewers with a sense of resolution, but also a lasting meditation on how society defines sanity, how families navigate danger and blame, and how the legal system grapples with the complexities of motive, trauma, and self-defense. The story emphasizes that truth can be messy and that courage can take many forms—from the quiet persistence of a public defender to the quiet resilience of a woman who refuses to be erased by her past.