Anatomy of a Murder (A- or 3.5/4 stars)
Based on a novel by Robert Traver (a pseudonym for Michigan Supreme Court justice John D. Voelker), & directed by Otto Preminger, 'Anatomy of a Murder' stars James Stewart as Michigan fisherman lawyer Paul Biegler. Through the intervention of his loveable, but alcoholic mentor (Arthur O'Connell), Biegler accepts a big murder case: a soldier's wife (Lee Remick) is brutally raped, and her unlovable lout of a husband, Lt. Manion (Ben Gazzara), is charged with murdering the rapist at a local bar. Manion admits that he killed the man, citing his wife's rape as the motive. Faced with the formidable opposition of big-city prosecutor Claude Dancer (a superb George C. Scott), Biegler hopes to get Manion off innocent by using a defense argument of 'irresistible impulse'; a variation of temporary insanity.
Also in this movie: Eve Arden as Biegler's sardonic secretary, Katherine Grant as the young woman who inherits the dead man's business, & Joseph Welch, a real life judge, who calmly oversees the trial (loved him). And after 2 hours & 40 minutes of relatively gripping entertainment, we finally get a verdict. Otto Preminger takes quite a while to set up this lengthy story, but his pacing/style keep us intrigued throughout. Stewart moses around town, interviewing witnesses in his leisurely style. We get to see the little town they live in, where people fish a lot & there is only 1 bar for nightlife entertainment. Then the courtroom scenes take-over for 90 min. of the film. One striking scene has George C. Scott questioning Lee Remick on the witness stand, with James Stewart in the background complaining about Scott blocking his eye line -- very unique directorial/cinematography choice, there. The overall craftsmanship on this film is top notch.
I was surprised to find that this film is not a murder mystery. I was somewhat disappointed by that 'til I realized that that was the film I was expecting and not the film I got; can't begrudge the film that. See, there's no question that Gazzara killed the man & it certainly seems that Remick has been raped (she even has a black eye before the trial starts). So any suspense comes from the trial itself. Do we think Gazzara is 'essentially' innocent? Does he deserve to be set free? How will the jury respond, and how would we!? It's all a question of morals rather than whodunit -- and I would credit this film for setting the stage for oodles of movies & television court dramas that followed a similar model (where who-did-it was not integral to the case). And to top it all off, the director leaves the ending relatively ambiguous.
James Stewart is fantastic. Though he gives his typically aww-gee-shucks portrayal that we all love. I'm also reminded of a scene where he slams his hand down on the court table in anger at something the prosecution was saying -- he reacted the same exact way I would have. Lee Remick - in a breakout role - is sexy, alluring, yet quietly devious as the rape victim. Part of the reason we may question the entire case is due to her ambiguous nature. Remick also has a great scene in which she takes off her tidy hat & shakes down her blonde hair in the courtroom; much to the delight of the judge, jury, lawyers, & audience. See, there's some dark comedy to go along with the gravity of the murder case; it's all balanced delicately by Otto Preminger.
Duke Ellington's jazz musical score is great; I wish we heard more of it throughout.
Producer/director Preminger had the guts to make a cold, hard film (in an era where people craved melodrama, romance, justice served & tidy endings). He also pushed limits by using sexual terminology (which you'd never hear in a film prior to 1959). In fact, most of the courtroom banter about panties, penetration, & semen didn't even come from the source novel. Everything about this film works. And yet, because I've been spoiled by decades of entertainment "like" this film, it felt somewhat dated. I have to remember that this film probably started it all.
Also in this movie: Eve Arden as Biegler's sardonic secretary, Katherine Grant as the young woman who inherits the dead man's business, & Joseph Welch, a real life judge, who calmly oversees the trial (loved him). And after 2 hours & 40 minutes of relatively gripping entertainment, we finally get a verdict. Otto Preminger takes quite a while to set up this lengthy story, but his pacing/style keep us intrigued throughout. Stewart moses around town, interviewing witnesses in his leisurely style. We get to see the little town they live in, where people fish a lot & there is only 1 bar for nightlife entertainment. Then the courtroom scenes take-over for 90 min. of the film. One striking scene has George C. Scott questioning Lee Remick on the witness stand, with James Stewart in the background complaining about Scott blocking his eye line -- very unique directorial/cinematography choice, there. The overall craftsmanship on this film is top notch.
I was surprised to find that this film is not a murder mystery. I was somewhat disappointed by that 'til I realized that that was the film I was expecting and not the film I got; can't begrudge the film that. See, there's no question that Gazzara killed the man & it certainly seems that Remick has been raped (she even has a black eye before the trial starts). So any suspense comes from the trial itself. Do we think Gazzara is 'essentially' innocent? Does he deserve to be set free? How will the jury respond, and how would we!? It's all a question of morals rather than whodunit -- and I would credit this film for setting the stage for oodles of movies & television court dramas that followed a similar model (where who-did-it was not integral to the case). And to top it all off, the director leaves the ending relatively ambiguous.
James Stewart is fantastic. Though he gives his typically aww-gee-shucks portrayal that we all love. I'm also reminded of a scene where he slams his hand down on the court table in anger at something the prosecution was saying -- he reacted the same exact way I would have. Lee Remick - in a breakout role - is sexy, alluring, yet quietly devious as the rape victim. Part of the reason we may question the entire case is due to her ambiguous nature. Remick also has a great scene in which she takes off her tidy hat & shakes down her blonde hair in the courtroom; much to the delight of the judge, jury, lawyers, & audience. See, there's some dark comedy to go along with the gravity of the murder case; it's all balanced delicately by Otto Preminger.
Duke Ellington's jazz musical score is great; I wish we heard more of it throughout.
Producer/director Preminger had the guts to make a cold, hard film (in an era where people craved melodrama, romance, justice served & tidy endings). He also pushed limits by using sexual terminology (which you'd never hear in a film prior to 1959). In fact, most of the courtroom banter about panties, penetration, & semen didn't even come from the source novel. Everything about this film works. And yet, because I've been spoiled by decades of entertainment "like" this film, it felt somewhat dated. I have to remember that this film probably started it all.