Movies We Like: ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ (1959)
by Kurt SchlichterThere was a time when an “adult film” meant a movie by, for and about adults, not a tawdry tale of some tatted-up, dead-eyed 19-year old with daddy issues numbly coupling in front of a video camera for the gratification of leering, backward-hatted frat boys and twitchy loners with DSL. They don’t make many truly adult films anymore – to see what you are missing, a good place to start is 50 years ago with 1959’s Anatomy of a Murder.
Let’s start with the cast: James Stewart. George C. Scott. Lee Remick. Eve Arden. Ben Gazzara. Even Big Hollywood’s own Orson Bean in a supporting part as a doctor who plays a key role in the story. If you love movies, you only needed to get to the word “George” before you were adding it to your NetFlix queue.
The plot is simple. Small-town lawyer Paul Biegler (Stewart), who is more concerned with fishing than his practice, is talked into meeting Army lieutenant Fred Manion, who is sitting in jail for the murder of the man the soldier claims raped his wife Laura (The hotter-than-hot Remick). Beigler takes the case, and faces off with Claude Dancer (Scott), the ace prosecutor sent in from the big city to chalk up yet another conviction. There is much more to the story – the movie is a brisk two hours forty minutes long – but there’s no sense in going into the details here. You just need to know this: Jimmy Stewart goes up against George C. Scott in court. Case closed.
The sparks fly in the courtroom under the direction of Otto Preminger, the enfant terrible of 50s and 60s Tinseltown, but the interesting part (at least for a lawyer) is that the film covers all aspects of the trial, in and out of the courtroom. Cases are often won not in front of the jury but hunched over a dusty book of old cases (or, today, in front of a computer screen looking at precedent online), and Anatomy doesn’t hesitate to show the hard work involved in putting up a defense.
That sounds dull as dirt, but Anatomy is anything but. Stewart is helped by his burned out, alcoholic mentor Parnell, played perfectly by Arthur O’Connell. His character is funny, irascible, sad and, in the end, redeemed. O’Connell even manages to steal scenes from Jimmy Stewart while snagging a best Supporting Actor nomination for himself (Stewart and Scott both earned Oscar nominations as well).
–
Preminger was known for the pushing boundaries, and he does it again here. This was 1959, and audiences must have been in for a shock not only hearing a frank discussion of topics like sexual climax and seminal fluid on the big screen but hearing it come from the mouth of George Bailey himself. But it’s not exploitation – it’s reality, and there is nothing wrong with adults viewing adult subject matter. If only films today were brave enough to put forward an ambiguous character like Laura Manion – perhaps a rape victim, but perhaps something else. They’d be picketed by bitter, snarling feminists furious over the movie’s rejection of easy archetypes and easier answers. And almost no studio today would risk the ending either – an ending that is a perfect fit for what comes before.
The beauty of Anatomy is how it never treats its audience like children. Its characters are fallible – sometimes they drink to excess, smoke, have questionable morals and lie, but the movie expects the audience to understand that human beings are not purely black and white. That audience had come through three terrible wars and the Great Depression. They knew something about real life even if most of what Hollywood was putting out was sanitized and saccharine.
If Anatomy was being remade today, those twit studio suits would probably try to push Josh Hartnett as Beigler, Scarlett Johansson as Laura, and some kid from a CW TV series about vampires as the accused. It’s sad that there are so many mediocrities out there today, and sadder that the suits don’t even realize it. No matter how hard she tried, the pretty but vacant Johansson could never get anywhere as close to down and dirty as Lee Remick does here. And there’s no comparison in life experience – Stewart flew B-24s over Dusseldorf; Harnett looks like he bursts into tears when he runs out of his Axe body spray.
The only problem with Anatomy in my book is the music. It’s jazz, and aficionados of that art form hail Duke Ellington’s soundtrack as a masterpiece. But if you feel that jazz is like a colonoscopy for your ears, the musical interludes can be downright painful.
It’s been a summer of sequels to lumbering blockbusters that should have never been made in the first place, twee romances between self-consciously awkward 20-something nerds, and big screen adaptations of “graphic novels” that demonstrate why generations of parents past declared comic books a pernicious waste of time. Now give Anatomy of a Murder a look – it is a reminder that not all films are aimed squarely at the half-wit demographic.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
62 Comments
Great review of a great movie. I saw it a couple of months ago and was mesmerized. One of the best I've ever saw and time flew by while I was watching it. The movie seems gritty like Hud for the period. I also concur on the comments about today's actors. Seems like we're lacking heavyweights these days.
Man, oh man, what a great flick. Watching James Stewart and George C. Scott (two of my all-time favorite actors) going at it on-screen together is like watching two great jazz musicians blending their own unique sounds together. Greatness in action!
Haven't seen it. I will now.
"There was a time when an “adult film” meant a movie by, for and about adults, not a tawdry tale of some tatted-up, dead-eyed 19-year old with daddy issues numbly coupling in front of a video camera for the gratification of leering, backward-hatted frat boys and twitchy loners with DSL."
I resent that. I do not wear my hat backwards, nor do I belong to a frat.
So there.
I saw it a year ago…__actually rather disappointed…it seemed like TV movie…and seemed to confirm what some1 said of Preminger–"a producer rather than a director"..____except for George C…WHAT A PERFORMANCE..!__hb
I live in LA and network with film industry people all the time, both the young and the veterans. They really DO look down on their audiences, especially the veterans. Currently they present HANGOVER as "the ultimate" ideal for the perfect movie: simple and cheap to produce, rakes in a pile of dough, mostly through word of mouth. And they have told me that this is the final proof showing what sells and what scores big: simplicity, gross out humor, and sex human. One veteran producer told me that movies must be made simple enough so that kids hanging out at the mall want to see them again and again – movies that make you think are poison!
I advised some of these people that I showed my average nephew (then age 15) One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest for the first time. He was absolutely mezmerized. He loved it. He was thrilled. I had never seen him react to a movie like that. And this is a movie with no hot chicks, no CGI, no car chaces, and no no gunplay or swordplay. "But that's a classic movie!" they told me. "So it's not a fair comparison."
NOW do you see why we no longer make classics?
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who finds the music incredibly annoying. I like some jazz like Big Band and Dixieland, but the Ellington score is very distracting. Despite this shortcoming, the movie is terrific. It's one of Otto Preminger's best, right up there with Laura.
The look on George C. Scott face when he finishes grilling the Crosby girl and gets an answer he did expect is….truly….priceless.
Plus what other film gives you both Duke Ellington on screen (and off) as a piano player and Joseph Welch on screen as a judge! ('At long last, jurors, let's just say the word 'panties'. Have you no shame?' Hahahahaha!)
Too much to say about this great film and not give too much away.
The book was pretty darned good too.
"They don’t make many truly adult films anymore "
Sure they do, you're just too lazy to go look for them.
Anatomy of a Murder is a great movie. This is a piss poor review. Actually, it's not a review at all. It's yet another reason to complain that they "just don't make 'em like they used to."
There are plenty of great films out there being made by a variety of talented filmmakers. Sure there's crap, but there's ALWAYS been crap. Were there "sequels to lumbering blockbusters that should have never been made in the first place" this summer? Absolutely. But there were also magnificently original pieces of work – Moon, Up, The Hurt Locker, Distric 9, Inglourious Basterds, In the Loop, Drag Me to Hell. The list goes on.
There's nothing worse than a movie review that laments the "good ol' days." And if you don't think there are quality modern filmmakers out there, chances are you were never a fan of film in the first place. Just a fan of the way things used to be.
The part of the judge in "Anatomy of a Murder" was played by Joseph Welch, the real-life lawyer who was counsel for the Army during Joseph McCarthy's hearings on communist infiltration in 1954. As I am sure most BH readers (a literate bunch) know, Welch was the one who delivered the famous "Have you no decency sir? At long last have you no decency?" line which crushed McCarthy's reputation. (McCarthy was also drinking himself to death by that point.) As a result Preminger (a noted Hollywood leftie) had to have him for this film. That said, "Anatomy" is truly terriffic. It is literate, adult and beautifully written. The use of real Michigan UP locations adds enormously to the films impact and the cast, from James Stewart to the smallest bit, is pitch-perfect. Otto Preminger had a very uneven career as a director but anyone with this film and "Laura" on his resume has nothing to worry about.
Even the law was accurate. They really concentrated on detail. I saw it for the second time after I went into practice. They cited a case from ALR, so I immediately ran to my library and checked, figuring it was a throwaway line. It was not only accurate, it gave me an idea for a case I was working on, and won it based on the logic used by James Stewart in his citation. Today, I wouldn't trust a movie lawyer to tell me that murder is illegal.
PS: The use of renowned lawyer Joseph Welch of Army-McCarthy fame as the judge was a stroke of genius.
One of my favorite films. Stewart was breathtaking in his portrayal. And the way the subject matter was handled was brilliant.
I'm a very liberal guy, and I disagree with some of your statements, but "Anatomy" is a great movie. The casting of Welch as the judge was a great idea (I wouldn't have know he was a real judge had it not been for TCM's presenter).
This movie reminds me of another gritty courtroom drama, "Twelve Angry Men" (either the original or the remake, though I really thought Jack Lemmon was a miscast).
A more recent, original, though based on true events, movie is "A Civil Action". Travolta wasn't great, but was surprisingly less obtrusive than I generally find him.
"But that's a classic movie!" they told me. "So it's not a fair comparison."
These are the same guys who fault Shakespeare for using so many cliches.
When Merv Griffin presented the front-office suits with the idea for JEOPARDY! back in the early 60's, he was told that nobody would watch a quizz show unless the questions were dumbed-down to the level of 12-year-old comprehension. The suits have subsequently been replaced by even stupider and more juvenile counterparts, but JEOPARDY! still outdraws just about every other program excpet Merv's other bright idea WHEEL OF FORTUNE.
Movie makers need to lose the current template, and just make the movie that fits THEIR vision, not that of the industry insiders.
One more thing…
"…a tawdry tale of some tatted-up, dead-eyed 19-year old with daddy issues numbly coupling in front of a video camera for the gratification of leering, backward-hatted frat boys and twitchy loners with DSL."
I can assure you, sir, I do NOT have DSL…I have cable.
"The only problem with Anatomy in my book is the music. It’s jazz, and aficionados of that art form hail Duke Ellington’s soundtrack as a masterpiece. But if you feel that jazz is like a colonoscopy for your ears, the musical interludes can be downright painful."
————————————————
I'm an Ellington fan for many years and it is my impression that most Ellington fans listen to the soundtrack separate from the film. So what might sound jarring in a film may not have the same effect when you are just at home listening to the LP.
Great and entertaining post, Kurt.
I put you on notice that I intend to shamelessly steal the phrase "colonoscopy for the ears" at every occasion I can get away with.
Damn – should be – "gets an answer he DIDN'T expect is….truly….priceless."
Thanks Scott – that's basically the point that I was trying to make – young people (say under 30) WILL watch and enjoy and recommend quality movies if they are shown quality movies. if they are shown junk, on the assumption that they will only watch a CGI-fest with plenty of hot babes and gunplay or swordplay, that's what they will watch. It's a self-fullfilling prediction.
Along the same lines, a while back I showed my girlfriend's daughter (then a very typical 10 year old) Planet of the Apes (the ORIGINAL from 1968). Well, she asked to see my favorite all-time movie. I did not expect her to understand it let alone love it – and I was totally wrong. She freaked out. Again, I never saw her appreciate a movie like that – at the Statue scene, she was bouncing off the wall. And it was NOT to pander to me. Why? A great movie. Such a movie "can't" be made today, because the executives would say, "Kids won't like it."
As a parent, I've noticed a few things about expectations. My 2 1/2 year old daughter behaves really well 90% of the time. For the remainder, she's a typical 2 year old. She sits in a booster seat, eats with real utensils, and drinks out of grown-up cup. She's potty trained. Some other children I've seen, in church, in playgroups, etc–the parents have their three-year-old kid still in the high chair, still wearing diapers, and acting like a spoiled buffoon all day, every day.
We expect our child to behave, and when she doesn't, we remind her. The other parents expect their kids to be holy terrors, and then they react.
If you have high expectations, then more often than not, the child will rise to meet them. If you have low expectations, the child will rise to meet them.
As a parent, I've noticed a few things about expectations. My 2 1/2 year old daughter behaves really well 90% of the time. For the remainder, she's a typical 2 year old. She sits in a booster seat, eats with real utensils, and drinks out of grown-up cup. She's potty trained. Some other children I've seen, in church, in playgroups, etc–the parents have their three-year-old kid still in the high chair, still wearing diapers, and acting like a spoiled buffoon all day, every day.
We expect our child to behave, and when she doesn't, we remind her. The other parents expect their kids to be holy terrors, and then they react.
If you have high expectations, then more often than not, the child will rise to meet them. If you have low expectations, the child will rise to meet them. It's a shame directors/producers/media giants expect so little from the paying public.
Stewart vs Scott in a courtroom. Can there be two more different actors? Each are fascinating to watch in their own way. An acting tour deforce. The supporting characters are all extremely strong as well. The judge was a real judge, not an actor, and ran the court just as he would have for real. If you haven't seen it, you must.
Actually, I thought the soundtrack was great, and tied in with the fact that the main character, played by James Stewart, was also a jazz pianist. There's a scene where he and Duke Ellington share a piano, by the way. It's strange to hear someone talk about Duke Ellington as if he were some oddity only liked by a coterie of "aficianados", rather than one of the most important composers of 20th century American music. I wonder if it has something to do with the dearth of music training in America these days. Who knows?
Otherwise, a great review of a great movie. The book was also worth reading, and can be found in your local library; give it a read!
Great movie, and it's nice to see it written up here.
My first introduction to this movie came in law school; a guest lecturer in my Legal Ethics course played the scene where Jimmy Stewart first meets Ben Gazzara, explains the temporary insanity defense, and tells him to think about how insane he was that night.
In addition to what everyone else has said, I'd like to add that one thing that's always impressed me about this movie is that, the more Jimmy Stewart investigates, it becomes less and less clear what really happened that night. The handling of the ambiguity of the situation and the flawed characters involved is excellent, and it never fails to hold your attention.
Great post! With DVDs cutting down on attendance and high production costs strangling the small "for adult" market, the media industry has been going after the greatest return. Today´s society is much different than in 1959. We have so many choices and opportunities for anyone to make a YouTube video, DVD, satalite/cable/fios and get instant attention. In ´59, you had either a radio, a live stage production, mostly live television with only a few channels, bridge/card night, READ or do a crossword puzzle and going to a movie was an event – you could not buy the DVD next month and very unlikely to see it on the television. The media has changed to feed what the audiences hunger for… but we also have a wider variety and still the freedom to choose — to go to the library or rent/purchase Anatomy of a Murder or see the latest romantic comedy at the movie theater.
" It's strange to hear someone talk about Duke Ellington as if he were some oddity only liked by a coterie of "aficianados", rather than one of the most important composers of 20th century American music."
—————————————————-
The state of popular music being what it is today is that composers like Ellington, Gershwin, Porter, Kern, etc….are merely paid lip-service by most people and their current level of status in today's world is near zero amongst the great majority of Americans. Sad, but true.
"In ´59, you had…………mostly live television with only a few channels…."
—————————————————————————————————-
Not really. By 1959 there were many filmed shows on the air and the live shows, aside from daytime, were greatly diminished for just a few years earlier.
I was in the NYC area and we had 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and whatever 'ghosty' channels floated in from Conn (3) and Philadelphia (12), IIRC). 13 was public television. 2,4,7 – CBS, NBC, ABC flagship network stations and our terrific indie stations, 5, 9, 11 – WNEW, WOR, WPIX (God…I have not typed WPIX out in years!)
Great thing about them all except 13 – they all showed movies all the times, day-time, after noon, evening, late night – stuff that never gets run anymore as newer and color movie pushed them off the air.
I have basic cable today only b/c I have to and the amount of stations I now watch had perhaps doubled, but I watch the old networks far less.
Far less movies on those channels these days.
Just reminiscen'
Man, they don't make films like that anymore.
If I needed a reason to line today's Hollywood up against a wall and shoot them, that line above would be it.
Lee Remick. Mmmmmmm. A classic beauty among classic beauties. Any opportunity to watch her acting in her prime is an opportunity not to be missed. None of the current crop of Hollywood hotties can hold a candle to her.
I concur with tobytylersf. Rock 'n' roll began the steep decline, and rap finished the job. For those who love jazz and film, check out "Sweet Smell of Success" made a few years earlier with Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis.
Ben Gazzara speaks to Obama at the 1:52 mark.
I watched six months ago. I agree that this is an adult movie, but otherwise I can't agree with your characterization. Anatomy of a Murder is basically a 2 ½ hour long episode of Perry Mason. With this cast and director, it couldn’t be badly done, but I expected much more. The acting is quite good, but my God, it dragged.
<Spoiler alert>
It doesn’t help that I thought the defendant was guilty, so there was no pleasure in seeing either a brilliant defense or justice done.
</Spoiler>
This talk about how the young respond to good movies reminds me of my own experience when I have played Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Jimmy Lunceford, Johnny Hartman, Ella Fitzgerald, or Billy Eckstine when young folks are around. They are CAPTIVATED.
As a litigation (civil) attorney, I have often debated with myself over the best trial movie, this one or "Witness for the Prosecution". I give it to "Anatomy…", because no cutsie plot twist was involved. We know everything (but for the daughter of the victim angle) from the beginning. And the rulings are generally correct, although Oliver Wendell Holmes was never Chief Justice, as character Parnell says. Otherwise, the best trial movie I have ever seen, and I know trials.
Too skinny.
You know, I took a college film course a few years ago for an art credit, and when one of the movies we watched was Casablanca, I was the only person in the entire room besides the teacher who had seen it before. It's been one of my favorites since I was about 14, and so I was happy to watch it again. Most in the class were obnoxious 20-something males whose favorite films were of the Hot Shots/Happy Gilmore variety. For the first 20 minutes or so, the teacher and I were the only ones laughing. But as time went on, they got used to the style of the movie and the fast pace of the dialogue, and soon the entire class was cracking up over the one-liners. They absolutely loved it, and really got into the story. It was one of the favorite movies we watched that year. They just don't make movies like that anymore.
I always thought she came off kind of cold myself. But to each his own. And I haven't see this movie so maybe it would change my opinion of her.
I wouldn't necessarily call that "looking down on the audience" per se but I know what you mean (and for the record, I thought The Hangover was hilarious but it probably shouldn't be used as a template for how to create a perfect movie… it was cheap to make and well-written but not exactly Oscar material).
I can list a number of factors:
-short attention spans (the same kids who complain about having to read or that a movie being shown in class is black and white)
-star salaries (how much would an A-list courtroom drama cost today after you pay the actors?)
-the foreign market (I've heard the argument that non-English speaking audiences respond better to big visuals and gags, which would explain why action movies are so popular overseas… but I think we're underestimating these people)
-the need to politicize everything, and both sides are guilty of this
If it makes you feel any better, I'm 26 and many in my age group crave great, thought-provoking, "adult" movies to watch. And good for you and your nephew!
"Stewart flew B-24s over Dusseldorf; Harnett looks like he bursts into tears when he runs out of his Axe body spray." – That, sir, was magnificent. I only disagree with you about the soundtrack – I bought it on CD years ago!
This movie was filmed in my hometown. Just this past summer, I visited the courtroom where parts were filmed(I was aquitted:) ). The author of the book was a family friend and was bigtime into fishing. Nice guy. Also threw back a few at the "Thunder Bay Inn"
If anyone ever tries to remake this movie, I will start sending nasty letters to whatever movie execs are involved. No actor these days could hope to replace Jimmy.
It's that lack of real adult movies that keeps most adults at home watching classic films on DVD or TCM. Most people who remember 1959 are not at all interested in what is being produced these days so they are not buying movie tickets. A big market untapped.
The movie was based on a great novel that was a huge best-seller. The author, Robert Traver, was actually a small town district attorney.
I have been to the bar where the actual murder happened in Big Bay, MI. It is a log cabin and the bullet holes are still in the wall. The bar you see in the movie was built by the movie company next door and is still a going concern. The camp ground where Lee Remick had her trailer is across the street and still open for business. The court room where the trial was filmed is still there and in use. Local rumor is that when the murder happend the lumber jacks at the bar hated the victim so much that they drank for free for an hour before calling the state police. Don't know if that's true. Robert Travers ended up a Michigan Supreme Court justice.
I'll see you and raise you "Elevator to the Gallows" with its' score by Miles Davis. I'm gonna get all-film-y pretentious and say it's the best use of a jazz score in film.
What did you see her in? THE OMEN or something?
Check her out in A Face in the Crowd.
So I am guessing you have a blazingly fast Fios connection then? Wide screen monitor, surround sound, lol. . . sorry you walked into that one!
I never miss "Anatomy" when it shows up. I am a total sucker for ensemble productions, and this is a great one.
[...] A genuine adult film. [...]
Kids today will sit and watch old great films of the 30s to 70s. I know this because I have done it with my own kids and their friends. My kids loved Lawrence of Arabia and I took them to see it on the big screen the way I saw it. The same thing with Spartacus. Ben Hur, Ten Commandants. I had a friend that was a Professor up as USC Davis and he taught religion in film. He would set up his laser disc system on a big screen and these 23 year old would sit there with their mouths open when watching Ben Hur, Sgt. York, The Robe, Quo Vadis he would tell me that these kids would be moved to tears the way they did to the kids of the 50s and 60s. He would tell me the first time he showed them Ben Hur most of them didn't realize that Heston was the same guy as the NRA guy. They wanted to know when this Heston was going to make another film. These are 20 something year old kids at a major university. I use to work in a post house and I knew 40 year old women who were actresses that didn't know who Errol Flynn was. I worked with people in their 30s that never saw Ben Hur or Gone with the wind. SOme heard of the films but never saw them. I would bring in these films to work and they would sit there amazed. I brought in black and white films of Cagney, Mitchum, Lancaster films, I was opening a whole new world to them. These are not 10 year olds like my kids were when I took them to see The Adventures of Robin Hood at the Egyptian for the first time. People are people and they will be moved, blown away at a movie like Crash which is a lump of crap and they will sit there and be blown away at Charles Laughton's Hunchback of Notre Dame on the big screen.
If theater owners would show these old classics in theaters again like they did in the late 60s and early 70s when I saw them for the first time, kids today would love these films and see the world from a different point of view. I sat in many a theater back in Boston when I was 19 and in this theater were 40 to 60 year olds stamping their feet and yelling like teenagers when Errol Flynn rides that horse over that tree in the opening of Robin Hood. I have been in a theater packed in those days with that same age group screaming and howling, I am crying my eyes out watching the Marx Bros. in a Night at the Opera. These films worked then, now and in the future. We just don't see them out there except on DVD and kids today don't have the patience to watch it. Get these kids in a big screen theater and watch Spartacus they will be moved.
We can't expect these people that run the studios to understand this, they are not showman they are pencil pushers. Films like this can be made if you have filmmakers that want too. Most filmmakers today are weaned on crap and they copy crap films and this is why we get what we get. Film schools turn out mechanics and not artist. They don't know to take risks with stories they see it all as a blueprint and its painting on film. One has to study the masters and those great films of the Golden Age and adapt it to todays world without all the PC crap and you will wow your audience.
[...] A genuine adult film. [...]
There is a way that Parnell could have been right in referring to Holmes as "Chief Justice." Holmes was Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court from 1899 to 1902 when he left to become a Supreme. He had already published the first edition of his great work, "The Common Law", in 1881 and I believe he revised it a couple of times before he joined the U.S. Supreme Court. It is possible that Paul Biegler and Parnell plan on reading an edition of "The Common Law" produced when Holmes was Chief Justice for his home state. (I'm a lawyer too and therefore a hairsplitter.) Agree with you 100% that "Anatomy" is the best pure trial film ever made.
I remember my parents took me to NYC in 1965 or '66 and we went to see "Wait Until Dark." Lee Remick was amazing. I wish I'd had the courage to go hang out by the stage door.
Overall, this is a bad movie and a waste of the great cast. It was probably more about intentionally provoking the Hays Code more that trying to be real. I'm sure they thought about how fun it would be to go into small towns in the US and talk about panties. I don't think anyone who went to see this movie would leave it in a good mood. Movies should reach for higher goals. I would rather not see a movie about how the jury is manipulated by defense attorneys and about a group of 12 people that absolutely do not want to be there will find any reason to vote not guilty just to go the home. "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".
[...] Big Hollywood, Kurt Schlichter has a tribute to my all time favorite lawyer movie: Anatomy of a Murder. Read the [...]
To those complaining about the jazz soundtrack: Quite possibly the dumbest comments of all time.
You guys are the same people who would say Star Wars would have been a good movie if only that Darth guy didn't wear a helmet the whole time.
There is very little music in the overall movie and most of it is in the first 30 minutes of a movie that is around 2.5 hours. It is hardly overwhelming and once the courtroom comes into play you forget there was music at all in the movie.
A stupendous film.
“Beigler takes the case, and faces off with Claude Dancer (Scott), the ace prosecutor sent in from the big city to chalk up yet another conviction. There is much more to the story – the movie is a brisk two hours forty minutes long – but there’s no sense in going into the details here. You just need to know this: Jimmy Stewart goes up against George C. Scott in court. Case closed.
That sounds dull as dirt, but Anatomy is anything but. Stewart is helped by his burned out, alcoholic mentor Parnell, played perfectly by Arthur O’Connell. His character is funny, irascible, sad and, in the end, redeemed.”
I discern parallels between this and The Verdict. Paul Newman: more concerned with, well, other things than his law practice, takes on James Mason in court, assisted by Jack Warden, achieves redemption (at least that’s how I take it). James Mason: big time scary opposing lawyer. Jack Warden: not alcoholic, not necessarily burned out, but world-weary and street smart.
Could Anatomy have influenced Verdict?
I like to put on my baseball cap backwards when I look at Lee Remick
[...] C. Scott. Cheap rents and an edgy vibe have made Detroit somewhat of a Mecca for young … Movies We Like: 'Anatomy of a Murder' (1959)George C. Scott. Lee Remick. Eve Arden. Ben Gazzara. Even Big Hollywood's own Orson Bean in a [...]
If possible try and catch this in its original framing on one of the HD cable/satellite channels that run it every once in awhile. The only dvd in release is a pan and scan version (the box wrongly states that it's letterboxed).
You must be logged in to post a comment.