Anatomy
of a Murder
(2 hrs & 40 min, b&w, 1959)
Old black and white movies
are still with us, and it is my hope that they always will be, not that I have
a particular preference for those colorless, silvery images as opposed to the
chromatic brilliance of current footage or the digital displays that are the up
and coming thing. I simply believe that
there is cinematic gold in dem dere hills, however erstwhile. I promised in my opening remarks upon the
installation of this blog to do my part in keeping the classics alive by
trimming some of the weedy overgrowth that hides their luster from contemporary
eyesight, from time to time calling attention to the lasting quality and
significance of choice works that deserve special consideration. I now continue with my efforts to do just
that by taking us back to a 1959 masterpiece that might sound upon brief description
like a standard crime thriller but is actually a landmark achievement that
helped reshape the public conception of how the justice system in this country
works, smashing a few movie taboos in the process.
A more appropriate title
for the film would be “Anatomy of a Murder Trial.” It has emerged as probably the best court
room drama ever given movie treatment and surely one of the most realistic. We never see any homicide nor any act of
violence committed anywhere in the footage.
The crime that gets court room attention has already been perpetrated as
the story begins. The screenplay by
Wendell Mayes is based upon a novel of the same name by John D. Voelker (who at
the time of the book’s publication took the pen name of Robert Traver), a
practicing attorney and not unacquainted with high voltage felony cases. It was produced and directed by Otto
Preminger, a film craftsman whose body of work is at best spotty; sometimes he
excelled and sometimes he failed miserably.
“Anatomy” is commonly regarded as his best achievement. If all his work had been this good, he would
occupy a place in the hall of fame on a par with Alfred Hitchcock.
And what a sterling
cast! James Stewart (giving another of
his seemingly flawless commanding performances) is a small town Michigan lawyer
who was recently forced into private practice when he failed to be reelected as
county prosecutor. Work has since been
so scarce for him that he has been able to spend many hours fishing and
stuffing his bachelor refrigerator with his catch. His underpaid secretary Eve Arden comments
that if he keeps it up, that refrigerator is likely to take off “upstream and
spawn.” His luck changes when he gets a
call from a young woman he has never met (Lee Remick in her first starring role,
in which she really excels). She is the wife of a soldier stationed in town,
and she pleads for the lawyer’s help.
Her husband is being held in the county jail for the murder of a
bartender who has allegedly raped and brutalized her. Stewart is reticent to take the case in view
of the likelihood of the soldier’s guilt and the hostility of the man when he
visits him in the jail, but is swayed by a has-been attorney friend (Arthur
O’Connell) as needful of his bread and butter as Stewart. Stewart takes his friend on as a partner on
the case. Ben Gazzara fills the role of
the accused man in uniform, giving a static electric portrayal that did much to
jump start what turned out to be a notable acting career. As does George C. Scott, breaking out of
previous obscurity as a confrontational state prosecutor who chews up more than
his fair share of the scenery with searing cross examinations, earning himself
his first Oscar nomination. The judge is
portrayed by Joseph Welch, an actual judge who played a very conspicuous part
in the McCarthy hearings just a few years earlier. And Duke Ellington provides a laid back jazz
score and makes a brief cameo appearance.
Yes, lots of star quality
and movie-making brilliance, generously showcased!
Stewart discovers that the
prosecution has evidence that points to the possibility that the soldier is an
insanely jealous and violent man and that the wife, who may or may not be “coming
on” to the lawyer, has a reputation for playing around. These defense lawyers know they have their
work cut out for them, and have to resort to some very devious devices to find
counter evidence. Yes, things get very
dicey as this floor show gathers steam. All
we ever learn of the details surrounding the nasty murder is what we are told
in testimony, dialogue and sworn statement by the parties involved, and there
are no flashbacks. The viewer has to sit
through it knowing nothing more than does the jury, the opposing attorneys, the
judge and those in attendance at the trial.
We get no inside look at the private lives or the psyches of the husband
and wife. The two of them never even
have a scene together, except at the defense table. Lots of ambiguity! Lots of guesswork! Even after the proceedings are concluded and
the jury’s verdict is awaited, the defense lawyer’s secretary admits that she
is not sure how she would vote, if she were on the jury. I of course will not give away the ending, except
to say that the verdict is only a part of the development that brings finality
to the story.
Many in the movie audiences
of that half century ago were aghast at the liberties with language that this
audacious screenplay took (tame of course by current standards). Words were used that no one had ever heard
before on a theater screen – intercourse, panties, [sexual] climax, etc. More importantly, the film covered many legal
fine points and added considerably to the lay audience’s understanding of vital
criminal codes. Aside from being first
class entertainment and at many points quite amusing, it was and is quite
educational. We see what our justice
system is in real essence. Though we
never get to meet the jurors or look in on them during their sequestration, it
is clear that trial by a jury of peers is what the film is so scrupulously
examining. Twelve individuals, strangers
to each other, must come together to determine how the scale of justice has
weighed in their eyes – twelve citizens, non-professionals, who are given the
task of making sense out of the tangle of contradiction and obfuscation and
fragmentation that has been dumped out before them by adversarial
advocates. They must do this knowing
that society is breathing down their necks and that lives and reputations are
in their hands. Chancy, of course, but
no one has ever come up with anything better in a democratic society.
Give yourself three
carefully set aside hours and have a go!
Netflix has it, as do some local libraries.
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com
I welcome feedback. Direct it to bobracine@verizon.net
No comments:
Post a Comment