Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Anatomy of a Murder (Movie Review)


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