Please show me why this isn't a despicable film

Turning to Wikipedia for possible answers, I see only praise for the film's representation of trial law. Now, if the film had only depicted a trial (a la 12 Angry Men), maybe I could agree. But we are given a preface and afterward, and my analysis has focused primarily on those, as they are the only means of judging the lawyer's decisions during the trial.

As I said, before even accepting to represent Manion, Biegler gave him vital legal advice and coaching, while knowing and explicitly stating that Manion was a deliberate murderer and there was no justification for his action. And after the trial is over, Biegler made clear his disinterest in the consequences of his actions, laughing at the bogus insanity plea.

Any law professor, judge, or lawyer who praises this film must necessarily damn himself.

I think you are missing the point.

The moral message behind the film is that law is not the same thing as justice, it is not all lightness and good, it is a very human thing and a guy like Biegler can come along and manipulate it to no end. This is all laid out from the very beginning.

Of course he's not "just doing his job." He's getting revenge on the prosecutor for taking his office. That's why he takes the case. He's down and out and wants the sheer joy of running circles around the guy who replaced him, for personal ego. For fun. The judge has no idea what's going on, because he is from out of town. It makes perfect sense that he's a prosecutor because that's what he's doing in this case -- he's prosecuting the dead man Quill for rape. Only a former prosecutor would think to use offense as the best defense. In today's world we call it "blaming the victim," but it still happens.

Yeah, Jimmy Stewart's character is likable. If he weren't likable the plot would never have worked, because to do the kind of thing Biegler did, you have to be likable. You have to be charismatic, funny, outspoken, and outrageous. You have to get a judge and jury on your side when the facts are open and shut for the other side.

Where the judge made his mistake is where Biegler said, "I beg you, I beg you, to let me cut into the apple." The judge hesitates, opens and closes his watch, and then agrees with Biegler. In doing so he legitimates the jury to allow Manion to use the fact that his wife was raped as an 'excuse' for the murder he committed. But he did so because Biegler was so emotional, so eloquent, so persuasive, while the prosecutor guy was so unimaginative, wooden, and incompetent.

This was a far better movie than Lincoln Lawyer. Explicitly moralistic lawyer movies like the Lincoln Lawyer (or just about any Grisham novel for that matter) are a dime a dozen. In the end, the bad guy gets justice some way, some how, and the innocent victim gets justice. If all you did was watch movies like that you'd think the US is a country where the courts always deliver happy endings.

In the real world, that's not how it works. This movie shows that without comment, without preaching, how this guy made a mockery of the court and made you laugh along the way. It's a clever, entertaining and honest look into the judicial system.

I thought that he took the job because it would give excellent career benefits for him in the near future. I also thought he took it because he saw some potential good in Manion and decided to help him out because he sincerely thought that he didn't do it.

I may be wrong though.

But that isn't the point of the movie. You are given ambiguous information and events. The genius of the film is left up to your interpretation. You see, Preminger intended for the viewer to feel like they were sitting on the jury seats. You, the viewer, are part of the jury deciding whether Manion is guilty or not. While the film's outcome is something that you may not agree with, watch it over again.

Everything is left ambiguous. It is for you to decide. The ending left things wide open, and with Stewart laughing it off, is what makes the ambiguity even better. Was Manion guilty or not, given the evidence? Ask yourself. If he is guilty, why? Is there enough reasonable doubt left to announce him not guilty? Why?

My suggestion would be to watch it again.

You THINK too much, pal. "Anatomy of a Murder" is one of MY favorite movies because it has an All-Star cast (Jimmy Stewart at his BEST!), and a literate script. Great direction by a Master Director (Otto Preminger). I could watch this movie until the cow's came home, and never get bored.

"You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

Because movies that address unpleasant facts of life aren't necessarily despicable.

Not all films are intended to teach us a lesson. Entertainment is reason enough for a movie's existence. However, "Anatomy of a Murder" seems to examine the ambiguous dark side of a trial, wherein we are manipulated to root for the defense team even though they, in turn, are manipulating the defendant, judge, and jury in order to win when it's not at all certain that their client is not guilty.

I just watched this great film for the 3rd time in last month on TCM. I saw it in the movies in 1959, as a teenager, and read the book. As to the film itself, it certainly was a break through for that era. The author, John Voelker aka Robert Traver was a trial judge and well-known lawyer.

As I recall, it was well-received best seller that every one was reading. With regards to the cast, I believe that Jimmy Stewart did a remarkable job, and as any one with a wit of intelligence knows, most lawyers rarely question whether their clients are innocent or guilty. In fact, my long-time tennis partner, is one of the top defense lawyers in NYC and was a well-respected ADA in NYC. He said to me once, and I concur, that all clients (defendants) lie and they always claim they are innocent. Their role is not to be the prosecutor.

Under our system, every one deserves a defense, and the circumstances revolving around this case, reflected both motive and state of mind. The Biegler-Stewart character attacked the victim and the jury agreed with him. They bought into the psychological defense, which had legal precedent.

As to the Biegler/Stewart reasons for taking the case, he was hired, he was a newly minted defense lawyer, and he needed both the action and the money. Many lawyers take so-called "lost" cause cases. I was very close to the lawyer, who took on the defense in the famous murder case in Scarsdale, NY, regarding the shooting of the well-known, diet Doctor Herman Tarnower by Jean Harris. She obviously shot him and everyone knew it. Why did she plead innocent? Well she was the beneficiary in his will and in the State of NY, if you plead guilty, as a matter of justifiable homicide, and you are released with a slap on the wrist, you cannot inherit the victim's estate. She wanted the estate, pled innocent and lost. She went to jail and served at least 12 years.

He told me personally that with Tarnower's personal record of infidelity and abuse (his words) that if Jean Harris had pled guilty she would have been received a light sentence as an abused and scorned woman, but she would have her rights in the will voided.

As to the movie, I thought it was great, believable, interesting and I have no complaints with any of the acting. Joseph Welsh was wonderful, folksy and any criticism about his acting is nitpicking and silly.

[deleted]