Please show me why this isn't a despicable film
First I ask simply, what is the purpose of making this film? What is the lesson? Do characters grow from their experiences? Is there a moral message behind the film? These are not rhetorical questions - I would like to know your opinion.
In the Lincoln Lawyer, for example, we are shown a defense attorney who comes to the realization that his client is a murderer of willful intent. He is given ample reason to want to make the right decision, including the threats made by his client, and the apparent murder of his colleague. He is given a chance to make things right, both with his past client (who was wrongly-accused) and by putting his current client in prison for murder. And he takes that chance through a series of clever actions.
In Anatomy of a Murder, the defense attorney knows immediately that the defendant is guilty of murder with willful intent. Knowing fully that the defendant is guilty, and *before* even accepting the defendant as his client, the defense attorney gives the defendant a variety of resources and defenses to win his case. Why? And when told that he might not even get paid for his work, he still decides to take on the case. In his own words, "I think I'll just stay with you, to make damned sure you get off." Why? What is in it for him?
People often make the argument that, "he is just doing his job", but it was not his job to take on the case, or to help the defendant *before* accepting him as a client, or to do the job even on risk of not being paid, just to "make damned sure" the murderer is set free.
Why was Jimmy Stewart chosen for this film? He is shown acting deplorably, with no recognition whatsoever that his choices are wrong. What was the purpose of using his loveable character? To persuade through emotional appeal that his actions are good? To show the audience how easily they can be won over by emotion alone?
Some additional points:
* No chance for him to vindicate his past actions is provided by the plot. The conflict between his character and his actions is never resolved, and appears to have been purposely left unresolved, or even unacknowledged, as if to assume that there are no negative emotional consequences to bad actions - i.e., asserting a mind-body dichotomy.
* No examination is given of why he went from being a prosecutor to defense attorney, and how that has impacted him. Any such examination would have presented a contradiction between the loveable character and his choices - a conflict which would have demanded resolution through character development or final vindication.
* We are never clear on why exactly he proceeded with the case. He accepts the case just to "make damned sure" the murderer was set free, and he makes occasional reference to the legal fees, as if he is only in it for the money. Is this a demonstration that lawyers are greedy or selfish? If so, then why is it in his self-interest to set loose an extremely jealous, violent murderer, whose wife has made multiple passes at him. At the end of the film he is shown happily choosing to meet up with the murderer and his wife, knowing that the husband had witnessed his wife make passes at him. How is that a wise choice, if he is just being greedy and selfish?
* At the end, the lawyer is presented with clear evidence that the murderer never believed he was acting based on "irresistible impulse", by using the term jokingly. How does the lawyer react? By laughing it off.
* Even the title makes no sense, as nobody in the film is interested in examining the murder itself. Nobody is interested in the truth. What actually happened doesn't matter to them - all that matters is that people believe what they claim happened.
I'll ask my original questions again: what is the purpose of making this film? What is the lesson? Do characters grow from their experiences? Is there a moral message behind the film?