I don't think this movie is very interesting. There is no surprise and mystery in it. I don't understand why it gets high review. Don't get it wrong, I do like old movies and I am a fan of James Stewart. Citizen Kane, The Third Man and North by North West are awesome but not this movie. Am I missing something?
shareSPOILERS FOLLOW
Yes, you are missing quite a bit.
This is the first (and, still the only) film to show what a real jury trial looks like. It shows that the attorneys have to find legal authority for the defense and then prove the elements of that defense.
It shows how expert testimony is used in a court of law.
It was also shot in 1959 and the subject of rape was highly inflammatory. The movie deals with the elements of rape and whether a woman who dresses "suggestively," drinks at a bar without her husband and plays pinball was "asking for it." Even the issue of what to call a woman's undergarments is raised with the Judge at a bench conference (that is, at the bench where only the judge and attorneys can hear what is discussed.).
"Asking for it" was a major defense to rape in 1959. It still was as recently as the 1990s where a state court in Florida acquitted a rapist because the victim wore a dress without underwear. The Florida jury decided "she was asking for it" - but upon extradition to another state for another rape that perp was convicted.
The film also deals with the mental disease/defect defense - and that was as controversial then as it remains today - despite the fact that it was first used in 1843. See, http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artMcNaughtonRule.php
The murder is never shown - but the trial paints the picture just the same way that juries hear about murders today.
The Judge is Joseph Welch - the lawyer who represented the Army in the Army-McCarthy hearings. He was the counsel who took Tailgunner Joe down with, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" See, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444
The set and setting - Marquette County, MI are authentic to the book - and, the film was shot in that county in Michigan.
Moreover, the author of the book, Anatomy of a Murder - Robert Traver a/k/a John D. Voelker was formerly the county prosecutor in Marquette County, MI and the story is based upon a real case of his.
The acting and music are all top notch and the courtroom scenes are as real a punch to the nose.
I wouldn't say that the arguments above explain, why this should be a good movie.
I'm sure the issues in the movie were very important to focus on in the 50's, but that doesn't make it a good movie. And using a famous lawyer as the judge doesn't make it good either. And being very loyal to the book isn't necessarily the basis for a good movie.
I think it's an ok movie, but it seems pretty overestimated to me. A movie like "12 angry men" is much more interesting.
it interested me, not as much as i thought it would from the opening sequence. but i was definitely interested in the trial. it's a very simple movie. it deserves it's score even though i wouldn't say it's at all in my top movies list
shareI would say grolaw made very good arguments. Not if you think of the movie nowadays, but think about how original it must've been in the 50's. Very interesting points too, like about defense for rape and McCarthy.
Don't toast to my health, toast to my *beep*!
Thats the thing though, i havent seen it in the 50s, i have seen it now. so ill rate it based on how it stands up now, not how it did in the 50s
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
What a great post, grolaw! Thanks...
Flanagan
I am compelled to concur in your assessment. I was a JAG in the Navy (members cases) and a jury trial lawyer for State Farm. I also was a judicial law clerk to a Circuit Court Judge in Michigan. The book by Paul Voelker, a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, written under a pseudonym, was effectively captured on film by Otto Preminger and had an outstanding cast. I am watching it again on TCM as we speak. It may be boring to some, UNLESS you lived it in a courtroom for as many years as I have. It accurately captures the nuances of jury trial work and the quirks of small town courts and how jury nullification may work to the aid of a defendant. I have to say, overall, it is still the best courtroom film about a jury trial I have ever seen. [Others may have more "drama"; this one has authenticity.] In short, the high marks are well deserved.
For others, if you don't "get" it, sit down with a criminal defense lawyer and watch it together. He'll explain the nuances. It is a piece of art.
This movie is overrated and I found it reprehensible that the defendant got away with murder. Mr. Stewart is disgusting in this film, and gives new meaning to slimy lawyer. Everyone knows he is guilty and she was an amoral woman. I have seen better acting from some of these actors, and was very disappointed that I wasted time on this. I did love the judge, though and he was a real judge and a hero. Also, I am not sure why, an active duty officer was not tried in a military court.
I am sorry to disagree with all the high praise, but if you have a sense of justice, you will look at this story and be appalled.
[deleted]
It was also shot in 1959 and the subject of rape was highly inflammatory.
The movie deals with the elements of rape and whether a woman who dresses "suggestively," drinks at a bar without her husband and plays pinball was "asking for it." Even the issue of what to call a woman's undergarments is raised with the Judge at a bench conference (that is, at the bench where only the judge and attorneys can hear what is discussed.). "Asking for it" was a major defense to rape in 1959.
You are missing a level of meaning. On the surface it might seem like a straightforward court movie, where you know who the good guys and the bad guys are. But you never see the deed and the longer the movie progresses the less clear it gets what the real story is behind what we get shown on the screen. Remember that it is called "anatomy of a murder". Just as the anatomy of a human body does not start to breathe and walk away the movie does not show the "real" murder, it shows a point of view on it, a way to represent it. And this representation is formed out of what the characters tell the lawyers and the court, which might be true, it might be not. With stuff like the happy ending, where it seems everything is resolved in 'poetic justice' you could say that even the movie is lying. Pretending to be straightforward, but beneath the surface a much darker side looms. You did not really not get it, the film was just very successful in lying to you, convincing you that it was something it not really is.
share[deleted]
Does it deserve "very high review"?
Are you missing something?
Yes, on both counts. Pity.
[deleted]
Are you missing something? Yeah, you're missing the fact that the script is A+, and the casting is outstanding
shareSay jr8drd,
Couldn't have said it better myself. As for being on paper, this film project
looked awesome, for sure. Legendary director, stunning cast, and way over the top production values. But, as I watch it presently on TCM, am finding it way too easy to multi-task. Sure sign of a 'grab ya by the gizzard' flic, is, if
ya gotta drop everything else, even a hot iron, ta catch it on the tube.
Sorry, but for this cinematic outing, gotta give it a D + . And the + is really
only for effort.
[deleted]
This movie is interesting because it shows how lawyers twist justice, and how their only goal is their own interest. They smear and incriminate witnesses and the victim to get a cold blooded murderer off the hook. They try to make friends with a real vicious criminal and even think that he is a 'happy client' after they twisted justice in his benefit. But Manion even fools them and they don't get their money. So now they are going to rip off Mary Pilant, who's father got murdered and his murderer not punished because of those devious lawyers - Biegle's own words.
The reason that everything seems to be less clear during the movie is that Biegle and his associate are building up a smoke screen.
Everything is so twisted in this movie that even the public is fooled, even though we are presented with all the facts, like the main fact that the lawyers help make up the story that Manion was insane, even though they knew that this was not the case.