MovieChat Forums > Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion > James Stewart is 'the bad guy'

James Stewart is 'the bad guy'

posted 16 years ago by rick-220
43 replies | jump to latest

Ok, bear with me.

Due to the ambiguous ending - guilt or innocence is never firmly established - I started thinking about the motives in the movie, and I'm leaning more and more towards thinking James Stewart plays the ultimate 'bad guy' in this movie, an unethical lawyer, not seeking justice, but just trying to get his client of the hook, using every trick in the book.
While Preminger is manipulating the viewer into seeing the prosecution as the scheming, arrogant, high-profile government officials, it's actually James Stewart who is manipulating facts, manipulating testimonies and badgering witnesses more than the prosecution is.
He constantly lets shine through that he is not convinced of Gazarra and Remicks innocence, but never really seems bothered by this. Even in the end when Remick and Gazarra have fled the scene he is not in the least worried that he might have set guilty people free.

Also some other moments, like the way he 'bribes' the judge in the judge's chambers by cosying up to him and giving him a fishing fly (hidden in a law book!), are clear indication that he is not driven by finding justice but by wanting to win the case. Also the 'greed' with which he is looking forward to his new case - representing the Quill estate - doesn't really make his character sympathetic.

If this was Preminger's intention then his casting choices were extremely interesting and pretty brilliant.

voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013

[–] Tchoutoye 16 years ago

A lawyer using every trick in the book to get his client off the hook is not unethical. He is merely doing his job. The temporary insanity was very flimsy though, and I found the jury's verdict not very convincing. I have no doubt it was Preminger's intention to make the moral standing of the characters and the question of guilt so ambiguous.

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

I know some people have this la-la land view of lawyers are supposed to find the truth, supposed to determine if their client is guilty or not. No, the first thing you learn in law school as was told to us by a lawyer is to win the case no matter what. What more, just because the man on trial was previously married and had a bit of a temper and a wife who wasn't dressed in ankle length dresses does not mean he was guilty...and even if he were, none of us would have anything against his case of shooting the man who raped and beat his wife.

[–] circawhenever 16 years ago

But seriously, Stewart's character couldn't care less if his client is a murderer or not, and I'm sorry, but him just "doing his job", that's a not a reason. It's sick. I just rented movie for the second time and I had to stop cause the way these people were behaving was sickening. How do these people sleep at night?

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

How is it sickening? He's a lawyer, a lawyer's job is to either get his client off or get him the best deal available. The client was driven to a case of temporary insanity by irresistable impulse seeing his wife beaten and raped by a man who felt he had a right to do to her whatever he wanted. Not everybody who shoots a sadistic rapist is a cold blooded murderer.

[–] jenniferles1000 16 years ago

Yeah but surely you also think its wrong for a lawyer to get a murderer released if he knows he is guilty.

[–] topher5001 14 years ago

It's sickening because Stewart's character has no moral compass AT ALL. It's pretty obvious. God, people are stupid.

[–] Void-face 13 years ago

In a court of law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty...

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 12 years ago

Moral compass? Lawyers? Are you kidding? The reality is simple - a lawyer defends his/her client. A lawyer doesn't care about "justice" but cares very much about the "law". Laws are written in the hopes of providing justice to victims. Laws fall short all the time.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Maybe rather than stupid, some people don't view morals the same way as you do. I think everyone, even the most heinous criminals, deserve the best possible defense in court. That's the only way our justice system can function properly.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SecretWorld2012 16 years ago

Well certainly. I think part of the movie was to show how the justice system isnt moral. The juries make arbitrary decisions (like in this case they were wrong), also the juries decisions can be dictated by one strong person in jury. Wittnesses clearly can change a whole case process by lying their teeths out. etc etc.

The whole movie shows the dog-eat-dog morals of America. Disctrict atternies dont think whats right and wrong but do their best to get the hardest penalty. Lawyers reply to this by not thinking whether his client is quilty or not, but just try to win the case. I say that - theres no justice in this at all.

From this we learn a immoral lesson. Dont try to act morally since the other guys doesnt neither. He does his best to win you, and your only way to get back is to forrget your morals. Sweet.

I think this movie was a parody about American court system especially as it was writtenby a professional attorney.

Btw.. I got the feeling of how Jimmy Stewart was a bachelor that this was only to make him make look more unreputable. Like the other lawyer was an alcoholist to give a negative look of lawyers.

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

There's no justice? Well, a lawyer's job is to give their client a fair trial, is it not? It's the client's right to have a trial to be proven guilty by the court, not just by public, innocent until proven guilty, don't they? And a lawyer can't ask if their client did or didn't do something because if it's the wrong answer, they commit perjury and if they're found out then they lose their job. Certainly the justice system is a joke for a good deal of it but these are basic rights that everybody knows about when it comes to the courts and a trial. Everybody's got a right to a fair trial, everybody's innocent until proven guilty, everybody's got a right to a lawyer who will fight their case...nobody ever said it had to be fair to everybody.

[–] MrPie7 16 years ago

"Disctrict atternies dont think whats right and wrong but do their best to get the hardest penalty. Lawyers reply to this by not thinking whether his client is quilty or not, but just try to win the case. I say that - theres no justice in this at all."

First, you have to understand that the legal system was deliberately set up to be adversarial. No one wants to rely on the other side being "fair" or "open minded". The idea is, that by making the prosecution and defense "enemies", the result will be that the "truth" will emerge from this conflict. Of course this does have its defects. The D.A. who has knowledge of a defendant's innocence, but prosecutes anyway in order to win acclaim and recognition. Or the defense attorney who d knows his client is guilty of serious crimes. But I believe this is relative uncommon. I myself, distrust a news network to give an "impartial" broadcast of news and events. We all know about Dan Ratherbiased. I would prefer that news and commantary be honest and state exactly what their OPINIONS are. We all KNOW they have'em.

[–] mandrake62 16 years ago

To paraphrase what Churchill said about democracy: Our justice system is the worst system of justice possible, except for all the others.

[–] woodlanddog 16 years ago

When Stewart's character is coaching his client on what to do to secure a temporary insanity defense, it is clearly unethical. This film is shown in law school to show law students what they are not allowed to do as an ethical attorney. One of the penalties is potentially being disbarred from practice.

Chatting up the judge about fishing and slipping him the fishing fly is just being a good advocate for his client. If he can garner some favor for his client in such an innocuous manner, so be it. He isn't offering money and doesn't stipulate any quid pro quo arrangement upon acceptance of the gift by the judge.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

Notice how every time the prosecution objects and the judge tells the jury to ignore what Stewart has just said. Finally, Gazzara asks the question all of us have wondered about: How can a jury ignore something once they've heard it, to whach Stewart succinctly answers: "They can't".

[–] misspaddylee 15 years ago

I think that Biegler really did believe in his client's innocence in the beginning, but as the trial went on it didn't really matter. It was his job to give the best defense and that's what he did. He got back his lawyer chops after leaving the District Attorney's office.

"Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency."

[–] learyblaine 14 years ago

You're failing to understand the respective roles of the lawyers, the judge and the jury. The lawyer's job is to present the best possible defense for the defendant. The judge is there to make sure that proper trial proceedings are followed, and the JURY is there to decide guilt or innocence. That's our system.

The defense attorney's role is not to judge, but to give the defendant the best possible chance. That's really "all." That's his role. The prosecutor's doing the same: doing whatever it takes to give "the people" the best chance of getting a conviction. His role isn't to judge, either.

Each attorney presents his case to the best of his ability ... his best dog-n-pony show for the jury, in essence. Then the jury decides. That's the way it works. It's designed to be "amoral" in this regard.

You may indeed not like it! Lots of people don't! Myself, I think the jury system is an anachronism. But fulfilling his assigned role within the only system we've got doesn't make him a "bad guy."

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I agree with most of what you said, but not this part:

The prosecutor's doing the same: doing whatever it takes to give "the people" the best chance of getting a conviction. His role isn't to judge, either.

I believe that since the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is (as it should be, IMO) designed to err more on the side of acquitting some guilty people rather than convicting the innocent, this equation should not go both ways. Prosecutors have a lot of power (including the police, and a tendency in most places to have automatic sympathy on their side) and I consider it an abuse of power if they say "hmmm...I don't believe this poor schmuck is guilty, but I know how we can cobble together a case that will convince a jury he is, and get us a conviction". Whereas I do believe it's ethical for the defense attorney to try to get their client off even if s/he believes him or her to be guilty.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

Myself, I think the jury system is an anachronism.

What would you replace it with?

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

You replied to the wrong person.

[–] Paul_Ke 14 years ago

like the way he 'bribes' the judge in the judge's chambers by cosying up to him and giving him a fishing fly (hidden in a law book!), are clear indication that he is not driven by finding justice but by wanting to win the case.

I wouldn't call that a bribe...LOL He was just trying to score points with the judge. There's nothing wrong or "unethical" about that. Besides, he didn't even gain anything from it. Jimmy Stewart was showing precedent to the judge in that scene. Regardless of whether he was on the good side or the bad side of the judge, it wouldn't have mattered, he had precedent.

[–] cagneychick182 14 years ago

I don't know, but I have a feeling this book and film are based off Clarence Darrow and more specifically the Loeb and Leopold case in Chicago in 1924.

It is very difficult to cope with the idea that defense attorneys can get their clients off knowing full well that they are guilty. However, it IS their jobs. It's what they are hired to do. Their mentality must be to focus on "without a shadow of doubt."

You should really check out the book For the Thrill of It. The antics that both the prosecution (Crowe) and the defense (Darrow) uses is quite similar to the film. They make a big show to influence the judge, audience, and newspapers. Everyone knew that the boys were guilty of killing a 14 year old boy, but Darrow's defense was insanity in order to keep them out of the death penalty.

More specifically about Darrow, though, is that even though he's listed as a national hero, there was a point that he was defending mobsters and others of their ilk. Should we respect him for that? Personally, I do not, but if there was no one willing to defend the guilty, then there would be no reason for the judicial system.

***
You should seriously rethink the length of your sideburns.
***

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

This film is nothing like the Leopold Loeb case. In that one, Darrow had the boys plead guilty since there was no way to win the case even for him, then had the judge decide the penalty hearing. There was no insanity plea; the boys went to prison for life.

[–] cagneychick182 14 years ago

I wasn't too far off though. I looked it up, and the film was based on Darrow.

No, there was no insanity plea, but the defense they used was that they had to have mental issues in order to murder the boy and should therefore not receive the death penalty. Leopold even was paroled several years later and worked in a hospital. A hospital!

***
You wake up one day and your baby is stealing a foot.

[–] ecarle 13 years ago

Though he made several films in both years, James Stewart played the "difficult to like" lawyer Paul Biegler in 1959 just one year after playing the "difficult to like" obsessive Scottie Ferguson in Hitchcock's 1958 "Vertigo."

Taken together, the two movies demonstrate that James Stewart was a rather brave superstar...quite willing to play characters who mix the "heroic" with the villainous. Men you can't admire. Men you can't really like...even if they ARE likeable at times.

---

It is of some interest to me that Biegler, we learn, was the District Attorney about a year before this action begins -- and was defeated at the voting booth by the DA he goes up against now.

Simply put, a year earlier, Biegler would have been using "any trick in the book" to CONVICT Bannion. The voters dumped him, he became a defense attorney...and simply switched sides.

Except lawyers don't take sides...

---

Keep in mind that when "Anatomy of a Murder" came out in '59, American TV audiences had a different view of the criminal defense attorney via Raymond Burr's ultra-popular "fantasy lawyer" "Perry Mason." Perry's clients were ALWAYS innocent; he ALWAYS proved "who really dunnit"(usually getting a courtroom audience confession from the real killer) and he ALWAYS made the DA(Hamilton Burger..."Hamburger") look like a dolt.

Perry Mason was a clear hero -- Paul Biegler much less so.

But Otto Preminger was very famous during this period for giving us "both sides of the tale" -- or more to the point, ALL sides of the tale.

Biegler plays tricks and uses his raging emotion to "perform" for the jury. The DA plays his own tricks -- and brings in "Major League Back-Up" in George C. Scott's character, Dancer. (Stewart has a great moment where he complains, rightly, to the court about having to go up against a "legal tag team.")

We never get a flashback "explaining what happened" that night that Bannion shot Quill. We ARE the jury...we have to guess like they did.

"Anatomy of a Murder" is famous not only for its sexual frankness, but for spelling out some bitter things about the American justice system:

It is played like a game
Tricks are fair play
"Theatrical performance" by the lawyers and by the defendant and witnesses, is part of the game
A lawyer who fought to convict a defendant last year may fight to get him off this year
"Innocent bystanders" are collateral damage(ravaged on the witness stand)
A guilty man may get set free
An innocent man may get convicted...and even executed

At film's end, we know the outcome of the trial, but we don't know "the truth."

And I've always felt that Jimmy Stewart gets a bit punished for his nefarious trickery and lack of interest in his client's guilt or innocence:

The client doesn't pay his bill, and skips town, "gripped by irresistible impulse."

What an adult ending to a very (for its time, and for now) adult film.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Very well said!

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Your last line is key, and this is precisely why we should indeed respect those who defend the worst scumbags. If there is some level at which defendants can't even get a decent defense, the whole basis of the system collapses.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] rhanna-1 13 years ago

I completely agree with the OP, and those who are saying it would be immoral for Stewart to not do the best he can are missing the point. YES, once he's taken the case he should do all he can for the client, BUT Stewart only takes the case AFTER he's planted the idea that the defendant should lie about being "temporarily insane." Once the client says the words Stewart fed him, Stewart sees that he has a case although he is well aware that that it is based on lies.

Great film, very complex, and an amazing performance by James Stewart, an actor I've liked but never respected on a really high level until seeing this film.

[–] akeshishian17969 13 years ago

That's exactly what I thought the second James Stewart came up with the temporary insanity defence.

[–] bookwormdreamer 13 years ago

I liked we that didn't know for sure what happened in reality we often don't knwo the truth.The defendant and his wife were not painted as likeable or sympathetic but should he have gone to prison? It was ambigious.

[–] sarabandit 13 years ago

After watching (and reading about) all sorts of movies and tv shows depicting trials...I've always wondered how attorneys could defend someone they believe to be guilty (or know 100% is guilty). I'm not saying these are bad people...in fact, they are necessary b/c everyone deserves legal representation, whether guilty or innocent. And if I was ever charged with a crime, I would only hope for a good lawyer.
But I, for one, could not do it in obviously guilty cases. I tend to see things very "black and white"/"good and bad" and I would just feel like I was lying to everyone by claiming "reason of insanity" or something when I knew they were guilty.
This movie really made me question that too...b/c we never really find out the truth...the ending is very ambiguous. You're hoping that Stewart really believes his client is innocent, and thats why he's going to great lengths to craft this "irresistable impulse" argument...but the way he coaches everyone and plays these games makes it seem like he thinks he's guilty. If he had really thought he was innocent, wouldn't he be more pissed at the end? I know I would be.

I guess defense attorneys have to have an attitude of "just a job", but I know if I was handed a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, etc...with irrefutable evidence...I wouldn't try very hard to defend them. I definitely wouldn't conjure up ridiculous insanity pleas to get them off or reduce their sentence.

Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 12 years ago

Right or wrong, a lawyer's job is to do whatever they can to win the case, right and wrong is supposed to be determined by the judge and jury, not the lawyer. It is someone's constitutional right to get a fair trial and right to counsel. It is the counsel's job to do the best that he or she can for the client and take their personal feelings out of it.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

But then by the same token, can't you see why it might seem unfair to send someone to a long sentence in prison for killing the guy who raped his wife? We can't just say, as Stewart notes, that you get a legal shot at killing someone in this case, if for no other reasons than:

(1) There's no death penalty for rape;
(2) What if someone is wrong and the guy they kill didn't commit the rape? Angry husbands don't have CSI teams and detectives and so on to make sure in some ambiguous situations.

But if you (in Stewart's place) become convinced that the rape did happen, then it does seem unjust for his client to do hard time. Right? (I kind of think a sensible outcome in such a case is for it to be plea bargained down to manslaughter and for the judge to give a light sentence.)

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Is the OP joking? Everything Paul Biegler did was "by the book." The only questionable action was by George C Scott when he snooped around the jail hoping to pick up dirt on Manion, and he could have been charged with suborning perjury if they could prove he encouraged the convict to make up a story about what Manion said about his defense.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Well, but Biegler did bend "the book" at various times. He repeatedly threw out statements or questions he knew would get objections sustained by the judge, because he knew the jury was not able to actually follow the judge's order to "disregard" them.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have done what he did, or that someone could really be an effective trial lawyer without playing these games; but I don't know that you can call it "by the book" since presumably the book would say not to pose a question or make a statement you know in advance the judge will rule improper.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

Well, but Biegler did bend "the book" at various times. He repeatedly threw out statements or questions he knew would get objections sustained by the judge, because he knew the jury was not able to actually follow the judge's order to "disregard" them.

In most of those instances, he was trying to make sure the jury knew they weren't getting the whole story. Like when the prosecution presented pictures of the dead man, but failed to mention they also had picture of a beaten up woman who claimed the dead man raped her.

Many people miss the fact that the whole question of WHY Manion shot Quill was initially being being kept out of the trial as "irrelevant". Remember when the judge says, "Mr. Biegler, you finally got your rape into the case, and I think all the details should now be made clear to the jury." How can "justice" be served when the motive for a killing is being kept from a jury?

He kept throwing out statements and raising questions to force the issue and get the prosecution to trip themselves up and open up the trial...which is what happened. That's being a good advocate for your client, not a bad guy.