I didn't like the ending, or maybe just didn't get it - Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion

[–] Paul_Ke 16 years ago

It's been awhile since I've watched it, but doesn't Mary Pilant find the missing panties at the end of the movie and present them in court? Didn't this substantiate Laura Manion's story to some degree? Like I said, it's been awhile.

reply

[–] McHinch 16 years ago

Yes, that did happen, but the rebuttal was "Couldn't someone just trying to set the bartender up have done that?". It seemed like everything that "proved" innocence was countered, such as that and when the military doctor testified, but the prosecution's doctor testified right after.

reply

[–] Demarates 15 years ago

Even if the bartender did rape the wife, how does that "prove" he was temporarily insane ?

Whether or not the rape was real or made up by the woman, does not matter. Either way it was motive.

NATIONAL SARCASM SOCIETY

Like we need your support...

reply

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

It doesn't prove insanity; but that doesn't matter. Whether or not you consider it right or wrong, the jury back then - and even now, I'd say, in a lot of the country - was inclined to let him off for killing the guy who had just raped his wife. Like Paul said in his first interview with Mannion, we need to give them a legal reason that they can hang their hat on. The testimony of the army doctor, Smith, was enough of a legal reason for the jury to find him not guilty.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] SteelerHines 16 years ago

thats actually why i like this movie. i dont think we are supposed to know for sure. we never see the rape or the murder. we don't know what really happened. its up for the viewer to decide.

reply

[–] terrier91 16 years ago

I had the same reaction to the ending. I was watching the movie with kids running around and I thought I must have missed a key line or something. But then I realized that this is just a different type of trial movie. There are no twists, just a straight forward legal trial. When the woman brings the panties into court that's a key moment because it seems to verify that the rape occurred. That's likely becauset the woman's father was the raper. So, it solidifies the rape allegation. Which is really the basis of the trial. Not much is focused on the insanity defense, it's more about proving the rape happened.

I think what's interesting about this movie is that it is just a straight legal drama that runs 2:40 minutes and is interesting. It's not filled with dramatic twists but it's very intersting and watchable.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Right: we are so conditioned to expect twists that I actually thought early on that we would end up with some crazy outcome where the Stewart character would make a dramatic announcement that while his client was innocent, it was actually because his wife had drugged him and framed him, or some melodramatic nonsense like that. I'm really glad it turned out instead to be a very realistic and more straightforward legal drama.

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

reply

[–] padzok 16 years ago

Was there really one big, revealing thing that got Lt. Manion off?

The Defence Strategy is this:

1. Manion is a war hero.
2. The dead guy was a seedy law-life rapist.

As Biegler explains to Manion at the beginning, in legal terms that defence should not work. The mere fact that Quill was a rapist would not - legally - be a defence to murder.

However, it was all aout playing the jury. Biegler need to do two things
a) persuade them that they wanted to acquit Manion, and
b) give them a legal excuse for doing so.

So the insanity defence was part (b). It was the jury's legal excuse for acquitting the defendant.

In truth, the insanity defence was pretty spurious but that didnt matter at all. If the jury wanted to convict the defendant, then they were going to do so, and werent going to have their minds changed by some idiot liberal psychiatrist that the killer's lawyer had magicked up from some obscure university.

On the other hand, if the jury liked the defendant (and disliked the victim) sufficiently, then they were going to be satisfied that the prosecution expert had not proved that Manion was not "insane" when he killed Quill.

SO the clincher for the defence was the proof that even Quill's own daughter admitted that he might have been a rapist. Legally, that shouldnt have been a reason for the jury to acquit; but psycholgically it was.

reply

[–] Ironman54 15 years ago

Exactly. And the big shot city lawyer Dancer made the most elementary mistake a trial lawyer can make - he asked a question that he didn't already know the answer to (cross 101) when he cross examined Barneys daughter Mary Pilant. Dancer was 'assumed' she was Barneys lover (and what happens when we assume - anybody ? LOL !).He should have made sure of her answer before asking her or, not asked at all,at least until he knew the answer to the question.You can see the pain on Scotts/Dancers face as he realizes he had just sunk the prosecutions case single handedly by making this amateur mistake - like 'I can't believe I just did that ! How am I going to return home and face my peers, I just sunk our case !" Similar to the guy cleaning his gun and it goes off accidentally shooting him - 'I'm shot ! I can't believe it, I just SHOT MYSELF !'
And don't forget Biegler may not have brought out the fact that Barney was her father unless he really needed to, he had promised her that he wouldn't when they met at the bar. If Dancer hadn't made an issue of it and tried to discredit Mary with sleazy tactics, I don't think the character Stewart played would have gone back on his word to her (unless it became crucial to winning/loosing the case).BUT, Dancer did not know that Biegler knew this fact either so its not a 'given' that it would have come out anyhow - Dancer hounded her into revealing this carefully guarded secret in front of the press and her friends/neighbors. The psychological effect on the jury was devastating to the prosecution. Nothing worse than fighting to put a man away for life and then revealing you haven't done your homework (which the defense team did by pursuing the daughter, her records etc.,getting the pertinent info. on her/Barney) and don't know what you're talking about. The prosecution team then looks like the bad guys/bullies to the jury. Her answer of course made her all the more sympathetic as her father had just been shot to death and here's big city tough guy jumping down her throat, implying she was a slut that would lie on the stand to avenge her lovers death. He out smarted himself. Any jury would eat this up but particularly in a small rural town - watching this big shot, big city 'ringer' brought in to hammer away on one of their own. I bet the real life attorney this movie depicts took a LOT of heat over this ! The best part is ONLY if Biegler told Dancer afterward that he (Biegler) already knew she was Barneys daughter and would have brought it out anyway, Dancer returned home thinking he single handedly lost the case by perusing the point !! IMHO it served him right LOL !!

reply

[–] wingshock 15 years ago

One of the things this movie portrayed really well is a lawyers' attitude... that's why at the end it showed how Biegler & his partner were happy they were going to administer Quill's estate. Win your case, make more money, that's what attorneys do. It shows how it's not always "right" or "wrong" but it is the system... it's how it works.

I also loved the scene where Laura comes up to Biegler, she's drunk and calls him "sweetie" and tries to give him her girdle (I think that's what it was, lol.) We the viewers think, heck, she IS what they say she is! But even so, that can't matter to Biegler.

It also made me wonder... did she GIVE those panties to Quill? Then lied to her husband about the rape?

One of my favorite lines... the judge says, "Get off the panties." LOL.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I agree with you about this almost 100%; but you have a detail wrong. The psychiatrist who testified for the defense was not some liberal from an obscure university, but rather an Army psychiatrist. It was the prosecution's expert who was a civilian from some university, which I thought made it odd that he disputed the Army shrink's description of what happens in battle.

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

reply

[–] xylonian-1 16 years ago

IMO it has an ending like "The Innocents"....unsure exactly what happened and it keeps one hooked much longer than other films musing over it....

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

reply

[–] profbrane 16 years ago

One of the basic rules of the American legal system is that a man (or woman) is innocent until proven guilty. It's not necessary for Biegler to "prove" Manion is innocent, it IS necessary for Dancer to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable certainty. All Biegler has to do is plant enough doubt in the minds of the jury that they can't say they believe he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Also, there is no question of whether or not Manion killed Quill. He did. What the trial is about is whether or not he is guilty of first degree murder. If Biegler can convince the jury that Manion may not have been in control of his faculties at the time of the murder, then the jury is obligated to find him not guilty. Earlier in the movie Biegler asks the district attorney to reduce the charge to manslaughter and he refuses. He should have done it because he had a much better chance of convicting Manion of that crime.

reply

[–] Tchoutoye 16 years ago

I'm no law expert, but wouldn't the prosecution then call for a retrial for manslaughter in such a case? It doesn't seem right that someone could get away with manslaughter, just because murder couldn't be proven.

reply

[–] investmentanalysis 16 years ago

Unless the prosecution came up with a substantially different case, with different evidence, I don't think a retrial could take place because of the Double Jeopardy rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

reply

[–] Heidi_Smiles 15 years ago

It doesn't work like that. They needed to choose the specific charge(s) from the beginning... and in doing so, weigh the risks involved. By going for Murder One, they took a risk that the jury would be less likely to convict. But they don't get to go back and try again because they made the wrong choice.

There are some rare loopholes to this kind of thing. In the Scott Peterson case, for example, I believe the jury was allowed to choose whether or not to convict of Second Degree or First Degree (or neither.) This substantially increased the chance that he would be sent to prison, even if it meant the lesser charge.

Need an SAT tutor?

Tengo el presentimiento de que empieza la accion...

reply

[–] jgroub 15 years ago

Actually, you're incorrect about the burden of proof in this particular case. If I remember my law school days correctly, the insanity defense is an affirmative defense - meaning the defense has to actually prove that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder. Think about it - otherwise, the defense could simply plead inaanity and not have to prove - or raise doubts - about anything.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aliensatemybuick 16 years ago

Assuming the poster above is referring to Padzok's posst, I must disagree that Padzok "missed the entire pointe of the movie". Quite the contrary, I think Padzok got it right 100%. Padzok was talking about what the jury thought, or rather what the defense attorney wanted them to think. WE (the viewer of the movie) are in on a lot of information that the jury was not. The POINT (which I think Padzok made and which I agree with) is how the legal system works, or can be made to work to one side's advantage or the other. And that the verdict can have little to no bearing on the truth, whatever the truth is. Its all about perception, and the jurors on that case had a different perception than ours based on what we saw and what they didn't.

reply

[–] bellamae 16 years ago

What really got him off was his lawyers finding another case in the lawbooks in which somebody was acquitted for the "___ impulse." (I forgot the word, sorry.) Having a similar case in the lawbooks sets a 'precedent,' they used that word in the movie. That means that alibi can be used again.

One nitpick I have is that you can't introduce a surprise witness into a trial. There is a discovery period in which both sides are apprised of the witnesses the other side is going to use so they can do their homework on each witness. But the surprise witness makes for better drama I guess.

reply

[–] aliensatemybuick 16 years ago

I believe the defense or prosecution can call a surprise witness IF they are just as surprised at the opposing side...that is, should a new witness come forward at the last minute. What they CAN'T do is withhold a witnesses name and then use he/she as a surprise intentionally.

While Stewart suspected that (I'm not going to pretend that I remember her name!) the final surprise witness may be able to help him, he couldn't count on her, and wasn;t even sure what she might say. ANd anyway, he didn't seem like a "by the book" kinda lawyer regardless.

reply

[–] Ironman54 15 years ago

Exactly - and because of this the prosecution lost the case when Dancer asked the question of Mary and her relationship with Barney. Dancer was operating by the seat of his pants having had no time to prepare. he jumped the gun, asked the question without knowing the answer and screwed the prosecution by the surprise answer from Mary. *BUT !! but isn't this movie based on a book based on a real trial ?? Did this screw up actually happen ? Maybe the prosecution screwed up in several ways by not 'objecting' to Mary being introduced before the prosecution had the chance to ...to...the word rhymes with 'deer' ...my memory !!! Anyhow, the prosecution has to be afforded time to interview the 'surprise witness'.
As in 'My Cousin Vinny' - 'no surprises allowed'. LOL !! Dancer thought he was hot stuff so he probably wanted to jump on this wittiness and get rid of her - thinking he was sharp enough to not have to follow the rules of the game. Since they are prosecuting I would imagine the Judge would have answered 'Too bad, you know the rules, you missed your chance and went straight in to cross examination'.
Then again, I could be wrong - just my guess.

reply