MovieChat Forums > Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion > The movie is almost kind of silly...

The movie is almost kind of silly...

posted 12 years ago by DrinkFromTheSameFountain
13 replies | jump to latest

Okay, I've been watching this movie, and now, they're in the courtroom, and Lee Remick has just been asked to remove her hat, and when she shakes her hair, the spectators all gasp. Huh?

And this is just one "incident" that seems to be trying way too hard to make a point. I was pretty much sure of the movie's intentions when there was such a fuss over the word "panties" and the word "spermatogenesis" and Jimmy Stewart and the district attorney getting into these ridiculous squabbles ever 5 seconds. And how the D.A. was forever shouting "I OBJECT!" There was some bad acting, too.

Not saying I am not enjoying the movie. The plot is pretty entertaining. George C. Scott is good, as always. I think he puts Stewart to shame. And, of course, I adore Lee Remick. Also, Ben Gazarra is gorgeous. And Muff, the cairn terrier is beyond adorable. His courtroom appearance alone is enough to sit through the movie. He is a total scene stealer and I couldn't get enough of him. I am partial to cairn terriers and westies.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Considering that the movie is based on a book written by an ex-D.A. who used his own extensive courtroom experience, I think it's safe to say it's pretty realistic. Are you forgetting that there was a time when a rape victim's personal appearance was a factor in a courtroom? Or that the reason she was wearing the hat was to tone her appearance down so she wouldn't look seductive?

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

[–] DrinkFromTheSameFountain 12 years ago

I guess you're right. Though, Otto Preminger was known to be a director who liked to push censorship buttons. Like "The Moon is Blue", "Hurry Sundown", "Advise and Consent" & "Anatomy of a Murder". So those scenes when the spectators gasped when Lee Remick took off her hat and shook her hair out just seemed a little overdone, and I bet that was a director's touch.

Plus, Miss Remick looked pretty unnatural with that hat and those spectacles. It was obvious she was a very sexy woman, and the "costume" was just a ruse.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Otto Preminger totally dropped the ball when it came to Laura Manion. She was described in the book as a nice woman who was very attractive to men, but not anything like a hard-drinking wild-partying kind of slut. I guess he just couldn't visualize how to portray Laura as being attractive without making her trashy, and it was disappointing. As to her looking unnatural with the hat and the glasses, you're absolutely right. The costume was a ruse on the part of Biegler to make her seem more like a sheltered housewife and less like someone who was asking for trouble.

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

[–] liscarkat-2 12 years ago

I love this movie, but I, too, was surprised by the spectators' reaction to seeing her hair. It's not like she had a "tramp do" or something. It just looked like a fairly moderate hair style, and she was blonde. So what?

[–] Tjanssen411 11 years ago

she was blonde. So what?

In that Era, being Blonde; especially un-naturally so was not the practice of a 'good girl' that Remick didn't look particularly blonde; I think some of this effect was lost on the audience

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThereWillBeBeer 12 years ago

This movie is beyond 'almost kind of silly.' It is so uneven it's ridiculous. There are some great scenes in the courtroom, but all in all it's a terrible film.

She said her husband didn't get home until six. Fugger comes rollin' in at five.

[–] UncleMouse 11 years ago

There are some great scenes in the courtroom, but all in all it's a terrible film.

Well, "terrible" is a little too harsh, but I was quite disapponted, too - after a very, very long movie I was wondering "what's the point?!" Can't understand the high rating.

[–] Jefbecco-1 10 years ago

I've always found Otto Preminger's movies to be very uneven. This movie was a product of it's time so some of the acting was a bit overblown. Probably didn't seem that way to audiences in 1959/1960.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Another case of watching a film with 1959 mores, while you hold a 2013 perspective.

[–] I_Love_Hutch 10 years ago

My "perspective" is more 70s centric than anything. That was the best decade for movies in almost every single way. Especially the first half.

I don't find "Psycho" to be "dated", or "Room From the Top" or "The Nun's Story" or "Touch of Evil" or "The Misfits". I think "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" and "Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner" are better, more relevant films that almost anything made since the mid-80s.

The problem is with the director. Otto Preminger tried too hard to be edgy and hard-hitting. Look at "Skidoo" and "The Moon is Blue" and "Hurry Sundown". Those were all horrible films. And they all tried so hard to be "modern" that they failed on the more fundamental levels.

The way the subject matter is approached and treated is way more important than the subject matter itself. I don't think Preminger always knew that.

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

the poster is cool.

'The only mystery in life is why the kamikaze pilots wore helmets.'-Al McGuire ✈

[–] Jefbecco-1 10 years ago

Yes it is a great poster.