What's the moral here? (spoilers) - Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion

[–] susan-191 20 years ago

You're looking for a 'moral'- but this movie is more than that. Despite being made in the fifties- it elides the quick fix of many films made then where the bad girl dies in the end and the man in the white hat triumphs. It's messy, intelligent, human. Watch 'The Thin Blue Line' if you think justice has gotten any 'better'. I thought this movie was wonderful- just fine without a moral.

reply

[–] B-J-C 20 years ago

I don't think every film needs a moral, but I get the feeling that there's one this film is trying to convey. But for the life of me I can't figure out what it is!

About justice, I certainly don't think it has gotten better, at least not for the most part. It wasn't until I saw this film that I realised you could get off if proved temporarily mentally ill. Justice is just one of those things that human society will never get right.

Money is society's way of telling you 'You could do better!'

reply

[–] kroberteaton 20 years ago

What SOME"members of human society" seem to have trouble getting right is that in the United States one is INNOCENT until proven guilty by the state.

The defence here presented a legitimate argument for the lack of culpability of its client - ( NOT his INNOCENCE, it's clear that he SHOT Barney Quill, killing him in an instantaneously...) THAT's IT'S JOB (and if you were the defendant BOY! would you want them to fo their job!) - and the jury was partially swayed by their argument and partially by the unfortunate fishing expedition that George Scott's character went on with the deceased man's "manager."

(There's an old saying in the law - Never ask a witness a question you're not certain of the answer to. He did, mistakenly taking the town gossip as though it were fact and found himself hung out to dry! It's a GREAT moment!, and one that he richly deserved.) This encounter resulted in a great loss of his - and the state's case's - credibility. But for whatever reason, the state DID NOT convince a jury of 12 of the soldier's "peers" that he - with malicious and conscious intent - killed Barney Quill. There was reasonable doubt as to his mental responsibility for the crime and they acquitted him accordingly.

There's no such thing as "getting him off" (technically...) - the state makes its case to the jury ( or a judge alone ) and THEY decide the guilt or innocence. The jusry couldhave just as esily rejected the "dissociative reaction" claim and found him guilty. The state failed to prove it's case.,..end of story. "Getting Him Off" is a phrase of sour grapes.

The authot of the book - "P. Traver," if memory serves - was a pseudonym for an actual upstate judge, and may've been based on some actual case. HIS point in writing it may have been to acquaint the public at large with some insight into the way the system works, or just to spin a good yarn. I think he - and Preminger/Stewart & company - did BOTH.

I consider this Preminger's best film - it's certainly MY favorite, with Laura right on it's heels.

"Principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're INconvenient"

reply

[–] imdb-3432 18 years ago

Just a clarification on the burden of proof issue. At the time this was filmed, I think you are correct, the burden of proof lay with the prosecution (the defendant was assumed innocent until proven not so). However, since Hinckley (1982), I believe most states have shifted the burden of proof to the defense in insanity cases (assumed guilty unless the defense can prove he was insane), though beyond a shadow of doubt is not required for this proof. All that said, the prosecutor in this movie says at one point that the defense must prove insanity, so it's entirely possible that in Michigan at the time, or at least in this movie, the defendant was not assumed innocent.

Your point about not asking a question without knowing the answer is exactly right. Scott's big city lawyer's hubris got in the way, and that if anything was part of the moral of this story. If the prosecution had not been so sure they were going to get a conviction, they might have done the diligence that the defense team went through and could have won the case.

reply

[–] Thalog482 18 years ago

That's not a shift. The burden of proof applies to anyone making a claim on either side, this applies scientifically or in any debate anywhere, any claim has the burden of proof to be substantiated. So the prosecution always has the burden of proof to say that he did in fact commit the crime, but if the defense wants to say the client was insane, then they have the burden of proof for that claim. It has always been so.

reply

[–] lotushand 17 years ago

R. Traver was John Voelker's penname and the book was based on an actual case tried only a few years prior. He served as the defense attornney.

reply

[–] druben2 20 years ago

I was very moved by this movie, especially after the O.J. trial. I think Preminger was definitely making a statement about the legal system being more about creating an appearance rather than establishing justice. We are drawn in by the likable, everyman character of Jimmy Stewart, who is certainly not in it for the big bucks or prestige. We see his illusion creating tactics when he is interviewing the Gazzara character and "suggests" to him that the only way he has a chance of getting off is if he were subject to "irresistable impulses" at the time of the crime. We see throughout the film that the guy is certainly in his right mind but that he is a pretty violent and nasty character and that he has no love for his floozy wife (deliciously played by Lee Remick). The ending is a clincher when they both leave town without paying him. These two are ignoble characters. Do they deserve the compassionate considerations of the law around a mental illness that would justify a more lenient sentence? Of course not. The movie is unrealistic in that, as a psychologist, I know that even back in 1959, massive amounts of testing and corroborative testimony needed to done in order to establish even a temporart insanity plea. Some shrink wouldn't just show up and make some kind of assessment without being heavily grilled by the opposition. This made the movie very silly. Also, the courts would have considered the accused to be an inmate of the jails and he would never have worn his uniform with full decorations to the trial - talk about influencing the jury! Also: Gazzara would have gotten at best a charge of manslaughter or second degree murder which would have meant some time, not that he would have ever been able to just walk away from having killed a man. So Preminger is creating a parody, not reality, and is showing how the legal system is generally about the manipulation of appearances and not about getting to the truth. I'm afraid after the O.J. travesty, I have to agree. I was deluded by the the honesty detective work of Perry Mason and soothed myself under the illusion that trials are about justice. Preminger's movie helped me wake up.

reply

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

A few points about your interesting post:

"The movie is unrealistic in that, as a psychologist, I know that even back in 1959, massive amounts of testing and corroborative testimony needed to done in order to establish even a temporart insanity plea. Some shrink wouldn't just show up and make some kind of assessment without being heavily grilled by the opposition. This made the movie very silly."

"Very silly" is quite unfair to apply to a movie simply because it compressed the psychological question. Remember, the movie is already two and one half hours long. This is what's known as dramatic license.

On a related note, I practiced law for six years and could tell you where the movie departs from actual practice, but again, this is dramatic license and necessary for the story, not "very silly."

The movie is, in fact, quite excellent, but a final note on the law; I have heard practitioners say--and I agree--that it's not what's true, it's what you can prove.

Justice? Surely you jest.

reply

[–] rddrjoy 20 years ago

I suggest you read the original book. John Volkner explains the law behind this extemely well.

reply

[–] konam 20 years ago

The moral of this movie!? Well, I always considered that the message that this picture try to pass is, as jimmy stewart said himself, "People are not all bad or all good, people are many different things on different times". What I mean is, who was the victim here? Was it Quill who got shot? Well, but he also raped Laura didnt he? So, he victim was Lt. Frederick who got his wife raped, right? not really, he shot a man in cold blood and lied in tribunal. Oh, all right the victim was Laura herself who got raped? Than again I disagree, Laura was a very dishonest wife as everybody knows (not that she deserved to be raped, but you cant really call her a "good" person). Even Jimmy Stewart let go a guilty man (and he knew it). So, I lay the question: Who are the "good" people and who are the "bad" people in this movie? answer: THERE IS NO SUCH THING. There is no good people or bad people, there is just people, on the contrary to what hollywood try to impose us with its villains and heroes.

What you guys & gals think!?

PS: Sorry for my terrible english, I am brazilian.

Shop Smart, Shop S-Mart !

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hitzzen 19 years ago

I guess I think that the movie is deliberately ambiguous, but not about what's right and what's wrong. Murdering someone in a jealous rage is definitely wrong. But the movie is ambiguous about what actually happened. The panties in the laundry--looks like she was raped. But if you look at the wife's expression when George C Scott asks her if she had been in the 'rapist's' car before, it's impossible to believe that something else wasn't going on. We also never know if the arsonist's testimony is really false. In fact, it's entirely believable that Manion said that. So part of what the movie seems to be about is how hard it is for the courtroom to get at the truth.

On the other hand, regardless of all of these ambiguities, I suspect we are not meant to buy the 'temporary insanity' plea, and so by the account of the law given in the movie we know that the defendant is guilty of murder. It also seems important that Jimmy Stewart himself doesn't seem to know the whole truth about what happened or to be concerned that he is defending someone guilty.

But someone else up in this thread also seemed right when they said it was also about how the appearance of justice is created. Jimmy Stewart is more likable than George C Scott. Mary Pilant is more likable than the arsonist. All that may also go into the mix.

reply

[–] jericoglobal 19 years ago

I think that the movie is deliberately ambiguous, but not about what's right and what's wrong. Murdering someone in a jealous rage is definitely wrong. But the movie is ambiguous about what actually happened.

BINGO, take this statement, and add in the "God Bless Juries" speech.

It's a look into the system, how different people can see the same thing and come to different conclusions. The "Juries" speech durring the Piano playing at the end brings it all together. That is the message of the movie. The Jury is no different than the movie goer. Insted of being provided the truth, we are left to come to our own conclusion. Putting you in the position of someone on the Jury, you gain insight into just how falible our system really is.

reply

[–] jcgri 19 years ago

Agreed. A person with the evidence in this movie could believe that the wife had cheated on her husband with Quill and he discovered it, beat her and intentionally killed Quill. Or they could believe she had flirted/cheated with Quill, but Quill went too far over her objections and raped her the last time they were together. Or they could believe she never had a relationship with Quill, her husband thought she had and he beat her and intentionally killed Quill. Or Quill beat her and raped her and her husband intentionally killed Quill. Or husband was temporarily crazy when he killed Quill -- whether or not you are prone to fistfights doesn't mean you couldn't have a psychologic reaction to discovering your wife had either cheated on you or been raped and react. Doesn't excuse the conduct necessarily, but could happen.

The point of the movie seems to be that humans are messy and gray and things are not black and white. Then the justice system has to come in behind these human activities without having been present when they occurred and try to make sense of it and figure out as closely as they can what happened. They may not always get the facts right, and may not always even reach the right conclusion, but more often than not they get pretty close to the right result for what happened and that is about the best we can do -- try to figure out what happened and apply as fair a result as we can to it. Also bearing in mind the point that in criminal cases, the government has to prove their theory happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the defense theory seems silly, the government still has the burden to prove their own theory to a high standard.

I'm not sure this movie is trying to do any more than that. And, given the time constraints of a movie, it does a pretty accurate job of showing that and it is still amazingly accurate even today.

reply

[–] LPurch6636 19 years ago

I like the statement "It's messy, intelligent, human" (written further above) because I think that it is exactly what it is and why it is called "Anatomy of a Murder." It's like the whole Barney Quill **case** is, like Barney Quill, laid out before us on the Coroner's examination table. It includes the various people with various weaknesses and motives as well as the law involved in the case (Beigler used a legal precedent that he dug up in an old case from the 1800's--, not the plea of insanity.)

And, regarding the Jimmy Stewart character, Paul Beigler, I beg to differ as to this just being another one of Stewart's "Everyman" roles! We see Paul Beigler using cheap courtroom tricks, and as he says himself, "Well, I'm blowing a lot of smoke but I don't know if it's getting me anywhere." He can't pay his secretary (Eve Arden) and doesn't seem to care...

Every character comes to us fully formed and with a background. Paul Beigler, a successful, duly elected county attorney, just lost an election to the new
Prosecuting Attorney who seems to be a numskull; I guess that's why some "higher up" wanted to make sure that they brought in the George C. Scott character. Kathryn Grant, the gal who Barney brought in to "shine up the place" (also the much-younger women who would marry Bing Crosby), was a true study of quiet mystery.

Finally, stories don't have to have "morals." If they are good, they just portray "truth." And "truth" is not always pleasant. Paul Beigler says it himself when he is trying to convince Mary (Kathryn Grant) to testify at the trial. He tells her, "Look, I am not trying to make your father look bad. I just have found that people are a lot of things. He took care of you and your mother and gave you this place to run so you'd be taken care of. But can you accept that in other situations he also could be brutal and violent..."

The only character I had difficulty with was the Lee Remick character. She is an outrageous flirt and I get the feeling that she DOES "step out on her husband." But I am not convinced that she steps out on her husband. She even evokes sympathy from Paul Beigler who has to hunt her down at a tavern because she is not visiting her jailed husband. He finds her dancing with servicemen and "having fun." She is young enough that she could be just having fun. But I sense that the writer really meant to convey that she was the "army slut" that Barney Quill called her while raping her... The screenwriter just should have made it more clear...

I enjoyed writing about this movie!

Flanagan

reply

[–] rsbrandt 12 years ago

I like another poster's mention somewhere that in the 1950's no one had heard of PTSD...Dancer asks Manion if he'd ever been diagnosed with "shell shock" while in Korea but that's not quite the same thing. Manion's record of a failed marriage, the hints of an abusive relationship with his current wife, his actions the night of the killing...none of these would be inconsistent with a diagnosis of PTSD.

But this whole movie is one big grey area, that's for sure.

reply

[–] jshaffer-6 18 years ago

"to be concerned that he is defending someone guilty" It has always bothered me that people seem to think defense lawyers are also judge and jury. A lawyer is an officer of the court, and if you confess to him that you committed a certain crime is he not required to turn you in? Most defense lawyers don't want to know if their client has committed the crime; they just want to find evidence against it or a loophole in the law to fit their client, so that they can adequately represent him. You see, our legal system requires that every person accused of a crime be represented by a competent lawyer at trial. Says nothing about being guilty or innocent.

reply

[–] mravholt 19 years ago

forgive my naivete' but i think you guys are reading too much into this. i think the characters should be taken at face value. we should give them the benefit. Laura was never seen sleeping with any men during the movie, to call her a slut IMO is unfair. just because she got bored and went dancing one nite doesn't mean she was wayward, she was by her husband's side during the trial. as far as justice is, that is obviously just a state of mind, no verdict will ever be completely accepted by everyone.

Exceptional movie, couldn't believe it wasn't a Perry Mason show.

reply

[–] EnterJamesClayton 18 years ago

I think if there's any kind of moral here it's that life and justice is complex and messy as has been stated and that not everything is black and white, there's shades of grey.

"don't think...feeeeel"

reply

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

ENDING SPOILER

I agree that the movie is decidedly ambiguous about exactly what happened among Mannion, his wife, and Barney Quill.

This was one of the first movies (in fact, maybe THE first) to present the idea of a trial as a tactical game, in which the truth doesn't matter so much as what is proved, and what happens during the trial itself. Among the tactics:

Consider: Jimmy Stewart has the seductive Lee Remick wear a plain suit, eyeglasses, and a prim hat in the courtroom. Seems a little broad, but modernly, tough slobby psychos enter the courtroom in suit-and-tie.

Consider: George C. Scott putting Mannion's cellmate on the stand to accuse Mannion of bragging about fooling everybody.

Consider: Jimmy managing to trick the prosecution into "getting the rape into the trial" via testimony, so he can provide sympathy for Mannion's crime.

Consider: George C. Scott confronting Kathryn Crosby about being Barney Quill's mistress -- but she's his daughter. (Doesn't mean much to the case, really, but it makes Scott look like a fool, and his case takes a hit.)

Consider: The state is allowed to pit TWO experienced prosecutors against Jimmy's ONE defense attorney. Not quite fair -- even if the local guy seems a bit slow.

Consider: Prior to fighting so hard to defend Frederick Mannion as his defense attorney, Jimmy Stewart was the prosecutor for TEN YEARS. Only a year or two before, Stewart would have been trying to put Mannion in prison, and would have used all his brilliance to do so. But he lost the DA job, and now he "switches sides" with ease. That's lawyering.

---

For me, the ambiguity of the story sounds most greatly in its famous twist ending: Frederick Mannion runs out of town with his wife, and on his fee, leaving a note that he "had an irresistable impulse." Thus is Jimmy Stewart hoisted on his own petard, and screwed by the client who Stewart fought like hell to save.

But more importantly, the groundskeeper tells us that Mrs. Mannion "was crying." Earlier, she'd seemed drunkenly giddy about her husband getting off. But why was she crying when he decided to blow town?

We'll never know, but it just adds more curiosity to who these people were, and what they really did.

reply

[–] richardfortino 18 years ago

The movie retold a true story. If there was a moral, it was this: If you live in a small town, don't be a bully. When the right guy finaly takes you out, it just might be impossible to find a jury that will convict him. There is still an attitude in parts of Marquette County that the rapist had it coming.

reply

[–] interrociter 18 years ago

ecarle wrote: "But more importantly, the groundskeeper tells us that Mrs. Mannion 'was crying.' Earlier, she'd seemed drunkenly giddy about her husband getting off. But why was she crying when he decided to blow town?"

She appeared to really like the lawyer (Jimmy Stewart). Perhaps she was crying at the dirty trick her husband was pulling by skipping on his legal fee.

Just one possibility, perhaps a rather naive one.

reply

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

I think that's a good possibility. Preminger leaves the matter to our own imaginations...

reply

[–] rooprect 18 years ago

Verrrry interesting. Now that I think about it, I can't believe I missed that part. I thought Mannion's skipping out on the bill was a poignant punchline (especially with the "irresistable urge" note), but now I'm considering the implications of his wife crying...

Is it possible that Mannion smacked her around a bit? As you guys pointed out, she had been drunk, giddy and flirtatious just hours before. Is it possible that this triggered Mannion's rage, and then he proceeded to make good on his (alleged) threat to kick her ass? This of course implies that the cellmate's testimony was in fact true; Mannion had fooled everyone. If so, there's a very sinister "moral" to the story indeed.

Either way, it's absolutely brilliant. It's rare that we find such a lucid & realistic movie coming out of Hollywood, back then or even today.

reply

[–] bmusler-1 18 years ago

Yeah but it depends upon what you mean by ambiguity. [Other than it being in the box.] I think it IS highly possible that Mannion smacked his wife around all the time, so it's possible that her bruising might have come from him. His cell mate may have been telling the truth. THAT part and the characterizations (which is what makes the movie so good) are ambiguous. But by the end not too many facts are left in doubt, IMO.

The relationship between the Mannions is kept purposefully ambiguous (by them -- the characters -- NOT the director) but their motive is not. They do love one another and Lee Remick wants to get Ben Gazzara off. Mannion killed the guy in a jealous rage and knew it was wrong. Stewart only agrees to take the case AFTER Mannion makes it clear to him that he's "smart" enough to wise up and play ball. Then they are LUCKY enough to stumble on a precedent AFTER that. But we're not supposed to believe that his wife wasn't assaulted. She was. The panties are found by the daughter before she understands their significance...so Mrs. Mannion was definitely attacked.

While I think the audiance may be suprised by the denoument, (Stewart not being paid,) that too is all quite in keeping with the characterizations. But here's the thing...neither the Mannions nor the justice systems is perfect...they just worked together in the end. And we have to be satisfied by that. Whether you believe a psychological defense such as "irrisitable impulse" should get a man off for murder is up to you (or a jury) to decide.

It's a terrific film for people who LISTEN to movies as well as watch them.

reply

[–] mynameiskenny 18 years ago

Wrong.

I think it's far more likely that Remick WASN'T assaulted. It's more likely that she had sex with the guy consensually, came home undies-less to an angry husband, got smacked around, and then Gazzara went to go kill the guy. The panties don't prove anything.

But the thing is -- I can't prove that. Not at all. I don't think Remick acts like a raped woman, but who's to say that a raped woman absolutely wouldn't go out dancing? I think Stewart led Gazzara to go and try for that insanity plea, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also legitimately insane. This film's maddening ambiguity is the point -- there's nothing we can prove about the facts of the case, and we have to admit that because of that, not guilty is the only possible verdict.

reply

[–] bmusler-1 18 years ago

"I think it's far more likely that Remick WASN'T assaulted. It's more likely that she had sex with the guy consensually, came home undies-less to an angry husband, got smacked around, and then Gazzara went to go kill the guy. The panties don't prove anything."

I have to confess to missing that possibility and it certainly seems like it COULD be in character. Remick was nothing if not a tease and she did seem to love her husband so maybe to get a rise out of him. Sure...it could be...but that kind of makes her a contemporary villain and I don't think that's what the director had in mind or he would have weighted the presentation of the "panty evidence" differently. Obviously, that's just my two bit opinion.

And, as you say, "there's nothing we can prove about the facts of the case." It's a wonderful screenplay.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tasinda 18 years ago

A previous poster said: "she was able to escape before actual penetration because it was pointed out that there was no evidence of sperm."

Or, it could be that she was willing but there was no sperm because he "pulled out"; a very popular form of birth control back then, pre-birth-control pills and shots days.

Then she went home where Manion was waiting for her, he found out his wife had cheated, blackened her eye and beat her up, then went out and shot Quill in a jealous rage.

And yes, I believe she was crying at the end when they left because her husband had beaten her once again; just as he had bragged to his cellmate he'd do when he got out.

I thought it was a great movie; very thought-provoking.

reply

[–] knightsintodreams 11 years ago

they would be able to find evidence of pre-cum, though.

Reedus/Fassbender/Hiddleston

reply

[–] alpha_1976 18 years ago

If I were in that Jury, they wouldn't have chosen what they did!

We're talking about unchecked aggression here, dude.

http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6221274

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamdonahoo 17 years ago

The moral here is that even if you are a high profile prosecutor from Lansing, don't *beep* with Jimmy Stewart.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]