MovieChat Forums > Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion > Overrated and overacted

Overrated and overacted

posted 20 years ago by TiminPhoenix
13 replies | jump to latest

This movie earns a lot of its praise for simply being bold for its time. What isn't often noted is the overacting of some, to include Jimmy Stewart. The way he plays his part is to be so much more clever than anyone else involved. The local D.A. is so broadly played as to be a joke. You would think this was this first time he had ever tried any case and seems ready to break into tears as Stewart makes snarky statement after snarky statement.

George C. Scott does as always his superb job.

Not until Ito, would a judge be as ineffectual and allow a defense lawyer(s) to run wild. That doesn't take away from the performance of the actor, he does apparently what Preminger wanted.

The thing that seems most interesting to me is the celebration, at this time of the defense lawyer's skill in subverting actual justice. The next 45 years following the film would help show what a terrible effect this would have on, in the real world, on our justice system.

There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and ........

[–] cuttingedgenyc 19 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly with all you said. The courtroom arguments between defense attorney and prosecutor also would never have gotten to that point in an actual courtroom. I'm surprised that there are people here who find that level of theatrics to be realistic - when I was practicing I never met a judge who would tolerate that kind of argument during testimony.

It's fine if they wanted to get over the top with that stuff, but it seems to me that if they wanted to go that direction, it could have been done in a more entertaining way. And we didn't even get to see the closing arguments!! What a cop out.

[–] gfletchjr2000 19 years ago

Most movies from this time period were overacted. It was the norm. They were good actors for their time but compared to current actors they don't quite hold up

[–] Phrog520 18 years ago

Rofl you wish! It's actually the exact opposite. Those actors acted much better than current actors today, who overact and give very empty performances.

[–] schwapj 12 years ago

I agree with Phrog. Actors back then played their roles for the sake of the movie. Nowadays it's for the sake of the actor, with a few notable exceptions (Meryl Streep, e.g.).

[–] eden_echo 18 years ago

Most movies from this time period were overacted. It was the norm. They were good actors for their time but compared to current actors they don't quite hold up

It was the norm to overact then? Then I guess the actors/actresses today don't do any such thing?!

Without those from yesterday, some of the no-talents today wouldn't be where they are!

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

[–] liscarkat-2 12 years ago

"Most movies from this time period were overacted. It was the norm. They were good actors for their time but compared to current actors they don't quite hold up."

Stunningly ignorant comment. There's really nothing that can be said to someone who is so clueless.

[–] MuleDeer 19 years ago

I thought the acting overall was fine, although I agree that the guy who played the DA was absolutely horrible. Not surprisingly, this was his complete career, per imdb:

"The Mothers-In-Law"
- I'd Tell You I Love You, But We're Not Speaking (1968) TV Episode .... Professor Hutton

Anatomy of a Murder (1959) .... Dist. Atty. Mitch Lodwick

"My Friend Irma" (1952) TV Series .... Richard Rhinelander, III (1952-1953)

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

That actor who played the D.A. was married to Eve Arden, who appeared in the film, and was good in it, as Jimmy's secretary (and possible "wife" if Arthur O'Connell didn't work out). Perhaps a favor by Preminger to keep the married couple on location together?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tarasmum 18 years ago

I cannot agree with everything you have said. I though that the courtcase scenes were some of the best I have seen. James Stewart and George C Scott both seemed to act their parts naturally and there is an interesting undercurrent of rivalry and admiration for each other.

We can assume that the local DA is a relatively inexperienced DA - after all he did replace Biegler when he retired - he could be his first murder case? We are talking small town America. Also, one can see the frustration in George C. Scotts character when he believes the local DA is asking the wrong questions.I

Interestingly the judge in this film was a real US judge.

[–] Ironman54 15 years ago

Also this judge was a stand in for the regular judge recovering from an illness.
He made mention of the odd ways of the courts upstate and said far be it for me to change things (in effect). Probably knowing that Stewart was an ex DA and that the current DA didn't make a formal complaint on Stewarts conduct I'm guessing the judge just figured 'when in Rome...'. Ya know, the 'I guess this is the way these country bumpkins do things up here - what do I care ? I'll be returning to my court room soon'. Possible ??

[–] thegrinch_89 15 years ago

Not only was he a real judge, he was the lawyer in the televised McCarthy v. US hearings

Indiana Jones: "Tomorrow I'll steal you another one."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]