MovieChat Forums > Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion > Strange movie

Strange movie

posted 18 years ago by MovieMan0283part2
12 replies | jump to latest

I was entertained throughout and it had a lot to recommend, but I understand why some people would consider it a mess. First of all, it's way too long. I wasn't bored, but there was so much that seemed unnecessary and distracting...Duke Ellington's cameo, to name just one egregious example. Definitely NOT a tight movie by any means.

More importantly, there was something really, well, "off" about it. Anatomy of a Murder treats rape more flippantly than any other film I've ever seen; to the point where I was expecting there to be a twist, i.e. she wasn't raped. In fact the film gives us so much food for suspicion and so little information about what actually happened, that I was surprised, like many other viewers, when the movie ended so anticlimactically. Also odd was the casualness with which Stewart feels he can ask the dead man's daughter to consider him a rapist, and then the ease with which she appears in court to reveal him as the rapist. And, it bears repeating, the joky, easy manner in which every character in the film, including Lee Remick herself, discusses the brutal rape of the wife. At one point the judge even says something to the effect of, "Stop laughing! There's nothing funny about a pair of underwear which led to one man's death and may lead to the other being executed!" Gee, let's forget all about the girl who the underwear belonged to!

The characters in the movie seemed way too casual about pretty much everything that happened. It was easy to watch and was entertaining, so I can't say I'm sorry I rented it, but I fail to see the overall point of this venture.

[–] cuttingedgenyc 18 years ago

That was very well said, and I think you just put your finger on the thing that really bothered me the most about the tone of the movie, though I hadn't realized it until just now.

[–] grant7085 18 years ago

I agree, having just watched the movie. I felt like there was gonna be some climatic scene where Stewart realized that he had been actually been wrong. Seems like anatomy of a murder seems like an appropriate name for a movie about someone getting away with a murder.

[–] redd4576 18 years ago

End in the end, the lieutenant DID get away with the murder!

"You can't throw him out, I won him!"
-Joon (Benny and Joon)

[–] ver_steeg 18 years ago

You know, I had the same reaction at first about the flippancy of the rape in the movie, and the statement about "which may led to one man's death and may lead to the death of another." But THEN I remembered that, hey, this is a trial about a MURDER, not a RAPE. So it is contextually quite appropriate to leave that ALLEGED rape out of such a statement. I know it feels uncomfortable to hear it like that, but think of the problems with the judge's statement if he would have said "a pair of underwear involved in the rape of a woman, the death of one man, and ..." The ONLY thing proven by law to have occurred is the death of Quill--NOT the rape. To have a judge include it would have resulted in an immediate mistrial for leading the jury--it is the jury's job to deliberate on the role of the alleged rape in the crime of the murder.

[–] schmdchrs 17 years ago

In my mind the "overall point" of this picture is to take a more cynical view of the justice system than what what was typical at the time. Take a show like Perry Mason, for example; every episode is tied up beautifully at the end with the entire truth in all its detail presented to the audience. Real life simply doesn't work like that. The movie points out that there are some things that we will simply never know; winning a court case is just that... winning. When there is no way to know EXACTLY what happened, it's up to the lawyers to play the game and win over the jury to their side.

"Twelve people go off into a room. Twelve different hearts, twelve different minds, from twelve different walks of life -- twelve sets of eyes and ears, shapes and sizes -- And these twelve people have to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other -- and in their judgement they must become of on mind -- unanimous. It's one of the miracles of man's disorganized soul that they can do it -- and most of the time do it right well. God bless juries."

Most of the time. The point is that even with the best system that we can come up with (jury trials), there are still guilty individuals that go free and innocent individuals that get convicted - it's all about whose argument convinces people.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theFoss 17 years ago

I don't think that one can judge whether the Remick character was raped or not, but certainly she portrays a woman of extremely casual morals, and perhaps she lied to cover her indiscretions. The rape story does hold water, however, as if, say, she volunteered her favors to Quill, it would be unlikely for her to leave her panties behind. I certainly don't think that she was a deep enough character to willfully manipulate her husband for the purpose of either murder to get rid of Quill, or as a means to get rid of her husband.

Either way, the rape is a red herring...

The manipulative character here is Atty. Paul Biegler. Ethically unable to coach the prospective client to claim insanity directly, the Jimmy Stewart character coaxes the Gazarra character play a guessing game until Garzarra comes up with a legal justification to excuse murder on his own. Is Gazarra actually guilty? Yes, he admitted the murder. Is his legal excuse valid? This is the grey area that a defense lawyer HAS to exploit when he accepts a client that admits the deed. And this is where Bigler does his best manipulation. The panties, the possible complicity of the bartender to the alledged rape, the dog and light show...all...as George Scott's Claude Dancer characterizes..."a smoke screen." And often confusing a Jury is good enough to get a favorable defense verdict..."Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" becomes extremely difficult with a skillful defense Atty. injecting that doubt at every turn.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Two-Spacer 12 years ago

I think the director had to take this approach because he wanted the viewer to be unsure whether the wife was really telling the truth. If the rape (or alleged rape) had been treated more solemnly, viewers would have felt that the movie was telling them the rape was real, and thus that aspect of the drama would have been lost.

Let us all beware of resting satisfied with head-knowledge. - CofE Bishop J.C. Ryle

[–] DrinkFromTheSameFountain 12 years ago

I agree with everything you said. There's a lot of goofy stuff in this movie.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]