Companion Piece to "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959)

Watching The Verdict again recently, I found a few parallels -- some in general, and one direct -- to Otto Preminger's classic "Anatomy of Murder" from 1959 --fully 23 years before The Verdict in 1982.

As a starting point, however, there is this: Anatomy of a Murder was based on a REAL murder case in Michigan in the 1950s, so some of its legal procedure is "true." The Verdict is, I believe, totally fictional in terms of the legal issue at hand(medical negligence, not homicide).

Still, at base, both movies tell the same story: David versus Goliath. An underfunded, under-staffed solo attorney(with one legal helper) versus a "team of opponents."

In Anatomy of a Murder the protagonist is folksy Jimmy Stewart, whose practice makes little to no money and runs his office out of the family home he inherited. He's SOMEWHAT down because he lost the DA position in his local county and now must go up against the less-smart guy who won election to the job.

But the less-smart guy who won election to Stewart's job (as prosecutor) has been given a "tag team partner" in a much smarter, more ruthless prosecutor from up state(George C. Scott, in only his second film role and just as great as he would always be.)

So solo lawyer Stewart is up against a two-man tag team of opponents and the strength of the "government system" on their side.

More:

Stewart has only the help of his alcoholic lawyer buddy Arthur O'Connell, to research law books to find precedent cases for the defense.

Newman has only the help of his aging, longtime lawyer buddy Jack Warden as we see the other "superrich" law firm convene a team of 20 lawyers or so to go up against Newman. Of course , Newman is the alcoholic one here.

And this, very specific match-up:

In both movies we see our lawyer hero and his helper wait for a train to come in and deposit an "expert medical witness." In Anatomy of a Murder, the doctor who gets off the train(Orson Bean) is shown to be young and callow and perhaps not open to being taken too seriously.

In The Verdict, things are more sensitive. The doctor who gets off the train is an elderly African-American who turns out not to be board-certified.

In both films -- but more dangerously in The Verdict -- the expert witness is presented as not being enough for our hero to fight the other legal team. (The fact that both movies have this character arrive on a train as if "hired help" has its own feeling.)

These movies are different in some ways. Preminger's movie has his characteristic see-all-sides ambivalance about "right and wrong," but Lumet's movie is much more heavily favored with its hero: the other side is as corrupt as it is sizeable.

No matter. They are both two great "courtroom dramas." Anatomy of a Murder has some Hayes Code busting sexual content(words, not deeds) and a more historic placed in movie history. But The Verdict brought back that kind of "well-crafted well-made" feeling with much more powerful emotional weight placed upon Newman's scared rabbit of a broken down hero.

No matter. Watch 'em both. But watch them back to back, and revelations arrive.