Testimone d'accusa

To see "Witness for the Prosecution" for the first time in 2008 is a jolting surprise. Nobody could do it better than Billy Wilder did in 1957. A man accused of murder, Tyrone Power, the weakest link in this terrific chain. Sir Wilfred is called to defend him, he is played by the extraordinary Charles Laughton, but he's just out of hospital - he wasn't dismissed he was expelled - and due to doctor's orders he's not to take any criminal cases. He finds Power charming and personable enough but he's not going to risk his life to save his until Marlene Dietrich makes her entrance - and what an entrance! How marvelous that what amounts to a bit of Agatha Christie's usual fare becomes such an entertaining and at times right down riveting piece of film-making.

This is one of the best "trial movies" ever made. It's an outstanding film that is just as good today as it was almost 50 years ago when it was released in the theaters. The shocking ending caused quite a stir back then, too.

The only part of the movie I thought looked dated and unrealistic was Tyrone Power's character being able to interrupt the trial with outbursts and not be reprimanded for it. There is no way that would be tolerated, at least today.

Otherwise, it's a pretty solid film with a good cast that includes two fascinating characters played by actors who know how to entertain: Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich.

Laughton, who plays Power's defense attorney, grabs the spotlight in the story but Dietrich almost steals the movie in her role as Power's wife. Laughton's dialog is terrific throughout, bringing a number of laughs to this serious film. He's just a joy to watch. Dietrich is even more riveting but just doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of screen time as Laughton.

Not to be overlooked is Elsa Lanchester, playing Laughton's nurse. She, too, demonstrates her comedic talent and significantly adds to the fun of watching this film.

If you like some fine drama, storyline twists, a little humor thrown in and great acting and dialog, this is a classic film to check out.

Yours truly has never been much of a reader, though with one notable exception: the work of Agatha Christie. I absolutely, positively worship this brilliant woman and try to read as many of her novels, short stories and stage play adaptations as possible. "Witness for the Prosecution" is a genuine classic, and although somewhat atypical for Christie, it is undeniably one of the greatest stories ever penned down. There's one major disadvantage about having read all of Christie's whodunits, of course, namely that you can't experience the same astounding twist-in-the-end twice! I would really have loved to be overwhelmed by the climax of this film- version, especially because Marlene Dietrich and Tyrone Power give away such fabulous performances. The story, with its fascinating characters and dazzling plot twists, does remain the movie's biggest strongpoint, but there are a number of more reasons why "Witness for the Prosecution" is righteously considered as one of the most massive milestones in cinematic history. Billy Wilder's surefooted direction, for one, and the stellar performances of the entire ensemble cast. I mentioned Dietrich and Power already, but there's also the downright phenomenal Charles Laughton (arguably the most shamefully neglected actor/director in history) and an appealing supportive role for Elsa Lancaster. But do I daresay that the ultimate success-factor of this stage play adaptation is the masterful re-creation of the court trial? The bombastic settings and decors, the echoing acoustics, the powerful monologues of confident (and arrogant) barristers and the intimidating gowns and wigs are largely what make "Witness for the Prosecution" not only the first but also the mother of all courtroom dramas. This may just be the opinion of an avid fan, but practically ALL great courtroom-dramas that were released from the sixties until present day ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Philadelphia", "Devil's Advocate", "A Few Good Men"…) were clearly influenced by "Witness for the Prosecution". In fact, I only have one minor complaint: *** Spoiler **** the film version adds one more final twist that I didn't find 100% plausible.

I love it when a movie captivates me, carries me along, then surprises me at the end. This is a masterpiece of human maneuvering. It has outstanding acting and a plot to die for. This is a fairly pedestrian Agatha Christie short story. I'm not saying it's not a wonderful story, just that it doesn't come to life like it does on the screen. Charles Laughton is the wonder barrister who is taking the case, even though he is in poor health. The murder case seems a relatively simple one until we begin to trip over the many layers left lying on the path. Marlene Dietrich does a masterful job in all her roles (I won't say anymore than that so I don't spoil the ending). Tyrone Power is able to balance his pathos and his potential guilt. The beauty of the movie is that it never takes itself too seriously. There are some modestly funny subplots and a great deal of careful investigation. I guarantee you that once you start watching, you won't be able to turn it off.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I'm not sure I have the ability to adequately praise this film. The original short story(rather unremarkable, actually)has been expanded into a magnificent example of Hollywood entertainment at its best. In addition to perhaps the finest line-up of character actors ever assembled(next to Cukor's David Copperfield, that is), we get Laughton and Dietrich at the top of their form. The person who criticised Lanchester's performance as "annoying" missed the point entirely. Miss Plimsoll is meant to be annoying! Also, what's with all the bad-mouthing of Tyrone Power? "Hammy"; "terrible"; "worst performance ever". These are the perceptive IMDb reviews? Only one of you got it right: it's hammy because Leonard Vole is the one acting, not Power! For 95% of the film, the character is dissembling, only showing his true colors at the end. Of course it looks hammy: Vole isn't a born actor like his wife. And to all those know-it-alls who called this film mediocre and predictable, I look forward to your upcoming film projects which I'm sure will be paragons of excellence and worthy to be set alongside classics of the golden age.