Anatomia di un omicidio

... since part of the allure is the mystery as to whether or not a true murder has been committed in the first place. There is a killing - but is it murder? That is what this courtroom drama is trying to determine.

Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a country lawyer in Michigan who was once the local DA but must have lost reelection at some point. He seems to consider himself pseudo-retired, as he stays in just enough contract work to finance his true love - fishing. But then a lieutenant in the army (Ben Gazzara as Fred Manion) kills the man who raped his wife (Lee Remick as Laura Manion), is charged with murder, and Biegler has a big case on his hands.

Manion is a bit shifty - At first claiming he has the "unwritten law" on his side. But then when Biegler tells him there really is no such thing, Manion adjusts his story such that temporary insanity could be a plausible defense.

The truth is, it never is clear which was true - Did Manion truly temporarily lose it when he saw his wife brutalized by a rapist, or did Laura Manion get cold busted by her husband stepping out with another man with the result being that Lt. Manion lost his temper and killed the other man? Gazzara plays his part as arrogant and Remick plays her part as flirty, each shooting the other looks at various points that indicate they are keeping at least part of the truth to themselves. What keeps it interesting are the characters, the emphasis on the legal process, and the question I just posed that hangs over the entire proceedings. Although everyone is good, the judge is an absolute understated scream. You can tell he doesn't like having this high profile case in his courtroom, that like Biegler he'd rather be fishing, but he has a job to do and he'll do it fairly. Joseph Welch played the part of the judge, and the fact that he was actually an attorney gives the performance the needed authenticity.

James Stewart was supposed to star in "North By Northwest" in 1959, but Hitchcock was angry at him because Vertigo had been a commercial failure, calling Stewart too old. He then dumped Stewart for Cary Grant so that Stewart was available to do this film. In the end, everything worked out. All three films are now recognized classics, and I can't see anybody but Stewart with his folksy charm playing the lead in this film.

Anatomy of an excellent movie:

Begin with an extremely tight and well written script, from the novel by the same name. While reportedly the story is based on a real-life case it is nevertheless a timeless story, almost biblical, presenting age-old questions of human conflicts and human dilemmas.

Add to that a sensational cast, starting of course with the leads, Jimmy Stewart, George C. Scott, Lee Remick, and Ben Gazarra, but also the rest of the cast, filled as it is with numerous accomplished and veteran stage actors and radio performers from days of yore. Character parts played by actors Arthur O'Connell, Eve Arden, Ken Lynch, Joseph Kearns, and Howard McNear. Someone paid careful attention to the casting for this film.

Perhaps the most masterful stroke as far as casting goes was the casting Joseph Welch as the judge. Welch was an experienced and renowned lawyer in real life. Welch turns in a very good and a very believable performance.

With the collision of those elements, a great script and a great cast, adding Otto Preminger as director, an overseer who knew exactly what to do with it all, you then have a very fine film.

More than any other movie or play, including modern day presentations like the television series Law & Order, this 1959 movie, Anatomy of a Murder, even though it is now 46 years old, is by far the most realistic and technically accurate courtroom drama ever produced. The conduct of the trial, the examination of the witnesses, the colloquy and bantering back and forth between the lawyers and between the lawyers and the judge, is spot-on. Every bit of it. Every question from the lawyers, every objection, every ruling by the judge, every admonishment from the judge, and the testimony of the witnesses, every bit of it, is realistic and believable, lines that were accurately written with care, and then flawlessly delivered.

Beyond the technical accuracies of the legal proceedings, some other aspects of the overall story were also spot on. The ambiguous ambivalence of lawyers, their motivations, their ethics, their relative honesty. Nothing is all black or all white. Shades of gray abound. Legal cases as sport. Being a "good lawyer" means pushing the envelope too far, bending the rules until you're told to stop. Not for justice. No, not that. To win. That's why. To win. Then sanctimoniously telling themselves that the system really works better this way. The movie accurately captures the fact that real-life legal cases are very often comprised of upside down Alice in Wonderland features. Innocent people are guilty, and guilty people are innocent. Good is bad, and bad is good. Everything is relative. Some call it cynicism. Others, cynically, call it realism. Anatomy of a Murder captures all of these and more.

I've read the criticism that Lee Remick was not believable, that as an actress she failed at nailing the portrayal of how a true rape victim would appear and behave, and that her character, Laura Manion, just didn't seem to have the proper affect nor strike the right emotional chord of a woman who had been raped. All I can say is that such criticism misses a humongous part of the point. It is almost mind-boggling that there are viewers out there who, after viewing this film, somehow managed to miss it. Let me clear it up: we the viewers WERE SUPPOSED to have serious doubts about whether Laura Manion had actually been raped. The question of whether she was really raped or not is central to the plot and story line. That's why Lee Remick played the part the way she did. And then, in turn, it was part of the story for the Jimmy Stewart character, Paul Biegler, to recognize this problem, and the problem that it presented to his defense. He worried that the jury would see it and would also doubt that she had been raped, and so that's why he propped her up in court, dressed up all prim and proper, with a hat over her voluptuously cascading hair, and with horned-rim glasses. So, yes, Lee Remick nailed it. Bull's eye.

Speaking of Lee Remick, some say that this was the movie that put Lee Remick on the map. She was stunningly beautiful here, at the ripe young age of 24. Even though the film is in black and white, her red hair, blue eyes, and porcelain skin still manage to jump right off the screen and out at you. Has any other actress ever played the role of the beautiful and sexy lady looking to get laid any better than Lee Remick? It was a woman she reprised several times in her career, sometimes with greater subtlety and understatement than others. This was her first rendition of it, and it may have been the best.

Anatomy of a Murder is a very complex movie, with multitudes of layers and texturing, where much is deftly explored, but precious little is resolved. It's a movie that leaves you thinking and wondering. I highly recommend it.

The legendary James Stewart has worked for several of Hollywood's most legendary directors including Frank Capra and Alfred Hitchcock but his films for them can not reach the level of this 1959 Columbia Pictures release that he did for Otto Preminger. Stewart gives his all time greatest performance in a gem of a courtroom drama that is often overlooked. Released on the heels of several other courtroom drama classics such as "Twelve Angry Men" and "Witness For The Prosecution", "Anatomy Of A Murder" tells the story of a small town Michigan lawyer (Stewart) who takes on the case of an army officer who is standing trial for murdering a man who he believes had raped his wife. A little risque and controversial for its time but still a classic and time has served it well. A triumph for all of the talent involved.

Based on the famous Traver novel, ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an extremely complex film that defeats easy definition. In some respects it is a social document of the era in which it was made; primarily, however, it is a detailed portrait of the law at work and the mechanizations and motivations of the individuals involved in a seemingly straight-forward case. In the process it raises certain ethical issues re attorney behavior and the lengths to which an attorney might go to win a case.

Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a small-town lawyer who has recently lost a re-election for the position of District Attorney and who is down on his luck--when a headline-making case involving assault, alleged rape, and murder drops into his lap. As the case evolves, there is no question about the identity of the killer. But a smart lawyer might be able to get him off just the same and redeem his own career in the process, and with the aid of an old friend (Arthur O'Connell) and his formidable secretary (Eve Arden), Biegler sets out to do precisely that. Opposing him in the courtroom is Claude Dancer (George C. Scott), a high powered prosecutor who is equally determined to get a conviction... and who is no more adverse to coaching a witness than Biegler himself. The two square off in a constantly shifting battle for the jury, a battle that often consists of underhanded tactics on both sides.

The performances are impressive, with James Stewart ideally cast as the attorney for the defense, Ben Gazzara as his unsavory client, and a truly brilliant Lee Remick as the sexy and disreputable wife who screams rape where just possibly none occurred; O'Connell, Arden, and Scott also offer superior performances. The script is sharp, cool, and meticulous, the direction and cinematography both effective and completely unobtrusive, and the famous jazz score adds quite a bit to the film as a whole.

Although we can't help rooting for Stewart, as the film progresses it seems more and more likely that Remick is lying through her teeth and Gazzara is as guilty as sin--but the film balances its elements in such a way as to achieve a disturbing ambiguity that continues right through to the end. If you expect a courtroom thriller with sudden revelations and twists you'll likely be disappointed in ANATOMY OF A MURDER, but if you want a thought-provoking take on the law you'd be hard pressed to find one better. Recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

If you haven't yet seen Anatomy of a Murder, you've got to buy a copy and host a movie night as soon as you can. You're going to want to own your own copy, since this exciting courtroom drama can be enjoyed over and over again. I've lost track of how many times I've seen it, and it never gets old. I'm a huge fan of the boundary-pushing director Otto Preminger, and he once again pushed the envelope of the censors in 1959. In this movie, the words "rape" and "panties" are spoken several times - shocking at that time!

James Stewart, in his silver-haired charm, stars as a defense attorney with passions outside the courtroom. He loves fishing, he loves jazz music, and he loves the sight of a good-looking woman. When the latter appears in his office, in the form of Lee Remick, asking for his help in her husband's upcoming trial, he agrees to take the case. Lee is beautiful and sexy, and she brings out such a flirtatious spark in Jimmy. Her husband, Ben Gazarra, will be on trial for murdering the man who raped and beat her up. It seems like an easy case, right? Not exactly.

There's much more to the situation than meets the eye. As Jimmy explains to Ben on their first, memorable meeting: "There are four ways I can defend murder. . ." I love that scene. It's clever and concise without seeming glib or artificial. The chemistry between every member of the cast is so electric, you can feel the words bouncing off the actors. Jimmy and Ben spar with their eyes, George C. Scott and Jimmy love to hate each other, and George practically undresses Lee with his words. Who knew a murder trial could have so much sex appeal?

The script is intelligent, the performances are energetic, and the subject matter is modern for its time. There are so many reasons to watch it, and so many things to appreciate when you do watch it, that you'll keep coming back to it over the years as I have.