Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
281 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A Spot-On Courtroom Drama
tightspotkilo17 December 2005
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.
149 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Does Guilt Or Innocence Actually Matter To The Court System?
gftbiloxi24 April 2005
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
108 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The use of 'daring' words in evidence caused controversy at that time..
Nazi_Fighter_David16 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
'Anatomy of a Murder' illustrates vividly how one lawyer repeatedly faces the heat of a controversial rape-case courtroom battle... The film might be Stewart's finest performance... For his magnificent achievement, Stewart was nominated for an Academy Award... The film itself received a total of seven Oscars in various categories, but was overtaken by William Wyler's 'Ben-Hur', the blockbuster of that year, whose star, Charlton Heston, beat out Stewart for best actor...

'Anatomy of a Murder' is one of the few great racy courtroom melodramas ever put on the screen... It is a study of characters superbly detailed, in which a simple country lawyer zealously defends a young Army lieutenant charged with clearly gunning down a bar-owner who, he alleges, raped his young wife... The murder takes place some time after Remick tells her husband (Gazzara) she was raped–enough time to suggest that the killing was not done in the heat of passion but with some deliberation...

Stewart, a warm bachelor lawyer with an old-fashioned grace of manner, is wonderfully believable as the qualified defense attorney, who tries to establish whether or not Lee Remick has been raped... He masterfully guides his defendant to the most exciting climax, repeatedly drawing forth evidence which he knows to be inadmissible, but which he wants the jury to hear...

Stewart smokes cheap cigars, plays jazz piano, and restrains beautifully Remick's flirtatious overtures, but his benevolence is never in question... We see him hauling the provocative Remick from out of the bar telling her to be a good, and submissive housewife for the court...

Stewart studies with a cynical eye the peculiar traits of the accused, tolerates, with amused resignation, his friend's drunken lapses, and competently makes his point to the judge and jury...

Ben Gazzara proves to be a problematic client, close to uncooperative with his lawyer... Also, it is very clear that he is a jealously possessive man, which is enough to question the validity of the rape charge, he claims that he acted in a moment of insane anger... The film raises fascinating legal highlights on disorders of jealousy...

Lee Remick gives a sensational performance as the sexy wife whose missing panties form a vital part of the evidence...

Remick knows how to attract and seduce... She is so coquettish that she drives her angry husband to murder... The trial poses tricky questions: Was the Remick character in advanced levels of seduction during her wanderings at the neighborhood bar? Did her bruises come from the man whom she claimed raped her, or from her jealous husband?

George C. Scott plays the sly, sardonic prosecuting attorney who offers the character a wonderful air of arrogance and superiority, unnerving with his aggressive antagonism witnesses and defense attorney...

Arthur O'Connell rises to the occasion when his lawyer-hero needs him...

Eve Arden is Stewart's faithful and efficient secretary eager that the Manion case might bring her a long-overdue paycheck...

The courtroom fencing between Stewart and Scott is so convincing with the casting of Joseph N. Welch as the delightful ever-patient judge, Harlan Weaver... Judge Weaver, whose patience is repeatedly tried by the grotesque gestures of the lawyers in the case, appears too kindly to be much of a courtroom disciplinarian... But in the tension between the shrewd old judge and the lawyer for defense, the film raises a crucial issue on the rules of advocacy: To what extent a lawyer should represent a client zealously within the rules and norms of courtroom etiquette?

Preminger's penchant for long takes and a mobile camera, rather than cuts and conversational reaction shots, here serves both to illuminate the crucial ambiguities in the characters, and to facilitate an objective appraisal of the mechanics of the legal process...

Preminger challenges the American censors over the candid sexual terminology and explicit examination of rape in his courtroom drama... Ellington's score brilliantly captures the tension and the moral ambiguity that characterize the movie... Sam Leavitt's black-and-white photography is particularly impressive, setting as it does the stark mood of the authentic Michigan locations...
83 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I am a trial attorney
I have tried more cases than I can remember - hundreds. This movie, more than any other, comes closet to real life. In criminal cases., the first and most important thing is - the phone call. That's right, getting the case. Next comes the 'talk.' An attorney has to inform the client of the possible outcomes given the facts. In Anatomy of a Murder, the main facts are 'undisputed', that is, there is no doubt that the defendant killed the victim. Given that fact, there are only so many possible defenses - and so Jimmy Stewart, in one of the best performances of his career, relates those defenses to Ben Gazzara, in one of his best performances. Along the way, we are treated to George C. Scott's premiere performance on screen - and it is is magnificent. Did I mention how incredible and sexy and vulnerable Lee Remick is? And the rest of the cast is also as good as it gets. And then there's the Duke Ellington score (he won a Grammy) and the Wendell Mayes screenplay and the B/W cinematography by Sam Leavitt (The Defiant Ones (Oscar-winner), A Star is Born (1954)). Watch this movie to see how to make a crime drama. There is nothing as good as it is - nothing.
47 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of my favorites
HotToastyRag28 November 2021
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.
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intense, Dramatic, Well Crafted Suspense...
Cari-86 August 1999
Well filmed, beautifully acted, and painstakingly directed, this film deserves the highest praise.

James Stewart brings his customary stammering, quirky charm to a role that could have easily become overwhelmingly serious. Lee Remick is seen establishing her early image as the somehow fragile, undeniably seductive pawn (see also "A Face in The Crowd"), while Gazzara wavers intensely somewhere between heartless murderer and protective husband. The supporting cast is strong, creating a human backdrop for the senior players, keeping the story in the real world, effectively preventing this from becoming an exercise in legal theory.

This film is noteworthy for a myriad of reasons, but most specifically because it addresses the still controversial issue of acquaintance rape, and presents us with a victim of questionable morals. At the same time our murder victim is seen as a monster, then a friend and father. There really are no heroes here, no noble defenders, no pristine heroines, no completely innocent bystanders...both sides take their turns pointing fingers, each claiming that the other only got what they deserved.

We are forced to re-evaluate our thoughts on what constitutes justifiable homicide--the unwritten law that Manion speaks of in the film versus the law as written that Biegler must now interpret. This manipulation of intended meaning sets a somewhat tragic precedent evident in the legal system we work within today.

This film is highly entertaining, and excellent for discussion. Watch it with some of your more philosophical friends.
117 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of my favorites
swamiger10 May 2005
First of all be patient as the following information is getting to a point that might add to your appreciation of the movie. I became aware of the following information while attending Northern Michigan University in Marquette, MI over a few tall drinks with John D. Volker, the author, years ago.

This great courtroom drama is set in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. To be more specific the cities of Marquette, Negaunee and Ishpeming and the village of Big Bay and is based on a true murder case that took place there. The names of the cities and people are changed in the movie but it is filmed on the same locations that the murder case took place. The screenplay was written by John D. Volker (who wrote his novels under the pen name Robert Travers) and was based on his first novel. He was from Ishpeming (Iron City in the movie) and a Michigan Supreme Court Justice when he reviewed the appeal of this case and turned it into a detailed novel and then screenplay. The movie is given an extra dose of authenticity by using the unique people of the Upper Peninsula as extras and in minor roles.

The point of all this historical information is that along with a hard hitting realistic style by director Otto Premenger, great score by Duke Ellington, plus top notch true to life performances by the excellent cast (Jimmy Stewart, Ben Gazara, Lee Remick, George C. Scott, et.al) this black and white film is more reality than fiction and being aware of this adds to impact of this psychological courtroom drama. This is a true human experience written by an author from the area directly from the original court transcripts, filmed where it happened in a style that fits the subject matter where it actually happened with a cast that really knows what they are doing.

If you like ripped from reality courtroom dramas, does it get better?
169 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Gray Anatomy
telegonus15 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Anatomy Of a Murder is probably Otto Preminger's best film. It's certainly my favorite. Adapted from a novel by Robert Traver, it tells the story of a lawyer in northern Michigan and his defense of a particularly surly and violent murderer. As is always the case with Preminger, scenes are filmed mostly with all the characters present in the frame. There is no cross-cutting to speak of, which is to say the drama plays out with the assorted characters confronting one another, or at any rate with one another, and the effect is one of surprising warmth and good feeling in the movie's cosier scenes, which for once enhance rather than detract from the drama. I would have been quite happy to have spent much more time in lawyer Biegler's house and study, with its books, old furniture and broken typewriter, but alas this is a murder case so one has to get down to businss. The question of whether the defendant, an army officer, was temporarily insane, is in fact insane, or is merely putting on a good show, is never fully resolved. The lawyer is by no means perfect. He's a little lazy, though he gets over it. One senses he's cheap. He enjoys his shabby genteel bachelor's life and isn't always responsive to the needs of his secretary, who would like to get paid more regularly. In the end he proves far more dedicated and brilliant than we might have first imagined him to be, but the fly in the buttermilk is that the better he gets the more complicated the case becomes, and the more ambiguous everything gets the more he finds out about his client and the man he killed. In this respect the movie is a masterpiece of ambiguity. Beautifully shot on location in black and white, it is more gray than anything else. Morally gray. No one is quite what he appears to be at first. And people change; or rather we learn more about them. The bartender at the resort where his boss was killed at first comes off as a jerk; in time he comes to seem more of a jerk. Then he seems maybe not so bad after all; and then he's a jerk once more, but a jerk we understand. The lawyer's assistant, an on-again, off-again recovering alcoholic, is also a mixed bag. He is dogged but sloppy, and always (or so it appears) on the verge of breakdown. Or at least this is how Arthur O'Connell plays him. The prosecuting attorney is a dolt, but he is aided by a legal bigwig the state has brought in, but this hotshot is no match for the cunning country lawyer. The defendant's wife, who 'started the whole thing' is gorgeous, sexy and provocative. She makes a play for her husband's lawyer, but he doesn't bite. One wonders about her. And one wonders about the marriage she and her hot-tempered spouse really have, and whether it will last. This is a very sophisticated and adult movie for 1959, or for that matter today. The location filming greatly enhances the mood, chilly and very upper midwestern. Yet indoors one feels different, and the tone is often playful. The actors are superb. James Stewart is gritty, lovable, homespun, physically slow and mentally quick; and for all the familiarity there is about his screen persona, out of character, that is, in character he manages continually to surprise and delight. He was a true actor. Ben Gazzara is very Method actorish, which suits him well in his role as the volatile military man. Lee Remick is stunning as his wife, and one can well imagine a man killing for her, many times over. She is also a good actress. George C. Scott plays the state's bulldog prosecutor well, though he's an acquired taste at best. His hamminess contrasts with Stewart's folksy naturalism in interesting ways not ungermane to the plot, but he is out-acted and outclassed by the old pro he is presumably upstaging in this film.
79 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Irresistible Urge
rabrenner7 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Classic courtroom drama. Jazz playing, fly fishing small-town lawyer Jimmy Stewart must defend slimy army lieutenant Ben Gazzara against murder charges. With an all-star cast, including Lee Remick as Gazzara's sexpot wife, Eve Arden as Stewart's wisecracking secretary, Arthur O'Connell as his lovable but alcoholic partner, and George C. Scott as the icy assistant district attorney. Plus a jazzy score by Duke Ellington, who appears as "Pie Eye" in the movie (Stewart and the Duke play a duet!), and the cutest little flashlight carrying dog.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** It's interesting that Stewart gets Gazzara off on a temporary insanity defense. You still root for Stewart to win, but I doubt a movie with this premise could be made today. The temporary insanity defense has fallen into ill repute, to say the least, and I'm skeptical that a sympathetic audience could be found.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One classy, sophisticated and entertaining courtroom drama
TheLittleSongbird21 November 2009
Along with Witness for the Prosecution, this is a serious contender for the best courtroom drama on film. What makes it so? It is classy, it is sophisticated and it is entertaining. The story about a man accused of murdering another man after he supposedly rapes his wife is original, suspenseful and never runs out of steam. The screenplay is inventive, and while it is sophisticated and serious, it also manages to be quite funny. The character of Paul Biegler gets the best of them, including "If you do that one more time, I'll punch you all the way out into the middle of Lake Superior", "All right, the cat's out of the bag; it's fair game for me to chase it" and "Well it's like trying the take the core from the apple without breaking the skin". The cinematography is fabulous, and the score by Duke Ellington is wonderful. As for the performances, I don't think there was a bad performance at all. James Stewart, the fine actor he was, seems to be really enjoying himself as the shifty Paul Biegler, and Joseph N. Welch in one of his last roles is sensational as Judge Weaver. Lee Remick is stunningly beautiful and seductive as Laura, and while George C.Scott, yet another fine actor, has a little less to do, he still brings sly and sardonic wit to his role. And Ben Gazzara plays his problematic client part to a tee. The courtroom scenes especially were a genuine joy to watch. All in all, a real delight to watch, and I strongly recommend it. The ending does disappoint, but the performances and the sheer entertainment value of the courtroom scenes more than compensate. 10/10 Bethany Cox
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fantastic acting, entertaining courtroom scenes, but flawed
gbill-7487729 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic acting, excellent shots on location in Michigan, entertaining courtroom scenes, but a flawed script, and a little overrated. The premise is simple. A former prosecutor (Jimmy Stewart) is convinced to come out of retirement to defend a man (Ben Gazzara) accused of murder. There really isn't any doubt he's done it, since he's confessed. After some encouragement from Stewart, his plea is not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, that he simply 'lost it' after finding out that his wife (Lee Remick) was raped, and went out and killed the guy.

Stewart turns in an outstanding performance, effortlessly combining intelligence and wit, and sparring with the prosecutor brought in from Lansing (George C. Scott). The scene where he questions his own client after a surprise piece of evidence is introduced by another inmate, real doubt in his eyes, is wonderful. Scott is also brilliant, sharp and reptilian, quickly surpassing the local prosecutor. The scene where he deliberately moves back and forth to obscure Stewart's view of a witness is great, and well shot by director Otto Preminger. Joseph N. Welch as the judge is also strong and such a natural, in one scene appearing in the background with this arm wrapped around his head so that his hand rests on his opposite cheek as he listens intently. It was also nice to hear jazz from Duke Ellington, and in one scene to see him playing briefly with Jimmy Stewart, though I'm not sure the music always fits.

The trouble is, even if this is based on a real case, legally and morally, it's a mess. I certainly didn't want Stewart as protagonist in the role of the defense attorney, where it feels he's in the wrong, starting with him nudging the guy to claim he was temporarily insane. It's apparent that the only real question is whether that was true, and yet, most of the trial revolves around whether his wife was actually raped, and worse yet, what her possible culpability was in that. Was she wearing clothing that was too suggestive, was she promiscuous, etc. Even if you can get past the misogyny of attacking a rape victim, which is a disturbing reality, it's absurd to me that it became so central to the trial, Stewart's 'apple core' argument notwithstanding. Also, her missing panties get far too much attention throughout the movie, including the dramatic find at the end, when they're irrelevant.

In tone, there are several aspects that didn't ring true. Remick's playfulness and flirtation with Stewart a short while after being brutally beaten and raped, and with her husband charged with murder. The victim's daughter (played unconvincingly by a constantly wide-eyed Kathryn Grant) remotely considering helping the defense. The level of levity in the courtroom for a trial involving rape and murder. In one absurd sidebar, the judge and attorneys sidebar to discuss what panties should be referred to as. With a very serious look on his face, Scott says "When I was overseas during the war, Your Honor, I learned a French word. I'm afraid that might be slightly suggestive", to which the Welch replies "Most French words are". The courtroom then cracks up when he announces that the garment in question will be referred to as panties. More than once, one attorney or another is surprised by a witness being produced, without having had a chance to independently interview them. More than once, an attorney will ask a question that he clearly doesn't know the answer to, one that he has no business asking.

Most likely, Preminger amplified all of these theatrics - the jokes, the obsession with Remick and her panties, the banter between attorneys, the little doggie inexplicably being brought into the trial so he can jump up into Stewart's arms - all for entertainment value. The central theme of what justice should be doesn't get explored enough. Perhaps that's Preminger's point, that in the circus of a trial with sharp minds on both sides, circling each other like sharks, the system of justice is fallible. If it was though, the ending doesn't bear that out. During the 160 minute run time, I kept hoping for a plot twist that never came. That the guy doesn't just skip out on his bill at the end, he kills his wife in a rage, and calmly deadpans that he did that one too because of an "irresistible impulse". That the wife reveals she was never raped that night, and manipulated her husband into killing. That either the fellow bartender or the victim's daughter were somehow involved in a setup, for the money. Nope. As it is, Stewart's a hero, and if anyone has any qualms about it, they try to pin a happy face on the whole thing by saying his next case is going to be helping the victim's daughter with her estate. Oh, wow, well that makes it all right then, and let's all leave the theater happy.

The film is still worth seeing for the performances - Stewart at 51 is still quite an actor, and endearing as well - but prepare to be conflicted, and a little irritated.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A masterpiece of irony
doghouse_r1 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The sly old German, Preminger, proves a hard nut to crack today as in 1959 when the film was first issued. This is a denunciation of the trial-by-jury system, and apparently continues playing on today's viewers the same tricks it played its original ones. A gin-drinking, tough, cold blooded beast of an army veteran, beats his wife black when he catches her cheating with the local barman, shoots the offender and forces her to swear on the rosary (she's a guilt ridden Catholic because she's divorced, and clings eagerly to her creed's symbols) to lie to the authorities, claiming she's been raped by her lover, so her brute of a husband manages to obtain an "exception" as "temporarily insane" (an 1885 case is unearthed to sustain the claims of his defense) and get away with the murder. Which he does, helped by a former prosecutor (Stewart) whose place is been held by "an inferior mind" today and needs to prove to the others and himself he's not finished. Helped also by a judge whose lenience is established once he understands the defense attorney to be an equally passionate fisherman as he. Time and again the jury is advised to "disregard" what they have heard, whenever – and it is very often – the defense systematically overrules court procedure and creates impressions that favor the accused – indeed this is a recurrent instance during that long trial. Everybody (but the average viewer!) is from a certain point on quite sure that the decorated soldier (excellent Gazzara) is guilty as charged, that his wife (equally excellent Lee Remick) is a loose morality woman, indeed a charming little harlot, that the murder has been one of cold premeditation and everybody is lying. But the system is such that impressions carry the day. This is a masterpiece of concealed realities and guilty consciences. As the defense lawyer and his "assistant" (his crony, a sympathetic old drunkard, as keen for success as is Stewart's lawyer) bless and praise juries while waiting for the verdict, as Stewart's faithful and likable secretary longs for victory only because she needs to see her long overdue paycheck made out to her, from the fee her employer is due to collect, Preminger is going all out to denounce the fallibility of the system in the most understated and at the same time the most deafening manner. I am amazed so few seem to realize this and lay instead the (great) value of that masterly directed, played and photographed film only to it's faithful, humorous, well paced and exciting depiction of the trial. This is a definite masterpiece of irony and hidden contempt, a movie angry as it is soft spoken and caressing both the public's sensibilities and the system's watchdogs – apparently very stern during the late 50s.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I'm just a lawyer trying to do my job."
classicsoncall6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This might have been a stunning movie for 1959, but I fail to see how it holds up in the Twenty First Century. If one could get away with a murder rap using that 'irresistible impulse' argument, I think there would be a lot more murder trials today, not to mention a whole lot more killers running around loose. I mean really, a 'psychic shock' which creates an almost overwhelming tension which a person must alleviate, by KILLING SOMEBODY!!! I know there are real live cases of temporary insanity that have gotten people off the hook, but in those situations, the accused is usually deranged enough to merit the argument. I don't see how it worked here, except of course, as being a product of it's times.

Even the courtroom drama seemed a little bizarre to me. I can understand the prosecuting attorney Mitch Lodwick (Brooks West) making all those challenges to Paul Biegler's (James Stewart) questioning of witnesses, but couldn't figure out why he thought they were out of bounds. Why wouldn't the alleged rape of Manion's (Ben Gazzara) wife be relevant to the case? It's why he killed bar owner Quill! Or the photographer's pictures of Laura Manion (Lee Remick). If they could corroborate the fact that she got beat up by Quill, even if she wasn't raped, putting them into evidence should have been a no-brainer.

There's also that scene in which Mary Pilant (Kathryn Grant) rolled over so easily when Biegler asked her to get the bartender to cooperate with his investigation. Any other person would have told the attorney to take a hike if it was going to implicate her own father. That scene just didn't pass the smell test for me.

But with all that, I still thought the film was fairly compelling in the way Biegler sniffed out his opportunities and played them out for the court. Some of his over the top antics didn't seem realistic but he was putting on a show for the jurors. I liked Judge Weaver (Joseph N. Welch) by the way, I was surprised to learn he was a real life attorney during the Army-McCarthy hearings. No wonder he seemed so credible in the role of the judge.

The most surprising thing about the movie for me was the way it handled some of the era's sensitive subjects like rape, women's undergarments, and male sperm as evidence in an abuse case. Don't forget, this was the tail end of a decade when the Ricardo's slept in separate beds and topics involving sex were still taboo subjects for TV. The dialog in the film was credibly done without getting sensational, so that was a plus.

The thing that really got me though, no one even mentioned in a couple dozen reviews of the picture I read on this board. When all was said and done, and after Manion was found not guilty, Jimmy Stewart's character arrives at the trashy trailer park and gets handed that message about Manion's irresistible impulse to hit the road. The guy scammed Biegler, the court, and the jury, and got away with murder! Time to go fishing, I guess.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Well acted film noir that ultimately goes nowhere
JWBly10 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film for the first time yesterday. To be honest, I had never even heard of it before, despite being a big Jimmy Stewart fan. After watching for the first hour and a half, I was still wondering where this movie had been all my life. James Stewart gives a wonderful performance as a brilliant small-town lawyer, a cross between Perry Mason and Ben Matlock. The courtroom duels between Stewart and prosecutor George C. Scott are wonderful. A very young Lee Remick is excellent as the sex-starved tramp of a wife to Ben Gazzara - a precursor to today's Desperate Housewives perhaps? In addition, the film is directed by the legendary Otto Preminger, best known to those of my generation as Mr. Freeze on the old BATMAN show. So why isn't this film better known? The answer is simple - the ending is terrible. You keep waiting and waiting for all the loose ends, all the characters, all the drama to be wrapped up in one slam-bang finale, a la WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. Sadly, none of this occurs. This film left me feeling empty and cheated. I guess it is never a waste of time to spend almost 3 hours watching Jimmy Stewart at his mid-career best, but this was a one-shot deal for me. I won't watch it again and do not recommend it - unless you turn it off right before the end and just imagine what COULD have happened.
38 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First-Class Courtroom Drama
Snow Leopard2 December 2004
As a courtroom drama, "Anatomy of a Murder" would be hard to surpass. It is a first-class production with an interesting and unpredictable story plus a strong cast. It works admirably, both as a story and as a portrayal of the workings of the law. It avoids the labored dramatics and contrived resolutions in which so many movies of the genre indulge, and it also declines to shy away from pointing out the more ill-conceived features of the legal system.

From his first scene, James Stewart pulls the viewer right into the world of lawyer Paul Biegler. It takes little time before you come to know him and to get a pretty good idea of what his life is like. His scenes with Arthur O'Connell work well in rounding out the picture. The two are neither heroic nor brilliant, but simply sympathetic and believable.

Into Biegler's world then come the characters played by Ben Gazzara and Lee Remick, a married couple with more than their share of faults. By making them less than ideal clients, the movie takes a chance on losing the audience's sympathy, but it adds credibility and complexity to the story. Both roles are played well - again, it seems as if you know a lot more about them than is specifically stated.

When George C. Scott enters the picture, he adds yet another dimension. His character arrives at just the right time to complicate the plot, and his legal skirmishing with Stewart makes some dry material come to life in an interesting way. Eve Arden also has some good moments, and her character is used in just the right amount to add some amusement without causing a distraction from the main story. It's also interesting to see Joseph Welch as the judge, and his portrayal works well enough.

Otto Preminger holds everything together nicely, with the right amount of detail and a pace that keeps the story moving steadily. The result is a very nice contrast to the many run-of-the mill legal/courtroom movies that present such an idealized view of the justice system. It maintains a careful balance, making clear the flaws and unpleasant realities of the system, yet never taking cheap shots either. And it's also an interesting and involved story, one of the most carefully-crafted of its kind.
61 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unlike most courtroom films, this one seems to follow the case from start to finish.
planktonrules7 May 2021
VERY frank about rape and sexual terminology--a 'dirty' film.

Iron county--upper peninsula Duke ellington.

In most courtroom films, the film seems like it's made up of a Cliff Notes version....with only bits and pieces. However, with "Anatomy of a Murder", you see the work of the defense attorney (James Stewart) from when he first takes the case through to the judgment...though, oddly, the closing arguments were NOT shown! The film also is highly unusual because it has a frankness you had previously not see in movies due to the tough Production Code of 1934. Yet here, terms like rape, semen and panties are used....words that simply wouldn't have been allowed before this film.

Apart from this, the acting, direction and entire production is top notch. Well worth seeing and not a slow or overlong film at nearly three hours. One of the great courtroom dramas.

By the way, in a very brief scene in a bar with a band, that's Duke Ellington talking with Jimmy Stewart.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Irresistible impulse
petra_ste21 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
James Stewart plays Biegler, attorney of Manion (Ben Gazzara), charged with the murder of a man who reportedly raped Manion's wife Laura (Lee Remick).

The plot could have made for standard genre schlock (think Joel Schumacher's A Time to Kill), but Anatomy of a Murder is sly, ironic, rich in psychological detail and characterization, focusing on the chess-like courtroom tactics between Biegler and the prosecutor (George C. Scott).

A lesser, more obvious movie would have made the defendant a sympathetic, righteous avenger and his wife as pure as the driven snow; here they are both unsavory, untrustworthy types. And Biegler is not a man on a mission, just a professional who tries to do his job at the best of his considerable abilities. Stewart is wonderful, of course, and the rest of the cast is on par.

9/10
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Just another day in court.
mark.waltz27 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
When George C. Scott tells the court that being in war, men becomes conditioned to kill, the urge to say you should know General Patton becomes second nature in this court drama that is way before it's time on several levels. It is one of the first films I've ever heard describe the details of a rape in graphic terms, and it must have been pretty shocking in 1959.

The film revolves around attorney James Stewart's reluctant taking on of Ben Gazzara's case of murdering the man who allegedly raped his wife. The beautiful Lee Remick must relive the horror as the prosecution, led by Brooks West with assistance by guest attorney Scott, seems to be determined to prove that something is being kept from the court and break the case of temporary insanity on Gazzara's behalf. As more information comes out on Remick's past, the doubts of her story take over the case.

Desperate for a case to make some money and pay his staff, Stewart can't afford to take this case but he also can't afford not to because of what he believes as far as the reasoning behind the murder. There's no doubt that Gazzara killed a man. The doubt comes from Remick's sincerity, a controversial subject then and now. Much of the court case surrounds the missing evidence of Remick's missing undergarments, which creates a bit of juvenile laughter in the courtroom.

In spite of the length of the film, this flows by with humor thanks to the irony of some of the things going on behind the scenes and in court. There's more to Eve Arden as Stewart's loyal assistant than the wisecracks as she works hard to aide Stewart in collecting necessary information for his defense. Arthur O'Connell, an aging attorney with a drinking problem, also figures prominently in the story as well, causing worry when he disappears for no reason.

Much of the cast were praised in this film season with various Award nominations even outside of the oscars, and Stewart, Scott and O'Connell did receive Oscar nominations. Scott, already well known for his stage and TV work smoothly moved into film with his calculating performance, his trademark grin prominently featured as he questions several witnesses in acerbic ways.

Leave it to Otto Preminger for bringing something as controversial like this to the screen. Only someone with his desire to present such situations in harsh realistic terms could dare to face the censors. Joseph N. Welch, a real life controversial attorney in the McCarthy trials, is superb as the judge taking the case, providing humor and frustration, and totally commanding and stealing the scene every time the camera flashes on him. This film is practically perfect in every way and will keep you gripped from beginning to end, one of the finest court dramas ever released in the cinema.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Best Movies Ever Made
maxmeridius-2454222 March 2023
I normally can't stand James Stewart, he is incredibly annoying as an actor, but this time he did it! He actually did an outstanding job! Magnificent! I would never have expected it from him. Actually, when I was thinking about watching the movie, I almost passed on it because of James Stewart. But, the other actors helped encourage me to watch it and I am so glad that I did.

It was hard to watch Lee Remick as a hussy. I really wish that they had found someone more closely related to that type of character. I am used to seeing Lee in more reputable parts, but she did do a good job. She played quite well off of James and Ben.

But, the main point of interest for me was the courtroom aspect. I have never, EVER seen a courtroom setting so realistic, so believable (and that includes Perry Mason). And because of the indepth intricacies of the courtroom, it makes the 2.5 hrs go by so quickly. You hang on the scene by scene story telling in order to find out what will happen next. And the judge was very intricate to things as well. It was just an all around great movie.

I highly recommend this movie. HIGHLY!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Centre court drama...
Lejink31 March 2011
Thoroughly engrossing courtroom drama, famous as much for its adult subject matter and use of "dirty" language as anything else. It has some casting faults but equally there is some memorable playing, especially in the artifice-free courtroom finale played out over several tense minutes.

Let's deal with the subject matter and language issues. It must have come as a shock to middle and upper-class Americans at the end of Eisenhower's second term to be faced with a film which examines in some, if not gory detail, the possible rape of a, let's be generous, flighty but pretty young wife of a Korean War vet who, after the alleged act, cold-bloodedly shoots down the so-called perpetrator out of revenge, jealousy or was it temporary madness. No stranger to controversy, Otto Preminger pushes the envelope all the way home here, making an epochal film on the cusp of the permissive 60's, dragging America into the modern world. Hitchcock, another well-known agent-provocateur perhaps following the lead here, would take it further next year by showing Janet Leigh in her bra, taking part in a clandestine affair. As for the use of everyday vernacular in employing strong terminology for the time, with words like bitch, sperm, rape and of course panties, while they're obviously inserted for shock value, they nevertheless ground the film in realism even if the last of them is probably over-used.

Some of the characterisations, I felt, worked, some didn't. James Stewart sees it through gamely but I sense a mis-casting and why he has to be saddled with a clichéd drunken Dr Watson-type as his assistant, I don't know. Better are the performances of a young George C Scott and Lee Remick as the slimy prosecutor and floozy housewife respectively, their climactic exchanges being absolutely electric, while there's a performance of great subtlety and nuance by Joseph N Welch as the fair-minded judge.

So did the trailer park trash-couple get away with it? Preminger leaves that open and bravely eschews the use of flashback to give us no easy answers. The film's at its best in the court scenes, less so in its depiction of small-town Americana but I was certainly gripped by the last 45 minutes in particular and will give it more than the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Irresistible impulse.
brogmiller7 August 2022
This magnificent film belies its length by virtue of its technical perfection, attention to detail, superlative screenplay, unsentimental cinematography, seamless editing, well-drawn characters and exemplary performances. What is fascinating here is the casting of the presiding Judge. There was certainly no shortage of superb character actors in Hollywood at that time who could have played the role but awarding it to former attorney and sometime actor Joseph Nye Welch was Otto Preminger's masterstroke.

It has been said that a jury is there to decide who has the better lawyer but here it is the concept of justice and the letter of the law that are paramount. Although the slick and mephistophelean prosecuting attorney is given the coup de grace by the dramatic device of the surprise witness, the verdict really hinges upon a legal precedent from 1886.

Let us not forget that Preminger was the son of a noted Viennese jurist and despite the Law and Justice being distant cousins they are, in this film at least, on speaking terms.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
6 out of 10
preposterous4 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not crazy about this film. Despite the fact that it seems to get a good rating from everyone else, it doesn't work for me in a number of ways, numerous enough to begin counting.

1) The Jazz. It's noisy, brash, and unpleasant. Reminds me of Orson Welles' movie with Vivian Leigh, and I wasn't crazy about the sound in that one either. And speaking of the music, it's so obvious that Jimmy Stewart is miming at the piano. He isn't even trying. Music is just the beginning of misses for this movie tho.

2) It's never entirely clear what happened. I have to surmise that Lieutenant Manion struck his wife out of jealousy that she'd returned home having been with the bar owner and presumably Manion killed him as part of that same rage, but it's not clear to me that this is true. Therefore, it's not really clear to me what this movie is about. I prefer the ambiguity of the Big Sleep (which was already pretty ambiguous before a series of edits made it almost indiscernable). The diff is that in the Big Sleep, I felt like even if I didn't understand the exact turn of events, the characters were deeper and there was more to grab onto.

3) Parnell's character is pedantic and tiresome, and only grows more so by the end, with his oration about juries;

4) It's not clear to me how the prosecution failed to expose Manion's poor character to the jury. The prosecution barely asked him any questions save two. Manion should have been grilled. He should have been induced into a fit of anger, and the prosecution should have been able to clearly link it to his violent feelings for his wife. There relationship was a sham, and it's surprising to me that the prosecution couldn't reveal that.

5) I don't understand the pivotal scene where Mary Pilant admits finding white panties. Exactly what would torn panties be doing in the laundry? I can think of two reasons: 1) her father put them there

because he had done nothing wrong, or 2) someone else put them there as a frame. The prosecution did not pursue either idea carefully enough.

6) Jimmy Stewart had a whole fridge full of fish. Was his intention to throw a buffet, because fish only keeps 2-3 days in a fridge.

So these are just things off the top of my head, but there were more inconsistencies which bugged me. I'd say this film was not carefully planned. However, it does have Jimmy Stewart and George Scott in it. Murry Hamilton was also a strong point.

There are some things going for this film, but it's too hastily conceived to be one of my favorites. Still, I watch it from time to time.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Guilty or not Guilty ?
igornveiga13 July 2022
A film with James Stewart is always good, throughout his career the actor has always played great roles. However, I confess that this film was perhaps the one I liked the least, not because of him, who played the lawyer Paul Biegler very well, but because the story I believe is too long, and at the beginning of the film it suggests a good ending. More macabre or profound, and that at the end of the film does not materialize, which for me frustrated the work a little.

Despite this, the film is very good, it has some twists and what I like the most, it addresses topics that are taboo nowadays.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A trial of a man who did his duty...
Thanos_Alfie25 February 2015
"Anatomy of a Murder" is a mystery movie in which we have a murder trial of a man who killed an another man who raped his wife. The defendant of him supports all his defense in the psychiatrist result which was that the killer is suffered of temporary insanity at the time that he did the crime. On the other hand the prosecution supports that the killer was fine when he did the crime and they avoid to talk about his raped wife.

I liked this movie because of the plot and the storyline because it was full of swifts and had much of suspense. I also liked this movie because of the direction of the Otto Preminger who I believe did a great job on it. About the interpretation I have to admit that James Stewart who played as Paul Biegler was simply outstanding for one more time and I also liked the interpretation of Lee Remick who played as Laura Manion. Another interpretation that has to be mentioned is Ben Gazzara's who played as Lt. Frederick Manion and he was really good at it.

Finally I have to say that "Anatomy of a Murder" is a great movie to watch because it has plenty of scenes in which you can not expect what will come up and how this will change the whole plot of the movie. This I believe is the most important thing that this movie has and makes it so good, I strongly recommend it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
classic movie that's not that good
lippp-19 November 2006
Watching "Anatomy of a Murder" is as intriguing as watching "Anatomy of a Traffic Ticket". I wanted to like this film. After all it has a great cast based on a provocative novel at the time. The problem is it's slow, illogical, and no twist and turns to make the two plus hours invested worthwhile. It ends on a whimper with the only response that is appropriate is "huh?" or "Is that all there is?". Lee Remick is perfect as the horny slutty wife of military man, Ben Gazaarra. He also is well cast. George C. Scoot fares better as a member of the prosecution team than Jimmey Stewart does as the poor as a church mouse defense attorney. Jimmy does his "Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington" act and it gets very close to over the top at times. And the verdict simply does not pass the smell test. As piece of nostalgia this certainly is of interest. After all, it was a time when the word "panties" was risqué' in films. Yet when all is said and done it is a pedantic court room drama with lots of court room and little drama.
44 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed