User reviews

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Tense, thought-provoking. The film's real highlight is its ability to demonstrate how a legal defense is developed in a difficult case. How many trial films would dare spend so much time watching lawyers do what many lawyers do most (and enjoy least)-research?" The film has also been used as a teaching tool in law schools, as it encompasses (from the defense standpoint) all of the basic stages in the U. S. criminal justice system from client interview and arraignment through trial. There are lots of moral ambiguities (on purpose) in the film.

"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.

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.

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.

I don't see the point of a movie that goes to great lengths to tell a story that says nothing. When you have the money to give attention to great production values and employ a top-notch cast, why would you waste it on a pointless story? I was only mildly entertained by this film, mostly thanks to Jimmy Stewart and his as-per-usual impeccable acting, but when the ending came and there was no payoff, I found that what little entertainment present was not satisfying enough to make up for it.

Good ol' Jimmy Stewart is Paul Biegler, a lawyer that was recently ousted from his position as district attorney by some younger blood. Biegler comes upon the case of Lt. Manion (Ben Gazzara), accused of murdering the man that raped his wife (Lee Remick), and Biegler, hesitant at first, decides to take it, defending Manion with an insanity plea. This insanity plea could have led to some good drama, indicting the justice system as containing too many loopholes for guilty men. Instead, the movie continues the story without focusing on this and misses the chance to make the point.

Here at the beginning, the movie shows promise. The actors prove to be very good from the very start. Stewart, who was often unjustly accused of lacking versatility, is actually quite different from the George Bailey everyone knows; the difference in Stewart's characters is always subtle, but it's there nonetheless, and he received an Oscar nomination for his subtlety. Here he seems weathered and jaded, but still good-natured and sensible. Lee Remick begins the movie wonderfully as a carefree femme fatale who doesn't properly react to her husband's incarceration. The scenes between Remick and Stewart are the best in the movie as she flirts with him and seemingly looks to seduce him; however, the film doesn't follow through on this, as with so many other things. Halfway through the movie, the script seems to forget that Stewart and Remick had such good chemistry and removes from our sight any juicy scenes with the two of them.

The trial part of the movie is entertaining enough, even though it falls into the cliché of overly loud laughter from the court audience whenever the judge or attorney makes a joke, but it still left me longing for more. George C. Scott, who was nominated for an Academy Award inexplicably, adds barely anything to the movie. Scott is definitely a great actor (see Patton), but he's greatly underused here as the lawyer the district attorney brings in to help with the case. All he manages to get across is that his character is a snob.

And then at the end of the trial, the ruling is given and that's that. Is it too much to expect something more from a movie? I understand there are movies that are made specifically for entertainment, but this is not one of them- there is nothing so entertaining here to rest an entire movie on it. I know it's adapted from a novel so I don't really know if the author of the book is to blame or the filmmakers, but it doesn't really matter who's to blame- the movie still isn't good.