Anatomy of a Murder

Anatomy of a Murder is a courtroom drama staring James Stewart as lawyer Paul Biegler.  He’s defending Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) who killed a local bar tender who raped his wife.  They decide to use a plea innocent with a reasoning of temporary insanity.  When court opens, Biegler is up against two lawyers, including a celebrity prosecutor Claude Dancer (George C. Scott), and like a very boisterous chess game, they must outmaneuver each other in this courtroom battle.

With the striking visual credits, James Stewart and the ideas that come to mind with a word like Murder I was expecting something in a more Hitchcock fashion.  Though, it’s not likely you’ll be bored by this legal battle.  Stewart and Scott keep everything lively, fresh and loud.  They shout “Objection!” until it’s just second nature.  Watching the two lawyers saunter around each other is fun and a surprise comes up from time to time.  It’s not very suspenseful, but there’s no cut and dry winner until the very end.

Now, I have to bring up a brief bit of film history.  It’s only by Hitchcock’s passive-aggressive plan to keep Stewart out of his 1959 film, North by Northwest, that Stewart was even in Anatomy of a Murder.  You see, Stewart had starred in four of Hitchcock’s films since 1948, Rope, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much and in 1958, Vertigo.  Naturally, Stewart seemed to assume that Hitchcock wanted him to play the lead in North by Northwest, and was getting very excited about the role.  But, Hitchcock thought that Vertigo had done so poorly because Stewart was starting to look too old, and wanted Cary Grant as his next star.  Realizing the misunderstanding, Hitchcock delayed production until Stewart was committed to the role in Anatomy of a Murder and had to turn down Hitchcock.

James Stewart was one of the great actors in the Golden Age of Hollywood.  Now, I have not seen his Oscar winning performance in The Philadelphia Story yet, but as far as I’ve seen, Stewart plays Stewart in different roles.  By that, I mean he can act and well, he holds our attention and commands the screen like and expert, but he is the same character in every movie.  Stewart as a small time lawyer acts and talks the same as Stewart as a banged up photographer and as a man searching for his son.  That’s why he’s so popular, to this day.  You always know it’s him.

I believe Anatomy of a Murder was nominated because of its compelling story and fast paced courtroom scenes.  Some people will imagine courtroom scenes to be boring, with lawyers that drone and a jury that can’t keep their eyes open.  This is the opposite.  Both lawyers fire off like loose cannons every few minutes.  Their interrogations are very telling and can range from emotional to laugh out loud comical.

Watch Anatomy of a Murder if you are a James Stewart fan or just enjoy courtroom battles.

Also, if you’re a fan of George C. Scott, go back to my previous post.  I apologize,  I just got too wrapped up on other parts of the film to mention that he plays a great part in The Hustler as well.

Judgment at Nuremberg

Three years after WWII, an American court put four Nazi judges on trial for their war crimes under the Third Reich.  Through eight months in a small courtroom, the decision became more than a judgment on right and wrong, but a moral authority for the entire world.

The bulk of the film is set within the famous Nuremberg courtroom.  It’s all very serious, dramatic and real.  There is never any background music while in the courtroom, just the voices of men.  I don’t like to admit it, but at times it can be very boring, but don’t fall asleep yet.

While a man is testifying on the stand, the camera will move slowly around him, displaying the entire courtroom and everyone looking at him.  It’s a brilliant camera trick, considering the alternative of just staring at the moving lips of whoever is speaking.  The moving camera keeps the viewers attention well during long dry speeches.

Most of the speeches are very dry, frank or solemn.  The most drama comes from Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), the German defense attorney.  He’s the most animated within the courtroom and usually just as cool and controlled as the next man, but during his most heated debates he can bark so fiercely it’s impossible not to associate him with a Hitler speech.  When he’s grilling Irene (Judy Garland) on the stand it’s scary and almost painful to watch Schell turn so quickly.  His Oscar is well deserved.

When not in the courtroom, the film accurately displays post war Germany.  There are piles of rubble along the streets and condemned buildings, yet just down the road men are singing in bars and clanging their beer steins.  This also brings up how the Americans view the German people.  They claim that they were ignorant to the terrible events that happened under the Third Reich, but as they say, even if they did know, what could they do?  It seems that the Americans see all Germans as monsters and part of Hitler’s plan.  But how can people who sing in bars and show them such hospitality be so horrible?  This idea is never truly spoken, but plagues Judge Haywood’s (Spencer Tracy) mind throughout the film.

In one courtroom scene, the American prosecutor shows a film from Concentration Camps.  The footage is real.  And yes, we live in an age where we’ve all read Ann Frank and seen this horrible footage before, but in this case and in 1961 it must’ve been much more shocking.  Kramer must’ve had some guts to put that in his film.

Watch Judgment at Nuremberg if you’re interested in German history or enjoy courtroom dramas.  Skip it if you’re looking for action or comedy.

“The whole world is responsible for Hitler’s Germany.”