From the 1950s: Anatomy of a Murder

1959 Drama

From Columbia Pictures

Directed by Otto Preminger

Starring

James Stewart

Lee Remick

Ben Gazzara

George C. Scott

Eve Arden

Arthur O'Connell

Kathryn Grant

Brooks West

Murray Hamilton

Joseph N. Welch

This is a spectacular courtroom movie... for my money right up there with Witness for the Prosecution... as one of the finest ever made.  Much as I love Witness, it counts on its theatricality to push it forward whereas this one seems so real... yes, just like being there... from start to finish. 

Particularly fascinating is watching the defense attorney mount his case.  It becomes a great study of procedure, rules and regulations in that courtroom.  Watching how this trial is conducted is where the joy comes from.  It's not at all boring and legalese is kept to a minimum.  Let's call it viewer-friendly.   Bravo to Preminger for keeping it real.

Filmed in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, chiefly in Marquette, Ishpeming and Big Bay, in locations where the real-life murder occurred in 1952, certainly adds to the allure.

Stewart plays a small town attorney who has previously lost his job as a district attorney and whose law office is also his home in a residential neighborhood.  He has two longtime assistants...  Arden is his trusty secretary, who makes light of the fact that she hasn't been paid for awhile, and O'Connell, a former attorney himself who has a reliance on the spirits and who handles all those lawyerly things that Stewart is too busy to accomplish.  The three of them are BFFs, all for one and one for all.  You just kinda wanna hug 'em an' jaw a spell on the front porch.

The story is far more about the lawyer than his client or the wife.  Stewart sees the law as imperfect and flexible and he feels he's capable of seeing around any legal issue.  Indeed, he sees the need for the law to give the benefit of the doubt when everything appears to be clear.

He is contacted by Remick, the sexy, flirtatious wife of an army lieutenant (Gazzara), who is in jail on a murder charge.  He extinguished the life of a local bar owner whom he says raped and beat up Remick.  For sure she was being her flirtatious self in the man's bar.  The local newspaper has reported there is no evidence of rape and it is known that Gazzara is a jealous husband who has roughed up his wife before.

We viewers aren't sure if we believe Gazzara or Remick and for a while Stewart isn't sure either.  He has some fascinating conversations with Gazzara and the first one is most compelling and available for your recommended viewing at the end of this piece. Stewart and O'Connell will try to find evidence to exonerate Gazzara.  Both are aware Remick may hurt her husband's case.

To this day I settle in, buckle up, put that smile on my face and get ready to once again thrill in the gamesmanship.  I have to laugh at the zingers.  Stewart's aw-shucks way of expressing himself as the impoverished country attorney in order to upset and frustrate Scott with his fiery rhetoric as the big city (Lansing) prosecuting attorney is gripping stuff.  Their scenes together... the looks, the sharp words, the fire, the posturing... are rife with actorly brilliance.

Equally compelling is Welch, a real-life attorney in his only movie, as the judge.  His admonitions to the dueling attorneys are sharp-eyed, no-nonsense and great fun.

Let's not go into specifics of the case or the trial.  I've gotten you started, now you find out the rest for yourself.  You need to find it out that way... and enjoy the ride.   

I must heap some praise on Wendell (Advise & Consent, The Stalking Moon, The Poseidon Adventure) Mayes for his screenplay adaptation of Michigan judge John Voelker's novel).  I find the writing brilliant, chilling, funny, thought-provoking.  I was spellbound by the glorious words. 

Arthur O'Connell and Eva Arden

The film's trashy themes of rape, physical abuse, lies, a flirtatious wife and jealous husband are both in your face and held as secrets.  One may wonder what Stewart is doing in a film like this (his dad called it a dirty movie and advised people not to see it).  Preminger was happy because he never met a controversial theme he wasn't somehow drawn to.  I suppose the story always held a certain fascination for me because my parents were about the same ages as the Gazzara-Remick characters in the same year and my mother was flirtatious and my father insanely jealous.  Minus the rape, the rest is like watching a home movie.

At the same time these themes brought about a language that caused an uproar throughout the country.  Oh those seven words caused government officials to pop corpuscles and theaters and even cities to ban the movie.  Preminger loved it.  He always like to stir the... the... kettle.  He challenged the norms when he included the word pregnant in 1953's The Moon Is Blue but this time he outdid himself and the film was passed with a seal of approval and for all intents and purposes the fussy production code was on its way out.

Preminger first heard of the novel of Anatomy when he was filming Bonjour Tristesse in the south of France.  He got a hold of it and was so smitten that he instructed his attorneys to buy it.  He and his production designer Boris Leven took a trip to Ishpeming and Marquette and were so impressed they decided to film the entire movie on location.  That meant even filming the interiors on location, a rare thing indeed.

By all accounts, Otto the Terrible, was angelic on the eight-week shoot.  He didn't pick on any one actor, as he usually did, and there were no serious temper tantrums (just a few little ones).  Most of the cast reported it was an extremely pleasant shoot and Preminger himself said it was the happiest filming he ever knew.

Gazzara, Preminger and Stewart

Preminger was able to make a film that played to all his strengths as a director... his fascination with ambivalent characters and their different points of view, controversial themes, his visual acumen, his wish to downplay sentimentality, his ability to allow good actors to act.  It was all heightened because he had little or no trouble from the studio brass, a rarity for him.

The cast arrived by a special train and were likely surprised at how little there was to do.  Everyone, cast and crew, stayed in one hotel and when they weren't needed they holed up in a large, private room and played cards and other games, knitted, gossiped and generally had a good time.  Grant didn't join the others, apparently.  She spent most of her time huddled with a priest.  Scott and his then-wife, Colleen Dewhurst, who joined him, spent their free time alone, drinking the night away.  He was, however, always ready for the cameras.

Obviously when looking at the anatomy of this film and its greatness, attention focuses on its cast, its brilliant cast.  This is one of Jimmy Stewart's great performances and his final Oscar nomination. Yes, he stammers a little.  He's folksy, charming, somewhat sly and perhaps even a little unethical in the way he coaches his client.  His appearance makes it an important movie and one is glad (well, not his dad) he's the star.

Worth noting, I think, is the difference in style that the Hollywood-trained Stewart had with those New York actors Gazzara, Remick and Scott.  I could have imagined Stewart might have been shown respect but largely disregarded by easterners.  Let's face it, those Actors Studio types thought they'd cornered the market on acting skills.  (I think some had.)  But apparently there were no issues and all parties brought their best games.  Gazzara, in fact, was practically slack-jawed over being in a film (his second) with the legendary Stewart.  

This was Remick's fourth film and the first one to give her star wattage in an important work.  I admired the shadings she brought to what is actually a complex part.  I loved her scenes with Stewart... the pair of them looked like they were having such fun.  Her role was first offered to Jayne Mansfield (!) who declined (!) and then Lana Turner signed on.  Turner, who never cared about anything more on a film than how she looked, insisted that her favorite designer, Jean Louis, make her beautiful clothes.  Preminger said a poor soldier's wife would not wear such clothing.  He fired her and hired Remick.

Gazzara, whose actions are the centerpiece of the film, surprisingly has little to do except sit at the defense table with his mouth shut.  The one time he opened it was certainly explosive.  In his autobiography he spoke lovingly of Stewart and how much he admired him as a superior actor and a great human being.

Remick trying to remain calm under pressure from Scott

I never thought Scott was particularly likeable on the screen or in real life and yet I thought his presence in any movie made it better.  He was, yes, one of those New York actors but Shakespeare was more his bag.  He was so skilled, so scary, with a temper so volcanic that I practically froze in my seat.  I thought his performance here was second to Stewart's.  Watching him grill Remick while intentionally blocking Stewart's view of her is a favorite scene.  It was also just his second movie and he would score an Oscar nomination.

Arden hadn't made a movie in six years and was thrilled to be back before the cameras and in such a prestigious production.  She could hardly believe her good fortune when Preminger said he wanted her husband, Brooks West, to play a second prosecuting attorney.  

O'Connell was a great fit for his buddy role and even managed to nab an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.  I suspect it was more of a way to honor his career, however, rather than this role, per se.  Nonetheless, he's quite engaging in the role.  Hamilton, another New York actor, sold it as a bartender who worked for the murdered man, disliked Stewart's character and seemed smitten with Grant.  (In real life Hamilton and Scott were buddies.)

Grant didn't have much of a career as an actress and certainly achieved greater fame as the second wife of Bing Crosby.  Although her character is only in a couple of scenes, she is the one with a secret that has a bearing on the outcome of the trial.  The actress would have been the one Preminger would have harangued had he been doing that during this film.

Kathryn Grant

The real-life person that Grant was playing later sued the book's publisher and Columbia Pictures for libel but the case was later dismissed.

Movie judges may never have been more fascinating than Welch.  He is so dry and funny but stern in his attempt to rein in his two attorneys.  He's the focus of one of the best scenes when he reprimand's the courtroom's spectators for erupting in laughter at the mention of one of those seven words--- panties--- telling them to get it out of their system because the word will be mentioned again and if they carry on again, the courtroom will be emptied.

Welch had been the chief counsel for the army while it was under investigation by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his henchman for communist activities.  At one point Welch famously said, Senator, you've done enough.  Have you no sense of decency, Sir?  It is considered the remark that turned the tide of McCarthyism.  Welch accepted his only movie role when Preminger acceded to his request that Mrs. Welch be hired as one of the jurors.

Music was provided by Duke Ellington... a brassy yet wistful score that sounded like it belonged in a film noir.  He also appears on screen as a lounge singer.  Everyone in the production loved him and was thrilled that he hung out with them for the entire shoot, long after his scene was filmed, and played piano for them when they all gathered together.

When South Africa got a copy of the film, a government official contacted Preminger about a slight incision.  They wanted a brief scene of Ellington and Stewart sitting together on the piano bench to be removed.  The director refused. 

Anatomy of a Murder would receive seven Oscar nominations... the three for acting, already mentioned, and best writing, cinematography, editing and best picture.  How odd that Preminger was not nominated.  Who did they think was in charge of making this a great film?

Perhaps the film's finest compliment comes from the legal profession which held it in very high regard.  The American Bar Association in 1989 considered it as one of the 12 best trial movies of all time.  A UCLA law professor called it probably the finest pure trial movie ever made.  

If you have never seen it, please look into changing that.  I think I can promise you you won't be sorry.  It is endlessly entertaining.  It is also utterly thought-provoking.  If you've seen it before, maybe some time ago, treat yourself and see it again... and you'll become part of the process of this masterpiece of a film.

Here's a compelling scene:

Next posting:

One of those beautiful Technicolor queens