Anatomy of a Murder

ANATOMY OF A MURDER

REVIEWED BY CHARITY BISHOP

Our rating: 2 out of 5

Because of: sexual dialogue, mature thematic elements

Rated:

After Hollywood got rid of its censors, studios were more freely able to express formerly taboo subjects on film. To Kill a Mockingbird debated the attempted rape of a white girl by a black man. The Anatomy of a Murder is an even more controversial film, bold in its assertions and dangerous in its implications. While its subject is handled with a moderate amount of delicacy, it's about as blunt as standing in a real courtroom discussing a rape and murder investigation. For the faint of heart, this isn't a good film to start your weekend off with. Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a broke Attorney at Law in the back woods of Michigan who enjoys fly fishing more than working at the bench. His last case made him a pretty penny but he spent it all on a new engine for his prized automobile and "forgot" to pay his secretary Maida (Eve Arden). Returning home one night and parking on the couch for an evening of studying law books with washed-up Irish attorney Parnell (Arthur O'Connell), Paul receives a phone call from a frantic wife.

Laura Manion (Lee Remick) wants him to handle her husband's murder trial. The US Marine is imprisoned for killing a man in cold blood after the individual was found responsible for raping Laura. Paul is intrigued by the case but knows it would be impossible to win. In order to make it justified, they have to prove Manion (Ben Gazzara) was "temporarily insane" at the time. While attempting to build up a good case, Paul begins to wonder about the whole affair. Laura is sexy, flirtatious, provocative, and charming. She makes a play for her husband's lawyer shamelessly but seems earnestly concerned about Manion's fate. The victim's history is doubtful. There's the beautiful young woman under his employment, and questions concerning whether or not she was his mistress. Then there's the bartender, whose memory seems "a little shaky" as to what happened that night. Throw in two hostile Prosecution attorneys and the case could -- and will -- get ugly in court.

The key to this case is how morally ambiguous it is, raising a lot of questions about justified murder, sexual prowlers, and unfaithful wives. As Paul peels back the layers surrounding his client's activities that night, he discovers more than he wanted to know about the various people involved. None of them are entirely honest and you never know quite who to trust on the stand. Was it a case of rape, or did Laura merely make up that story to explain where she was to an irate husband? Was she beaten by an attacker, or did her husband shove her around? Was the article in question found on hotel grounds, or planted there in order to support a case? Is the prisoner talking straight or out one side of his mouth by some payoff of the Prosecution? Through it all, Jimmy Stewart maintains a serious, aggressive, even violent passion to win the case. He starts off appearing a bit of a pushover but as the film unfolds we discover how truly brilliant Paul is. The supporting cast are excellent.

Filmed in black and white when Technicolor was flooding movie screens, Anatomy of a Murder has its own unique style. It does very well with acting implications rather than screaming the obvious. But this is a murder/rape trial and the subject runs throughout. Laura talks about what happened that night several times in detail. A doctor in the courtroom goes into a discussion on whether or not he found evidence of intercourse. There are several mentions of semen, sexuality, and a debate on "undergarments." This becomes pivotal to the plot -- Laura says they were torn off, they went missing, they appear later and are shown to the court as evidence, the judge holds a mild conference to discuss what they should call them and they finally decide on "panties." Debate on whether or not a wife was faithful, marital infidelity, and other items of a like nature come up. Paul tells Laura she must wear a girdle and stop dressing provocatively if they want to win over the jury. She says most men are drawn to her, and suggestively plays with his hand while they're seated in the car together. He refuses her offer to come into the trailer.

The whole topic made the film slightly uncomfortable and would have probably earned the picture a PG13 rating by modern standards. There's also some talk of mistresses, wife beating, photographs of a bullet-riddled body, and mild profanity (four or so hells and an equal number of d*mns). By the end you still don't know what really happened that night, although the film's conclusion gives you the mild feeling both Paul and the audience were taken for a ride. For a crime drama, it's gripping, fascinating, and multi-layered. But it's also slightly on the lewd side with its talk of rape in less than mild terms. It's suitable only for older audiences who can take its frank discussions without blushing, and view it from a logical perspective. If nothing else, it leaves the viewer with a lot to think about.