ANATOMY OF A MURDER (1959) - As a newly minted attorney at law this was a very enjoyable experience staying relatively close to the more realistic aspects of a criminal trial. James Stewart plays our attorney, a southern gentleman (interestingly who has an alcoholic friend that sort of hints at a possible influence on John Grisham's characters in A TIME TO KILL, not sure but a thought) who is a caricature of a fire and brimstone attorney (that are actually quite rare in my limited experience and for reasons I'll mention later). The case itself is extremely spicy by today's standards much less the late 50s, a military lieutenant is on trial for the murder of a barkeep who allegedly attacked and raped his wife. Initially the lieutenant believes the murder to be justified because of the expected outrage any husband would have in response to such an atrocity against his wife. It is pretty common for the public to have misconceptions about the application of law and defenses and the movie gets it absolutely correct that such a defense is not possible unless the husband walked in the act en flagrante delicto, and even then such a defense is imperfect (in the sense that it would mitigate the offense from murder to manslaughter). Ben Gazzara plays our military officer whom I strangely remember for his interesting part (and his drawn picture haha) from the BIG LEBOWSKI. He is great in this as he exudes sliminess underneath his out-of-regs officer uniform. Lee Remick steals the show as the victim-wife, she is gorgeous, but also playing a role that sort of reflects some of the double standard of the times. The marriage is clearly your normal military marriage (from a much broader experience within my own family who have served in some capacity in every branch of the armed forces), two young people who have very little in common except for carnal desires and having no business getting married.
The story unfolds in a pretty similar way a normal trial would going through some of the pre-trial stuff, I really appreciated the way Stewart contemplates defenses with his client, but never gaining too much incriminating information (or promoting fraudulent falsehoods by the client) to stay within the required ethical bounds. It is actually pretty brilliant because it allows Stewart to present the only way he can secure a victory with a legally viable defense, but allowing the lieutenant to consider why and how he was temporarily insane. This insanity defense is one you would learn for the bar exam, but is extremely jurisdictionally dependent. What's great is it shows the ancient way of legal research, diving through voluminous legal books reading cases--thanks to the internet and Westlaw (or Lexis depending on your preference) that kind of research no longer requires any books, but the reading of a multitude of cases remains. Clearly I enjoyed the technical aspects of the film, though once the trial is underway Stewart's antics, as well as the prosecution's might have found some citations for contempt or Rule 11 sanctions. The use and introduction of evidence has also changed a bit, but these are minor quibbles and the use of these antics heighten the drama of the film so quite easily forgiven.
Remick's character does raise a few things though, she is sort of portrayed by the prosecution as this sort of hussy running around and very likely having an affair. In fact they try to insinuate that she may not even have been raped at all, the film does setup a few scenes to allude that this is perhaps true. When Stewart finds her out on the town (while her husband is on trial!) and tells her to leave immediately and that she needed to "wear a girdle" from now on, he recognizing that the impressions required for a trial did require some better behavior on her part. The film is great at leaving some questions on the truth of what actually happened, though the ending seems to resolve toward an ending that supports justice. Remick is treated as if she is morally bad because she is not your traditional good girl type wearing a girdle and not going out dancing. I get where Stewart is coming from on the legal perspective front, but not on the "you need to wear a girdle" front, I am guessing this means more of "you need to wear a bra" (as a man with no experience I am not sure the difference so only speculating) because we better not see even a hint of nipple (shocking!). She is a beautiful young woman and her husband was likely no faithful angel, yet his sin is forgiveable because a man is entitled to defend the honor of his wife--as if he owns her and is given additional rights to defend that honor. Now I am not saying any man would be devastated and ferociously angry at the news of the alleged rape, but it is pretty clear that Gazzara's character's motives are entirely selfish and not rooted in any kind of chilvarous or noble justice. Remick on the other hand is questioned about her clothes and how she dresses in the outside world, this kind of victim shaming is very out of date and if allowed in for the prosecution should have swung open the door completely (which it sort of does) for the rape being a driving force that sparked the temporary insanity.
This is a really fun story and even for a non-legal film watcher this is such juicy material a mix of bad characters and some twists along the way make for a great watch. Remick, Stewart, and Gazzara are complimented by a strong supporting cast that includes George C. Scott as the attorney general assisting the prosecution. Great technical work and a really fun film!