Photo from Imdb
Plot Summary
Michigan 1950s,
One day, a small-town lawyer, Paul Biegler was contacted by Laura Manion, wife of a Lieutenant in U.S. Army, Frederick Manion. Lt. Manion had been arrested for first degree murder of an innkeeper, Barney Quill. Manion pleaded guilty but claimed that he shot Quill to death because Quill had raped and beaten his beautiful wife. Biegler knew that it would be difficult to get Manion cleared of murder, so he found a justifiable motive for his client which was claiming Manion suffered temporary insanity and had no memory of the event. As Biegler prepared for the case, he realized that Laura was actually a flirty woman. The film then happened mainly in a courtroom when Biegler had to fight with two prosecutors to persuade a jury and a judge that his client’s murder case was justified. At the beginning, there was no evidence that Laura had been raped but as the trial went on with many twisted information, Biegler and his partners seemed to win the case. Finally, the jury announced that Manion was “not guilty for reason of insanity.” Next day, when Biegler and his partner went to see the Manions to get their fee for successfully defending Lt. Manion cleared of murder, they found a note left by Manion indicating that Manion was actually a heavy drinker and he beat Laura before killing Quill for jealousy. It might be implied that Laura was not raped and her sexual encounter with Quill was consensual.
Fact: Anatomy of a Murder is a faithful recreation of an actual 1952 murder case in which the defense attorney was John Voelker, who wrote the original novel under the pen name Robert Traver (according to Imdb.)
What’s in it for me?
This film, again, helps me to have a pure view of courtroom in America, especially a jury trial in 1950s. I do not have a good knowledge about American trial system, but according to my humble research, it has been argued that the federal civil jury system should be abolished to save more time for cases. Additionally, jury members, for their various backgrounds, are not considered as a real good judge in court because in some cases, their thoughts may be more malleable by a defense lawyer or a prosecutor. Since the decision by jury must be unanimous, some individuals may not think of the case seriously because they may not feel personally responsible for the case’s outcome. I also doubt about the process of choosing the members of a jury. However, proponents have their arguments. First, it may be more difficult to corrupt all 12 jurors than one judge in a case. Second, juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge a case or a defendant based on ethical values of the society. It’s really difficult for me to choose to completely lean on one side. 12 Angry Men (1957) did show the disadvantages of a jury but simultaneously, the film indicated that a jury was still play an important role in courtrooms as long as jury members are the responsible and serious.
Another social issue here is although the defense lawyer know from the outset that the defendant is guilty, he still tries to help his client to have a justifiable motive to commit murder. It indicates that there always are loopholes in the law system and it also raises a question about the ethical issue of a defense lawyer or a prosecutor. We simply cannot fix this problem. Sometimes, a lawyer may accept a difficult case for fame; sometimes, money talks. If you have the best lawyer(s) on your side, chances are you can win even the hardest case, just like O.J. Simpson did in 1995.
The audience may have a dilemma of sympathizing with the defendant at the beginning because his wife was raped by his victim or determining that murder is murder and it cannot be excused. But then when we are at the last scene of the film, we realize that the defendant should have deserved a heavy sentence instead of having people’s sympathy. This film leaves me a negative thought of how much I can trust people. A person seems to be justified for what he did wrong but then finally, we are all screwed by trusting him. It doesn’t happen always, but if it happens to you once or twice, I’m sure you will be like me, be more skeptical of everyone. If not, you can wait until being screwed for the third times. I know not everyone is bad and some people are super nice, but as I get older and have more life experiences, I am more skeptical.
This film doesn’t mention a lot about domestic violence, but at the end of the trial, when I can realize that it is the defendant who beat his wife before killing the “rapist”, the film brings out another social issue: domestic violence. Be careful, it can happen when and where least expected. So, whenever I see anyone with a bruise on the face, it can be an initial sign of domestic violence. Of course, I can not go further if I don’t know that person, but if I can help, I will. I really hate domestic violence.
Who’s in the movie?
Director:
Otto Preminger, who was nominated Oscars for Best Director with The Cardinal (1963) and Laura (1944). He was nominated Oscar for Best Picture with Anatomy of a Murder.
Stars:
James Stewart as attorney Paul Biegler. James Stewart was five-time nominated Oscars for Best Actor in a Leading Role with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), The Philadelphia Story (1940), It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), Harvey (1950), and Anatomy of a Murder (1959). In 1985, he finally received an Honorary Oscar for his 50 years of memorable performances, for his high ideals both on and off the screen, with respect and affection of his colleagues.
Lee Remick as Laura Manion. Lee Remick was nominated an Oscar for Best Actress in Leading Role with Days of Wines and Roses (1962). She’s also known for The Letter (1982) and Wheels (1978).
Ben Gazzara as Lt. Frederick Manion. Ben Gazzara was known for TV Series Run for Your Life (1965-1968)
Ratings
People like this movie should watch
12 Angry Men (1957)
The Verdict (1982)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
The Devil’s Advocate (1997)
Movies Moving 