Anatomy of a Murder

This is the legal movie that lawyers most often praise for its realism, in terms of not only story but also tone and atmosphere. It's full of great scenes. [08 Apr 2012, p.P19]

Director Otto Preminger excelled at intellectual thrillers and he's at his peak here. [07 Feb 2007, p.C12]

Courtroom histrionics given sizzle and sex by Otto Preminger and Duke Ellington's jazz.

It’s a daring, cynical gem.

Preminger purposely creates situations that flicker with uncertainty, that may be evaluated in different ways. Motives are mixed and dubious, and, therefore, sustain interest.

Though its title may promise a clinical procedural, Anatomy of a Murder cloaks itself in smartly tailored ambiguity and irresolution, and never altogether strips off.

Otto Preminger's fiercely austere courtroom drama was strong stuff in 1959.

Innocent until proven otherwise, isn't it? One of the precursor films of the courtroom drama, in which not all parties are satisfied, with absorbing performances; especially that of James Steward. The three or so hours can be a bit exhausting, but after all, the effort is worth it.

Stewart loses the case and we as the viewers lost in the case, Preminger trails the taste of success far before the climax hits. Anatomy Of A Murder Preminger has done his homework. He is not a pro, just as James Stewart claims himself to be, but a smart cookie like him in the room, could manipulate even the experts of the expensive city lawyers. Armed with such a hefty content embedded by the infamous lawyer-turned-novelist John D. Voelker, this is one of those rare events, where the execution by the director, Otto Preminger, still has managed to surpass the kinetic energy of the film. The entire courtroom seems to be chasing for something it doesn't care for and even after it might get it, Preminger, the trickster, isn't going to reveal the secrets, for his target was never to win the game, but play it, fairly. Watch him swoosh in camera with a smoothness that is derived more from the flamboyant choreography that stages these characters like chess pieces. And these moments remains to be my favourite. When the lawyers switch in their position or come across a new revelation or cast another perspective in their case, the way they gaze each other as they cross or block or overpower each other. This dance is so charming and elegant, that for a brief period, I got lost into their chemistry, forgetting what this fuss was all about. Another major asset is the levity in their narration. The characters never tries hard to lighten the mood, it is just that their nature impacts the humor as a by product- hey, that is the best kind of comedy you can get in a drama like such. James Stewart has a lot in common with the audience. Struggling and shooting in dark aiming to score the points, his confidence in these dodgy testimonies is both absurd and dutiful, he calls it Anatomy Of A Murder, we, the courtroom, the case.

Eh ben dis donc, voici le film de procès à procédures très procédurières, interrogatoires et contre-interrogatoires, témoignages et contre-témoignages, objections et oppositions, harangues et diatribes, subornations et insinuations et j’en passe et des meilleures ! C’est assurément un « must » en la matière et sans doute l’archétype rêvé pour tous les films procéduraux qui ont suivi mais également toutes les séries policières passées, présentes, connues ou inconnues et à venir… la « bible » du procès à l’américaine en somme et on sent qu’ils aiment ça, les bougres ! c’est leur dada, leur péché mignon… Et on regarde ça un tiers stupéfait, un tiers abruti, un tiers fasciné… quasiment en apnée, en suspension, suspendu au verdict final, pourtant vite expédié… mais il était grand temps, Votre Honneur : 2h40 de procès, c’est à devenir chèvre ! en vérité, plutôt deux heures environ, car le début trop lent voit le falot James Stewart recueillir le maximum de renseignements auprès des intéressés… avant de plonger dans l’arène ! Un James Stewart d’ailleurs beaucoup moins falot que d’habitude, bien plus hargneux et vindicatif, bien moins cave que de coutume… on note face à lui le quasiment jeunot George C. Scott dans le rôle de l’un des deux procureurs et déjà un prédateur implacable ! on remarque Ben Gazzara bien jeunot lui aussi (ses cheveux peuvent en témoigner, Votre Honneur) et on apprécie également la très jolie Lee Remick, la victime dans cette affaire et l’occasion pour ce film si bavard de proposer une ébauche de préoccupations féministes bienvenues (quoique maladroite) à cette époque de machos… où l’on ne sait pas si l’on doit parler de slip ou de culotte (sic !). Comme susmentionné, le temps d’exposition est lent et déjà, bien des coupes auraient pu être pratiquées… mais ce n’est rien face aux longueurs de ces procédures langagières et de ces numéros de cirque de la défense et de l’accusation, de ces témoins récalcitrants et de ces combats de coqs… Le sujet traité reste très intéressant mais tant de lourdeurs rendent cette affaire un peu trop indigeste malgré heureusement quelques instants bienvenus de légèreté… J’ai donc rendu mon verdict, Votre Honneur : ce sera 50/50, kif-kif bourricot.