Typical case, classic interpretation

Caitlyn 2021-12-30 17:21:43

Regarding "lawsuit" movies, broadly speaking, there are only two types. The first one: the narrative focuses on the "justice" or "injustice" of the big things (such as the "defendant" starring Judy Foster). The second type: only focus on the "winning or losing" in the strict sense (such as this "peachy bloody case"), but I have to admit that sometimes the boundaries cannot be so clearly distinguished. Take a ready-made example, When watching this film, we would naturally hope that Stewart is the "righteous party." Because Stewart is the leading actor.
Having said so much, what I actually want to express is that it is very difficult for the law to achieve "absolute fairness and justice". Because the so-called "rational" is always affected by "irrational" factors.
Going back to this movie, the so-called "Peachy Case" can be said to be very simple or very complicated. A married woman was raped (the prosecutor disagrees with this). The lawyer argued that the heroine’s husband was in the "spiritual "Impulsive killing" in the case of abnormal". The prosecutor called him a "premeditated murder", (I did it the next day, and dare to say it was "on impulse")!
Let’s talk about two prosecutors and a defense lawyer. (By the way, the actor who plays the judge is himself a judge. ). A public prosecutor should be what we often call "district prosecutors" (local prosecutors), and they are always arrogant and aggressive in their debates. In sharp contrast to him, another public prosecutor, the "Federal Prosecutor" (played by the great George Scott), has a restrained and elegant temperament, and a debating style: solid and practical.
Let’s talk about the biggest star in this movie, the defense lawyer James Stewart. Maybe because he was a “local censor” in his early years, and for some unknown reasons (not elaborated in the film), he became one. A defense lawyer with a light business has suffered from "the world's scorching heat." However, it is precisely because of the "scorching world" that he has become a veritable "old fox". Debate style: Basically, playing cards unreasonably. It often seems to be anxious and depraved, but in fact it is hidden behind the scenes.
The ending of the story: the defendant was acquitted. It's hard to say at which point the defense really touched the jury. It was the shorts with fine spots that were finally shown to the jury? It is also the success of Stewart's main "famous card" (trying to make the jury have deep sympathy for the defendant couple).
Well, this is the weirdness of the "jury system".
But it must be pointed out here that the purpose of the director for shooting this film is not to draw any conclusions about the "hypocrisy of the capitalist legal system". But I just want to tell us that it is very difficult for the law to achieve "absolute fairness and justice" (sorry, the old tune is repeated). But we can try our best to improve the current legal system by exploring (for example, using the method of filming) various cases.
As a movie of the golden age of Hollywood, there are many classic lines in the film.
Let me give you an example: A: We used to have ten welcome singles, ten most popular movies... Now there are ten most wanted criminals.
B: No, don't laugh at them, because this is also part of the American dream.
















View more about Anatomy of a Murder reviews

Extended Reading
  • Toney 2021-12-30 17:21:43

    Preminger’s films in the 1950s clearly felt that the eternal, peaceful, self-consistent, black-and-white world and order that belonged to classical films had fallen apart. After all, the film will begin to face the violent, hideous, open, uncaused, and irresistible modern life. Hitchcock didn't really bid farewell to the old world until "Mentally Ill". As a court movie "Peachy Blood Case", it is said that there is no absolute truth, no absolute good and evil, and instrumental rationality is the moral law of modern life.

  • Tremaine 2022-04-20 09:01:48

    Extremely long and tedious lacks a dramatic climax Much worse than Witness for the Prosecution

Anatomy of a Murder quotes

  • Lt. Frederick Manion: How can a jury disregard what it's already heard?

    Paul Biegler: [shaking head] They can't, lieutenant. They can't.

  • Judge Weaver: For the benefit of the jury, but more especially for the spectators, The garment mentioned in the testimony was, to be exact, Mrs. Manion's panties.

    [spectators roar with laughter]

    Judge Weaver: I wanted to get your snickering over and done with. This pair of panties will be mentioned again over the course of this trial, & when it is, there will not be one laughter, one snicker, one giggle or even one smirk in my courtroom. There is nothing comic about a pair of panties that resulted in the violent death of one man, & the possible incarceration of another.