However, such a comparison with "Peachy Blood Case" is obviously a disadvantage. Compared with "Control", the characters, lines and story arrangements are full of passionate dramatic conflicts, and the pleasure of watching is beyond words. The film is very long, the plot of nearly 160 minutes looks loose and slow, the lines are much more obscure, and it involves many legal concepts and debate skills, which is by no means the first choice for those who like to "watch the fun".
What's interesting is that the defendants of the two films are both married and their wives also played a very important role in the trial of the case. They are just one active and one passive. There is also a big gap between the lawyers in the two films. The earl in "Control" is well received by everyone. Although his physical condition is not good, you will have no doubt about his level. The Baker in "Peach" is a solitary householder who can hardly be opened. The only reason he took the case is Money. It is probably because he is not for the purpose of defending justice like the old earl, so he is not in the way of defense. The old earl is completely different. Just like the innocent and perplexed characters in his youth, Stewart felt that he didn’t know what he was doing in the early stages of the court. He didn't explain Baker's purpose to us in an obvious way. This requires the audience to appreciate it in the long trial process later.
When I watched the film, my feeling was that if I was concerned about the relationship between the couple and the husband’s motives for murder, and whether the rape facts were true, then I fell into the bureau set by the defense lawyers. He unknowingly resolved the problems thrown by the prosecution, and he felt very reasonable and unfeeling, and he didn't even have time to think about how he did it.
Regarding the difference between "uncontrollable impulse" and "mental disorder", the difference between "intentional murder" and "justified defense", the difference between "expert opinion" and "diagnosis result"... all of them have slowly penetrated into the lawyers' opinions. During the cross-examination of the witnesses. I have seen some court scenes, and this is the first time I have seen a lawyer call witnesses again just to ask a sentence in order to prove to the jury. For this case, the common "reasonable doubt" is really too simple a standard. To explain the nested content, you can almost write a legal book. What’s more interesting is that after spending so much effort, we still don’t know the ins and outs of the murder, including the truth of the rape case, and the lawyer’s thoughts on the case, even though the case is over. It turns out that the script was open from beginning to end. Sexual, guess what you want, the point is not here anyway.
Later on, there were very few films and television works that would ask witnesses for all kinds of tricks and confessions, so even if this film length and style are not suitable for the tastes of today's audiences, friends who are interested in legal films should not miss it. What's more, James Stewart itself is the guarantee of high-quality films.
View more about Anatomy of a Murder reviews
