Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Directed by Otto Preminger

Starring James Stewart, Lee Remick, and Ben Gazzara

Anatomy of a Murder was shot in black and white – mostly indoor scenes – and directed by Otto Preminger (whom I knew virtually nothing about before seeing this, but it turned me into a fan).

The plot is simple: A small-town Michigan lawyer (James Stewart) defends and succeeds in exonerating a US Army Lieutenant (Ben Gazzara) arrested for murdering an innkeeper that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The defense is temporary insanity.

As a courtroom drama, Anatomy of a Murder is not particularly profound, by, say, Inherit the Wind standards. But there are some clever legal and procedural jousts between Paul Biegler, the defense attorney (played by Stewart) and the two prosecuting attorneys (played by Brooks West and a young George C. Scott). And the many brief scenes involving the judge were so amazingly good that I said to K, “This guy has to have real-life courtroom experience.” Sure enough, he did! The judge was played by Joseph N. Welch, the lawyer famous for confronting Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings. (He’s the one who said, “Have you no decency, sir?”)

Welch’s scene-stealing scenes, Jimmy Stewart’s acting, and the almost shockingly seductive beauty of  Lee Remick are enough to merit the two hours you’d have to invest in this film.

Throughout the movie, K and I were disturbed by a dozen or so smallish things that made it difficult to decide what the facts of the case really were, and even which of the characters we could believe.

Was the Lee Remick character really raped, or did she claim to be to put her husband in jail and run off with her lover? Or was the story concocted by her and her husband, the murderer? And what about the Jimmy Stewart character? Was he a legal version of Mr. Smith (in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)? And if so, why did he encourage his client to “remember” that he was temporarily insane? And if the couple were truly victims of a terrible rape, why, after Stewart won the case for them, did they leave town without paying him?

Thinking about it later, it occurred to me that the plot beneath the plot is one of moral ambiguity: A small town lawyer triumphs by guile, stealth, and trickery – and in doing so, frees a murderer.

In fact, all three of the main characters were culpable of unethical behavior.

* Lt. Manion is jealous and prone to violence and possibly abusive.

* Laura is manipulative and insincere. She admits to taking advantage of her beauty by being flirtatious.

* Biegler thinks of himself as principled, but subtly coaches Lt. Frederickson into inventing the defense of temporary insanity.

And that brings me back to Otto Preminger. A brief look at his filmography suggests that he had a preference for movies with challenging moral themes:

* The Moon Is Blue (1953), a comedy, was criticized for taking a flippant view towards sex.

* The Man With the Golden Arm (1955) focused on a heroin addict.

 

Critical Reviews 

* “Simply the best trial movie ever made,” (Kim Newman in Empire Online)

* “Spellbinding all the way, infused by an ambiguity about human personality and motivation that is Preminger’s trademark.” (Jonathan Rosenbaum in Chicago Reader)

* “Coolly absorbing, nonchalantly cynical.” (Jessica Winter in Time Out)

 

 Interesting Facts

* The opening credits are very cool.

* The movie is based on the book by Robert Traver, the pen name of Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker. The story is based on a murder case in which he was the defense attorney earlier in his career.

* This was one of the first mainstream Hollywood films to challenge industry censorship guidelines (the Hays Code) and address sex and rape in graphic terms. Dialog included the first on-screen use of such words as “intercourse” and “semen.”

* Duke Ellington (who appears in the film) wrote the Grammy-winning score.

Continue Reading

A Moveable Feast

By Ernest Hemingway

1st ed. published in 1964 by Charles Scribner’s Sons

2nd “Restored” ed. published in 2009 by Seán Hemingway

223 pages (1964); 256 pages (2009)

This was the second time I read A Moveable Feast. Well, I didn’t read it this time, I listened to it. And I’m glad I did.

As my brother Andrew once told me, one can argue that Ernest Hemingway was one of the two most important prose stylists in English of the 20th century. (I don’t remember who he said the other one was.) Listening to this memoir of his years as a struggling journalist/ writer in Paris during the 1920s made me a believer. You really cannot appreciate how powerful and poetic Hemingway’s language is until you hear it read aloud.

If you are at all interested in the luminaries of literature during this time period, this book is what it claims to be: a literary feast of the most colorful characters of the Lost Generation. Here you will be introduced to the wit and eccentricities of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ford Madox Ford, James Joyce, Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound, and Gertrude Stein, along with artists like Jules Pascin, and Sylvia Beach, the proprietor of the legendary Shakespeare & Company bookstore.

Hemingway died in 1961, before the book was published, leaving some question as to whether he had finished it. It was published posthumously in 1964 by Hemingway’s fourth wife and widow, Mary, based upon his original manuscripts and notes. But a second edition was published in 2009 by his grandson Seán Hemingway, who felt that Mary’s edition had been incorrectly altered to suit her version of his life at that time.

There is ongoing controversy in literary circles over which edition – if either – can be considered the book Hemingway intended.

 

Critical Reviews for the 1964 Edition 

* “Here is Hemingway at his best. No one has ever written about Paris in the 1920s as well as Hemingway.” (Charles Poore in The New York Times)

* “The reader of…  A Moveable Feast, who, of course already knows a lot about Hemingway, quickly suspects that whatever may have been the original facts behind Hemingway’s ruptures with Gertrude Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ford Madox Ford, and Hadley Richardson (the first Mrs. Hemingway), he will never get them here. The book is too splendidly, too artfully written; the chapters are sketches and anecdotes often as fine in their texture as Hemingway’s famous stories; the dialogue is too witty; and the real plot of the book – a young writer’s struggles… – has been used up in so many novels and plays that Hemingway was smart to try this as memoir.” (Alfred Kazin in The Atlantic)

 

Critical Reviews for the 2009 “Restored” Edition 

* “Each chapter is short and vignette-like, comical, bitchy, and warm. They are best read a few at a time, so as to get into the flow of Hemingway’s surprising sentences, but not to be overwhelmed by the high concentration of egos gathered together on one page.” (Charlotte Newman in The Guardian)

* “A Moveable Feast  serves the purpose of a double nostalgia: our own as we contemplate a Left Bank that has since become a banal tourist enclave in Paris… and Hemingway’s at the end of his distraught days, as he saw again the ‘City of Light’ with his remaining life still ahead of him rather than so far behind.” (Christopher Hitchens in the Atlantic)

 

Interesting Facts 

* Hemingway’s working title for the book was The Paris Sketches. A Moveable Feast was suggested to Mary by his friend/ biographer A.E. Hotchner, who remembered him saying: “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.”

* Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 people, the city’s worst loss of life since WWII, A Moveable Feast was a surprise bestseller in France. When translated back into English, the book’s title in French – Paris Est Une Fête – is “Paris Is a Celebration.” In the context of the attacks, it became a symbol of defiance.

Continue Reading

The Guggenheim is a great museum. And their performing arts program, which has been going on for years, is a very cool part of it.  But it’s almost invisible. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s because the venue, a small auditorium in the basement, was not able to accommodate more than a limited number of patrons. It deserved its reputation as New York’s best kept secret.

This short documentary explains how the program changed as a result of the lockdown and might make you want to check it out next time you are in New York (if you can get tickets).

Continue Reading