[psycho d]

Anatomy of a Murder (1959). If you are merely looking for a recommendation for a movie classic then read no further and dig up a copy of Anatomy of a Murder. If you would like to find out why you should not miss out on this masterpiece then read on.

As the story begins to unfold we are given material whose transparency seems to contradict the 160 minute run time, leaving us to wonder how in the heck they are gunna fill in all the gaps of such a simple story. But the story here is neither simple nor a convoluted roller coaster of unnerving twists and turns. Instead it is a slowly building study of courtroom ambiguity that transports the audience through its cinematic time teleporter in such a fashion that as the end nears our tension is a cross between the climax and our fears that this brilliant experience must finally come to its end.

James Stewart's performance was astounding. His legal wit appropriately mounts as his client's prospects for freedom approaches its doom. The combination of a country bumpkin lawyer with morally uncertain tactics works as they only create a sense of humanity missing in film today. Compounding this ambivalence is that it is never clear whether or not his enemy is the prosecutor or his client's flirty wife. Lee Remick plays her part perfectly. We are never really privy to the truth as her character dances around this notion as if to a two step whose score remains unsettled. Ben Gazzara, the client with a dubious future, was at his smarmy best, contemptuously aware of both his intelligence and his situation. George C. Scott blusters onto the screen with a silent intensity of puissance. His legal wits are never challenged as he quickly substantiates his reputation. There is not a stinker amongst the rest of the cast, and that the judge was played by a real-life judge only adds depth to this fantastic piece of cinema.

Otto Preminger likely deserves most of the credit for dictating the superior technicalities of Anatomy. Each and every scene was framed with an incredible sense of aesthetic and emotional design. The mise en scène was a masterpiece of formalist filmmaking. Never was there a time where character placement did not impart subtle yet substantial information concerning the scene. One of my favorite scenes utilized the silhouette of Scott to block out Stewart's character who, as if on cue, claws his way back into the picture, almost as if to ensure the audience that his presence will not be literally concealed. How this hilarious scene was tied into the story was just a slice of Otto's wit.

Though this can be thought of as a slow-burner, many scenes were a wicked blend of action, layers of activity that defies the viewer's frantic attempts to keep up, and yet never letting us fall into the quagmire of confusion. More so, the subtle touches of using a lighter, and who will offer a light to another, confers more important information about the characters than could any action, event, or dialog. Who lit the cigarette says it all.

The lighting was initially used to give this one a film noir feel, setting the mood even for when the tone was moved indoors and into the illuminated safety of the courtroom. More than that, lighting was used as a tool to effectively shield the character's intents and emotions from the viewer, giving us even more reason to want inside their skulls.

Duke Ellington's score was candy for the ears, and from the get-go it intimates that what we are about to experience is no trivial matter.

If you are looking for a courtroom drama where blindsiding twists make up the bulk of the story then look elsewhere. But instead if it's a smart drama that unfolds in the courtroom, and does so not by picking on your intelligence but by the sheer monument of crafty movie genius, then get ready to take in one of the all time best legal dramas to have graced the silver screen. Merci.
d