Anatomy of a Murder (1959) 10/10
Paul Biegler (James Stewart) takes on the defense of a confessed murderer (Ben Gazzara). The plea will be temporary insanity, but the case really hinges on the accused’s wife (Lee Remick). Was she raped by the murder victim, as she says, or was it an affair?
Anatomy of a Murder announces itself as “modern” from the opening credits, with graphics one associates with the 1960s, even though the movie was made in the ’50s, and a jarring, thrilling Duke Ellington score. Within the first scene, the word “rape” has been used in the kind of matter-of-fact way that movies of this era avoided at all costs. (The controversy created by the film’s frank language caused it to be banned in some places, including Chicago.)
As a movie, it’s just about perfect. Crackling good dialogue, excellent pacing, fascinating plotting. Also, sex, death, violence, domestic drama, legal drama, and the spectre of rape. So it definitely keeps you focused.
One thing this movie does is refuse to give you pat answers. Was Gazzara’s character actually insane, as he says? Who is lying, and who is telling the truth? The movie explores the characters and situations without answering.
From a feminist or social context, the movie is equally fascinating, and equally left in the lap of the audience. The trial is built largely around the perception of women. Laura Manion (Remick) is not “nice.” She flirts. She moves her body freely. She likes to go to bars, and drink, and dance. She doesn’t wear a girdle. Maybe she has affairs, maybe not, the movie refuses to say, because really, it doesn’t matter. The community, and the jury, will perceive Laura as a slut regardless.
Now here’s where it gets tricky. If Laura is perceived as a slut, the jury will also perceive that Laura wasn’t really raped—she was “asking for it.” And if she wasn’t really raped, if she wasn’t a pathetic innocent victim, then her husband cannot be excused for murdering the rapist. If she “led a man on,” then that poor, sad man didn’t deserve to die. Even if he did rape her. The culture will perceive it as him “forcing himself” on her because he knew she “really” wanted it. At which point, she deserved what she got and the rapist did not deserve what he got.
In terms of the way women are perceived and imprisoned by that perception, this is some pretty sick shit.
Furthermore, all that Laura is to the judge, to the jury, and to the community is a slut who somehow caused a death. What happened to her is only interesting in terms of how it effects men. There is an extended sequence in which Laura’s panties are discussed. They are pertinent because she says that the rapist ripped her clothes off. The police found the skirt and blouse, but not the panties. The use of the word “panties” in court causes the entire courtroom to break out in giggles. The judge says (paraphrasing), “Ladies and gentlemen, these panties are no laughing matter. Not when they may be connected to a man’s death, and when another man may go to jail for murder.” At no point does he say that they are no laughing matter because a woman has been raped.
James Stewart’s character is terrific; he’s interesting, complex, and very real. What’s very interesting to me is that he absolutely believes Laura. He knows she was raped, and he knows that the way the prosecution is going to play games; with the notion of her decency, with the idea that perhaps she wasn’t raped at all, is reprehensible. Yet he doesn’t reject the “morals” that create these reprehensible behaviors. He urges her to behave in a way that avoids drawing attention. He practically begs her to wear a girdle. And by doing all this, he seems to accept the moral environment as a given; even if he doesn’t like it, he’s not going to say anything about it, because it’s normal. It’s the Way It Is.
So, not exactly a feminist movie. But not anti-feminist either, and in many ways, this is so much more advanced than most movies of its era that I could wriggle in delight. To top it off, great, great movie on the let’s-just-ignore-the-politics scale.
