Why do Christians keep doing it? Shooting themselves in the foot by posting reviews like this of the 1959 movie “Anatomy of a Murder” starring Jimmy Stewart?
It doesn’t matter that this is one of the best courtroom dramas ever filmed, or that it is extremely unusual in it’s honesty about the our system of justice, the compromises, the cheating that goes on, or that it is well-acted and superbly written, or that George C. Scott and Lee Remick give startlingly good performances. It doesn’t matter that this is one of the most thoughtful courtroom dramas ever made, and that it was based on a real case, and that it offers a wealth of psychological insights into the minds of a killer, a neglected wife, an ambitious attorney, a not-so-ambitious attorney. Oh no. That all doesn’t matter.
What matters is that the word “pantie” was used. In public! And that Jimmy Stewart’s dad was so mortified by the movie that he took out an ad in the newspaper urging people not to see it.
Jimmy Stewart, by the way, turned down the role of “Atticus Finch” because he thought the film was too liberal.
It doesn’t matter. The American Film Institute rates this as the 7th best Courtroom Drama of all time.
As good a film as it is, apparently it does not do justice to a pivotal scene in the book wherein the defense attorney absolutely shreds the testimony of a psychiatrist who didn’t even interview the subject of his “expert” opinion.
It is so unusual to find a film that tries to give viewers a realistic grasp of court proceedings that I kept wondering about the director. What possessed Otto Preminger to do it? He couldn’t have been hoping to broaden his audience.
It tells you a lot about the state of Hollywood that the last explanation I could think of was that he wanted to make a great film.
A Christian posts a Review of the pernicious “Anatomy of a Murder”.
There are other Christian websites that not nearly as Pollyannaish as the one above.
Some Great Courtroom Dramas
12 Angry Men
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Verdict
Witness for the Prosecution
Anatomy of a Murder
A fascinating paragraph on manipulation of testimony, from Wikipedia.
In protracted litigation, confabulated memory – filling in the blanks and recreating memories – is common, and research has documented the tendency. Repetitive and suggestive questioning tends to plant the seeds of memory.[12] This book and the movie are among the most cogent examples of the lawyers’ dance. “Horse shedding” of witnesses is well known, if controversial and potentially unethical; it is not just an occasion to directly orchestrate perjury. More problematic, it is probable to reach a point where “if you believe it, then it isn’t a lie.” Thus, even letter-perfect bona fide certainty of belief is not equivalent to a certification of accuracy or even truthfulness. This process is called “horse shedding,” “sandpapering” or “wood shedding” – the first and last names relating to the place of the “collaboration.”[13]
“Horse shedding” comes from a practice in the 19th century in New York in which lawyers would hide witnesses in a literal horse shed to “prepare” them for testimony in the court house next door.