Cross-examining Classic Courtroom Dramas

Search for "classic courtroom dramas" and the movie topping most lists would probably be To Kill a Mockingbird. And rightly so, for that film may well be the quintessential example of the genre, with its dramatic courthouse scenes, quest for justice, great acting, and a surprise twist or two.

Also high on the list in this category is 12 Angry Men. Even though the drama takes place in the jury room instead of the courtroom, it's still drama in a judicial setting with an unfolding case, interesting evidence, and a thought-provoking look at the prejudices brought into a supposedly impartial system.

Whether it's our inherent longing to see justice done or the curiosity that keeps us hooked as the mysteries of a case are revealed, the interest in courtroom dramas continues today. (Just look at the long-standing success of the Law & Order franchise.) There have been several good movies in the genre done in more recent years, but I'd like to take a moment to make a case (sorry, I couldn't help myself) for revisiting classic movies in this category.

So, like Rod Serling standing in front of your jury box, I present for your consideration exhibits A, B, and C: three movies worthy of a look for lovers of courtroom drama everywhere.

Boomerang! (Ah, my old friend exclamation point in title appears again!)

When a beloved priest is killed in a small town, the growing public outrage and political concerns put a lot of pressure on the authorities to make an arrest. This leads to the police throwing the idea of motive out the window and instead chasing down every man wearing a dark coat and light hat (the hazy description of the murderer). Will circumstantial evidence and a forced confession be the downfall of an innocent man?

Based on a true story, this Elia Kazan movie is very interested in authenticity. We are told at the beginning that all the interior and exterior scenes were filmed in the original locales, and as many actual characters as possible were used. As I watched some of the townspeople act, I was ready to believe that they were the authentic originals, too. Which is not to say that all the acting in the movie is bad; on the contrary, the movie includes some great actors: Lee J. Cobb, a young Karl Malden, and the always lovable Dana Andrews, who is especially sweet and believable in the scenes with his onscreen wife.

There's another great bit with Dana, who plays the state's attorney. In the middle of a conversation with the frustrated chief of police, he picks up a little puzzle from the chief's desk, calmly solving it in seconds. It's only a brief moment, but it's reminiscent of Dana's character in Laura playing with a similar small puzzle. The message conveyed is much the same; here's a man patient and intelligent enough to untangle the mess and solve the case.

The movie's authenticity breaks down a bit in the courtroom scenes (I can't see a case progressing in court the way this one did) but any shortcuts taken are forgivable in view of the high drama created, particularly in one tense scene involving a loaded gun.

The Verdict: This movie is best for all those idealists who care about seeing justice done. And Dana Andrews fans.

Witness for the Prosecution

Charles Laughton plays a barrister whose ill health won't prevent him from taking on a case (or smoking, or drinking). His client, played by Tyrone Power, is a man accused of murder. Although his wife (Marlene Dietrich) gives him an alibi, in one of many twists in the film, she ends up testifying as the titular witness for the prosecution.

Laughton is great, sparring with his nurse and using his monocle as an interrogation tool. Dietrich is pretty intense, which is especially interesting in the flashback scene of how she met her husband while singing in a club in Germany. Somehow she manages to make the lyric "I may never go home anymore" sound like more of a threat than a come on, even if she is promising kisses and kisses galore.

With Billy Wilder directing these stars and Agatha Christie writing the play the movie was based on, it seems impossible to go wrong with this one. Although I've always preferred Ellery Queen to Agatha Christie, (I like having all the information and trying to guess the ending for myself instead of being surprised by shocking revelations and unforeseen events) the twists here really make the movie. I can't say much more about it without giving anything away, and the movie itself has asked me not to divulge the secret of the ending for the greater entertainment of my friends. I leave it to you to see for yourself.

The Verdict: Great for those who enjoy a liberal helping of mystery in their courtroom dramas, with nice bits of light comedy and twists a-plenty to spice things up.

Anatomy of a Murder

In this movie, there is no question of whether the accused is innocent or guilty. We know from the start that Lt. Manion killed the man he accuses of raping his wife. The questions at hand are if he was justified in his actions, and if he will go free or be convicted of his crime.

Jimmy Stewart is wonderful as always, although he's playing a slightly different role here as a lawyer with some questionable ethics. The beautiful Lee Remick is completely believable as the alluring wife of the lieutenant. George C. Scott enters late in the game and steals the limelight as one slick prosecutor. Eve Arden also has a small part as a secretary whose wit is similar to her well-known radio character, Miss Brooks.

Another nice touch in the movie is the jazzy score by Duke Ellington throughout. (One of my pet peeves is otherwise excellent movies with terrible music, like the ones that force the title into a theme song to open things. Can you imagine a song called "Anatomy of a Murder"? Yikes.)

There's also an interesting bit with some discussion over what to call a woman's undergarment. While probably shocking at the time, this whole case would now be pretty tame by Law & Order standards.

The Verdict: This fascinating look at the limits and loopholes of the justice system (with wonderful acting and music) is a real winner.

Addendum: I'm a little late in posting this as Boomerang! was just shown on TCM this morning. When I started writing this post, the movie was available on Hulu, but it seems to have been removed since. (It is available at Classicflix.)

Anatomy of a Murder and Witness for the Prosecution will both be showing on TCM this Wednesday, February 18th. Watch them back to back and examine the evidence for yourself before passing judgment on these classic courtroom dramas.

Book vs. Movie: Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre was already next on my Lit Flicks Challenge list, but when I happened to be the October giveaway winner and The Bluestocking Society kindly sent me the book (thanks, Jessica!) I wanted to get to it right away.

Before reading or seeing Jane Eyre, I did have some idea of the general plot: Jane is a governess who comes to work in a creepy house for a brooding man with a big secret. (It's a good thing I knew the secret, too, since my copy of the book included an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates that revealed all the major plot details and many of the twisty bits. Seriously, there should have been a spoiler warning with it -- surely there are some people reading the book for the first time with no idea what it's about who would like to enjoy a few surprises.)

Since I did know how the story would go, I was afraid that reading through the book would be tedious, but I actually enjoyed it very much. The way it's written (as a first-person account of Jane telling the reader her story) felt very intimate and interesting. The only time it didn't work for me was when the big secret is revealed; during this time things seemed a bit rushed and Jane's reactions didn't come until later. All I can assume is that she was struck and in shock, but coming to know the characters I think more would have been said and thought during this critical time.

If you don't like Jane, you will probably not enjoy the novel, but I really liked Jane. I liked her strong will and character. I also liked Mr. Rochester, despite his dubious past and the way he deceived Jane. Maybe I like him because Jane does, or because they do seem like a well-matched pair of intellectual equals. You can analyze a lot more about the various themes of the novel, like what it says about religion, morality, duty, forgiveness, and marriage, but I was happy enough to read through the rest because I really liked Jane and Rochester, and I wanted to see their love story play out.

The movie version I chose to watch was the 1944 adaptation, mostly because it stars Orson Welles, and I really like him. He is great as Rochester; he can carry off the speeches and he has the right amount of darkness and intensity to him. I was also delighted to see Agnes Moorehead, a young Elizabeth Taylor, the little girl from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Peggy Ann Garner) and child actress Margaret O'Brien, adorable as Adele. I wasn't particularly impressed with Joan Fontaine as Jane, though. (She also starred in Rebecca, based on the Daphne du Maurier novel which seems at least partially inspired by Jane Eyre.) Fontaine's Jane is much too meek and is really overpowered by Welles' Rochester. This removes what I enjoyed most about the novel, the match of equal minds that defines the relationship. In the novel, Jane is independent and holds her own against Rochester; in the movie I couldn't imagine what he saw in her, really.

I know it's always hard to show inner thoughts and feelings of characters in a movie, but I really missed how the book explains what's going on in Jane's head. Another thing that annoyed me about the movie: at the beginning, a book is shown onscreen and a voice-over reads what is written on the page. But the passage is way different from the book's opening. At other times during the movie, this same technique is used again. The voice-over alone would have been fine, but the suggestion that what is read is from the novel was really irritating. While I do understand the need to change and condense things when making a book into a movie, if you aren't remaining faithful to the book, don't show me text in a book as though you are staying completely true to the story. (Rant over.)

So, when it comes right down to it, does the book or the movie prevail? While the 1944 movie is beautifully shot and appropriately dark and atmospheric, it is also perhaps more melodramatic than even the crazy twists of novel would allow. The acting is mostly good, and it is fine as a movie, but overall I preferred the story in novel form. However, there are a lot of other Jane Eyre adaptations, and perhaps some do more justice to book. (I am intrigued by the version with George C. Scott because to me he really fits the description of Rochester: not exactly handsome, yet intense and strangely magnetic. If anyone's seen this version, or another adaptation, let me know what you thought.)

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Jane Eyre, I'd like to recommend Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair. It's the first of his funny Thursday Next series, which features a literary detective in an alternate reality where characters from books are quite real and traveling into the world of a book is physically possible. This story deals with Jane Eyre's kidnapping and the changing of the famous novel's plot. I want to re-read this now that I've finally read Jane Eyre.

So, that's two down for Lit Flicks, three more to go. I think I might deviate from my original list and choose something different for my next pick... stay tuned!

Book vs. Movie: The Grapes of Wrath

First up on my Lit Flicks Challenge list (and my first rental from Classicflix) is The Grapes of Wrath.

This is one of those classics I can't believe I missed for so long, both in book and movie form. I had seen clips from the movie somewhere, and what I had stuck in my head was the close-up of Henry Fonda's earnest face making his "I'll be there" speech. My impression going in: this story has a Message. And so it does.

The focus is on the Joads, a family forced away from their farmland home, journeying to California to become migrant workers. While the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression are pretty heavy subjects, I was still surprised by just how raw the novel is. It's an unsanitized look at these people with all their flaws and problems. And as gritty as it is, I believe that it could have been worse, given the hardships that are hinted at which the Joads manage to avoid.

In the book, in addition to the chapters that follow the Joad family's journey, there are also shorter chapters that take a less personal, larger view of the problems of the times. Some of these were very powerful and worked quite well. I especially liked the chapters on the used car dealership and the roadside diner. As I progressed through the book, however, I began to feel that this device was wearing thin, and that Steinbeck had run out of things to talk about in these bigger-picture chapters.

Overall, it's a well-written novel about a serious subject. And it did get me wrapped up in it so that I was really feeling for these characters. I particularly liked Ma, even from her first appearance in the book. In her introduction, we are told that "her hazel eyes seemed to have experienced all possible tragedy and to have mounted pain and suffering like steps into a high calm and a superhuman understanding." The story gives her a lot more steps to climb. I preferred book Ma to movie Ma, but I liked Tom Joad in both versions very much.

Before seeing the movie, I was worried about Henry Fonda's performance, especially his ability to speak in the country dialect of the book. Maybe it's because the clearest picture I have of Fonda is as the very intelligent, articulate character in 12 Angry Men. But he handles the role of Tom Joad brilliantly, never seeming above it while still bringing out a certain sincerity with dignity that is important to the character. Fonda's performance is wonderfully restrained yet powerful, beautiful against the often over-the-top, make-your-eyes-as-wide-as-possible-for-effect acting going on in this movie. With the exception of the bit where he sings, I found Henry Fonda's performance riveting, and for that alone I would recommend watching the movie.

Would I recommend the book? Yes, although with some hesitation. The novel is really depressing. As I progressed through the book, I found myself anticipating with dread the next tragedy that would befall the family. The book has an interesting theme about sin versus holiness that is nowhere near as prominent in the movie. Both stories show that people do better helping each other, although the book drives the point home harder. Sure, we've all got to eat, but only looking out for your own is selfish and doesn't work for the greater good, we get it. The movie, while still serious, has some lighter moments to it, like Grandpa explaining what he'd like to do in California and the family's reaction to Tom's homecoming. The movie also has a much different ending.

The book's ending is a bit of a shocker; I won't spoil it here in case you haven't read it yet, although I will say that it made me feel that a certain thing was set up in the book only for the ending, which felt somewhat cheap to me. The ending does fit in with the rest of the novel and provides some hope for the future, but the whole thing is still pretty bleak. Which I suppose is the point -- the issues faced by these people could not be easily fixed. The movie's ending is more hopeful and uplifting, although it didn't ring as true to me. Also, in both versions of the story, I was disappointed that Tom's part is finished up before the end.

So, what's the final verdict, book or movie? Both. The story in either form is an interesting look at a difficult time in history. The book definitely has more meat to it and a bigger agenda; the movie is a bit more entertaining while still illuminating the subject. While I don't think I'll be coming back to either book or movie soon, I'm still glad I checked out both versions of this classic American story.