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.

All I need to know about LOVE

...I learned from the movies.

THE ONE

There is only ONE person out there for you. This person is your soulmate. You will feel empty and unsatisfied with your life until you find this person. Once you find them you will be complete.

The only time you get a chance for a second soulmate is if you are parted from the first one tragically, like through death. If your soulmate happens to donate their heart to someone, look for this person, as that heart will keep beating for you alone in the body of your new soulmate.

NOT THE ONE

Sometimes you may think you have found your soulmate, only to realize that you were wrong. Don't despair. Your chances for finding the one increase dramatically when you are with someone who is not the one. Your odds of meeting your soulmate are even greater if you are engaged to the wrong person. So don't hesitate to move things along with someone who is wrong for you. They don't have to be a bad person, by the way, just someone who is not your match.

Look for someone who is kind but boring; a person like this won't even mind when they find out they are not your soulmate. Probably they will have suspected this deep inside all along, anyway. Don't feel too bad for them -- they are bound to find their one after you throw them over.

So go ahead and date that wrong person. Plan a wedding, even show up for the ceremony. The later it takes for your soulmate to show up, the more dramatic your coming together will be. And drama, as we all know, is what love is all about. Who wants a life of calm contentment and security?

LIES

There's probably something you're afraid to reveal to your soulmate because you're worried they will reject you. Lying is the way to go here. Be it your background, finances, family, children, whatever, go ahead and hide the facts from your soulmate. Wait until they are so in love with you that they won't be able to leave no matter what they learn about you.

Of course, don't be surprised if your soulmate has a secret as well. You'll find out once you are hooked. But by then it won't matter. How wise you both are!

HAPPY ENDINGS

Following all the above steps should get you to happily ever after status. Unless, of course, you are destined to have one of those tragic endings that are so moving. In that case, remember that it's better to have loved and lost... and eventually you might just find your replacement love. (Hint: make sure to find out if your soulmate has checked that organ donor box on their driver's license.)

What have you learned about love from the movies?

Variations on a Frank Capra theme

I recently re-watched Frank Capra's You Can't Take it With You and was struck by the many similarities to another Capra film you might have heard of: It's a Wonderful Life. (How this never occurred to me before, I don't know.)

One fairly superficial connection between the two movies is the list of actors appearing in both films. Of course both star Jimmy Stewart and Lionel Barrymore, but other actors with smaller parts in both movies include Ward Bond (Officer Bert/Detective Mike), H.B. Warner (Mr. Gower/Ramsey), Samuel S. Hinds (the dads, Peter Bailey/Paul Sycamore), Charles Lane (rent collector/IRS agent), Edward Keane (loan customer/board member), and Stanley Andrews (Mr. Welch/attorney). Also in both movies: Jimmy the Raven.


The plots of the films, however, are very different. It's a Wonderful Life (as you probably know, given the years of repeated showings around Christmas-time) focuses on George Bailey, a man who, in a time of despair, wishes he had never been born. Thanks to the appearance of his guardian angel, George gets the chance to see what the world would have been like without him, and ends up coming to the conclusion expressed in the movie's title.

In You Can't Take it With You, the main character is Grandpa Vanderhof, patriarch of an eccentric household of free spirits. His refusal to sell his house is keeping wealthy Mr. Kirby from achieving a monopoly. Complicating matters is the fact that Mr. Kirby's son Tony has fallen in love with his secretary, Alice, who just happens to be the granddaughter of Mr. Vanderhof. (It's funny to see how these two actually fit into each other's families better than their own: Alice is much more serious while Tony has little interest in business and would prefer the freedom the Vanderhof clan enjoys.) When the two families get together the clash of lifestyles and philosophies is extreme (and rather amusing).


While these two stories seem to have little in common, they do serve to illustrate some deeper underlying themes. One is the idea of money not buying happiness. The two richest characters in the movies are Mr. Potter and Mr. Kirby. One is described as a warped, frustrated old man, the other is called miserable and a failure. The value of friendships over money is highlighted with the ideas that no man is a failure who has friends/the only thing you can take with you is the love of your friends. Both movies have scenes where friends come to the rescue of the main character by collecting money when they learn of a need.

One big difference in the two movies is the way personal freedom vs. responsibility is shown. While George Baily has to give up on his dreams for the good of his family and community, the Vanderhof household is full of people doing only what they please. Fulfillment in one movie comes from self-sacrifice, in the other, self-indulgence.

While It's a Wonderful Life probably presents the truer, more realistic outlook on life, like Jimmy Stewart's character in You Can't Take it With You, I am fascinated watching the loonies in Grandpa's house puttering away at their various pet projects: music, writing, dancing, fireworks, candy-making (having fun regardless of their actual skill at these pursuits).

I understand why It's a Wonderful Life has gotten more popular that You Can't Take it With You, but I'd definitely recommend the latter, even if only to show Lionel Barrymore's range at playing total opposites in characters: the hated Mr. Potter and the very lovable Grandpa.

If it were up to me, these two movies would be packaged and sold together as a pair of bookends sandwiching a similar theme: Enjoy and appreciate life!

Do awards matter?

It's not a new question, but I think it's still relevant now, with the Golden Globes just behind us and the Oscars fast approaching. Also, on a smaller scale, various awards are being passed around in the blogging world (blogosphere if you must, although I don't like the sound of it). Caitlin over at Fire and Music was even kind enough to send a Superior Scribbler award along my way. So, do all these awards really matter?

Raquelle at Out of the Past made some very interesting points in a post about why she would not be passing along the awards. Mostly it boils down to her not wanting to exclude anyone by her choices. Some of these things do begin to feel more like a popularity contest than a gauge of real merit. If picked, you are in with the cool kids, if not, you are left thinking nobody wants you on their team.

I have to wonder how much even bigger awards, like the Oscars, involve favoritism and factors outside of merit alone. When Julie Andrews won for best actress in Mary Poppins, didn't it have something to do with her being shut out of the film version of My Fair Lady? When Paul Newman finally won for The Color of Money, wasn't it (at least in part) compensation for him never winning in the earlier years of his career? What about this year, will the controversy over Slumdog Millionaire hurt its chances at the Oscars? I don't know, but it does seem impossible to bestow honors completely impartially.

It also seems inevitable that someone will be missed. Even though Citizen Kane is now almost universally regarded as the best movie ever, it lost out on the Academy Award for best picture. So will some great blog get skipped over in the blog appreciation awards? Very possibly.

Don't start that get-off-the-stage music yet, I'm not finished!

These blog awards can also start to feel like chain letters, although fortunately there is no crazy threat (like your blog exploding) if you fail to pass on to the required number of people. As the list of recipients grows, however, doesn't the value of the award begin to fade? It makes me think of The Incredibles, and its point about how saying everyone is special is the same as saying no one is.

I'm also reminded of With Honors, where Brendan Fraser's character is trying so hard to graduate summa cum laude. At the graduation ceremony, his name is called and followed only by silence, but by then the importance of that brief moment has been put in perspective. He has been told he will graduate life with honor and without regret, and that is what really matters. Sure, an award is nice, but it's only a blip in a life. It's not (or anyway I don't think it should be) the end-all be-all of who we are and what we do.

On the other hand, winning an award feels great! The attention and recognition provides a nice feeling of validation. Perhaps because we are social creatures, and being lauded in your community gives one a nice boost.

So while the argument can be made that awards don't matter (that bigger awards are little more than an excuse to get dressed up and party, or worse still a big money-making scheme to draw in viewers to award shows and the system they hype, while smaller awards are given too indiscriminately and without clear enough standards) I think awards do matter. At least, winning this award matters to me. I am flattered.

And so I will accept and display the award bestowed upon me, with thanks to Princess Fire and Music. I will also follow along with its rules:

1. Name five other Superior Scribblers to receive this award.
2. Link to the author and name of the blog that gave you the award.
3. Display the award on your blog with this LINK which explains the award.
4. Click on the award at the bottom of the link and add your name to the bottom of the list.
5. Post the rules.

While there are many blogs I read and enjoy, I'm choosing to pass along this award to the following: The Flick Chick, The Film Doctor, David, Cesia, and The Movie Ness. I hope they will receive it in the spirit I send it, which is to say that I like you(r blog), and I hope you keep writing.

They can choose to play by the rules in accepting and passing it on, call in a guest blogger dressed in Native American gear to refuse, or do anything in between. I imagine it will all depend on whether or not they think awards matter.

Review: Man on Wire

Philippe Petit is the kind of guy who'd be great to invite to your dinner party. Once, anyway. For he's got quite an entertaining story to tell about the time he managed to sneak to the top of the Twin Towers, rig a wire between the two buildings, and walk across. It's a feat no one else has done or will ever be able to do again. How do you beat that in polite dinner conversation? You don't, unless perhaps you can say, "I walked on the moon."

Man on Wire is a documentary film about how Philippe pulled off this amazing feat. It uses interviews of the people involved interspersed with skillfully blended archival footage and reenactments.

Perhaps it was just a matter of my expectations being set too high going in (since the film has already won several awards and is nominated for an Academy Award) but I found myself a bit disappointed by this movie. (I also have a problem with contrarily wanting to go against the majority sometimes, and so the Rotten Tomatoes 100% fresh rating for this film makes me a little cranky.)

The movie sets itself up as a heist film: we have the forming of an outrageous plan, a diverse gang coming together, the gathering of information, the wacky caper. So where does it fall short?

First, there is a lack of suspense. We know Philippe will do his walk, because we've already seen pictures of him on the wire. The moments of worry about getting caught seemed drawn out and exaggerated for effect. The dizzying heights were genuinely frightening, but again, Philippe is being interviewed, so we know he made it safely back down. Sure, you can probably assume in any heist film that the caper will occur, but the best of the genre usually have some great plot twists, and those were sadly lacking here.


There were some fun moments in the planning that were very Catch Me If You Can, like watching Philippe and his friends pose as journalists trying to get an architectural story while really gathering data on how to make the walk happen. The general trusting nature of people and lack of a tendency to question the reality presented helped Phillipe and his crew get their information and get into the buildings undetected. (That was actually a little unsettling to watch in view of the security concerns involved with the World Trade Center.)

One technical aspect of the stunt (which I had seen alluded to as being so incredible that no one wanted to spoil it) didn't really seem that earth-shatteringly brilliant, and didn't seem like that big a secret, anyway, since early talk in the film about the team's equipment (and even the trailer on the film's website) gives it away. But I will let you reach your own conclusions on this and not reveal the details here.

You might wonder, how did Philippe's obsession get started, what drives him? He explains that he always loved to climb, but he doesn't like trying to answer why. It seems that there is a rebellious streak in this dreamer, that he takes a romantic view of committing an artful crime. What he does is against the law, he knows he will get caught, but that's all part of the thrill. Philippe's passion (obsession) is something to see.

Also interesting is what is left out of the movie. No mention is made of 9/11, which is probably a smart choice, as well as a refreshing one. A man walking on a wire between the two buildings is a much better mental picture to carry around than the terrible images of the WTC attack. And I think that's part of why the movie has been so well received, that it focuses only on this beautiful moment involving the Twin Towers. But this deliberate choice of tone also means that some other negative things are only hinted at, like the impact this event and its aftermath had on some of Philippe's closest relationships. I would like to have seen that explored more.

I don't think Man on Wire is a bad movie, but I also don't think it's as great as most everyone else seems to feel it is. I think it's a slightly forced, selective look at a story meant to play on people's emotions about the Twin Towers. There's not quite enough here to make a great heist film, just like Philippe's illegal acts don't really make him a dangerous criminal. The scenes of wire-walking were breathtakingly awesome. But when they were done, I couldn't help but feel a little bit cheated. Maybe that's inevitable; from the unbeatable heights of that moment, where can you go but down?

3/5 wings