Judge Dennis Davis
Otto Preminger’s ‘Anatomy of a Murder’

Judge Dennis Davis - Otto Preminger’s Anatomy of a Murder

- Okay, great. Well, good evening to everybody. This is another in a series of films I’ve been doing, perhaps not a bad idea given extraordinary world we are living in as we speak. You’ll recall that I’ve, well some of you may, that I’ve dealt with on a non-fiction basis, the Eichmann trial, and we’ve also discussed over this lockdown period, “A Judgement in Nuremberg” and more recently “A Man For All Seasons”. Why are we so interested one might ask in the question of law and film. Well, seems to me that it’s because to a large degree, particularly when it gets to trials, the drama of the trial, the human connections between people, the role of the lawyers, all together, inextricably as it were, linked to be the kind of drama that sometimes we see in theatre, but which is played out admittedly in much slower and laborious time in courtrooms. But when a film of this takes place, of course everything is truncated and every moment looks much more exciting than it is, not withstanding that in the broad sense, even a trial has lots of drama of its own. And if you look at the films that we’ve discussed, and I certainly plan over the next little while to discuss other films, I mean, the next one I want to discuss is “The Verdict”, the great film of Paul Newman. One sees a whole range of themes with regard to law and film, for example, the formal justice system.

Does it really work as it’s supposed to? To what extent does the actual result produce justice or injustice as the case may be. We also look at older forms where lawyers are usually fine human beings and competent professionals. I did of course also deal with, I forgot, “Kill a Mockingbird”, which is the classic example of the heroic lawyer. Of course, as time goes on, that is not necessarily always the case, but one looks at the lawyer often as, for example, in the case of the verdict where the lawyer gains redemption through the process. It does appear very often that the lawyer who’s more charismatic is the one who wins rather than the one who produces justice. Another question and then the focus on judges who might be biassed, might be incompetent, juries that don’t work. There are a whole panoply of ideas that films explore. And so tonight, I’m talking about one of the really classic films made in 1959, directed by Otto Preminger. It’s got quite an extraordinary cast as you can see that it has James Stewart, a very young Lee Remick, I’ll come back to them in a moment, Ben Gazzara being the main actors and there’s also a very interesting further role which I’ll come to played by Joseph Welch who plays the judge. I’ll get back to that in the moment. But before we start, let’s talk a little bit about Preminger. Otto Preminger was born in 1905. He was the son of a prosecutor for the Austrian Empire. He studied law, he wanted to become an actor and at 17 he joined the company of Max Reinhardt. He rose quickly to director, was chosen to take over Reinhardt’s theatre on the latter’s retirement. At 27, significantly, he was offered the post to the Head of the State Theatre in Vienna, which he turned down unlike for example, the background as I’ve already discussed with you of Gustav Mahler.

He turned it down because the post would’ve required him to convert to Catholicism and he was Jewish and he wasn’t prepared to do that. Because of the success he had in Vienna, however, he landed up by getting to Hollywood or America in 1936 and then to Hollywood where until 1944, very little happened, but in ‘44 he was assigned to direct a film called “Laura”, a mystery novel. That was a hit and from then on his career basically exploded and he produced a huge amount of interesting films. “Where the Sidewalk Ends” in 1950, “The 13th Letter” in '51, “Angel Face” in '52. Of course there was “Anatomy of the Murder”, which he produced the one we’re discussing in '59, “Exodus” in 1960, which was already discussed with you, “The Cardinal” in 1963. It’s interesting that Preminger was regarded very much as one of the great realist directors of all time. He presents himself through his works as someone essentially detached in personal objective. We’ll see that as we analyse some of the scenes in this film. And his long takes, different ideologies, and points of view that he captures which battle for dominance in a sense or perhaps the greatest reflection of realism of that particular period. When at some particular point, one of the critics said about him, particularly with regard to his film “Exodus”, that “the audience leaves Exodus "less certain about the issues surrounding "the formation of the state of Israel than when it went in,” because he tries to provide a broader focus than otherwise would be the case. So that’s broadly Preminger. Of course, in the film there a series of actors that I need to mention before we go further.

So Lee Remick, who was 24, by the way, when this film was out, 25, who made her name in “Days of Wine and Roses” and was the actress in a film later, which featured Audrey Hepburn called “Wait Until Dark”. She got the, she had the play on Broadway and made a great name for something. Ben Gazzara, also in his early thirties, who, of course, made his name late in this film. And then later in “Capone” and “The Voyage of the Damned” and “Dogville” and of course James Stewart, one of the sort of great actors of the particular period in the United States. The one that’s really interesting to me of course is George C Scott who doesn’t appear on the little list you’ve got there. But George C Scott made I think his second film, again, a very young man when he made this film. And of course we know him for his extraordinary role in “Patton” and also in “Dr. Strangelove”. Now there’s an interesting feature in this particular film. Scott thought that after “Anatomy of a Murder’, he should have got an award, an Oscar for his performance and perhaps he should have. He never did. And the fact that he didn’t get anything for "Anatomy of a Murder”, according to his wife, after Scott died, she reflected on the fact that he was so embittered by the turning down of his, as it were candidateship for an Oscar after “Anatomy of a Murder” that he really almost demeaned the stature of the Oscar so that when he was awarded the Oscar for Best Actor in “Patton”, as we all know, he turned it down. The most interesting other character you will see there’s Joseph N Welch who plays the judge. Why is he so interesting? Because you may remember some of you watching the splendid lecture by Philip Rubenstein about the McCarthy era and who was Joseph N Welch. He was the council for the Army who took on McCarthy during the McCarthy hearings and of course coined that famous speech which ended with “Sir, have you no shame?”

And interestingly, Preminger used him as the judge, never really acted before, the judge, in this particular film. So, it’s interesting at how Preminger, as it were, mixed as it were, actors with real live people who knew about courtrooms in this particular film. The basic structure of the film is actually quite simple. So let me give you the story. Army Lieutenant Frederick Manion is charged with murdering Barney Quill, the owner of the Thunder Bay Inn. Manion’s lawyer, Paul Biegler, played by James Stewart tells Manion about various defences. We’ll get there in a moment and eventually the defence of irresistible impulse, which I shall also come to, if you wish a temporary insanity, it is then used and we then see the trial of the fact that Manion had murdered Quill and the argument was that he had gone crazy because his wife, played by Laura, played by Lee Remick, had told him, that is Manion, that Quill had beaten and raped her. And that is the line of defence, the simple story to a large degree. Interestingly enough, again, giving you the sense of realism that Preminger actually offered in this, this entire story was based on a book by Robert Traver, who basically was a pseudonym, was it basically was a pseudonym for Justice John Voelker, who was an Associate Justice in the Michigan Supreme Court from 1956 to 1960 and who wrote various books about trout fishing, not entirely irrelevant because Biegler played by James Stewart, he’s not interested in law, he’s interested in fishing.

And the book was based on a real life trial where Voelker appeared as defence counsel representing a lieutenant who had been charged with the fatal shooting of a tavern owner and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and it was that particular set of facts which drew Preminger to write about it, sorry to direct it. One interesting insight before I start discussing the actual film with you is an interview that Preminger gave with fellow film director Peter Bogdanovich, of course, best known strangely mercurial career, but best known for “The Last Picture Show”, which was really, really great films of its time. And he spoke to Bogdanovich about the influence of law on his life and work. As I said, his father had risen up eventually to be the Attorney General for the Austrian Hungarian Empire. Young Otto had studied law himself and therefore did have a legal background, although he wasn’t interested in law. And he said to Bogdanovich, on a trip to Russia of all places, very topical now, Preminger screened “Anatomy of a Murder” at the Russian Academy of Film. The students erupted with criticism at the acquittal of Lieutenant Frederick Manion played by Ben Gazzara in this. How they said, could such a man with such a wife be acquitted? Preminger explained to the students that in America, a man is considered innocent until prove guilty. A concept that he said his Russian hosts had trouble grasping. Well, I think we can understand that. He told Bogdanovich quote, “I will say "that I feel very grateful to my father "because the philosophy of law gives you a certain outlook.” And it is about the philosophy of law, which essentially is something that dominates the film. So, what I wanted to do was not to drone on for the whole time, but to sort of start showing you some of the scenes and try to give you some sense of the direction that he took in this particular film of this very relatively simple set of facts.

And the first scene I’m going to play for you is where James Stewart meets Lieutenant Manion, Ben Gazzara for the first time, his client. And there are a number of things I’d like you to watch out for. Unfortunately, the clip I’ve got doesn’t actually start at the beginning, but the beginning, as you’ll see, they’re in a little office and the beginning is with Stewart peering through a window. And so, much of the metaphor of the film is about us peering through the window into the courtroom. And you’ll notice that the window or windows come up at least a couple of times in the clip I’m about to play you. One where the Ben Gazzara character looks out of the window, out of the bars to some sense of freedom. And another where right towards the end somebody appears at the window almost peering in to this conversation. There are legal aspects to this conversation, but let me deal with them after you’ve watched the clip. So Lauren, the first clip, please.

CLIP BEGINS

• There are four ways I can.

• Oh, sorry, sorry Lauren, let’s go back. There was a photograph of Preminger. Just have a look. That’s him, that’s the director, interesting face. And now we can move on to the next, to the first clip.

• There are four ways I can defend murder. Number one, it wasn’t murder, it’s suicide or accidental. Number two, you didn’t do it. Number three, you were legally justified like the protection of your home or self-defense. Number four, the killing was excusable.

• Where do I fit into this rosy picture?

• I’ll tell you where you don’t fit, you don’t fit in any of the first three.

• But why? Why wouldn’t I be legally justified in killing the man who raped my wife?

• Time element. Now, if you’d caught him in the act, the shooting might have been justified, but you didn’t catch him in the act and you had time to bring in the police. You didn’t do that either. You’re guilty of murder, premeditated and with vengeance. That’s first degree murder in any court of law.

• Are you telling me to plead guilty?

• When I advise you to cop out you’ll know.

• Cop out?

• Now that’s plead guilty and ask for mercy.

• Well, if you’re not telling me to cop out, what are you telling me to do?

• I’m not telling you to do anything. I just want you to understand the letter of the law.

• Go on.

• Go on with what?

• Whatever it is you’re getting at.

• You know you’re very bright, lieutenant. Now let’s see how really bright you can be.

• Well, I’m working at it.

• All right now because your wife was raped, you’ll have a favourable atmosphere in the courtroom. The sympathy will be with you if all the facts are true. What you need is a legal peg so that the jury can hang up their sympathy on your behalf. You follow me? What’s your legal excuse, Lieutenant? What’s your legal excuse for killing Barney Quill?

• Not justification, huh?

• Not justification.

• Excuse. Just excuse. But what excuses are there?

• How should I know? You’re the one that plugged Quill?

• I must have been mad.

• How’s that?

• I said I must have been mad.

• Well, bad temper’s no excuse.

• Well, I mean I must have been crazy. Am I getting warmer?

• Okay, Sulo.

• Am I getting warmer?

• Well, I’ll tell you that after I talk to your wife. In the meantime, see if you can remember just how crazy you were.

CLIP ENDS

• Thank you. So a number of things to comment about there. You’ll notice the window right at the end of the scene. Somebody peering in and you’ll notice the window with Gazzara looking out. And then the intensity of the way in which Preminger uses the camera to focus on the engagement. On a legal side, this is a fascinating conversation. The lawyer comes to see his client for the first time and he basically gives him a lecture. He says, “Well, when you defend somebody, there are four "different ways in which I can defend you, as it were. "Four ways of dealing with this.” And the point about it is in the question of he says, “Well what’s your excuse for killing,” suggesting that Manion, one, well did it, he did say that, but he must have an excuse. And then when Manion asked whether he’s getting warmer, when he said he must have been crazy, surely the lawyer probably knows he was lying because clearly there is a play here which indicates he’s trying to find some sort of excuse. And yet, it’s broadly within that framework, the argument of what an American law was used or the concept of an irresistible impulse was used as it were as the fundamental defence there, which raises a questionable form of ethics. How far can the lawyer go to construct the defence, which is not born on any basis of reality and in which you have to know that your client is lying to you. That may well be that you know it, but you still have to defend them. But when you sort of almost promote the idea in your client’s head as to what the defence is, it raises a really interesting point.

Now moving along ‘cause I’ve got quite a few clips of this remarkable form to show you, the concept, if I can just briefly give you a very short lecture in criminal law, I could go on with this for hours because there’s a really interesting question of the relationship between, as it were, psychiatry and law in particular and the relation and the whole question of what constitutes criminal capacity. But essentially at the time we were talking, particularly in the United States of America, of the idea of the irresistible impulse was born of the so-called McNaughton Rules. The McNaughton Rules were rules developed in English law when an accused, McNaughton, sought to kill the Prime Minister Peel, didn’t do so, killed his secretary. The question was whether he was insane when he did it. And the fundamental proposition within the McNaughton Rules was did you have the ability, sorry, did you have the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct? Could you distinguish between right and wrong? But the problem with that particular test was, of course, it then raised a second point and that was the ability of the accused to conduct himself or herself in accordance with such an appreciation of the wrongfulness of their conduct and that’s a second lead. And so the argument was that if, for example, in a particular period you had an incident of such a kind that even if generally, you could appreciate right from wrong, you couldn’t comport your conduct to that distinction. Why?

Because what is argued in this case, you are so infuriated by the fact that your wife has been raped, that you go as a result of an irresistible impulse to essentially murder your wife’s rapist. Now there’s a huge debate about whether that’s an adequate test for criminal capacity. In the South African context, we’ve moved considerably away from that to the concept of automatism and that itself is not a defence that’s generally liked by psychiatrists, but that of course is for another day. What is for this day is that was the basic defence that was promulgated. And why I’ve stressed this first clip is because of the way in which it is prompted. Now we start to move to the trial. Now before the trial, let me make one massive apology to all of you. It’s because I’ve got clips which were essentially trial based clips that I desperately was searching for some clip I could use which showed the music of Duke Ellington because the remarkable feature of this particular film is that Preminger actually contracted with the great Duke Ellington to provide the music for this film.

Jazz plays a significant role in the life of the James Stewart character. He plays the piano. There is a sense of music from Dixieland to Dave Brubeck, we can talk about jazz on another occasion and there are wonderful, wonderful parts of the film, not within the courtroom. The music of Ellington is used as composed and used to stitch up the links between the courtroom scenes and the non-courtroom scenes. I apologise that I should have got a clip or two of those and I haven’t, but I just wanted to place that as it were on record. Let me now move to the beginning of the trial and we can see some of the perspective that I’ve been talking about.

CLIP BEGINS

• Did you see Lieutenant Manion on the night of the 15th, the night Barney Quill was killed?

• Yes sir.

• Will you tell the court about how and when you saw Lieutenant Manion?

• About 1:00 AM, a knock on my door wake me up. I went to the door and Lieutenant Manion was standing there. He said, you better take me Mr. Lemon because I just shot Barney Quill. I told him to go back to his trailer and that I would call the state police.

• How did Lieutenant Manion appear to you when he asked you to take him?

• He said what he had to say and did what I told him. There wasn’t any fuss.

• Did he appear to you to be, as far as you could tell, in complete possession of his faculties?

• As far as I could tell, yes sir.

• Take the witness.

• Ms. Lemon, did you go to the Manion’s trailer?

• Yes sir.

• Did you see Mrs. Manion at the trailer?

• Yes sir.

• What was her appearance?

• She was a mess.

• Objection. No evidence has been introduced to make Mrs. Manion’s appearance relevant to this case.

• Ah, well no evidence has been introduced to make Barney Quill’s appearance relevant but you didn’t object to the question then. Is that because you know that Barney Quill bathed and changed and cooled off after he raped and beat hell out of this poor woman?

• Your Honour, everybody in this court is being tried except Frederick Manion. I must protect-

• Now listen, this is a cross-examination of a murder case. It’s not a high school debate. What are you and Dancer trying to do? Railroad this soldier into the clink?

• Mr. Biegler, you are an experienced attorney and you know better than to make such an outburst. I will not tolerate in temperance of this sort. If you once again try the patience of this court, I shall hold you in contempt.

• Your Honour, I apologise it won’t happen again.

• The witness answer will be stricken and the jury will disregard the answer. Now you may proceed. Mr. Biegler.

• Yes sir. Mr. Lemon, on the night when Lieutenant Manion awakened you and turned himself in, had you been awakened before? Had anything else disturbed your slumbers?

• No sir.

• There were no soldiers singing?

• No sir. Not in my park after 10 o'clock.

• There were no women screaming.

• Well, no screams were down by the gate.

• Objection, objection.

• I see no reason for objecting yet. Mr. Lodwick.

• Tell us about those screams, Mr. Lemon.

• I didn’t hear 'em myself. There were some tourists from Ohio in the park and they heard 'em and told me about it the next day.

• Now Mr. Lodwick.

• This testimony is incompetent, hearsay, irrelevant, immaterial, inconclusive.

• Yeah, well that’s too much for me. The witness is yours, Mr. Lodwick.

• Huh, oh.

CLIP ENDS

• Now there’s a huge amount I can talk about in this. Firstly, notice now Preminger sort of enlarges the camera so we get, as it were, the full conspectus of the courtroom. We have the sort of judge, Judge Welch, sorry, Judge Weaver is played by Welch, as I indicated to you who had made his name in the McCarthy hearings, the person who had really taken McCarthy to task and said, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator, "you have done enough, have you no sense of decency?” One of the great remarks made in this particular connection. You’ll have noticed that sitting next to the prosecutor is a very young George C. Scott and you might have noticed a woman with a hat and glasses. And that is Lee Remick. And I’d like, that particular feature of her is really interesting because I will show you a picture of, sorry, the, just a scene right at the end of her, of the film where she rarely plays a very much more flirtatious sort of woman. And in typical fashion, she’s dressed up to look as demure as possible, which of course, is a typical legal ploy. Now, when you look at the exchange between the two lawyers, a couple of things of interest. Firstly, although the book, and therefore the film was based on a real life trial, Preminger and the writer essentially inserted into it kinds of exchanges of the sort we just saw there, which are highly unlikely to occur, even in the United States scenario, which I hasten to add doesn’t have that somewhat more structured discipline that one is more used to in England and a few advocates notwithstanding in South Africa.

There are some grand standards, but I’ll leave that aside. So, what he does there in a way is he shows you the law, which is essentially trying to extract out of a witness some level of concession that maybe there was a rape and that effectively Barney Quill did rape her and that she had therefore screamed and that, of course, becomes relevant to the defence. On the other hand, the way in which they exchange lack of pleasantries reflects the passion of these lawyers, which to some extent is never quite articulated expressly within a case, but through body language and other means, you often find and sometimes the snarky remarks. So, he kind of expands that exponentially to give the viewer, we literally behind the window viewing the trial. And what we are also viewing is the emotions which they bring to bear in either their prosecution and the defence as the case may be. One final point, here already, we see the interesting component of a jury system as opposed to a judicially orientated system. When the jury hears this, when the judge says, I strike that question from the record, of course, when you got laypeople, it’s quite hard for them to disabuse themselves of that which they’ve heard.

When you’re a trained judge, you know consciously that you’ve got to take that out of the equation and that you’re going to find better reasons for doing what you’re going to do. I would not deny, having done many criminal trials myself, that something which is actually inappropriately brought in doesn’t to some extent give some character to your analysis, but you’ve got to be devilishly careful to try to reduce its importance and as a trained jurist, that’s what you’re supposed to do. But here, of course, we’ve got a jury trial and so these kind of tactics are far more common. We’re moving on now in the trial and I want you to watch the next clip and then I’m going to comment in some detail on it.

CLIP BEGINS

• Ms. Manion, you testified that your husband came home late from his work on the night of the shooting. Were you a little angry about it being late?

• [Ms. Manion] Well, I guess I was a little put out.

• You have an argument?

• [Ms. Manion] Not much, a little.

• When you left the trailer to go to the inn, did your husband know you were going?

• [Ms. Manion] Well, he was asleep.

• Was part of your reason for going without his knowledge because you were vexed?

• Well, I’d been ironing all day and I, yes, I guess that’s true.

• Your Honour, the council’s deliberately cut off my view of the witness.

• I’m sorry, Mr. Biegler, I wouldn’t want to interfere with your signals to Mrs. Manion.

• Well, I object to the implication I was signalling the witness. This is the shabbiest courtroom trick I’ve ever seen.

• You haven’t lived Mr. Biegler.

• Well your Honour, I ask the court to rule on my objection.

• Mr. Dancer, will you be careful not to place yourself between Mr. Biegler and his witness?

• Oh, of course, your Honour. Anything else, Mr. Biegler?

• You do it once more, I’ll punt you all the way out into the middle of Lake Superior.

• Gentlemen, gentlemen, this riling has got to stop. The next one of you that speaks out of turn will have me to deal with. Now get on with your cross-examination.

• Would you have gone to the Inn if your husband had been awake?

• He probably would’ve gone with me.

• But would you have gone alone?

• Not if he didn’t want me to.

• Would he have not wanted you to?

• I’m not sure. I don’t know how to answer that.

• Well, had you ever gone to the Thunder Bay Inn or elsewhere in Thunder Bay alone at night?

• Yes, sometimes.

• Did your husband know you were going?

• Not always. He goes to sleep early and sometimes I’m restless.

• Where did you go on these occasions?

• Oh, I take a walk by the lake or went to the bingo place. Maybe to the Inn.

• You ever go to meet another man?

• No, I didn’t. I never did that.

• You mean to say Mrs. Manion, a lovely woman like yourself, attractive to men, lonely, restless that you never went-

• Objection, your Honour. The witness has answered the question about other men. Counsel’s now making a veiled suggestion to the jury.

• I withdraw the question. Now, Mrs. Manion, on these occasional excursions into the night, did you always go and return home alone?

• Of course.

• Listen, Mrs. Manion, you testified that the reason you got into Barney Quill’s car was because you were afraid to go home alone. Why were you so frightened on this particular night?

• I said that it was because he told me bears had been seen around.

• Was this the first time you’d heard that bears came around Thunder Bay to pick up scraps?

• No.

• Had you seen the bears before?

• Yes.

• Oh, this was just the first time you were afraid of them?

• No, I was always afraid of them.

• Oh, this was just the first time you were enough afraid to allow a man to take you home from one of your evening prowls.

• Objection. Use of the word prowls meant to mislead the jury.

• [Judge] Sustained.

• I apologise Mrs. Manion, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a huntress. Was this the first time that you were enough afraid to allow a man to take you home from one of your evening walks?

• Well it, it wasn’t just that, it was.

• Oh come now Mrs. Manion, you should be able to answer that straight off. That’s a simple enough question.

• Your Honour, how can the witness answer straight off when the counsel keeps interrupting the answer.

• The witness seemed a little slow to me. Mr. Biegler, however, let her complete her answers before you interrupt.

• Of course, your Honour. In any case, Mr. Biegler’s objection has given Mrs. Manion sufficient time to think of an answer to my question. You’ve thought of one haven’t you, Mrs. Manion?

• What I was going to say was that I didn’t want to offend Mr. Quill by making him think that I was afraid of him or didn’t like him. He’d been very pleasant to my husband and me when we’d been in his bar.

• That’s very good Mr. Manion. Very good indeed.

• Your Honour, please.

• The attorney for the people will reserve his comments for the argument.

• I will ask you this question, Mrs. Manion, was this the first time you had been in Barney Quill’s car at night?

• Ms. Manion, did you hear the question?

• Yes, I heard. Yes, it was the first time.

• Would you raise your voice a little Mrs. Manion?

• I said it was the first time.

• Now Mrs. Manion, I’m quite concerned about the lost panties. Would you describe this article of clothing to the courtroom?

• They were nylon and had lace up the sides. There was a label in them of the place I got them, The Smart Shop in Phoenix, Arizona.

• What was the colour of the panties?

• I believe white.

• You believe.

• I have white and pink. They may have been pink.

• You’re not sure. Haven’t you checked your lingerie to see which pair of panties is missing?

• No.

• When your husband came home late from his work, you had this little spat, were you already dressed to go out?

• No.

• When did you dress?

• After dinner, when he was asleep?

• Been stated here that you were bare legged in the bar. Is that true?

• Yes.

• In your anger at your husband and your haste to get out of the trailer, perhaps you didn’t put on any panties either.

• Objection. Witness has already testified with what she was wearing.

• [Judge] Sustained.

• You always wear panties Mrs. Manion?

• No, your Honour. I object to this line of questioning. Now it’s immaterial what Mrs. Manion does all the time. The night she was attacked, she was wearing panties and that’s all we’re concerned with.

• Your honour, Mrs. Manion seems a little bit uncertain about what kind of panties she was wearing and since these panties have not been found, I submit that it’s possible she wasn’t wearing any and has forgotten. That’s all I’m trying to get at.

• You may answer Ms. Manion.

• Do you always wear a panty?

• No.

• On what occasions don’t you wear them, when you go out alone at night?

• No, no, no, objection. He says he is going after one thing, then he goes after another.

• I’ll sustain the objection. Strike out the last two questions in Mrs. Manion’s answer. Now Mr. Dancer, get off the panties. You’ve done enough damage.

• Yes, your Honour.

• All right Lauren, if we can stop that there.

• Jealous man.

CLIP ENDS

• All right, we could carry on with that. There are so many things I’d like to just mention to you. I hope you’ve been watching the camera, the way he’s used the camera. The way in which at some points the camera focuses in on just this extraordinary clash between the witness and George C. Scott who plays this unbelievably supercilious lawyer. And then sometimes, as we’ve got it now, with the judge’s interposition between them. You’ll also have noticed, which is classic cross-examination and in this particular case there’s a huge amount of ambiguity which Preminger brings to the fore. Because at this point, as we watch the trial, we’re not entirely certain as to who and what has happened. But the fact is the aggressive nature of the cross-examination is always a problem in cases dealing with with gender violence. Because so often the complainant is subject to, as it were, further violence by virtue of the way in which cross-examination takes place. To give you an example from South Africa, when Jacob Zuma was charged with raping a young woman, the way in which the cross-examination by his advocate who mercifully is now dead so he can’t take issue with what I’m about to say, the way that that Zuma’s council cross-examined the witness or complainant was effectively a form of rape itself. It was vicious, it was so uncalled for.

And those of you who are interested, those South Africans is a lovely book, a wonderful book and a lovely book, but a wonderful book by Redi Tlhabi about the Zuma trial, which essentially, when I read it made me feel very ashamed of the way our criminal justice system worked. And Preminger here is essentially giving you all of the ambiguity of that at the same time as again, you’ve got this issue of questions being put to the witness, some of which the council knows are going to be, are going to be overruled. But at the end of the day, the damage as the judge has already said, had been done. A little bit about the panties, if I may. The critical point in the case was whether in fact there were panties which had been sufficiently torn to indicate a violent act by Barney Quill on Mrs. Manion played by Lee Remick, who I think acts quite marvellously given the different characters throughout the film and those panties become really crucial because the police can’t find them. There is however a sting in the tale.

You will have noticed during the course of watching this clip, that there was a young, the camera focused on a young woman in the gallery whose name is Mary Pilant and she gives vital evidence at the end. I won’t spoil it all for you because it’s well worth watching this film. But essentially, of course the question of the panties and the absence thereof from evidence at this point is something being played upon by George C. Scott as is obviously implication. This had absolutely nothing to do with the rape. This was some relationship that the witness had with Barney Quill. Her husband found out about it and killed Quill in cold blood. We come then to the penultimate scene that I want to play for you. Again interesting in the way the camera angles work and again interesting in the way in which the conflict between the lawyers is expressed by Preminger in this film. So Lauren, if we can get onto the next clip.

CLIP BEGINS

• Sergeant Durgo, you’ve testified that Lieutenant Manion told you that he shot Barney Quill after he learned that his wife had had some trouble with Quill. Now were these the words Lieutenant Manion used, some trouble?

• No sir, those were my words, not his.

• And was it your notion to come here and use your own words?

• No sir, it was not.

• And was the suggestion to call it some trouble made by somebody here in this courtroom?

• Yes sir, it was.

• All right, Sergeant, now would you tell the court what words Lieutenant Manion actually used to describe the trouble his wife had had?

• Objection, your Honour. We’ve been over this before. This information would not be relevant to any issues before the court.

• Now this statement concerning some trouble was brought out during the direct examination of Sergeant Durgo. Up to now you’ve adroitly restricted all testimony as far as Laura Minion’s concerned. Alright, the cat’s out of the bag. It’s fair game for me to chase it.

• This is a sore point Mr. Biegler and it’s getting sorer. I’d like to hear from the prosecution.

• The burden is on the defence to prove temporary insanity at the time of the shooting. Now if the reason for the alleged insanity is important to this case, then that is a matter for a competent witness, an expert on the subject of the human mind. What the defence is trying to do is introduce some sensational material for the purposes of obscuring the real issues.

• Your Honour, how can the jury accurately estimate the testimony being given here unless they first know the reason behind this whole trial, why Lieutenant Manion shot Barney Quill. Now the prosecution would like to separate the motive from the act. Well that’s, that’s like trying to take the core from an apple without breaking the skin. Well now the core of our defence is that the defendant’s temporary insanity was triggered by the so-called trouble with Quill and I beg the court, I beg the court to let me cut into the apple.

• Our objection still stands your Honour.

• Objection overruled.

CLIP ENDS

• And of course that becomes crucial because when the evidence is then led further on in the exchange between the policeman and James Stewart, becomes evident that what Manion had said wasn’t trouble, but that his wife had been violently attacked. But just observe how brilliant the filming of that is. Firstly, you’ve got a sort of broad kaleidoscope of the whole of the gallery and then it focuses in on this exchange between the two lawyers and obviously the pleading, the earnest pleading by James Stewart by Biegler, played by James Stewart is effectively again, Preminger trying to bring out the passion and the desperation in which a defence council often would do, make a submission like that. Perhaps not quite that way but certainly giving the reflection and then I think the sort of masterful way in which there’s pausing of time, the judge looks at his watch, little pocket watch, and there’s that sense of battling with the submission and then getting the tension up to allow what is a crucial overruling of an objection so that in fact the evidence can be given and you’ll have noticed as well, which of course doesn’t happen in courts. I know American lawyers do wander around rather more than we do.

It would be absolutely unheard of for South African or English barristers to wander around the courtroom in the way they do, certainly, confront witnesses in the way in which this is done. But you have noticed just from the point of view, the semiotics in the film, the way in which the Stewart character moves behind George C. Scott to say, “Where did you get this concept "of in trouble from, somebody in this courtroom?” And therefore all the suggestions are there for the observer, which is us, to see. And so the film, I’m not going to spoil some of the parts of the film 'cause I really would hope that you would really, ideally it had been wonderful for everybody to have watched this film and then for me to have given the lecture. But I am just going to come towards the end of the film. The last sort of penultimate scene, the last scene I’m not going to even tell you about, but the penultimate scene. Recall the notion being that the defences that Lieutenant Manion was so enraged by the conduct of Quill in raping his wife, that with an irresistible impulse, that is he could not, he could not comport himself with a distinction between right and wrong. It wasn’t that he was insane in some long-term way. We’ve lost the discussion of that in the trial, but that he couldn’t comport himself with a distinction and that therefore he acted with an irresistible impulse. As I’ve said, modern criminal law effused this doctrine because of the fact that empirically and there’s a battery of psychological, psychiatric evidence that does affect, it’s extraordinarily difficult to determine that and you can only sympathise with a jury trying, even though in this case, Preminger offers us some psychiatric expert evidence, which given the amount of the time I’ve got for an hour, I wasn’t able to give you those clips.

But we get to the final point that always the tension in these films about the jury being out and we start off with being in the house of, you will see a piano there and shortly before the scene, which I’m about to show you, commences is a wonderful exposition again of Ellington music. I also want to just quote you something. You’ll notice that when we see the scene, we see James Stewart and we see his sidekick, McCarthy, who’s this older lawyer as it were an alcoholic. But somebody here again to some extent working with the Biegler character, gains redemption from being on the right side of the law. A theme which I’ll explore with all of you when I discuss “The Verdict” with Paul Newman, but there’s a wonderful, wonderful, almost experience soliloquy by McCarthy about juries, which I’d just like to read to you, in which he says the following. “12 people go off into a room, 12 different minds, "12 different hearts from 12 different walks of life, "12 sets of eyes, ears, shapes and sizes. "And these 12 people are asked to judge another human being "as different from them as they are from each other. "And in the judgement they must become of one mind unanimous. "It’s one of the miracles of man’s disorganised cell "that they can do it and in most instances do it right well. "God bless juries.” Well I’ve discussed juries with you when I discussed “12 Angry Men” but this is a wonderful summary of what juries are supposed to do, not necessarily that they always do them or that they do them well, but it’s a wonderful soliloquy. Just before we get to the scene, which is the last one I’m going to show you, Lauren?

CLIP BEGINS

• [Maida] Yes sir, right away. They’re ready.

• [Ms. Manion] Hey sweetie.

• Come on, come on. The jury is coming in.

• Yeah, I heard. You can tell my loving husband I’ll be waiting in the car.

• You sure he is going to come out?

• Oh sure. He’s lucky. Some people have all the luck. You can tell him I’m waiting to get kicked to kingdom come. Oh hey sweetie, have a souvenir for you.

• Well now you better keep that then. You might need it again sometime. You never know.

• No you don’t, do you? Oh, I like you Paulie.

• I warn all those present not to interrupt the taking of the verdict. I will stop the proceedings and clear the courtroom if there is any demonstration. Proceed. Mr. Clerk.

• Members of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict and if so, who will speak for you?

• We have, I’m the foreman.

• [Judge] The defendant will rise.

• [Clerk] What is your verdict?

• We find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.

CLIP ENDS

• Couple of things about that. You have noticed the short exchange between Lee Remick and James Stewart. She’s dressed very differently now and she returns to the character that we first see of her, which is utterly flirtatious and of a kind that you really begin to wonder, you know, who are we dealing with here? Vastly different from the woman that we saw in the courtroom, both dressed and in terms of demeanour. The second aspect, which I can’t help but point out to you, is the composition of the jury in 1959, all white and very old to a large degree, which itself is interesting and of course, has been raised the whole question of composition of juries, as such. And of course there is one final scene which is a bit of a spin on the entire case. But in summary, it seems to me that what Preminger has probably done, has produced one of the most compelling trial movies ever made. Certainly both from the way he films it, again, almost as a window into the criminal justice system, the acting, the speeches, the actual emotional engagement between the various lawyers. And perhaps more than that. Because by the time you’ve ended the film, you’ve watched the whole film, you’ve probably come to the conclusion that when you go back to that first scene in which I showed you, in which Biegler suggests to his client the four possible defences and basically prompts him into this notion of a temporary insanity plea.

You know then that this is probably made up and therefore after going for two hours and 14 minutes, it seems to me what the film effectively shows is that there has arguably been a miscarriage of justice, probably more than just argued. And it leads viewers to question the deep seated for Preminger in this particular case, American mythology, that the best way for truth to emerge is through a no holds barred contest in a courtroom. And it’s that and the filming of it and the acting, which makes this one of the most remarkable films ever produced in relation to criminal justice and gives us, even 60 years later as an audience, cause to pause about the system itself, its flaws, its human frailties, and just the way in which to extent, there’s no real objectivity here. This is a clash of particular perspectives in which if you can argue shrewdly enough, you’ve got a real chance of winning, not withstanding that justice might not have been promoted. That is my lot for this evening. I’ll just, you can get the film on YouTube. It’s well worth watching. I’ll just see if there are any questions for me.

Q&A and Comments:

Otto Preminger had a love child with Gypsy Rose Lee. Yes, correct. You’re quite right, Dennis.

I did correct myself. It’s not shame, he did say, have you no decency. That is Welch, one of the famous statements.

Romaine, yes, I’m not sure that Preminger is suggesting that the law can be an ass. I think what he’s suggesting is it’s truly imperfect and the mythology that works itself pure is something that he puts under the microscope in I think quite a devastating fashion.

Q: In relation to my question, he says, “Could Preminger’s attitude to law be related "to his experience in the Holocaust, "lack of accountability of the world?”

A: I don’t know that. I wouldn’t be able to answer that. Of course, he left Germany, left Austria before the war. I do think it’s much more exploration of what he saw in the United States of America when he did the thing in '59. Of course, based on a trial, which would’ve been reduced to a book.

Q: Are lawyers allowed to get near witnesses now?

A: As I indicated to you, not necessarily.

Lauren, that’s our film for the night. I hope everybody enjoyed it and a good night to everybody.