Tag: James Stewart

Rapid Response: Anatomy of a Murder

Jimmy Stewart gives one of his most nuanced performances in “Anatomy of a Murder,” helping to elevate Otto Preminger’s film to one of the best courtroom dramas ever.

 

The casting of Jimmy Stewart in “Anatomy of a Murder” was a stroke of genius by Otto Preminger or whomever at Columbia dreamed up their pairing. Cast Humphrey Bogart and the tone mixed with the film’s already dark plot would’ve been too coldly grim for a courtroom drama, one more befitting a noir. Put another director in place, and Stewart’s performance turns away from the nuanced country lawyer with a sharp history and into the all too noble “aw, shucks”-ter he was always known for.

Maybe it’s Preminger’s cynicism that brings it out in him, but Stewart puts on one of the more unique performances in his career. He’s playing the sly, trickster always a few steps ahead and the smartest guy in the room, which is not usually the attitude of the humble defense lawyer in a movie such as this. Look at “The Verdict,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “12 Angry Men,” in which nobility shines through more than cunning. Stewart would’ve fit into one of those roles like a glove. But here he’s condescending of the witnesses on the stand, full of punchlines, playing the politics of the courtroom to his advantage, and only taking this murder case because it’ll give him a chance to get his feet wet against the current D.A., because he’s attracted to the defendant’s wife (Lee Remick) and because he’s not going to take any of his client’s (Ben Gazzara) crap.

Perhaps only Stewart would be able to nail this character, one who is acting not out of nobility but not out of sheer greed either, one who seems to be taking advantage of his situation, but also feels perfectly relatable, honest and even fatherly.

He helps to elevate “Anatomy of a Murder” to one of the best courtroom dramas ever made. It’s purely procedural, and it’s famous for its explicit discussion of rape, sex, panties and “spermatogenesis” in a Code-approved picture, but Preminger never goes for exploitation. Preminger denies us any of the explicit acts of violence used as the basis for the trial, which not only makes us suspect the truth later, but it also makes the courtroom scenes that much more effective and climactic. This is a film that only deepens in layers of intrigue as the plot goes on, and the whole thing feels just more devilish and suspenseful in the process. Continue reading “Rapid Response: Anatomy of a Murder”

Rear Window: Hitchcock's most emotional film

Starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly, Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” is one of his most deeply emotional movies. Read more about “Rear Window” in this analysis of the film.

“Rear Window” has been mercilessly scrutinized, fitting for a movie about people obsessed with minute details. We fully understand how the movie is put together, how Alfred Hitchcock creates suspense minimally and how he ties all those tingling suspicions into a story of voyeurism, privacy, neighbors and curiosity.

But those who have seen the film will know how emotionally wrenching it is. Tangential to the main mystery, Hitchcock colors an entire community of lonely people struggling with marriages, romances or careers. These livelihoods serve not to add clues to the murder mystery but to emphasize the one core idea running through “Rear Window,” a fear that could be shared by anyone, not just Hitchcock: “What if you are witness to something terrible and can do nothing to prevent it?”

Poor L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies (James Stewart) is witness to a lot of such trauma, even within his own life. But as is true outside of the window, he’s pretty powerless to do anything about it. His romance with the wealthy and glamorous Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) is troubled. The two of them are incompatible people, yet she’s clearly in love. He knows she’s perfect but can’t foresee a way to make it work, and she can’t do a thing to change his mind. Continue reading “Rear Window: Hitchcock's most emotional film”

Vertigo (1958)

The worst thing that can happen to “Vertigo” after being named the Best Movie of All Time by Sight and Sound is that the movie will turn into homework.

For decades, “Citizen Kane” carried the burden of being seen as a good helping of cultural vegetables. I know how people are. They think they’ve seen a lot of movies in their life, then stumble across a list like Sight and Sound and proceed to boastfully challenge the top choice.

“I don’t see what makes it so great.” Maybe if the Sight and Sound poll weren’t treated like a figurative film canon, then maybe people wouldn’t be so quick to write off masterpieces as stodgy, arty, no fun movies for critics and old people.

So naturally upon rewatching “Vertigo” with my family, I quickly asked my dad if he knew why “Vertigo” was considered worthy of the number one spot. He gave the best answer I could’ve imagined. “Because other movies just aren’t as good?”

In terms of film auteurs, Alfred Hitchcock is far and away the most approachable, the least “challenging,” the least stodgy and often the most fun. His films are technical flourishes. Where other directors fail to set the mood, where other directors use a plot device that is all too obvious or where other directors incorporate a twist that is all too ridiculous, Hitchcock never stepped wrong.

We call him the master of suspense because he brought no-nonsense thrills into the cinema and became a household name before anyone else. If his movies lacked the emotional heft of other Old Hollywood classics, it’s because he played his films with such virtuosity and perfection that stray feelings never got in the way.

“Vertigo” on the other hand is his most personal and his most emotionally complex. That’s why this is in the number one spot; because it’s excellent. Continue reading “Vertigo (1958)”

The Man Who Knew Too Much: 1934 Original and 1956 Remake

People perhaps scoff at the idea of a remake today, even if it’s a director redoing his own film. But Alfred Hitchcock is not George Lucas, and when he chooses to remake “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and both versions are equally great, that’s the sign of a master director.

Hitchcock said in an interview with Francois Truffaut that the original 1934 version of “The Man Who Knew Too Much” was the work of an amateur whereas the 1956 remake was the work of a professional.

That seems believable, as there are only so many liberties Hitchcock takes in tweaking the story between versions. Each is about a family who has befriended a man who has just been killed. In his dying words, he reveals to them a need to deliver precious information regarding a diplomatic assassination attempt to the British consulate. But before they talk, each family is informed that if they say a word, they will never see their child again.

The newer, American version starring James Stewart and Doris Day is certainly a more polished film, making use of bold color cinematography and elaborate travelogue sets in Morocco and Britain. But Hitch was hardly an amateur when he made this in 1934. He was already building a reputation as a great auteur of the silent screen now breaking out into sound, and he would even make his first masterpiece, “The 39 Steps,” a year later. That said, the quality shows in the original as well, and Hitch actually preferred the original because of its rough edges. It’s an unpolished gem rather than a processed studio thriller.

And while both films are arguably equally good, the battle will rage on deciding which is best and which history will remember more.

Superficially, the original is 45 minutes shorter than the remake and is in so many ways a more immediate, instantly gratifying thriller. The remake on the other hand has star power on its side, a big budget and the inclusion of the Oscar winning song “Que Sera Sera.” Continue reading “The Man Who Knew Too Much: 1934 Original and 1956 Remake”