This might have been a stunning movie for 1959, but I fail to see how it holds up in the Twenty First Century. If one could get away with a murder rap using that 'irresistible impulse' argument, I think there would be a lot more murder trials today, not to mention a whole lot more killers running around loose. I mean really, a 'psychic shock' which creates an almost overwhelming tension which a person must alleviate, by KILLING SOMEBODY!!! I know there are real live cases of temporary insanity that have gotten people off the hook, but in those situations, the accused is usually deranged enough to merit the argument. I don't see how it worked here, except of course, as being a product of it's times.

Even the courtroom drama seemed a little bizarre to me. I can understand the prosecuting attorney Mitch Lodwick (Brooks West) making all those challenges to Paul Biegler's (James Stewart) questioning of witnesses, but couldn't figure out why he thought they were out of bounds. Why wouldn't the alleged rape of Manion's (Ben Gazzara) wife be relevant to the case? It's why he killed bar owner Quill! Or the photographer's pictures of Laura Manion (Lee Remick). If they could corroborate the fact that she got beat up by Quill, even if she wasn't raped, putting them into evidence should have been a no-brainer.

There's also that scene in which Mary Pilant (Kathryn Grant) rolled over so easily when Biegler asked her to get the bartender to cooperate with his investigation. Any other person would have told the attorney to take a hike if it was going to implicate her own father. That scene just didn't pass the smell test for me.

But with all that, I still thought the film was fairly compelling in the way Biegler sniffed out his opportunities and played them out for the court. Some of his over the top antics didn't seem realistic but he was putting on a show for the jurors. I liked Judge Weaver (Joseph N. Welch) by the way, I was surprised to learn he was a real life attorney during the Army-McCarthy hearings. No wonder he seemed so credible in the role of the judge.

The most surprising thing about the movie for me was the way it handled some of the era's sensitive subjects like rape, women's undergarments, and male sperm as evidence in an abuse case. Don't forget, this was the tail end of a decade when the Ricardo's slept in separate beds and topics involving sex were still taboo subjects for TV. The dialog in the film was credibly done without getting sensational, so that was a plus.

The thing that really got me though, no one even mentioned in a couple dozen reviews of the picture I read on this board. When all was said and done, and after Manion was found not guilty, Jimmy Stewart's character arrives at the trashy trailer park and gets handed that message about Manion's irresistible impulse to hit the road. The guy scammed Biegler, the court, and the jury, and got away with murder! Time to go fishing, I guess.

'Anatomy of a Murder' illustrates vividly how one lawyer repeatedly faces the heat of a controversial rape-case courtroom battle... The film might be Stewart's finest performance... For his magnificent achievement, Stewart was nominated for an Academy Award... The film itself received a total of seven Oscars in various categories, but was overtaken by William Wyler's 'Ben-Hur', the blockbuster of that year, whose star, Charlton Heston, beat out Stewart for best actor...

'Anatomy of a Murder' is one of the few great racy courtroom melodramas ever put on the screen... It is a study of characters superbly detailed, in which a simple country lawyer zealously defends a young Army lieutenant charged with clearly gunning down a bar-owner who, he alleges, raped his young wife... The murder takes place some time after Remick tells her husband (Gazzara) she was raped–enough time to suggest that the killing was not done in the heat of passion but with some deliberation...

Stewart, a warm bachelor lawyer with an old-fashioned grace of manner, is wonderfully believable as the qualified defense attorney, who tries to establish whether or not Lee Remick has been raped... He masterfully guides his defendant to the most exciting climax, repeatedly drawing forth evidence which he knows to be inadmissible, but which he wants the jury to hear...

Stewart smokes cheap cigars, plays jazz piano, and restrains beautifully Remick's flirtatious overtures, but his benevolence is never in question... We see him hauling the provocative Remick from out of the bar telling her to be a good, and submissive housewife for the court...

Stewart studies with a cynical eye the peculiar traits of the accused, tolerates, with amused resignation, his friend's drunken lapses, and competently makes his point to the judge and jury...

Ben Gazzara proves to be a problematic client, close to uncooperative with his lawyer... Also, it is very clear that he is a jealously possessive man, which is enough to question the validity of the rape charge, he claims that he acted in a moment of insane anger... The film raises fascinating legal highlights on disorders of jealousy...

Lee Remick gives a sensational performance as the sexy wife whose missing panties form a vital part of the evidence...

Remick knows how to attract and seduce... She is so coquettish that she drives her angry husband to murder... The trial poses tricky questions: Was the Remick character in advanced levels of seduction during her wanderings at the neighborhood bar? Did her bruises come from the man whom she claimed raped her, or from her jealous husband?

George C. Scott plays the sly, sardonic prosecuting attorney who offers the character a wonderful air of arrogance and superiority, unnerving with his aggressive antagonism witnesses and defense attorney...

Arthur O'Connell rises to the occasion when his lawyer-hero needs him...

Eve Arden is Stewart's faithful and efficient secretary eager that the Manion case might bring her a long-overdue paycheck...

The courtroom fencing between Stewart and Scott is so convincing with the casting of Joseph N. Welch as the delightful ever-patient judge, Harlan Weaver... Judge Weaver, whose patience is repeatedly tried by the grotesque gestures of the lawyers in the case, appears too kindly to be much of a courtroom disciplinarian... But in the tension between the shrewd old judge and the lawyer for defense, the film raises a crucial issue on the rules of advocacy: To what extent a lawyer should represent a client zealously within the rules and norms of courtroom etiquette?

Preminger's penchant for long takes and a mobile camera, rather than cuts and conversational reaction shots, here serves both to illuminate the crucial ambiguities in the characters, and to facilitate an objective appraisal of the mechanics of the legal process...

Preminger challenges the American censors over the candid sexual terminology and explicit examination of rape in his courtroom drama... Ellington's score brilliantly captures the tension and the moral ambiguity that characterize the movie... Sam Leavitt's black-and-white photography is particularly impressive, setting as it does the stark mood of the authentic Michigan locations...

VERY frank about rape and sexual terminology--a 'dirty' film.

Iron county--upper peninsula Duke ellington.

In most courtroom films, the film seems like it's made up of a Cliff Notes version....with only bits and pieces. However, with "Anatomy of a Murder", you see the work of the defense attorney (James Stewart) from when he first takes the case through to the judgment...though, oddly, the closing arguments were NOT shown! The film also is highly unusual because it has a frankness you had previously not see in movies due to the tough Production Code of 1934. Yet here, terms like rape, semen and panties are used....words that simply wouldn't have been allowed before this film.

Apart from this, the acting, direction and entire production is top notch. Well worth seeing and not a slow or overlong film at nearly three hours. One of the great courtroom dramas.

By the way, in a very brief scene in a bar with a band, that's Duke Ellington talking with Jimmy Stewart.