Search
Napoleon the Great
Book
NOW A MAJOR BBC2 TV SERIES AWARDED THE PRIX DU JURY DES GRANDS PRIX DE LA FONDATION NAPOLEON 2014...
The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson
Book
In an extraordinary history of the criminal trial, Sadakat Kadri shows with wit, legal insight and a...
Blow Up the Frog
Entertainment and Games
App
Over 1 million downloads worldwide! The first ever hyper realistic frog-blowing simulator! The...
Neuroshima Hex
Games and Entertainment
7.5
Rate It
App
AWARDS: "iOS Game of the Year" Game Shark "Best Card/Board Game - Runner Up" TouchGen PRESS...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction in Books
Oct 16, 2018
A striking book designed to hit Christianity in the heart.
(Please note: It is beyond the scope of this book review to go into whether or not there is a God, or if God is good.)
This book is written by Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher. The inspiration for this book comes from a single paragraph in Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion, which goes as follows:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now that’s quite a statement! And it’s also what Barker’s book is centred around. In Part 1, Barker sets out examples of these 19 characteristics within the Christian bible.
Sadly for Christianity, not only had barker found examples of every single one of these 19 characteristics, but he usually found several examples in every case. In fact, the reason I haven’t given it a higher rating is because it was so repetitive, with so many examples of remarkably similar and disturbing passages. A whole chapter is dedicated to each of the descriptors in turn, and the whereabouts of each of the passages are clearly noted in bold before being presented underneath.
In Part 2, Barker takes the argument further still:
“He [Dawkins] forgot to mention that the God of the Old Testament is also a pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse-hurling, vaccicdal, aborticidal, cannibalistic slavemonger.”
Again, the following chapters are full of examples of these characteristics.
The book is predominantly a laundry list of evil requests and doings of the God of the Old Testament, but Chapter 28 asks “What About Jesus?” And here Barker even manages to find evidence that Jesus endorsed invasion and bloodshed (Deuteronomy 6.15-19), and encouraged the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48). Barker also sites a lot of Jesus’ bad advice
Several passages may be unpleasant for even strong atheists to read. I couldn’t get over how many times “fingers dripping with blood” comes up in the Bible.
Overall, Barker has little comments around and between the examples he sights, but I would suggest that this makes for a stronger argument, handing the role of jury to the reader. Obviously this book will upset just about any Christian who attempts to read it, and for those who do read it may feel better to recall that the analysis is only of how God is presented in the Bible, and not an analysis of any effect (if any) of God in their daily lives.
This book is written by Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher. The inspiration for this book comes from a single paragraph in Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion, which goes as follows:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now that’s quite a statement! And it’s also what Barker’s book is centred around. In Part 1, Barker sets out examples of these 19 characteristics within the Christian bible.
Sadly for Christianity, not only had barker found examples of every single one of these 19 characteristics, but he usually found several examples in every case. In fact, the reason I haven’t given it a higher rating is because it was so repetitive, with so many examples of remarkably similar and disturbing passages. A whole chapter is dedicated to each of the descriptors in turn, and the whereabouts of each of the passages are clearly noted in bold before being presented underneath.
In Part 2, Barker takes the argument further still:
“He [Dawkins] forgot to mention that the God of the Old Testament is also a pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse-hurling, vaccicdal, aborticidal, cannibalistic slavemonger.”
Again, the following chapters are full of examples of these characteristics.
The book is predominantly a laundry list of evil requests and doings of the God of the Old Testament, but Chapter 28 asks “What About Jesus?” And here Barker even manages to find evidence that Jesus endorsed invasion and bloodshed (Deuteronomy 6.15-19), and encouraged the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48). Barker also sites a lot of Jesus’ bad advice
Several passages may be unpleasant for even strong atheists to read. I couldn’t get over how many times “fingers dripping with blood” comes up in the Bible.
Overall, Barker has little comments around and between the examples he sights, but I would suggest that this makes for a stronger argument, handing the role of jury to the reader. Obviously this book will upset just about any Christian who attempts to read it, and for those who do read it may feel better to recall that the analysis is only of how God is presented in the Bible, and not an analysis of any effect (if any) of God in their daily lives.
I Can't Breathe: A Killing on Bay Street
Book
A work of riveting literary journalism that explores the roots and repercussions of the infamous...
politics social issues
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Thirteen in Books
Sep 24, 2020
More reviews on https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
The story is told from a dual perspective – Eddie’s and Kane’s. These two characters would be our protagonists. Eddie is a defence attorney, a man with a very messed up personal life, who keeps making very dangerous decisions, and that is what makes him so awesome. Eddie has his faults and is not perfect, but at the same time, he is so intriguing and incredibly smart! Kane is a genius psychopath, (Hannibal Lecter could be his inspiration 😀 ), who can steal any identity he chooses. So, when you have these two amazingly developed personalities, the story can’t be boring. 😀
And of course, it is not! The narrative is very well paced, creating optical illusions and mind games in every chapter. It has plenty of twists, turns and unexpected findings, and the plot absolutely absorbed me. I love when authors include murderers and their thoughts in the thrillers, Kane’s actions and thoughts gave so much depth and intrigue to this book, and it was an absolute joy to read it. I really enjoyed Eddie’s smart moves while solving this case, but he was pretty lucky to get all the information delivered to him, without the help, I don’t think he could’ve succeeded as much. I really liked, that Steve Cavanagh utilized his knowledge of courts and jury in this book, there were plenty of new things I learned, and I am very grateful for that.
I loved the writing style of this book, it is easy and understandable, and this book can easily be read as stand alone. The characters used from the past are well explained and didn’t leave me confused. The chapters are pretty short, and due to constant change between the characters, the pages just fly by. I do have to throw in a disclaimer that there are plenty of blood, graphic murders, and other gross things described in this book, so before reading, make sure you can stomach that. 😀 I really enjoyed the ending and all the surprises it brought, I think it rounded up the story very nicely.
So, to conclude, Steve Cavanagh definitely knows what he is doing when it comes to writing. He is a master of crime novels, and even though this book was my first encounter with this author’s work, it definitely will not be the last. He chose perfect characters for this book, and the plot kept me guessing and always intrigued. I thoroughly enjoyed this court thriller, and it is an absolute must-read. I do hope you will like it as much as I did. Enjoy 🙂
The story is told from a dual perspective – Eddie’s and Kane’s. These two characters would be our protagonists. Eddie is a defence attorney, a man with a very messed up personal life, who keeps making very dangerous decisions, and that is what makes him so awesome. Eddie has his faults and is not perfect, but at the same time, he is so intriguing and incredibly smart! Kane is a genius psychopath, (Hannibal Lecter could be his inspiration 😀 ), who can steal any identity he chooses. So, when you have these two amazingly developed personalities, the story can’t be boring. 😀
And of course, it is not! The narrative is very well paced, creating optical illusions and mind games in every chapter. It has plenty of twists, turns and unexpected findings, and the plot absolutely absorbed me. I love when authors include murderers and their thoughts in the thrillers, Kane’s actions and thoughts gave so much depth and intrigue to this book, and it was an absolute joy to read it. I really enjoyed Eddie’s smart moves while solving this case, but he was pretty lucky to get all the information delivered to him, without the help, I don’t think he could’ve succeeded as much. I really liked, that Steve Cavanagh utilized his knowledge of courts and jury in this book, there were plenty of new things I learned, and I am very grateful for that.
I loved the writing style of this book, it is easy and understandable, and this book can easily be read as stand alone. The characters used from the past are well explained and didn’t leave me confused. The chapters are pretty short, and due to constant change between the characters, the pages just fly by. I do have to throw in a disclaimer that there are plenty of blood, graphic murders, and other gross things described in this book, so before reading, make sure you can stomach that. 😀 I really enjoyed the ending and all the surprises it brought, I think it rounded up the story very nicely.
So, to conclude, Steve Cavanagh definitely knows what he is doing when it comes to writing. He is a master of crime novels, and even though this book was my first encounter with this author’s work, it definitely will not be the last. He chose perfect characters for this book, and the plot kept me guessing and always intrigued. I thoroughly enjoyed this court thriller, and it is an absolute must-read. I do hope you will like it as much as I did. Enjoy 🙂
Secret Files: Tunguska
Games and Entertainment
App
[ FULL GAME! NO EPISODES! The award-winning point and click adventure returns on the App Store,...