Reviews

The story of Anatomy of a murder is based on a real-life murder trial, that was written up in a book by the defense lawyer. The book then became the basis of the script for the movie.

It is a gripping story, it held me glued to my TV for the entire length of the film. It combines the suspense of a whodunit with the authenticity of a documentary. The movie was shot entirely on location where the actual murder and trial took place, including the inn and the courtroom.

On reflection it is also a most disturbing movie, at least for this foreigner. It ruthlessly exposes the cynicism of the prosecution who from the very start of the investigation was more concerned about winning the case than establishing what truly happened. All the initial investigations that were meant to benefit the DA, the obstruction to admit the aspect of the rape in the trial, the "hot shot" from Lansing whose expertise seemed to be character assassination rather than some legal aspect, down to the "witness" Miller who makes a sudden appearance at the very end.

Luckily the defense is led by a former prosecutor who knows all the tricks in the book (and may have applied them himself in his time). Makes you wonder why the judge was played by Joseph Welch, the national hero who a few years earlier brought down senator Joe McCarthy.

Apparently the movie didn't go down well with the public back then and I think that has everything to do with the picture it paints of the practice of a criminal prosecution. Forget about the panties.

On the surface this is a movie about the day to day life of an elderly, happily married couple (Tom and Gerri), their son and friends, among them Mary and Ken. All seems well in suburban London until that very last shot of the film, a most disturbing scene, the climax of the movie.

We see Mary at the kitchen table of her friends and as the conversation passes her by she realizes she doesn't matter to them any more. Worse, we see it dawning on her that she may never have mattered to them at all in their relationship of 20 years. The comparison with her car is inevitable, a vehicle that should have brought her a sense of freedom, but turned out to be a lemon if ever there was one. As another commenter wrote, it is a scene of exceptional cruelty. (Can I nominate Ms Manville for an Oscar, please ?)

How could this insincerity, this not-so-mild form of wickedness persist over such a long time ? Perhaps it has something to do with the British fondness of manners, but I think it has to do with work, more specifically in Tom and Gerri's case with having a profession, being a professional.

A professional is someone who is applying a set of rules, an algorithm to a standard input to produce a standard output. (What distinguishes a professional from a craftsman is that the input, rules and output are so complex that they defy supervision.) Tom and Gerri are professionals and what they are doing is extending their professional attitude to their personal lives. Their relationship with Mary is professional. Their marriage is dealt with professionally. Their marital bliss is ultimately based on their contentment with the standardized output it produces. Tomatoes anyone ?

Contrast this with Ken and Mary. Ken is an alcoholic in bad physical shape. He was once handsome however and has a good heart. His problem is that he questions the meaning of his job, which in his case seems to amount to questioning the meaning of his life. And then there is Mary. Her goal in life is Love, not work, thereby committing the ultimate sin (not making work your life goal that is).

Two scenes illustrate the stranglehold work has on our lives (and the importance of it for the movie's theme, I think). In the first an Asian couple is visiting Joe, an old man threatened with eviction and a young woman acting as his interpreter, her ability to help the old man, however, limited to the duration of her lunch break. In the second Carl arrives too late for his mother's funeral, having been stuck in a traffic jam. The funeral couldn't be postponed however, another one was already waiting.

So are Tom and Gerri right ? At the dinner table Tom is telling of how he and Gerri met, by chance on their first day in university. This detail hints at the internal inconsistency of their way of life. And of course right at the beginning of the movie there is this session of Gerri with the sleepless patient, an Everywoman. It shows her utterly failing in her role of counselor, her very profession.

Mary is indeed looking for love in all the wrong places. At the end of the film you realize that, despite all appearances Tom & Gerri's was such a place.

The story is about a love triangle between Setyo, Siti (who are married) and Ludiro that ends tragically. It is a modern-day adaptation of a Hindu myth that takes place in a village on Java, Indonesia's main island.

The film is structured as an opera movie. It has aria's, recitatives and sometimes plain spoken dialogue, although the aria's are much shorter than in a Western opera. (The music is Indonesian of course, not Western). The actors lip-synch their parts and the film is shot on location. There is a great amount of dancing.

For a Western viewer the story is a bit fragmentary and schematic. I had the feeling it is implicitly assumed that the viewer is already familiar with the characters and the story. I had some difficulty appreciating the music, but visually the film is stunning. The scenery is beautiful,the traditional costumes are very colourful and there are also a few dramatic theatrical effects that felt a bit Western (Peter Sellars was mentioned in the closing credits). The female lead is a beauty.

All in all something very different, but I'm glad I saw it.

Three young people in wartime Britain are on their way together to Canterbury for different reasons. When they reach their destination, the Cathedral, each of their lives is touched by a miracle (some great, some small). The last shot of the film is a view of Canterbury Cathedral under a towering sky from a nearby hilltop.

For a wartime movie about how young people's lives are affected by the war it must have been imperative that the ending should be uplifting, but for this viewer who wasn't around at the time it was a big disappointment. It completely failed to move me.

The main reason is that the miracles were too predictable and they didn't seem to make much of a difference for the three characters either. It didn't help that I couldn't sympathize with them. Although we make their acquaintance during the last stage of their journey when they join forces in finding out who the mysterious Glueman is, this task is not challenging enough to even begin to root for them and you only get to know them superficially, no matter how much the British sergeant laments his prewar job, the American loves carpentry or the girl misses her fiancé.

The acting doesn't help either. Only the British sergeant played with conviction, especially on the train to Canterbury when he confronts the Glueman in what seems to me the film's only moment of drama. The girl in particular is a big disappointment when she enters her trailer after so many years and discovers her fiancé's hat and coat.

It struck me how the picture ended and in fact, there is a fourth character, Mr. Colpeper, a local At one point he tells of his efforts to interest people in the countryside and how miserably he failed before the war. But now with an army base near his home he has found a way. If *that* is the theme of this movie you can discard everything I have written.