Sgt_Markoff

The key witness in the film--played by Kathryn Grant--she would go one to become Mrs. Bing Crosby Jimmy Stewart's character--when he is introduced to her--his growing attraction to her, I thought this was nimbly done. He starts out as her enemy (her testimony could go either way) and she hates him for maligning her father...by the end of the film you know he (a confirmed bachelor) is setting his sights on her. Happens very gradually though. Wunnerful to see this slow transformation. He puts his argumentative skill to work on her. "Miss Palante" he says. "Everybody loves someone, or something. Me, I love fishing...and an old guy by the name of Parnell..." Wendell Mayes, screenwriter (not a famous name, I admit) was often this fine and delicate in his handling of such scenes. He did 'Advise and Consent' for Preminger later. And numerous other classics. Wendell Mayes!

Its true. Well said, TB. You're leaning in the right direction on this one. The brain does not have any retinal cells; color-differentiation takes place only in the eye. Its not used in the deepest emotional centers. When the brain is dreaming it is pulling from all sorts of primitive mental resources: fear, dread, regret, remorse. Its not simply recapitulating or replaying the petty functions of the eye. Why would it waste energy replaying ideas in color? Ideas do not possess 'color'. Ever been scared late at night? There's no color on a dark night, yet your fright can soar. Fear can thrive on a mere outline or a shape. Black and white is all you need to make a form. Woody Allen spoke to all this once in an interview; its no surprise he chooses b&w often as his choice of photography. Why did Polanski film 'Knife in the Water' in b&w? Its not just a style choice; its understanding photography. I've seen all this discussed in plenty of psychology and psychology-based film criticism ...going all the way back to Rudolf Arnhelm. We mostly dream (and nightmare) in black-and-white --gestalt theory itself, is black-and-white--and its all very fundamental to why classic b&w movies are so powerful. Its why not only film noir but Warner Bros crime films are so shattering. Gestalt theory, something Uncle Joe doesn't have a clue about how to address ...it doesn't fit in with his ideas on 'style'.

Eve Arden's real life husband played the opposition in the case--the rather churlish-seeming district attorney!

George C. Scott was ugly in this film? Looked might dashing to my eyes. Yeah those small towne locales. I've been in many suchlike. This one is particularly unusual in that many of the residents are of Swedish or Norwegian descent. Some of the character's names reflect it: Toybull the bartender (not the one where the shooting transpired) and also the bailiff. Another fun character actor to take note of: Ken Lynch as 'Sgt Durgo' (another Swede moniker). Lynch is famous for his dry-as-gravel voice; and made good use of it in radio. 'Thunder Bay Inn' is actually still standing. And it doesnt hurt that the novel and movie were based on a real-life case from 1952!

Mystery: What did happen in the past. Thriller: What is happening now. Suspense: What will happen in the future. There's some good discussion around the net on the differences between mystery, thriller, and suspense. I'll try to recall where I stumbled over them (notably missing will be 'noir' which is not a literary genre at all, and doesn't even have any examples. It just doesn't exist as text or words on any page, ever written, by any author ever). In the meantime, here's Hitchcock's famous comment on 'suspense': There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise", and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean. We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let us suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these same conditions this same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it's about to explode!" In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

The film is said to be so accurate in terms of legal procedure, that it was used for years in law schools to aid study. To me, that puts it in the same league as a few of my other favorite 'films of professional practice'. The 'counting-the-money' scene in Pelham123. The dark room sequence in 'Blow Up'. The heist sequence in 'Thief' and 'Rififi'.

Awww. I thought the non-pro was one of the best aspects of the flick. The presence of a real judge was fascinating to me. Maybe my strictures for 'weak line reading' aren't as stringent as yours, ole sport...but I really didn't notice any failing in his delivery. In fact, in many instances he looked to me as if he was going to steal the scene from the pros he was surrounded by!

a 'lorgnette' is ...a dirty look on a stick! meanwhile a pair of 'pince-nes' looks like this (like something that Doctor TJ Eckelburg might wear)

I've seen an indie film of this sort, on the Sundance Channel once--but I never was able to determine the title. Not great acting, but the writing was clever enough. Four sets of strangers with intersecting storylines: (A) two boys playing hooky from school wander around the Bronx; they witness a drug-store hold up and the discarded pistol used in the robbery is tossed at their feet (B) a Wall St day-trader has to get to his office to cover up a bad stock deal he dabbled in; he will put the money back in the account from his own pocket even though it means selling one of his real-estate properties and turning a young couple out on the street, however on his way to work with his mistress he crashes into another car and while he is sitting there dazed his car is heisted by a ghetto hood and he is thrown unconscious into the trunk of his own vehicle; (C) the hood uses the stolen car to make the rounds of the neighborhood transacting his usual drug deals; he needs to collect a certain amount of $$ to pay off his source who has sent a hulking White Supremacist thug out looking for him; (D) the mom of the two truant boys is the woman who's car is struck by the day-trader goes home that day instead of making it to her job; but it so happens that her apartment was being burgled by the young couple the day-trader had evicted

It just goes to show: never sacrifice story for visuals.

Every workplace in America (nay even, the world) still has corded, wall-jacked, landline desk phones ...so 'Dial 9' and other voice-menus, are not at all strange to my ears. People can do what they want with their personal lifestyle --fads and trends galore--but you'll never see any kind of office building without reliable phone systems. It's a simple safety issue if nothing else.

You can't teach your grandma to suck eggs. I've seen it too.

Say, remember the buzz Natassia Kinsky received for 'Tess'?

Oh aye. I should have 'avoided this topic' ...to pander to his conspiracy theory, yes...

--Uncle Joe But in all cordiality my good man, I haven't committed this affront, in some time now. You're behind events. Please remove this item from the list of accusation you'd like to lay at my door, 'ole cork! --Uncle Joe My confrere, I can't be responsible for dispelling these strange suspicions you harbor. They're positively Poe-like. It almost sounds as if you want to lead me down into your family catacomb to show me some rare Amontillado you've just come into possession of. Truly, I've only got one account. This is something else you should remove from your mounting grudges against me. Listen, you know I bear you no ill-will, right? You're a grand old patriarch, in my view. I assure you. Your views on noir are outrageous--and I've railed against them--but I have nothing to say about you personally. You're well-spoken and innocuous as far as I'm concerned. We happen to disagree on a few topics, but I have nothing but esteem for you. So let's not let things get out of hand here. Oh, you kid! 23-skidoo!

I always confuse those guys names! Thank ye Simon Gray is searing; livid. Nitroglycerine. John Osborne. He did 'Look Back in Anger', yes? Pete Schaffer, 'Eqqus'?

Without really mulling it over at length, I might really only cite 'the Wizard of Oz' as the great-grandmother of all double narratives. It is so boilerplate to this kind of storytelling; so fundamental that its hard to avoid repeating it in any new story concept. 'The Great Gatsby' or 'The Fugitive Kind'--'East of Eden'...many great works, are deeply founded in symbol, allegory, and allusion to the point where knowing the trick gives the story a double-reading. Outright double-narrative strands..'doppelgangers'...probably popular in the fantasy genre but I'm hard put to list very many. I generally don't rack my brain like this on cinema topics anymore.

Too true

There needs to be a discussion thread for this, arguably the most superior courtroom drama ever produced. If I'm familiar with any film scene-by-scene, word-for-word, character-by-character, and shot-for-shot its probably this one (alongside 'Touch of Evil'). I've read the screenplay, and purchased the music; I've owned the novel and I've reviewed the spoken dialog in the film likely hundreds of times. Just a casual fan, mind now. The foremost reason I became so interested in the flick was the jazz score. A standard item in my listening habits. Your thoughts on this movie, please.

'Wolf' figures heavily in one of my faves from around that same time. As does the term 'masher'. ('Anatomy of a Murder' sceenplay by Wendell Mayes.)

'Middle of the Night' --searing May/December romance written by Paddy Chayefsky starring Frederic March--is your all time favorite movie? I can only salute this. Commendable.

Ewan.....?

y'know, its a mark of how schizoid our culture is, (how so unlike all other countries) our daily media diet steadfastly divorces us from our heritage, separates us from our past. It makes our whole nation insane. The peoples of France, Italy, Britain all live with their past surrounding them, undeniable evidence on all sides. We sit every night raptly gazing at images which replace identity. What I mean is, you will never see the name Kim Stanley --one of our greatest actresses --mentioned on Entertainment Tonight (unless in connexion with some tawdry expose' or cheap, unflattering scandal). Nothing will ever be said about her talent or career, on such a show. When 'Entertainment Tonight' discusses 'stars' it must always be a pointless star 'du jour' instead of a star who actually makes a difference. Its as if American television audiences are as unconscious as katydids setting mindlessly on tree branches. We gain no identity from our past--our history is only an occasional day off work once in a while. Entirely meaningless; no pride; no legacy; no achievements. Sorry but this really is the world depicted in Norman Jewison's 'Rollerball'.

"I'm dissatisfied with society! I want the world immediately reorganized and rearranged to recognize my value!" --Action Council for the Emancipation of Maids, Custodians, and Repairmen