Skip to main content

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution
(1957)

(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.

Indeed, Wilder paid Christie the compliment that “For every five hundred great dialogue writers there are five great constructionists”, but Witness for the Prosecution relies on a highly unlikely piece of cosmetic embroidery to get Tyrone Power off the charge of murdering a rich widow (who just changed her will in his favour). The reveals from that point are suitably melodramatic: wife Marlene Dietrich admits Power did it; Power admits he did it; then pretty young thing Ruta Lee joins the now free Power, who tells Dietrich it’s hard cheese, and she stabs him with Exhibit A (the initial murder weapon). And then, defence counsel Charles Laughton begins arrangements to take on her case.

Before that, though, with things looking grim for Power due to Dietrich having taken the stand to dish dirt for the prosecution, she (unbeknownst to us) dons a disguise – looking peculiarly like Tony Curtis in drag, perhaps give the director ideas for his next film – and presents Laughton with letters written by wifey to a lover. The result: her testimony is not to be trusted and the jury finds Power not guilty. My problem with this is that the rest of Witness for the Prosecution, for all the (frequently very funny) antics and exchanges involving Laughton, gives such far-fetched extravagance a wide berth; suddenly, we’re asked to swallow that clever old Laughton could be duped and that Dietrich (whether or not her character was an actress) could pull it off. Sherlock Holmes may indulge such trickery to have a bit of a laugh at Watson’s expense, but Witness for the Prosecution was hitherto operating with a little more verisimilitude.

There’s also the detail that, while it doesn’t matter too much if you’re invested in the fate of the accused since such stories invariably revolve around the brilliance of the defence counsel, it does help. Added to which, Power may deliver a decently overwrought plea of innocence, but there’s isn’t much traction to the idea of him as Dietrich’s younger husband; he looks about a decade old than he was (notably, this was his final completed film), while she’d recently had work done, and the black and white photography is very much on her side.

So the best of this version of Witness for the Prosecution resides squarely with Laughton, and much of his characterisation comes courtesy of embellishments on Wilder’s and co-writers Larry Marcus and Harry Kurnitz’ parts (there was no heart trouble, and no cognac or cigars in Christie’s play). It was “immensely improved” as Simon Callow put it. Recovering from a “teeny-weeny” heart attack and initially thwarted by private nurse Elsa Lanchester – Laughton’s wife; at this point both were leading their own separate personal lives – Laughton’s unable to resist the lure of a criminal case. And cigars: “You could be jailed for this. You had no search warrant for my cane” he exclaims, after Lanchester has emptied it of concealed stogies.

Furnished with marvellous dialogue and, as Callow observed, “a fantastic sense of cadence”, Laughton is frequently laugh-out-loud funny as he responds to Power fretting over the widow’s body just lying there in her living room (“I assure you, she’s been moved by now. To leave her around would be unfeeling, unlawful, and unsanitary”). Or barracks Lanchester (“If you were a woman, Miss Plimsole, I would strike you”). Or puts down Torin Thatcher’s Crown Prosecutor (“If he insists on answering his own questions, the presence of the witness would seem superfluous”). He also provides wonderful little bits of business, such as arranging his heart pills on his desk as he listens to the cross examinations.

Witness for the Prosecution isn’t a hugely satisfying murder mystery, then – Pauline Kael gave it a pass as “inane yet moderately entertaining” – but it’s a first-rate case of an iconic lawyer character, superbly performed. Laughton and Lanchester rightly received Oscar nominations for their work (Alec Guinness won Best Actor, and you can’t really argue with the lion’s share of the statuettes going to The Bridge on the River Kwai). Even in the legal drama stakes that year, Witness for the Prosecution was thoroughly outclassed by the taught, sweaty fellow Best Picture nominee 12 Angry Men, which really makes the former look quite antiquated in comparison (there are thirty years between their respective source materials). Witness for the Prosecution received six Oscar nominations, including Best Director, but it’s difficult to make a case that it deserved consideration for the top award, or even that it’s a prime example of Christie’s talent for construction. It is, however, a glittering showcase for Laughton, who only half a decade before had been reduced to guesting in an Abbott and Costello movie.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.