Witness for the Prosecution

It's easy to take the Internet for granted because it's so prevalent in day-to-day life. Think about it when new movies come out. If said movie has an epic twist in the finale, it takes minutes, hours and if things are going really slow, about a day for word of that twist to spread like wildfire. That wasn't always the case, movie studios doing their best to keep the surprises and twists under wraps so audiences could head into the movies surprised. Some movies even requested audiences don't reveal the twists as the credits rolled, movies like 1961's Homicidal, 1960's Psycho, and for today's reading, 1957's Witness for the Prosecution.

Coming off some serious health issues, barrister (a lawyer for our American readers) named Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton) returns to his office with orders to take it easy as he recovers. Naturally, Sir Wilfrid does just the opposite. Instead, he takes a high-profile case when he meets Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power), a WWII veteran who's been accused of murder. The victim was an older woman with plenty of money and no family, Leonard a recent addition to the woman's will. Wilfrid goes about preparing his case -- while dealing with his medical issues -- trying to work around the only alibi Leonard has, an alibi provided by Leonard's wife, Christine (Marlene Dietrich), but he would prefer not to call the cold Christine to the stand. Wilfrid believes Leonard to be genuinely innocent, but the amount of circumstantial evidence against him is daunting, and it continues to mount. A veteran of cases like this, even Wilfrid can't imagine how this case will develop.

Is there anything director Billy Wilder can't do? I submit that the answer there is a big N-O. His career filmography includes everything from comedies like Some Like it Hot to film noir-esque thrillers like Sunset Boulevard and darker social commentaries like Ace in the Hole. I guess it is only natural for him to check another sub-genre off the list, here at the helm of a courtroom drama. 'Witness' is based off a stage play from Agatha Christie who had adapted her own short story. The style plays like a stage-based play, long scenes of dialogue and exchanges going back and forth among characters, an impressive set even being built to stand in for the Old Bailey, a famous English courthouse in London, a very cool, claustrophobic set as the courtroom scenes develop, the black and white filming adding a minimalist touch. This is a movie considered a classic -- an 8.5 rating on IMDB, a 100% mark at Rotten Tomatoes -- but is it that good? I had some issues with it.

When I see ratings that high, I'm thinking we're talking about a perfect movie, or one pretty dang close to perfect. I liked 'Witness' -- it gets stronger near the halfway point -- but it slow-going early-on. Laughton's Wilfrid returns to his office in a scene that tries to play up the comedy as the medically-challenged Wilfrid deals with his nurse, Miss Plimsoll (Elsa Lanchester, Laughton's wife in real-life). Did we need that bit of humor? The dynamic continues throughout the case, and yes, they've got chemistry but these attempts at humor seem out of place. As for the acting, Powers overacts to the point it is almost painful to watch. His reactions while other people testify is just rough, his Leonard screaming and grabbing the wall, pulling at his hair. Dietrich is both good and bad, at her best when she underplays it. Her performance over the last 30 minutes helps leave the viewer with a big positive as to the strength of her performance.

Much of the first hour focuses on the background, from Wilfrid's health issues, to meeting Leonard to several unnecessary flashbacks. We see him meet the old, rich Mrs. French (Norma Varden), in scenes more suited to a 1950s screwball comedy. We see him meet Christine in a bombed-out city in WWII, all scenes that feel forced in an effort to draw out the running time. Where the movie hits its stride is in the courtroom scenes, Laughton showing off that acting ability that appears effortless scene-in and scene-out. He underplays it to the point you take for granted what he's doing. Laughton makes a go of it, but these scenes are hurt by Power's efforts at some sort of method acting. Still, Laughton is a powerhouse (picking up an Oscar nomination for Best Actor), playing nicely off the prosecuting lawyer, Mr. Myers (Torin Thatcher). More negative/flaws than a classic should have, but Laughton rights the ship as much as he can.

Also look for John Williams as Brogan-Moore, Wilfrid's assistant in court, Henry Daniell as Vole's representative who brings the case to Wilfrid, Ian Wolfe as Carter, Wilfrid's assistant and office clerk, Una O'Connor as a key witness (possibly), and Francis Compton as the judge presiding over the case.

And then there's that ending. I had it spoiled for me years ago because a Boston Legal episode used that same catch, but even knowing it's coming up, that finale still works. The entire back and forth dynamic in the court sequences are the movie's strongest scenes, the last 20 minutes delivering three different twists that I would consider a genuinely good and legitimate twist. It's best you don't know any of them going into the movie so deal with it. You ain't getting any spoilers here. So while I struggled through the first 45-60 minutes, the last hour is pretty perfect. Loved Wilder's direction, and I especially liked Laughton's Oscar-nominated performance.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957): ***/****

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

There are epics, and then there are EPICS. In the age of such immense, gigantically-scaled films of the 1950s and 1960s, studios pulled out all the stops in hopes of impressing moviegoers. Huge all-star casts with thousands of extras, lavish sets and costumes, and in general, a sight to behold on the big screen. Some movies were just made for a viewing that only a full-size movie theater can offer, like 1956's Around the World in 80 Days.

It is the 1870s and new technological advances have made travel to far-off places not only possible but quicker, more efficient, and more entertaining. A prim and proper Englishman, Phileas Fogg (David Niven), even boasts to his fellow members of the Reform Club that he can travel completely travel around the world in just 80 days. The club members laugh at the thought, but Fogg maintains his stance and a bet is born. With a significant amount of money on the line, Fogg and his assistant/valet, Passepartout (Mexican actor Cantinflas), embark on a journey around the world against the clock with no idea of what will be actually thrown their way during their adventurous travels.

If you were trying to define what an old-school Hollywood epic is to someone who didn't know, this would be a great start. Filming in locations around the world from Japan, the U.S., Thailand, Spain, England, France, Pakistan and China, '80 Days' is a true visual stunner. The screen is filled with incredible locations packed to the gills with the cast and then hundreds and thousands of extras behind them. Director Michael Anderson filmed with a Todd-AO technique, an ultra-widescreen filming process that makes certain shots look like epically wide panoramic shots. I was impressed watching the film on my 32-inch TV. I can only imagine what this film would look like on a movie screen. As well, composer Victor Young's score (which won an Oscar) is light-hearted and fun, keeping the travels moving.

It is hard to criticize this movie on its technical levels. It is far easier to criticize the movie for basically everything else. Oh, didn't see that twist coming, did you? All that epic quality comes at the expense of character, story and any sort of development involving either of those. This is a movie you appreciate, just sit back and enjoy it. The widescreen filming process is a sight to behold, but they become tedious by the 11th or 12th such long shot of a mountain vista, train running down a track, Cantinflas fighting a bull. Yes, I get it. On visuals alone, this is a stunningly beautiful movie. But at almost three-hours long, it feels like nothing more than an extended world travel guide. There never is even the slightest sense of urgency to the 80 day deadline until the final 10 minutes. Instead we get the visual, Niven's Fogg paying someone to right a wrong, then another nature shot.

I'll go into more depth about the supporting cast of thousands in a bit, but let's start with the lead performances. David Niven is one of my favorite actors, but I came away disappointed here. His Fogg is the definition of a prim and proper Englishman. He's even asked 'Why must you be so British?' at one point. At no point though does he actually look interested in bringing the part to life. To me, Niven look bored, and that's tough to say as a fan. Famed Mexican actor Cantinflas sure takes some grief for his part as Passepartout, but I thought he did a fine job with his limited grasp of English. His bit with Red Skelton is a highlight, the duo shoveling food into the others mouth in a very funny routine. Other bigger parts include Shirley MacLaine oddly cast as an Indian princess traveling with Fogg and Passepartout, and Robert Newton as Mr. Fix, a bank investigator trailing Fogg who's convinced the Englishman is an infamous bank robber.

Then there's the cameos, a long list that must put even The Greatest Story Ever Told to shame. Take a deep breath, and here goes. Look out for Finlay Currie, Robert Morley, Noel Coward, Trevor Howard, John Gielgud, Charles Boyer, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, Cedric Hardwicke, Peter Lorre, George Raft, Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, John Carradine, Buster Keaton, Joe E. Brown, Andy Devine, Victor McLaglen, John Mills and Glynis Johns among others. I include those names because I recognized them in the cast, not because I necessarily saw them in the actual film. They are the 'blink and you'll miss them' type of cameos to the point many don't even register. Sinatra is shown over his shoulder three times and then turns and smiles. Mind you, he doesn't even say anything. He SMILES. That's it. Yes, it's fun seeing all these actors/actresses together but give them something to do.

This is a tough one to review in the end. It's too long, downright dull at times, a visual treat to watch, and a movie experience unlike any other. It's flaws though are crippling. '80 Days' may be three-hour longs but because of its schizo, hyper kinetic energy that bounces all over the place, it feels significantly longer and has not aged well over the years. A movie to be appreciated for its positives for what it does amount to, even if I won't be watching it again anytime soon. Okay, maybe in a movie theater.

Around the World in 80 Days <---trailer (1956): ** 1/2/****         

Stage Fright

Directing as early as the 1920s, Alfred Hitchcock continued to work through the 1930s-1970s, making over 40 films. While I've yet to find a Hitchcock film I didn't at least partially like, my favorites from the director started in the late 1940s and continued into the 1950s, films like North by Northwest, Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo and several others. Always trying to see more of his films, I recently added 1950's Stage Fright to the list.

A struggling young actress looking to make a name for herself in post-WWII London, Eve Gill (Jane Wyman) is in love with Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd), but Mr. Cooper is currently involved in an affair with acclaimed stage actor, Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich). Now, Cooper is in trouble though, on the run for suspicion of killing Charlotte's jealous wife. Wanting to help him out, Eve agrees to hide him at her father's farm in the country, but while he's away, Eve hopes to figure out what was really going on. Blackmailing her way into the position, Eve gets a job as Charlotte's assistant, and she intends to figure out what actually happened and who really killed Charlotte's husband.

The film master of suspense and thrills, Hitchcock makes it look almost effortless at times. At the time -- and even watching it recently in 2012 -- it created an uproar over a storytelling device that infuriated audiences. I can understand that objection too because it certainly threw me off. Is it a major deal? I suppose it will depend on the viewer. I did feel slightly duped as if Hitchcock assuredly enjoyed pulling a fast one on the viewing audience. He filmed partially on-location in London, and as was his usual, kept the focus fairly pointed on a handful of key characters and situations rather than expanding to something bigger and far more unnecessary.

With some of Hitchcock's lesser works, I had some of the same issues here in 'Fright.' His stories at their best were dripping with tension, always kept the momentum heading forward, and for the most part were incredibly serious. Yet he sometimes felt the need to throw this out-of-place light side and humor into the story which I've never understood. A quick detour here has Eve's father, Commodore Gill (Alastair Sim), trying to win a prize at a carnival shooting game from carnie Joyce Grenfell. It feels forced and out of sorts as the story looks for some laughs. The same goes for Eve's plan; posing as an assistant where both sides know her as someone else. These overdone interactions should be serious, but instead they're played for laughs.

A year removed from winning an Oscar for her part in Johnny Belinda, Wyman is the right mix of precocious innocence and stupid decisions in playing Eve. She thinks she loves Todd's Jonathan but realizes he doesn't feel the same way toward her. Dietrich is Dietrich, bigger than life as always and even given a chance to sing (watch it HERE). Her performance as the mysterious and possibly murdering Charlotte is the film's best performance. Todd is all right as Jonathan, but his part requires him to disappear for long stretches. Michael Wilding is the requisite very British character, Smith, the police officer investigating the murder who gets caught up in one web after another. Sim is a big positive too as Commodore Gil, always looking for trouble and building it up to be more than it actually is.

As he was prone to do -- good most of the time, bad the rest -- Hitchcock is able to pull a few tricks from his sleeve toward the end of the movie. Thanks to that already mentioned storytelling device, you as a viewer believe you know what's going on. The last 10 minutes provide quite a good twist, making up for some of the slower portions it took to get to the end. Not a classic Hitchcock film, but one I did enjoy enough to give a mild recommendation.

Stage Fright <---TCM trailer/clips (1950): ** 1/2 /****

Judgment at Nuremberg

Even with Germany surrendering in May of 1945 and Japan surrendering a few months later in August, the war and conflict of WWII would continue on for years. As victors, the Allies presided over a series of tribunals meant to bring people to justice for the atrocities committed during the war, many of these trials having to do with the Holocaust and execution of POW's. These trials ended in extensive sentencing, both in terms of the death penalty and life-long prison sentences.

Less than 15 years removed from these tribunals, Stanley Kramer assembled a remarkable cast to tell the story of one of the actual Nuremberg trials in 1961's Judgment at Nuremberg. What's amazing about this movie is its honesty and frankness in dealing with the subject at hand, a touchy one at that in talking about the Holocaust. Kramer presents evidence, lets the characters tell their stories, and then makes a brave choice. He presents an option for you as a viewer to make up his/her own mind. What did these men on trial deserve? It's up to you.

Arriving in Germany, Maine district court judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) is preparing for the biggest trial he's ever presided over. It's 3 years since the end of the war, and four German judges (including Burt Lancaster) are on trial for their actions during WWII and the years leading up to it. Leading the prosecution is Colonel Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark), a WWII veteran who's prosecuted many of the German war criminals since the close of the war. His opponent on the defense is a intelligent, fiery German lawyer, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), who must present an incredibly difficult case that maybe even he does not believe.

Set almost entirely in a courtroom at Germany's Palace of Justice -- with a few quick detours -- Kramer's courtroom drama works as a series of linked vignettes dealing with one topic. Whole segments could be removed from the movie as a whole and still be worth watching on their own. At over 3 hours long, 'Nuremberg' is never rushed or too fast-paced with long, lingering shots from the camera as the testimony unfolds. Kramer allows his cast to get all the attention with only a few moments of in-your-face style from behind the camera, like an extreme zoom to a close-up of someone's face. It's a remarkable movie heavy on the dialogue that won an Oscar for its writing.

These courtroom vignettes would have worked as a stand alone, but assemble them together and you've got a classic. Two witnesses are called to the stand in two of the movie's strongest segments, Montgomery Clift as a German man forced to undergo a sterilization surgery during the war and Judy Garland as a young German woman involved in a controversial court ruling that Lancaster's Emil Janning ruled on. Both were nominated for their supporting roles -- more on that later -- in what amount to one or two scene appearances. Clift is absolutely heartbreaking (check out his testimony/part HERE) and nearly brought me to tears, and Garland is equally effective. The powers that be only gave them Oscar nominations, not the win, with best supporting actor and actress going to West Side Story's George Chakiris and Rita Moreno.

It blew my mind when I read that. I realize West Side Story is a classic -- never seen it myself -- but Clift and Garland provide some of the most effective, moving parts I've ever seen, and they got snubbed. Definitely two of the biggest such snubs in Oscar history. A bigger issue is that just about everyone in 'Nuremberg' deserved an Oscar win with Schell taking home the Best Actor. Schell has an impossible task in front of him, defending four men who helped send hundreds and maybe thousands of people to their deaths in the concentration camps. It's hard to side with his defense, but it makes you think. Provoking thought concerning something as inherently evil as the Holocaust is remarkable in itself.

Where else to start with this huge cast? Each star is given their moment to shine and not a one disappoints. Clift's testimony is early on and starts the ball rolling, and the momentum just keeps on building. Lancaster is silent for much of the movie, just a stoic presence in the dock, until he has an outburst and then gets his chance on the stand (watch it HERE). Tracy's world weary judge who's been voted out of his position back home has the biggest decision of them all, how to judge these men. And with bigger things at play, his decision is even tougher. His summation is a simple, beautifully effective description of the situation. Widmark gets the flashier part as the prosecuting attorney and makes him human, a veteran who was among the troops who liberated the concentration camps and now tries to understand the horrors and atrocities he saw. If that wasn't enough, Marlene Dietrich has a supporting role as a German widow.

The tribunal is making a judgment on these four men, but Kramer's movie explores more than just that. It is brought up several times that Germany and the German people are on trial too. On a much bigger level, 'Nuremberg' explores the Holocaust, human actions, and morality. How could people do such horrible things to another? Wouldn't they have to know they were doing something wrong? The good of the country, yes, or so they believe, but at what cost? One extended segment has Widmark on the stand showing film of the liberation of the camps as a silent court watches from their seats.  It's startling in 2010 to see that footage, much less 50 years ago in 1962.

A perfect example of how powerful a movie can be with a combination of acting and story with strong direction. Performances from a long list of Hollywood heavyweights -- Tracy, Lancaster, Schell, Clift, Garland, Dietrich and Widmark -- and a story dealing with an impossible subject make this a must-see and a true classic.

Judgment at Nuremberg <----trailer (1961): ****/****