Great Scott!
When we watched ANATOMY OF A MURDER for the first time years and years ago, Fiona was startled at George C Scott’s entrance. Scott, in his first major role, plays Louis Dancer, big city lawyer and antagonist to Jimmy Stewart (but he’s just a good lawyer, not really a bad guy in any moral sense).
George strides across the courtroom with incredible pantherlike grace.
“My God — George is…almost SEXY…even though he’s… practically DEFORMED!”
Must re-watch this now I have the DVD. Our TV screening was probably 16:9, or even 4:3, and while ANATOMY is so damn entertaining it can be enjoyed even in such a mutilated form (Preminger once took the networks to court to stop them stuffing his movies with commercials. He lost.) it’s be great to appreciate Otto’s mise-en-scene properly at last. And he has a particular passion for courtroom scenes, as I’ve noticed this past week. It’s too easy to argue that this is Preminger’s legal background showing, but… it probably is.
March 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
I remember talking to you about Anatomy many years ago, a film I’ve always loved…you were quite dismissive.
I feel vindicated now.
I also want to BE George C. Scott!
March 20, 2008 at 3:40 am
Anatomy of a Murder is Beyond Fabulous from start to finish. The cast, the score (by Billy Strayhorn though signed by Duke Ellington) and the use of real locations rather than a studio set. That’s what makes it really work. Preminger knew atmosphere would set this one apart — and he got it.
A good freind of mine, a now-retired long-time editor named Berle Gelfand was assistant editor on Anaatomy. It was his very first job (he went on to edit much TV work, including The Dick Van Dyke Show) and he got along with Otto swimmingly. Why? Because Otto gave the editors everything they needed when he shot the film. No waste whatsoever. No uncertainty either. He knew his stuff.
As for Scott, it’s obvious he’s already a star.
March 20, 2008 at 10:45 am
And Anatomy really needed somebody to bring danger and intensity to that role, since he’s the real threat.
Preminger is fascinating partly because he used sets beautifully and really exploited their possibilities, then moved almost entirely to location and became a master of that. It’s only the rear projection in the later films that’s off-putting a little (though I love process shots often).
I think the Fallen Angel scene analysis starts to show just how clear Otto was in his head about what was needed — and that he could get it all without a lot of coverage. Most editors like lots of choices, but if the director can get it right with just one choice, then few are going to object!
Simon, I suspect I was labouring under the sort of received opinion that saw Otto as a phony who tackled Big Subjects for prestige and box office and controversy, and had abandoned any real talent he ever had. This view used to be pretty common — I might post a bit of an old Jonathan Rosenbaum piece to show how strongly it was held — while noting that J-Ro has now come around, I believe. But even more recently, A Scott Berg’s bio of Lubitch, a nice book generally, refers to Lubitsch as having “no discernible style” which is not a tenable view AT ALL.
March 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm
A. Scott Berg gets everything wrong. He’s a drag. A well-know drag. We turn down the sound and make rude remarks.
March 20, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Heh heh!
I liked the Lubitsch book for the info on the man’s life. He should just give up on opining about films though, he’s not an observant viewer.