criterionforum.org

Anatomy of a Murder



A virtuoso James Stewart plays a small-town Michigan lawyer who takes on a difficult case: the defense of a young army lieutenant (Ben Gazzara) accused of murdering a local tavern owner who he believes raped his wife (Lee Remick). This gripping envelope-pusher, the most popular film by Hollywood provocateur Otto Preminger, was groundbreaking for the frankness of its discussion of sex—but more than anything else, it is a striking depiction of the power of words. Featuring an outstanding supporting cast—with a young George C. Scott as a fiery prosecutor and the legendary attorney Joseph N. Welch as the judge—and an influential score by Duke Ellington, Anatomy of a Murder is an American movie landmark, nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture.

Disc Features

- New high-definition digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition
- New alternate 5.1 soundtrack, presented in DTS-HD Master Audio on the Blu-ray edition
- New interview with Otto Preminger biographer Foster Hirsch
- Critic Gary Giddins explores Duke Ellington’s score in a new interview
- A look at the relationship between graphic designer Saul Bass and Preminger with Bass biographer Pat Kirkham
- Newsreel footage from the set
- Excerpts from a 1967 episode of Firing Line, featuring Preminger in discussion with William F. Buckley Jr.
- Excerpts from the work in progress Anatomy of “Anatomy”
- Behind-the-scenes photographs by Life magazine’s Gjon Mili
- Trailer, featuring on-set footage
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Nick Pinkerton and a 1959 Life magazine article on real-life lawyer Joseph N. Welch, who plays Judge Weaver in the film

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

Let the aspect ratio wonderings begin...

Criterion's using widescreen? So what's the deal with this movie - did Preminger compose for two aspect ratios at the same time?

My time traveling mind reading capabilities tell me that even if there is a written note in Preminger's hand that the film is x ratio, I know that he only wrote such a thing under duress and really truly totally meant y ratio because I like y better. :-p

hearthesilence wrote:Criterion's using widescreen? So what's the deal with this movie - did Preminger compose for two aspect ratios at the same time?

The R1 Columbia Tri-Star was Academy ratio. The R2 Columbia Tri-Star was 1.85:1. Beaver says it was filmed in open matte but 1.85:1 is correct. IMDB says 1.85:1. Saw it in the theater in the early '60s and I believe it was shown in widescreen.

At the Preminger retrospective in Toronto a couple of years ago, it was definitely 1.85:1.

Saw this upon initial release with some very fond memories attached, but please don't ask me to recall the AR. All subsequent screenings I believe were 1.85. I do have a fondness for the R1 open matte edition, however...

This is a splendid addition.

I'm glad they chose this to be spine #600 and not Tiny Furniture.

Like Saint Joan, the master's open matte; like Saint Joan, it looks better open matte. I'm on board for the Preminger extras, though

The only reason that there is any confusion about the aspect ratio is that Columbia chose to release their original region 1 DVD without the mattes. Anatomy of a Murder isn't an unusual situation at all though. Over half of all American films since 1955 were shot at 1.37 and exhibited at 1.85. By 1959, there is no doubt that it would have been exhibited with 1.85 mattes at virtually all U.S. theaters. Many people may prefer the looser framing, but there's no doubt that 1.85 is "correct" since Preminger isn't here to insist on having it otherwise.

kinjitsu wrote: - Excerpts from a 1967 episode of Firing Line, featuring Preminger in discussion with William F. Buckley Jr.

Some of the discussion is available on YouTube.

Right. A bit late to fight for open matte, so better hold on to your Columbia R1. If pressed, my memory would favor 1.85 as witnessed in 1959 at whatever theater that was on Collins Ave.

Just because something was shot open matte doesn't mean it was ever intended to be seen that way. People are still shooting widescreen films open matte today, when Academy projection is a physical impossibility in most cinemas. And 1959 is extraordinarily late for a major Hollywood production to be shot in Academy ratio, notwithstanding that Preminger had been working in widescreen for years at this point. Not that this will mean much to lampshade enthusiasts!

This can't be Jimmy Stewart's first entry in to the collection? Can it?

I'm not sure about Laserdisc, but while I don't think he features in Sans Soleil's section involving the tour around Vertigo's San Francisco locations, brief clips from Vertigo do feature in the French programme comparing the Hitchcock with La Jetee on the same disc (I remember being impressed that Universal allowed the clips to stay in!)

Well, if you're going to bend the rules like that, there were probably some stills including Stewart in one of the extras on The Furies!

I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?

tenia wrote:I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?

Until very, very recently most 1.85 movies were not only filmed 1.33, the 35mm prints sent to theaters were full-frame and then masked to 1.85. I don't know how much this practice has changed since both filming and exhibition went primarily digital.

The relevant question for me with that shot would be: what happens right before/after that shot? Is it a static shot with the dog laying there with its body lopped off the whole time?

Brian C wrote:

tenia wrote:I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?

Until very, very recently most 1.85 movies were not only filmed 1.33, the 35mm prints sent to theaters were full-frame and then masked to 1.85. I don't know how much this practice has changed since both filming and exhibition went primarily digital.

It still happens. Anton Chekhov's The Duel (2011) was shot open matte in 1.33.

Criterion just posted this picture from the film's first public screening on Facebook. It's clear from this still that the film was intended to be masked to Academy ratio by the combination of an actual matte and having two chummy tall people sit in front of you.

david hare wrote:Anatomy has always been a 1.85 no brainer to me. It's been interesting to have the regional option of an open matte but - to generalize - Prem was a master of widescreen and always makes it a part of his mise en scene.

The witness is referred to his earlier testimony.

L.A. wrote:Blu-rayDefinition.com

... "occasional patches of grain" as though it were a fault.