The film was shot in several locations in the Upper Peninsula (Big Bay, Marquette, Ishpeming, and Michigamme). Some scenes were actually filmed in the Thunder Bay Inn in Big Bay, Michigan, one block from the Lumberjack Tavern, the site of a 1952 murder[8] that inspired much of the novel. Though set in and filmed in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the world premiere for the 1959 film was held at the United Artists Theater in Detroit, MI.[9] This was subsequent to a local premiere at the Butler Theater in Ishpeming, MI. The Lumberjack Tavern is still in existence today. The murder scene body outline is still there, although it is possibly a restoration and not the original outline. The members of the jury panel from the original trial were contacted and asked to sit on the set. With the exception of a few that had either died or moved, most appeared in the film. The missing ones were replaced with local residents. The role of the judge was offered to both Spencer Tracy and Burl Ives, but ultimately went to Joseph Welch, who had made a name for himself representing the U.S. Army in hearings conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was Welch who famously asked of McCarthy, Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? Welch accepted the part only after Preminger agreed to let his wife be on the jury.[5] Chicago newspaper columnist Irv Kup Kupcinet has a small uncredited role in the film. Duke Ellington, who composed the music, appears as Pie-Eye, the owner of a roadhouse, with whom Jimmy Stewarts character plays piano. Legal aspects[edit] Facade of the Lumberjack Tavern, scene of the actual crime the film is based on The film examines the apparent fallibility of the human factor in jurisprudence.[10][11] In various ways all of the human components – the counsels for defense and prosecution, the defendant and his wife, and the witnesses – have different positions on what is right or wrong, and varying perspectives on integrity, justice, morality and ethics. It is to be noted that the reliance on credibility of witnesses, and the finding of facts based upon those determinations, is the Achilles heel of the judicial process.[11] One controversial legal issue in this film is possible witness coaching, a violation of legal canons. The only plausible legal defense Lt. Manion has – the insanity defense – is virtually spelled out to a befuddled Manion by his prospective counsel,[12] who then temporarily suspends the conversation and suggests that Manion rethink his factual/legal position. Witness coaching by the prosecution is even more blatant as they call in other jail inmates awaiting sentencing to testify against Manion, and is portrayed as subornation of perjury to an extent. The first suggests that the defendant may be concealing the truth and manipulating his story in order to obtain the best possible verdict, and the latter that the prosecution dangled a possible lighter sentence through plea bargain as an incentive to perjury.[6][13] Thus, there could be a synergy: compounding the inherent fallible nature of the process with the malleability of memory, the potential mendacity of witnesses, the showmanship and magic tricks involved in trials[14] and advocacy,[13] and the self-interest, venality, morality, poor perception and recollection, and ethical standards of the participants.[10][11] Indeed, the unreliability of judicial decisions based on demeanor is well established.[15] In protracted litigation, confabulated memory – filling in the blanks and recreating memories – is common, and research has documented the tendency. Repetitive and suggestive questioning tends to plant the seeds of memory.[16] The book and the film are among the most cogent examples of the lawyers dance. Horse shedding of witnesses is well known, if controversial and potentially unethical; it is not just an occasion to directly orchestrate perjury. What is more problematic is that it is possible to reach a point where “if you believe it, then it isn’t a lie.” Thus, even letter-perfect bona fide certainty of belief is not equivalent to a certification of accuracy or even truthfulness. This process is called horse shedding, sandpapering or wood shedding – the first and last names being metaphorical references to the location of such a collaboration.[17][18] Comparisons of film to novel[edit] The issue of the insanity defense was more thoroughly explored in the novel, and a key scene in which Biegler destroys the credibility and professionalism of the prosecutions psychiatric expert for proffering an opinion without examining the subject is watered down in the film almost to insignificance.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:19:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015