Witness for the Prosecution

Witness for the Prosecution_360P

Yours truly has never been much of a reader, though with one notable exception: the work of Agatha Christie. I absolutely, positively worship this brilliant woman and try to read as many of her novels, short stories and stage play adaptations as possible. "Witness for the Prosecution" is a genuine classic, and although somewhat atypical for Christie, it is undeniably one of the greatest stories ever penned down. There's one major disadvantage about having read all of Christie's whodunits, of course, namely that you can't experience the same astounding twist-in-the-end twice! I would really have loved to be overwhelmed by the climax of this film- version, especially because Marlene Dietrich and Tyrone Power give away such fabulous performances. The story, with its fascinating characters and dazzling plot twists, does remain the movie's biggest strongpoint, but there are a number of more reasons why "Witness for the Prosecution" is righteously considered as one of the most massive milestones in cinematic history. Billy Wilder's surefooted direction, for one, and the stellar performances of the entire ensemble cast. I mentioned Dietrich and Power already, but there's also the downright phenomenal Charles Laughton (arguably the most shamefully neglected actor/director in history) and an appealing supportive role for Elsa Lancaster. But do I daresay that the ultimate success-factor of this stage play adaptation is the masterful re-creation of the court trial? The bombastic settings and decors, the echoing acoustics, the powerful monologues of confident (and arrogant) barristers and the intimidating gowns and wigs are largely what make "Witness for the Prosecution" not only the first but also the mother of all courtroom dramas. This may just be the opinion of an avid fan, but practically ALL great courtroom-dramas that were released from the sixties until present day ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Philadelphia", "Devil's Advocate", "A Few Good Men"…) were clearly influenced by "Witness for the Prosecution". In fact, I only have one minor complaint: *** Spoiler **** the film version adds one more final twist that I didn't find 100% plausible.

WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! The Billy Wilder touch adds cynical wit to his sparkling adaptation of Dame Agatha Christie's play WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (WftP), with some of the best lines in a Wilder movie since DOUBLE INDEMNITY, thanks to Wilder, Harry Kurnitz, and Larry Marcus. In our household, "Is that really desirable?" has become a catchphrase, along with many other gems from the mouths of star Charles Laughton and the rest of the sterling cast! :-) I only hope people seeing this for the first time haven't already seen Marlene Dietrich's scene-stealing performance in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL, or they might tumble to the twist finale before they're supposed to! :-) (In fact, if I recall correctly, when WftP was shown on Turner Classic Movies, Robert Osborne mentioned in his intro that Welles helped Dietrich out with her WftP "Cockney informant" makeup as a favor!) La Dietrich looks fabulous and keeps you fascinated even when she's coming across as the ultimate bitch; it's a shame she wasn't nominated for an Oscar along with co-stars Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester. Tyrone Power's usual slightly wooden delivery actually serves him well as the defendant; somehow it adds to defendant Leonard Vole's air of feckless innocence. Henry Daniell, John Williams, Ian Wolfe, Torin Thatcher, and particularly Norma Varden as the ill-fated Emily French provide able support, too, with Una O'Connor stealing her scenes as Mrs. French's loyal but "antagnistic" Scottish housekeeper. A young, brunette Ruta Lee provides a memorable moment or two. As sickly but sly barrister Wilfrid Robarts and his chipper but no-nonsense nurse, Miss Plimsoll, real-life husband and wife Laughton and Lanchester shine in the most engaging performances of their careers. The comic sparring chemistry between Sir Wilfrid Robarts and Miss Plimsoll, and the warmth and understanding that's grown between them by movie's end, had my husband Vinnie opining that if another movie was made featuring these characters, Miss Plimsoll would probably end up as Mrs. Robarts before it was over -- what a delightful series that could have been! Hey, at the very least, I'd have paid good money to see Billy Wilder direct Laughton, Lanchester, and Dietrich in a sequel in which Sir Wilfrid prepares for the trial of Christine Vole, a.k.a. Christine Helm! :-)

I don't think that it is quite as good as And Then There Were None, but this is an extremely good film, and I am 17. Both my dad and I think it is a well-directed, well-acted and well-constructed courtroom film, right up there with Anatomy of a Murder. I genuinely enjoyed this film, and really don't understand why it is ignored by people. The direction was solid and tight, as is usually the case with the late Billy Wilder. He deserves to be known as a great director, up there with David Lean and Alfred Hitchkock, both of whom have directed some of the greatest cinematic masterpieces in existence. What impressed me most was the nail-biting suspense put into the script, which was not only tense but very funny as well, evident with the character of Sir Wilfred. I would have never guessed the final solution, that Christina Vole was the gypsy you meet halfway through, even if I was an Agatha Christie fan or not. The acting was what made the movie. Tyrone Power was very good as the defendant Stephen Vole, accused of killing a spinster. It is so sad that he died a year later while filming Solomon and Sheba, but he did very well in his last completed role. Marlene Dietrich was brilliant as Christina, and her scenes in the courtroom are the main reason why this film should be seen. Stealing the film, however, is Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts, with his acidic remarks and his charismatic presence. The scene with the monocle and the light is probably the most famous scene of the film, or certainly the one I'm most familiar with, and that was genius. In conclusion, a brilliant film, that just lacks the suspense and terror of And Then there Were None, though both films are full of both elements. A must see! 9/10 Bethany Cox.

Another extremely overrated classic, and this one always compared to Otto Preminger's Anatomy Of A Murder, and Billy Wilder's stagey direction of an Agatha Christie stage-play mystery of Witness for the Prosecution couldn't be more different if it centered on purple unicorns traipsing through Iceland... The first is an existential courtroom drama about a man who's entirely guilty of murder, and here it's obvious someone's not telling the truth. Either a horribly aged once-perfect-looking Tyrone Power (with a gorgeous trophy in the wings played by Ruta Lee, pictured twice): he's accused of killing a rich old lady befriended for need of a loan on an egg-beating invention, or the title character in Marlene Dietrich, who gives the best performance overall, especially having to do with a twist that really only works in repose... Meanwhile, the always great acting team of Charles Laughton, as the flawed defense consul of the English Court, and real life wife-beard Elsa Lanchester, are only pretty good here, going back and forth more like another kind of stage play. Comedy, perhaps. Which simply doesn't fit here, and with everything mounting to the last five minutes, like mysteries do, this isn't one for rewatching: another major difference between Anatomy Of A Murder, a true classic that really needs a divorce from this otherwise semi-decent courtroom melodrama.

A decent murder mystery is composed of A) unique perplexing crime, followed by B) a unique but insightful solution that allows C) a reconstructed throughline that isn't completely ridiculous. Ideally a smart viewer can play along and pick up clues to assemble the solution but it's not mandatory, and most mysteries from Sherlock Holmes to Sam Spade ignore that last merit. Most movies hope to wow you sufficiently with the solution that you don't go back and test it for believability. Mediocre mysteries always get one of the parts wrong, and it's usually item C. The correctly ordered universe when you piece it together is often silly and overextended beyond belief. And the explained universe is either of no special consequence or composed of absurd or impossible elements. The crime here is so trifling that it doesn't merit the solution or the elaborate smoke-screen. It's so utterly non-complex that one is starved in the end for a surprise/twist, and Christie half-heartedly obliges. Just who are these criminals who can't be bothered to waste an ounce of intelligence on preventing detection, but who stockpile oodles of criminal brilliance and subterfuge for their trial? On top of that, they chose an actress who couldn't pull off the dual role and had to be dubbed. Tyrone Power is looking way old here; too old to be playing a gigolo. Never did I imagine a movie with this title would concern itself with a failed egg-beater inventor... surely one of the most absurd characters ever written. There is no explanation for the generally high ratings this gets here. It's almost completely unremarkable. You can watch this in eleven segments on youtube. This is one of a handful of low points for Billy Wilder.

To see "Witness for the Prosecution" for the first time in 2008 is a jolting surprise. Nobody could do it better than Billy Wilder did in 1957. A man accused of murder, Tyrone Power, the weakest link in this terrific chain. Sir Wilfred is called to defend him, he is played by the extraordinary Charles Laughton, but he's just out of hospital - he wasn't dismissed he was expelled - and due to doctor's orders he's not to take any criminal cases. He finds Power charming and personable enough but he's not going to risk his life to save his until Marlene Dietrich makes her entrance - and what an entrance! How marvelous that what amounts to a bit of Agatha Christie's usual fare becomes such an entertaining and at times right down riveting piece of film-making.

Witness for the Prosecution is, as IMDb voters cann attest, a great movie. A clever, character-driven courtroom drama, it deserved the Academy Award nominations that it received in 1958, and it has justly endured to the present day. Starring the terrific talents of Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power, and particularly Marlene Dietrich, directed by Billy Wilder, and based on the superb short story by Agatha Christie, it is a combination has all of the very best ingredients, and delivers a nearly outstanding film. The movie centers around Laughton's character, an aged, feisty, and very canny English barrister (lawyer) who is in poor health and headed toward retirement. The opening of the movie is entirely Laughton's show, as he portrays a curmudgeonly and endearing character. On his first day home from the hospital, he soon takes up the defense of Leonard Vole (Power) a man who is charged with murder and up against a barrage of circumstantial evidence. Power is convincing as the honest and somewhat naive defendant, in increasingly over his head. Soon, Dietrich makes her entrance as Vole's cool German femme fatal of a wife. After a few flashbacks to set up the story of the murder case, Laughton takes up Vole's case. What ensues is a well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, in which Laughton continues to shine, delivering a convincing performance peppered with humor. Soon, the story takes a series of dramatic twists, during which Power plays his part as the beleaguered defendant to the hilt and Dietrich uses the gifts that made her a legend. By the end, the audience has been treated to an excellent drama with sensational acting. The result is a classic, but not an icon in the sense that Christie's short story, penned twenty years earlier, would become. While it may be the best-regarded of all Christie adaptations (Murder on the Orient Express a possible exception), the movie does not seem to have the stature it ought to have. At the end of the movie, I did not feel the same as when I read the story, and not just because I knew all along how it would turn out. With such visible talent on all fronts, I took a long look at what it was, and what was missing. The answer: Christie. The movie is good in its own right, but from the beginning misses the crucial aspect that the original story has: the mystery. Agatha Christie is the master of suspense, and throughout the story, that suspense, that anxiousness to know what will happen next, the eagerness to know where this next twist will lead, and the shock that comes at the very end, were what the story was all about. The direction the movie went, the legal thriller, substituted drama for mystery, and while the movie only added to the story, changing very little of what Christie wrote, the movie lost the grip that only she could create. Christie treated the courtroom proceedings (the centerpiece of the movie) with brevity, focusing on the intrigue surrounding the case. Also, the Hollywood ending overdoes it a little bit, and deprives the most important plot twist of some of its its emotional impact. That said, however, the movie is still a classic. Fortunately, the heart of the story was still very strong, with a unique plot and rich characters, which were taken advantage of by Wilder and the cast, respectively. And, as it turns out, the movie is a good complement to the story. To those who have only seen the movie, the story should be read to truly appreciate the missing value of the mystery. To those who have read the story, the movie nails the characters (particularly Dietrich's Mrs. Vole). All in all, I give this movie a 9 out of 10, and would gladly see it again.

This is one of the best "trial movies" ever made. It's an outstanding film that is just as good today as it was almost 50 years ago when it was released in the theaters. The shocking ending caused quite a stir back then, too. The only part of the movie I thought looked dated and unrealistic was Tyrone Power's character being able to interrupt the trial with outbursts and not be reprimanded for it. There is no way that would be tolerated, at least today. Otherwise, it's a pretty solid film with a good cast that includes two fascinating characters played by actors who know how to entertain: Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich. Laughton, who plays Power's defense attorney, grabs the spotlight in the story but Dietrich almost steals the movie in her role as Power's wife. Laughton's dialog is terrific throughout, bringing a number of laughs to this serious film. He's just a joy to watch. Dietrich is even more riveting but just doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of screen time as Laughton. Not to be overlooked is Elsa Lanchester, playing Laughton's nurse. She, too, demonstrates her comedic talent and significantly adds to the fun of watching this film. If you like some fine drama, storyline twists, a little humor thrown in and great acting and dialog, this is a classic film to check out.

In a recent biography of Billy Wilder, Agatha Christie is quoted as saying that this was the best adaption of her work ever done on the screen. I can't praise Witness for the Prosecution any higher than that. Tyrone Power in his farewell film plays Leonard Vole who befriends a dotty old widow played by Norma Varden. She even rewrites her will leaving him the bulk of a very large estate. When she's murdered, Scotland Yard arrests Power. Power's solicitor Henry Daniell retains a dream team for defense of John Williams and the recently recovered Charles Laughton. Laughton is recovering from a heart attack and against medical advice plunges into the case. Laughton also has to deal with the efforts of his assigned nurse Elsa Lanchester to keep him following doctor's advice. The original play this was taken from concentrated completely on the Power character and the machinations of his wife. Wilder built up the character of the nurse and barrister Sir Wilfred Robards so that they almost equaled the screen time of Mr. and Mrs. Vole. So much so that Charles Laughton was nominated for an Academy Award in 1957, but lost to Alec Guinness. Marlene Dietrich plays Mrs. Vole. She's a war bride over from Germany and she's got her own agenda going. Her performance and what her character does is the key to the whole film. Dietrich probably would have gotten an Oscar nomination herself, but due to the fact that if her performance was hyped up for Academy consideration, the element of surprise would have been lost in the film. Wilder in fact apologized to Marlene for that. The Anglo-Saxon legal system's goal is justice. Justice is served though not quite in the way it usually is in Witness for the Prosecution.