This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

As I recall, the issue of "rape vs. consensual" is a major element of the plot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.234 ( talk) 01:30, 27 September 2002 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, or if I did, it was years ago. If you think this is true, please go ahead and add it to the subject page. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added by Zoe ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 September 2002 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a major issue, being that it wasn't a rape trial, the suggestion was being made more to discredit the witnesses than anything-- Shadebug 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got the DVD in front of me and there's a lovely BBFC 12 shield on it. So I'm thinking the Rating should be changed to refect that unless that box is for rating at the time of release or something similar-- Shadebug 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was watching this movie (not from the beginning) and was confused as to whether the references to Thunder bay (the town or city) referred to Thunder Bay - Ontario (is there a Thunder Bay - Michigan?). There were other references to Ontario (Blind River - Ontario). So - where exactly was this bar, and rape, take place? In Ontario, or Michigan? What city does the trial take place in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 ( talk) 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It takes place in Michigan. The actual murder took place in Big Bay, just north of Marquette along the shore of Lake Superior. The trial takes place in Marquette. The movie and book use fake names though almost all of the events, characters and towns are real.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmeyer ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article a stub? It seems pretty complete to me. Fang Aili 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We are at B, IMHO. Not it was not complete. Luigibob 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the "B", and that it is not "complete." I'm sure if we put in some critical reaction and some links to some reviews under the new category "Critical reaction" we will be more close to complete. That being said, I also think it isn't a "Stub." 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

I made some additions. Beefed up the NY Times review. We could put in another review? Any thoughts?

I also added the ABA list and several citations for "best trial movies of all time." IMHO, this is NOT a "Stub" 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

Respectfully, ITS NOT A STUB ANYMORE Kindly remove that tag. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

If you go to the reference I provided in the article (Rottentomatoes.com) there are lots of good reviews. If we need to rewrite this section, I thought this review was pretty lucid as a beginning. http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=526 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

Today I deleted "Best Trial Movie" section because it is way off-topic. The section included a list of other trial films that do not belong in article. I suggest USER start a Wiki article on the topic. Also, the section included many NPOV edits, and included films that should have been listed as "best trial" movies as well. Problem: Original work, off-topic, and NPOV.

Also I edited the critical reception section because, clearly, the section has been edited by a "cheerleader" of the film. To be sure, the film is excellent, but we wikipedians must remain neutral as much as possible. It should also be said that the "enthusiastic" user has done very good work on the article. Luigibob ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Luigibob: Thanks for the recognition. I took up your suggestion (a subject that I had earlier broached, too) and moved the best " Trial movies" elsewhere. I will endeavor to build that up with some meaningful citations and discourse. If you have suggestions, please contact me directly, or put them in that discussion page there. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

I wrote extensively on the best trial movies. I think it is good material, and may deserve an article on its own. I would hate to just have it disappear in editing. We then could have a See Also link to that article. However, I think on balance it should be moved to a different article entirely, with a brief statement maybe, as it becomes a digression from the Anatomy of a Murder piece. Any thoughts? Opinions? 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

I broke this up within the article. Is that sufficient? 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

The offending section has been moved out totally to an new article, trial movies. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

I had occasion to rewatch this, and found Welch's performance (and the judicial model he adopted) to be quite remarkable. I have not yet found a citation to support the remark I put in, and of course I recognize my personal opinion (however informed it may be) is not a cognizable source. Maybe somebody can find something to support it? 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Stan

See this article in today's Detroit Free Press. Here is another link with lots of good info. Northern Michigan University, Anatomy of a Murder. I note particularly the photograph of Voelkler and Jimmy Stewart, which is from the Archive of Michigan. I believe that there photos are usable, provided they are credited. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

I'm not seeing the photo you referred to. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to work through the resources at Northern Michigan University. Readers Guide to Anatomy of a Murder, Nrothern Michigan University. However, the same picture should be available at the Archive of Michigan. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 11:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Sorry, I thought I had deleted my comment, as I found the photo about 2 seconds after I posted that note. I'm not sure that's it's usable, though, being from a state archive and not a Federal one. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the "Use and reproduction link" on the Archive paqe you posted, one needs permission to use photos from the archive, so I dropped them an e-mail asking if they'd be willing to license the image under GFDL or CC, but I don't expect they will. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. It's a great pic, and there certainly is no harm in askin'. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

The Detroit Free Press today published two really good articles on the movie, the 50th anniversary festivities, and the musical score. Because these are put in to the Free Press archives in about a week (and access to them is limited), these links are in the nature of ephemera.

• Monaghan, John, The movie that put Ishpeming on the map: UP plans events this summer to mark 50th anniversary of 'Anatomy of a Murder', January 20, 2009 Detroit Free Press.
• Stryker, Mark, Music Critic, Ellington's score still celebrated, January 20, 2009 Detroit Free Press.

7&6=thirteen ( talk) 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

I believe there was also a stage version, I actually saw it not that long ago, it deserves a mention. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included a mention, but there's not that much to say about it, other than the adaptor and the date of publication. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief comment about these two terminologies. The information that is presented by way of subscripted numbers in the text and a separate numbered list at the bottom of th article are indeed "references", they are simply references that are presented in the form of footnotes - which is why I prefer to use the terminology "Notes" to refer to them. "Notes" also has the advantage that it's a little less specific than "references" and thus can include incidental information of an explanatory nature which doesn't easily fit into the text -- "asides", if you will, in which the reader is given a little extra information. That sort of information is not technically a "reference", but it is a "note".

In any book that is notated, either the notes are at the foot of the page (hence literally "footnotes") or they are in a separate section at the back of the book, and that section is almost invariably called "Notes". The information in the notes are the references cited, and also the additional explanatory information I referred to above.

In a situation where there are both Notes and a Bibliography, then those two sections of information together can be called "References" - so I think the compromise that's been presented is very good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{( talk / cont)} 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indented line

This is an excellent point and would address the issue in so many wikipedia articles, the boxes indicating the lack of citations for material where the idea of formal citations is nonsensical, such as differences between the film and the novel. Any rational person not immersed in the pretensions of Wikipedia culture takes one look at that and rolls their eyes. "I've read the book and seen the film, It's in the one and not the other, ass." There aren't references for that kind of thing any more than there are for "Leaves are green." Simply downgrading the terminology to something less affected, like notes, increases your chances of getting the citation you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.37.235 ( talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at "Notes" "Footnotes" and "References"in Sherman Minton. It is a format I have emulated in other articles, adn it has worked out very well. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Jimmy Stewart is the inspiration for the Hyperchicken on Futurama. Patbahn ( talk) 05:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What has that to do with this movie? Did you write this comment on Harvey and It's a Wonderful Life, too? Gtwfan52 ( talk) 09:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hyperchicken repeatedly refers to himself as a simple country lawyer, as does Stewart in this film. Stewart might not be the influence, but he is definitely an influence. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This section has been saddled with the following:

This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (May 2009) ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

With all due respect, it is a complicated legal and ethical and psychological issue, and is written as such. With due citations. This involves a certain amount of "legal jargon" and "psychological jargon", which at least in this article is properly used and for good and effective reasons. Removing the requisite language which is required to cover the subject seems to me to be a requirement that we 'dumb it down.' I think that the only thing wrong with this section is the banner. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Stan

This part of the article I found rather awkward:

"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."

The first problem here is that it uses the term horse-shedding and defines it afterward. Also, my (admittedly minimal) research seems to indicate that the term actually has a quite broad meaning, essentially, any kind of witness preparation by attorneys. It is rare for a witness whose testimony is expected to be significant to go to the stand without some preparation. The above seems to suggest that the term horse-shedding should refer to the unethical brand of preparation, essentially subornation of perjury or something close to it, or at least lean toward that understanding.

Looking up horse-shedding on Wikipedia redirects to subornation of perjury, though that article does not equate the terms, but only points out that there is a fine line between the "good" and "bad" kinds. Even that might benefit from a little expert clarification. (I added a reference there that I think is a good one.)

Legal niceties being what they are, I'm reluctant to "go boldly" on this one, at least at the moment, so I'll chicken out a bit and see if anyone else has something to say about it here first. Rhsimard ( talk) 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no question this section is clumsily structured. I'm a tech writer and excellent editor, and will gladly clean it up, if someone from Wikipedia asks me to. I will not fix it, then have the change reverted for no good reason. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 13:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a scene in which Stewart shows the judge and the prosecutors the judgment in an 1886 trial, and the prosecutors admit to themselves that they've lost the case. What this judgment is, and why it affects this trial, is never explained. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I just watched this film and did see this explained about one hour in, when the 1886 case in question was first located by defense attorneys. They described it as setting much-needed Michigan Supreme Court precedent in rulings regarding "irresistible impulse." - Sara FB ( talk) 06:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be mentioned that Lana Turner was originally cast in the Lee Remick role but Lana walked off the set when she and Preminger fought over costumes and inherently just couldn't get along. 50.202.81.2 ( talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source? DonIago ( talk) 12:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that, as with all films which do not indicate character names in the opening or closing credits, Anatomy of a Murder character names are basically WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, deduced from personal viewing of the film and/or copied from the film's entry in such websites as AFI Catalog of Feature Films or IMDb. Below are the cast names as these appear in the opening credits:

The very brief closing credits simply depict THE END.
     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The movie is tagged as a courtroom drama and as a crme film but not as film noir and I'm wondering why not. There's enough moral ambiguity to qualify it plus Lee Remick's character has enough traits of the femme fatale to suggest noir. As frosting on the cake Eve Arden has the type of hardboiled wisecracking role that's a staple of the genre. Don G Taylor ( talk) 21:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that describes it thusly; anything else is original research. Allmovie calls it a courtroom drama. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There are some:

• Phillips, Gene D. (2012). Out of the Shadows: Expanding the Canon of Classic Film Noir. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. pp. 161+. ISBN  978-0-8108-8189-1.
• Backstein, Karen. "Anatomy of a Murder". Barnes & Noble.

Those are just two works that discuss the movie in the realm of film noir. Imzadi 1979  → 00:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's obvious that Barnes and Noble isn't a reliable source for establising a film's genre...I don't know about that other source, but I'd recommend checking AFI or BFI instead as those are well-regarded at WP:FILM. DonIago ( talk) 01:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

According to LDS Records, the defendant Coleman Peterson died 1977 in texas at https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3AColeman%20%2Bsurname%3APeterson%20%2Bdeath_place%3ATexas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.87.37 ( talk) 22:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Maurice Chenoweth
• Coleman Peterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.181.242 ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)