Director: Billy Wilder
Writers: Agatha Christie / Billy Wilder / Harry Kuniz
Starring: Tyrone Bowa / Marlene Dietrich / Charles Lawton / Elsa Lanchester / John Williams
Christie's novels are not easily adapted into film and television works. Because female writers in order to increase the suspense of the novel, in the book usually design a lot of suspected characters involved. Of these people, only one or two are real murderers (perhaps the Orient Express is an exception), and most of the others are just a trick to confuse the reader. But this kind of story mode, once visualized by the film, creates the serious problem that Hitchcock once mentioned in his evaluation of his "Jamaica Inn": the director cannot let an unknown actor play the real murderer. Because if that were the case, the audience would be bored when the truth came out. But if only he is played by a big star, it is easy for the audience to guess the ending. So Hitchcock didn't like to adapt Whodoneit-esque detective dramas.
But there is no similar problem with "Prosecution Witness". Not only is it not too many people involved, but even the murderer has almost been identified on the head of one person. The rest of the suspense of the story is entirely focused on: whether he really committed a crime! Therefore, under this relatively compact story structure, director Billy White has enough space to use his unique comedy style to enrich the story content and character.
Originally, I wanted to briefly describe the plot, but due to the suspenseful content of this film, it is inconvenient to go too deep. So let's take the beginning of a storyline as an example of Billy White's cleverness as a great screenwriter. First, to pull out all the branches of this part of the plot, let's see what the rest of the story is: the movie begins, and the barrister who has been hospitalized for heart disease has just been discharged from the hospital to go home to recuperate. It just so happened that the assistant lawyer brought a homicide case and hoped that he would defend the defendant. At first, barristers didn't want to accept it because of rehabilitation considerations, but then changed their minds. Through the conversation, he learned that the defendant and the deceased (a solitary lady) had initially met briefly in a clothing store, and then, after some time, they met again in the theater and became friends. And then the romance happens.
The plot is briefly described so far, you can see, there is nothing special. But after being added by Billy White: the lawyer moved home from the hospital to recuperate, accompanied by a well-meaning but dedicated nurse. The lawyer hated the nurse, but there was nothing he could do. When they got home, the shrewd nurse confiscated the cigar the lawyer had hidden in the crutches. It annoyed him, who saw the smoke as his life. At this time, the assistant lawyer led the defendant to the door. Barristers who were not prepared not to accept homicide cases (because they were easily agitated) stumbled upon two cigars in the assistant counsel's pocket and changed their minds. I wanted to listen to the case statement and pull him to the study to take a few sips. Unfortunately, neither of them had any matches, so they had no choice but to call in the defendant who was waiting outside the door. He also didn't have matches but had lighters. So he saved the life of the barrister. As if in return, he decided to sit down and listen more closely to the cause of the case. So the defendant began to tell: one day, he was passing by a clothing store and happened to see a wife (the deceased) picking out a hat. When she tried on a top, she happened to glance at the defendant standing outside the shop window. The defendant shook his head at her and said he didn't like the hat. So the lady obediently changed into a top hat. At this time, the defendant nodded approvingly. The lady then hurried out the door to say a few words of greeting to him. Then the two parted ways. A few weeks later, in a movie theater, the defendant was watching a movie when the wife came in and sat in the front row directly in front of the defendant, wearing the top hat that the defendant had chosen for her. But the top hat obscured the defendant's view. He probed to the front row, just about to complain, suddenly recognized each other, so the two of them talked excitedly...
See where the cleverness is? Plot development has a strong correlation. And what connects it is the "key things." The first is the nurse. Nurses were introduced to create conflicts with lawyers. And the result of contradictions, produces the first "key thing": cigars! She confiscated the lawyer's cigar. And this is not a simple cutscene that expresses the character of the character or simply produces comedic effects. Cigars are directly related to the next barrister's behavior: barristers who had already declined to visit suddenly found cigars in the assistant counsel's pockets! So instead of taking a nap, I went into the study for so-called "discussions." However, because the two did not have matches, they were forced to pull the defendant in to borrow a fire. So the story began to shift to the barrister taking on the case. The defendant's recollection paragraph is even more wonderful. It also has a key thing: hats! The first thing that connected the two was the hat. But if the choreographer will meet again, casually designed to walk on the street to recognize each other face to face or something like that. Of course, it's not necessary, but it's boring. Because of the lack of drama. So how do you make the second encounter dramatic? Billy White thought of hats and thought of theater. Block the view of those behind you through the top hat! Haha, how clever!
Back to the plot. Next, the defendant's wife also visited the barrister who took over the case. From the testimony she gave, it appears that the defendant is indeed guilty. The barrister immediately pointed out that she was the defendant's wife and could not testify against the defendant. But the other party's response was even more shocking: in fact, the two are not husband and wife! In the face of this sudden change, how will the barrister respond, and what will be the subsequent development of the story? ......
Barristers are played by veteran British star Charles Lawton. Although Lawton is listed on the credits after Dillon Bowie (the defendant) and Marlene Derich (the defendant's wife), the barrister he portrays is the central character of the film. The second half of the film's trial highlights are almost entirely dominated by it. This character is arrogant, arrogant, and unreasonable. But at the same time, he has the qualities necessary for a good lawyer: keen observation, careful thinking... Billy White also added a visual gimmick when expressing his case-handling style: talking to the parties involved in the case, he always liked to pull out his unilateral glasses and look at his opponents. The function of the lens here is not to see things clearly, but to use the reflection of sunlight outside the house to flash directly on the other person's face. According to the barrister, by observing the instantaneous reaction of the person being shaken, he can judge whether the other party is telling the truth. But is this quirky trick really easy to make? You won't know until you watch the movie.
In the scene depicting the barrister, there is another detail that is very interesting. During the trial, whenever others spoke, Lawton seemed to be bored fiddling with the twenty pills given to him by the nurse on the table, arranged in a horizontal and vertical phalanx. Then, the camera revealed that newspapers on the street were selling newspapers about the development of the case. Reintegrate back into the courtroom. At this point, less than half of the pills on Lawton's desk remained. Because of the previous situation: the nurse asked him to take medicine every half an hour. So this set of shot editing is actually a hint at how long the audience's trial lasted... It seems that Billy White's pure film expression method of "knowing things with things" drawn from his early cooperation with Liu Beiqian. It seems a little complicated and obscure, but it is also interesting.
Marlene Dreić is perhaps the true evergreen in Hollywood history. The evergreen mentioned here does not refer to her acting career, but to the face that seems to never grow old! When watching the film, it is really hard to imagine that the defendant's wife is already a 56-year-old person. Dillon Bowie, on the other hand, is treacherous in appearance. Especially those two black eyebrows, so that the audience can not help but preconceived that this person is the real murderer. But is it so "obvious" that the director deliberately uses the actor's image characteristics to make some kind of misleading? Again, you only know it if you have read it.
There is no nurse role in the original. Billy White deliberately installed the role to enhance the dramatic conflict and comedic effects of the film. Lawton's real-life wife, British actress Elsa Lancaster, has, as always, showcased her outstanding talent with the field of comedy. The rivalry between her and Lawton, due to the real husband and wife identity of the two, makes the performance more exciting and the comedic effect is more intense.
Of the opponents who fought lawton's trial, the most interesting was the maid of the deceased. This old lady, from the appearance to the pronunciation is full of joy. At the same time, the combat effectiveness is also very amazing! The first round hit the barrister hard. Of course, in the end, it was because the other party cunning caught a physical weakness and lost the battle. Golden Age American films, especially comedies, can impress even with small supporting characters. This may be related to the large number of European immigrants among the filmmakers at that time. Their way of performing actually reflects the European understanding of comedy: it emphasizes the comedic expressiveness of the actor's image, expression, body movement and even voice link, rather than just memorizing the lines. But now, as a new generation of purebred Native Americans has come to dominate, Hollywood's fine comedy tradition has faded. Although there are still very few directors such as the Coen brothers who are trying to persevere, people have seen too much: the beautiful handsome girl who does not know what is real comedy has become a comedy of youth; and then it is the same as the sixsome, and whether or not my performance is comedic and convincing, anyway, opening her mouth and closing her mouth is a baggage joke. In fact, in the end, it is just a proxy tool for talk show writers.
The film's ending treatment seems debatable. But it no longer seems important. Because Billy White has created this court drama, it has allowed the audience to completely put aside horror and suspense, and simply treat it as a good comedy or drama. Of course, the wonderful interpretations of several performance artists are also indispensable.