Witness for the Prosecution (1957) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[bujaki]

Johnny,
Elsa Lanchester, his wife, was his "beard." Since she survived him, he never shaved it off.

 

[Thomas T]

I don't recall him having a beard in many roles. How did he not have to shave it off? Was so light as to be invisible?

Not to derail the thread but since others have brought it up, the term "beard" is not to be taken literally. It's a slang term to describe a woman who is being used by a homosexual to cover up his sexual identity. It does not, in fact, apply to Mr. Laughton who was bi-sexual (not a speculation, it's been acknowledged by his contemporaries). Since Laughton was bi-sexual, it negates the term "beard".

 

[Johnny Angell]

Jose and Thomas, thank you. I was not familiar with the word "beard" being used that way. This reminds me of the time when we took one of our cats to the vet. We commented that sometimes "he gets his nose out-of-joint." The vet looked puzzled and said his nose looked fine. My wife and I had a big laugh and explained what we meant.

No back to our scheduled programming.

 

[Will Krupp]

But I totally understand how some people don't like other people trashing their cinematic darlings

Kinda similar to your reaction to someone opining that Faye Dunaway is truly terrible in the truly terrible MOMMIE DEAREST, isn't it?

 

[Thomas T]

Kinda similar to your reaction to someone opining that Faye Dunaway is truly terrible in the truly terrible MOMMIE DEAREST, isn't it?

Not at all. I have no problem with others trashing Dunaway's performance at all. I just offered an alternate opinion that in other quarters, her performance is greatly admired (I think everyone can agree the film is a dud). She missed winning the best actress award from the New York film critics by a few votes (Glenda Jackson won).

Ms. Dunaway is hardly one of my "cinematic darlings". My favorite actresses are Bette Davis, Vanessa Redgrave, Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Page and Julia Roberts and you or anyone are more than welcome to trash them.

 

[Douglas R]

Do the studios go out of their way to make the covers butt-ugly?

Oh - and I was just about to say what a great cover!

It is, of course based on the original artwork and I'm glad to see that Kino Lorber is retaining the original artwork for all of these UA releases.

 

[Douglas R]

There's a "twist" in the film that even the most backward child can guess.

I must have been extremely backward then, because it came as a big shock to me when i saw it on first release!

I think you're wrong in suggesting moviegoers at the time easily guessed the ending. It's important to remember that in 1957 a twist ending was exceptionally rare. It was certainly the first one which i saw, which no doubt magnified the surprise. Off-hand I can't even think of similar twists in films prior to WITNESS. Nowadays every other film has to have a twist ending and if one expects them, then it's much easier to work them out.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I don't want to start an argument, David. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective (even Pauline Kael called WFTP "inane but moderately entertaining").

And here I've always thought that Pauline Kael was inane but moderately entertaining.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Oh - and I was just about to say what a great cover!

It is, of course based on the original artwork and I'm glad to see that Kino Lorber is retaining the original artwork for all of these UA releases.

I guess it's a personal reaction. The appearance of a bulls-eye overlaying Laughton makes no sense, in relation to the film. Having one of his eyes blotted out by the center of the bullseye is just ugly, IMHO.

I must have been extremely backward then, because it came as a big shock to me when i saw it on first release!

I think you're wrong in suggesting moviegoers at the time easily guessed the ending. It's important to remember that in 1957 a twist ending was exceptionally rare. It was certainly the first one which i saw, which no doubt magnified the surprise. Off-hand I can't even think of similar twists in films prior to WITNESS. Nowadays every other film has to have a twist ending and if one expects them, then it's much easier to work them out.

I've had similar reactions myself. Count me in as one of the lucky ones who don't guess the surprise ending.

 

[Will Krupp]

I must have been extremely backward then, because it came as a big shock to me when i saw it on first release!

I actually saw the Diana Rigg remake (when it first aired in 1982) BEFORE I saw the original and I was also totally shocked by the ending. I've never had the pleasure of seeing the 1957 version without already knowing what was going to happen beforehand but I always enjoy the way it plays out..

 

[Thomas T]

I must have been extremely backward then, because it came as a big shock to me when i saw it on first release!

If you haven't seen the film, do not open

Spoiler

The inadequacies of Dietirch as an actress were obvious when I saw the "mystery" woman with a scar. I knew it was Dietrich right away! Hence, it was obvious she was complicit in covering up her husband's crime

 

[Will Krupp]

If you haven't seen the film, do not open

Spoiler

The inadequacies of Dietirch as an actress were obvious when I saw the "mystery" woman with a scar. I knew it was Dietrich right away! Hence, it was obvious she was complicit in covering up her husband's crime

At that point, I'm sure many people made the same erroneous assumption that Charles Laughton's character makes when that is revealed. The "twist" isn't so much the scene you reference as is the reason behind it.

 

[Mark-P]

Not to derail the thread but since others have brought it up, the term "beard" is not to be taken literally. It's a slang term to describe a woman who is being used by a homosexual to cover up his sexual identity. It does not, in fact, apply to Mr. Laughton who was bi-sexual (not a speculation, it's been acknowledged by his contemporaries). Since Laughton was bi-sexual, it negates the term "beard".

I'm not going to get into an argument about it, but in her autobiography Lanchester revealed that Laughton had periodically cheated on her with men for which she forgave him. If that's your definition of bi-sexuality, then so be it.

Oh, and by the way, bi-sexuals had to be closeted back then too!

 

[Thomas T]

I'm not going to get into an argument about it, but in her autobiography Lanchester revealed that Laughton had periodically cheated on her with men for which she forgave him. If that's your definition of bi-sexuality, then so be it.

Oh, and by the way, bi-sexuals had to be closeted back then too!

Of course, bi-sexuals were closeted, I never said they weren't. The issue is whether as a bi-sexual man as opposed to a gay man, Laughton needed a "beard". Bi-sexual meaning attracted to or engaging in relationships with both sexes. Clearly, Laughton and Lanchester had a long and loving relationship and Laughton wanted children but Lanchester was unable to conceive. I don't know what your definition of bi-sexual is but certainly Laughton is an example of bi-sexual man.

No doubt the moderators will soon come along and tell us to knock it off and not without justification but it's simply not fair to accuse Laughton's 33 year marriage as a fraud.

 

[Matt Hough]

I guess it's a personal reaction. The appearance of a bulls-eye overlaying Laughton makes no sense, in relation to the film. Having one of his eyes blotted out by the center of the bullseye is just ugly, IMHO.

That's not a bull's eye. If you've seen the film, you should remember that Laughton's Sir Wilfred uses his monocle to focus on a person's eyes when they're telling their story as a means of catching them in a lie. He does it to both Power and Dietrich's characters in the film's first half.

 

[Johnny Angell]

That's not a bull's eye. If you've seen the film, you should remember that Laughton's Sir Wilfred uses his monocle to focus on a person's eyes when they're telling their story as a means of catching them in a lie. He does it to both Power and Dietrich's characters in the film's first half.

I get that, since you've pointed it out. However, it's not really a picture of a monocle, more like a big blob of white blotting out his eye. IMHO.

 

[Matt Hough]

I get that, since you've pointed it out. However, it's not really a picture of a monocle, more like a big blob of white blotting out his eye. IMHO.

Exactly like it looks in the movie when the light hits it - a big white blob over his eye.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Alrighty then....

Just got around to finally watching Witness For The Prosecution this morning.

A few firsts for me...

This is my first Kino Blu-ray purchase. To this day, have not owned a single title
of theirs. I ordered this along with Marty, but in the end, decided to cancel the
Marty preorder due to the aspect ration debacle. Happy that this is a start to what
I hope to be many more Kino purchases.

Next, this is the first time I have seen this film. That would not have been accomplished
if not for the messages you see above this one, as well as other recommendations
scattered throughout the forum from the HTF membership. I'll address that more
in a moment...

Next, this is the first Marlene Dietrich film I have ever seen. She is absolutely
tantalizing to watch. And, as I watched her, I could not get Madeline Kahn out
of my head, who so perfectly channeled her in Blazing Saddles. In all seriousness,
however, I can see why Marlene was such a highly regarded actress. I have never
seen anything like her. I'm a fan and now I want to see more of her films.

Certainly not a first, but a real surprise, was finding Elsa Lanchester in perhaps one
of the defining roles of her career. I knew I had seen her in Mary Poppins, but there
was still something else out there that I recognized her from. A quick look at IMDB
revealed....what else...Murder By Death.

So what did I think of this film? LOVED IT! ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!

I can see why members were elated when this title was announced by Kino. In all
respects, it is a classic of all classics. The performances are top-notch, particularly
from Charles Laughton.

I knew there was a twist in the story. I wasn't prepared for multiple twists which
really turned the second act into a roller-coaster ride.

The transfer? It was fine, for the most part. I had not seen any previous DVD
release and trust Matt's opinion that this is an improvement. From the perspective
of a newbie, I thought there were some strange anomalies introduced into the transfer
and at one point, where Volpe is talking about his egg beater invention to the Barrister
at the beginning of the film, it looks like the transfer resorts to an old dupe for a few
moments.

In all, however, it's a more than acceptable presentation.

I just wanted to come back here and thank the membership for recommending this
to me. There is always hesitation to buy titles blindly, but when I am so greatly
entertained as I was today, I make certain to come back and say THANKS!

Oh by the way...

Spoiler

I never picked up that it was Marlene Dietrich as the scarred woman in the
train station. That made things absolutely more surprising for me. I wonder
how many people initially did pick that up. I see at least one poster, above, did.

In hindsight, I should have picked that up immediately, as Volpe admitted at
the start of the film that his wife was an actress.

 

[shoeshineboy]

Thanks for the review -- and are you telling me you've never seen Touch of Evil, where Marlene has a critical cameo role? That definitely needs to be seen by anyone who loves classic hollywood films -- lauded in Robert Altman's The Player, and justifiably so...

 

[Matt Hough]

Ron: essential Marlene Dietrich films: Destry Rides Again, Morocco, Blonde Venus, The Scarlet Empress, Stage Fright (her only Hitchcock encounter), Judgment at Nuremberg, Shanghai Express, A Foreign Affair, Rancho Notorious.

She made her first big splash in the German film The Blue Angel, but that Marlene looks very different from the cool, sleek Marlene streamlined for American consumption.