MovieChat Forums > Witness for the Prosecution (1958) Discussion > Entertaining witty dialog, but ridiculou...

Entertaining witty dialog, but ridiculous Agatha Christie story.


The movie itself is worth watching for Laughton and Lancaster along with other supporting actors and the amusing dialog. I personally do not get the appeal of Marlene Dietrich at all, with her silly lisp and overacting, but to each their own.

But the storyline is utterly illogical and ridiculous. If people think this is some brilliant crime story or courtroom drama, they're a bit slow.

First and foremost, no wife on the planet has EVER risked what would be YEARS of prison time for perjury during a capital crime trial. The Christine character must be portraying someone with a mental illness or something? She goes to such a huge extent to help her husband out, with massive personal sacrifice. There's a reason we've never heard of this "witness for the prosecution" technique ever working out in real life, no one would actually take the risk.

Next, she would have been IMMEDIATELY been put into custody, not allowed to wander around the court building and commit further actions in the courtroom after the trial! Who's idea was that? Utterly ridiculous.

Lastly, ALL legal evidence is SEALED in envelopes or other containers at all times to prevent contamination and to keep the trail of possession intact and it's always in the possession of court officials and immediately returned to storage. At NO POINT would a MURDER WEAPON just be allowed to lay on a table while the courtroom is basically empty! Again, ridiculous.

Sorry, but these and many other MASSIVE gaps in logic and reality of procedures simply makes the whole story a fantasy along the lines of the Wizard of OZ or the Hobbit. There's no basis in the real world to explain or allow the "creative" plot points that Christie throws into the story.

reply

I agree with you for the most part. We watched this the day after Anatomy of a Murder, which was far better and more realistic (and actually subverted our expectations by not containing any last-act wild twists).

Just one nitpick, though: the knife was not a murder weapon--the old lady had been killed by a blunt object. It was the knife the defendant had been cutting bread with. And the bailiff dropped the knife on the table when trying to restore order after the verdict was read.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

Agatha Christie has a way of telling stories.

reply

As Caviar has said, Agatha Christie had a way of telling stories. I can't recall any of her story plots, and hardly any screen versions of them, that were realistic.

They were, and are, entertainment.

The British TV series "Midsomer Murders" goes even further into fantasy, with multiple murders every week in the quiet English countryside, populated by eccentrics and only a few miles from another hard-to-believe "murder capital", Oxford, as depicted in "Morse" and "Lewis"; the prequel, "Endeavour", is far more realistic.

reply

She would not have "immediately been put into custody". A report would be sent to the police who would consider whether to arrest and charge her.

reply