寫都寫了不潑白不潑之七

          「Witness for the Prosecution」 is one of 比利 Wilder’s most acclaimed films. Adapted from Agatha Christie’s book, Wilder successfully transforms the words of Christie into vivid portrayals of actors and actresses. In fact, this film has a lot to do with how to act one’s way out of the punishments of law. By examining the film’s visual presentation, we can see how the flawless performances by the characters and the impressions they manage to build successfully tricks the legal system and gives the audience a huge satisfaction. But ultimately, the film reminds us that the power of law gets balanced despite its temporary compromises.
           The opening scene establishes the rigorousness and inviolateness of the court, as the camera zooms in from an overview of a court procession to the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom above the judge’s seat. Clearly, it places a link between the law and the state, each one dependent on the other. Later, it turns out that the court that appears in this scene is where the main trial of the film takes place.
           After the a shot of the hustle-bustle of the city, lawyer Wilfrid and nurse Plimsoll make their first appearance, as they head back home after two months in the hospital. It can be immediately seen that Plimsoll is a very controlling nurse, attending to every detail in Wilfrid’s life to ensure that he remains healthy. Her authority can be seen in various ways throughout the film. A striking visual example is when she demands Wilfrid to go upstairs to take a nap with her. She stands on top of the stairs with a harsh facial expression. As the camera looks up to her, she appears to be much more daunting than how her figure usually allows her to be. However, Wilfrid becomes distracted by the cigars and escapes from the nap. This scene repeats again as Wilfrid makes his second journey upstairs. This time, Plimsoll stands on top of Wilfrid as she keeps her arms crossed. It appears as if she is the overseeing nurse as she looks down on Wilfrid and the household. The same visual pattern happens in the courtroom, when Plimsoll sits at the top, overlooking the entire court that includes Wilfrid. And she uses this to her advantage in order to remind Wilfird to take his pill every hour.
           However, Wilfrid always tries to get around her control one way or another. For example, the lift installed to make Wilfrid’s journey upstairs more smooth makes it, ironically, much harder. At first, he refuses to go to the bedroom because he wants to 「get a feel of the controls」. Then his upward passages are interrupted by first the appearance of Leonard Vole, the main suspect of crime in this film, then Christine Helm, his wife. What the lift visually creates is that it ensures that Wilfrid’s face is always facing down. Since downstairs is his working space where people constantly come and call for him, while upstairs is the resting space where nothing goes on, it is telling that he always faces down even when he is climbing up. Even when he finally gets out of the lift after so many interrupted attempts to do so, he continues to look downstairs as Plimsoll drags him to his bed. It can be inferred that even when he is supposed to rest, his thoughts are still with his work, hence his longing stares at the office. It is only reasonable then, that he decides to run away from his nap after all and goes back into his office.
           It is interesting to see that Wilfrid, a respectable lawyer, still needs to use tricks just to smoke a few cigars and avoid afternoon naps. It is reasonable to say that her controlling character may appear attractive to him. Despite his constant complaints or even slurs, he never makes any effort in getting rid of her. In fact, all his tricks are aimed at pleasing her. Her authority is appealing to him as much as the law does. And as it stands, he tries to evade the grip of her control by using his tricks just as other people find their way around the law by using theirs.
          Wilfred, a lifelong devotee to the law and order, stands for the authority of law in this film. The scale hanging in his room is one manifestation of his devotion to law. A more remarkable case in this film is the use of his monocle. Whenever he puts on his monocle, he suddenly turns into the authority figure executing laws. The first time he takes his monocle out is when he examines his cherished wig. The wig stands for his career as a lawyer and it promptly is the first thing he asks for after he returns to his office from the hospital. He is angry when he learns that the wig has been preserved in mothballs, as he asks 「am I not to practice again?」 The monocle and the wig stand for the two important parts of a lawyer’s job -- the collection of evidences and the presentation of them. This can also be seen when he puts his wig back when he refuses to take the criminal case presented to him. He clearly associates his wig closely with his career. Thus, it is no surprise that Wilfrid cherishes it dearly and examines it with his monocle.
          The second time he puts on his monocle is when he first sees Leonard Vole. Leonard, in order to convince the jury that he is innocent, must convince his lawyer, Wilfrid, first. Thus, Vole is constantly under the watchful eyes of Wilfrid. The monocle grows more important as it turns out that Wilfrid actually uses it to conduct tests. He puts it on after he suggests that Vole is actually after Mrs. French’s money to see his reaction. The monocle reflects the sunlight around Vole’s eyes. This visually suggests that Wilfrid is breaking down Vole’s act by casting a light on him. However, Vole remains earnest and insists that he did not murder Mrs. French despite the accusing light quite literally beamed onto him. After Wilfrid takes the monocle off, he states that he did not believe Vole but now he does. Evidently, Wilfrid has been using the so-called monocle tests as a standard practice to detect lies. And apparently this test yields quite good results, which is why he lets down his guard and begins to trust Leonard Vole.
          A similar use of monocle happens with Christine Helm, Leonard’s wife. He first uses it when she comes in, he then uses it to conduct the monocle test on her as well. However, unlike Leonard, she does not withstand it to the end. She goes and pulls down the curtain so that the light cannot come in. By doing so, the room visually becomes darker as Christine maintains a skeptical tone in telling the story 「Leonard told [her] to tell」. It seems that Wilfrid could not get the truth from Christine as he does with everyone else. The sunlight reflected by Wilfrid’s monocle can be seen as a visual representation as the power of law and truth. However with Christine, these power cannot quite work on her. As she pulls up the curtain and the light comes in again, she finally reveals that Leonard is not her husband.
           As a result of these tests, it is quite natural that Wilfrid takes Leonard’s side instead of putting his faith in Christine. But could this be the right judgement? It is worthwhile to look at the two’s visual presentations in those scenes. They both make their first appearance while Wilfrid is sliding on the staircase and both get examined by Wilfrid using his monocle. However, Leonard is accompanied by a lawyer, Mayhew, while Christine appears alone. Their facial expressions are also markedly different. Even though Leonard is 「not doing all that well」, he still keeps his smile on his face when he first appears. But as for Christine, she keeps a solemn expression the whole time, even when she first meets Wilfrid. Furthurmore, through a closer analysis, we find that Leonard is in most cases framed in the companionship of other people. As soon as he enters the room, he is framed in the middle of Wilfrid and Mayhew. As he sits down, he is again in the middle of the frame with Mayhew on his left and Wilfrid on his right. On the other hand, Christine, in most cases, appears isolated. Apart from her solitary arrival, even in the office, she appears to be separated from the other two. A notable scene is when she stands up to close the curtains. She then remains in front of the dark closed curtain, creating this stage-like effect with the side curtains bundled up and the center one pulled down. She looks like she is on her own stage, performing for the two gentlemen watching her, Brogan-Moore and Wilfrid. And it does not help either that she indeed is an actress. These visual presentations should confirm Wilfrid’s judgement for us. The audience gets the impression that Leonard is the one we should trust and Christine is the one with the tricks.
          The courtroom scene, as the centerpiece of the film, is beautifully executed by Wilder. First there is a shot of the facade of Old Bailey, the central criminal court in London. We see the marvelous Lady Justice on top of the building being cleaned by a man. The opening scene is echoed by the same music playing, as clearly an attempt to reiterate the theme of the grandeur of law and order. However, the courtroom proves to be a complete defiance of the law.
          The chief inspector serves as a figure of absolute truthfulness. Because his statement is fully based on facts, the lawyer for the prosecution cannot 「put words into his mouth」. And as a result, the chief inspector’s contribution remains the bloodstain that may be either Mrs. French’s or Leonard’s himself from a knife cut. As for Janet, her antagonism with Leonard can be clearly seen. She is not fond of his eggbeater or his personality in general and his arrival makes her no longer the principle beneficiary of Mrs. French’s will. Thus, her opinionated statements cannot weigh in too much either. The unproductiveness of the court proceedings can be seen by a gesture of Wilfrid. He starts playing with his pills in the middle of the hearing. The pills are abundant at first, but after the scenes change, there are only five pills left. This suggests that he has been playing with his pills throughout the days of the trial.
           Again, emphasis shall be placed on the visual presentations of Leonard and Christine in the courtroom. The main difference is that Leonard is locked in his prisoner dock and therefore immobile. However, through various ways, we can see that he cannot be regarded as isolated. He still appears in the center of the frame with two guards on either side of him. Moreover, he remains highly connected with the audience. He never lets go any opportunity to vocalize his innocence. Even when the lawyer for the prosecution presents his case and follows the standard procedure to point out that they believe Leonard is the murderer, Leonard still feels the need to claim that he 「didn』t do it」. Despite the fact that what he says at the dock should not be taken into account by the jury, he still takes every chance to express how wronged he is and how erroneous the evidences against him are. Visually, he looks anxious and at times agitated, always remaining leaning onto the dock in front of him. He looks as if he is trapped in the dock and desperately wants to get out so that his voice can be heard more clearly.
           On the other hand, Christine creates quite a contrary presence in the court. She remains calm and expressionless as she spells out the facts on the night of the murder. While Leonard seems distraught and keeps yelling that Christine is lying, she remains unaffected. However, the audience in the courtroom begins reacting negatively to Christine’s attitude. In a reaction shot from the audience, they are all frowning and look very displeased with the situation. Plimsoll also remarks that 「she’s evil, that one. I』ve known it all along.」
           And though a first-time viewer is not aware of this, but both Leonard and Christine are giving a performance in this film. And their audience is everyone in the courtroom, including Wilfrid and Brogan-Moore. And from the analysis above, their performances have been quite coherent, albeit on contrary terms. What Leonard manages to create is an image of a confident and innocent man who are deeply agonized by the wrongful accusations. He tells the story of how he meets the elderly, rich Mrs. French from two coincidences --- first he sees her from the window of a hat shop and gives her advice on hat choices, then he meets her again at a movie theater when her hat blocks his view of the film. While this is a pleasing story for the listeners, it sounds almost too coincidental, and certainly too good to be true. He also tells the story of how he meets Christine, in which he plays the hero that provides her with the coffee, milk and, of course, affection that she needs at the end of the day after she gets harassed by drunk soldiers. While these stories can be perfectly true, it is unlikely since, as the viewers should realize by the end of the film, he lies about everything else already. Apart from the stories, he remains consistent with the lawyers and takes every opportunity to let the audience know that he is innocent. Thus, these stories and the genuine guiltlessness he exhibits creates a wholesome character that seems only gets swirled into these events through unfortunate mishaps.
           Christine also devotes herself in her performance in front of the lawyers and the courtroom. She appears nonchalant and solitary from the beginning, reluctant to reveal too much information. In the courtroom, she remains almost emotionless as she tells the story on the night of the murder. In doing so, she creates an enigmatic figure that refuses to cooperate and seems to have a plan on her own.
          How effective are those performances? As mentioned, the courtroom audience clearly takes a penchant for Leonard, as does Wilfrid. However, Brogan-Moore takes quite a different stance regarding the issue. He does seem to only have a minor part in the film and few lines to say, but his presence offers the audience an alternative point of view. When he makes his first appearance, he brings up the news that Leonard inherits Mrs. French’s £80,000, thus questioning the innocence of Leonard. There is a visual presentation of Brogan-Moore that suggests that he takes the stance of the audience during the actions of the film. At the aforementioned scene when Christine stands in front of the curtain, he remains seated in the chair, watching Wilfrid intensely questioning Christine as she answers. He is set in the middle of the frame seated, while Christine and Wilfrid stand on either side of him. It looks like he is the audience watching a play going on in front of him. The fact that Christine stands in front of the curtain only confirms the point further. And after Christine leaves, he promptly voices his doubts regarding Leonard’s innocence after he makes his observations.
           And for the biggest thrill of the film, Christine turns herself into a working class East-Ender that gives Wilfrid her fictional letters as the key evidence that piece everything together. This ultimate performance holds all the previous performances together. Therefore, Leonard is perfectly innocent and Christine is the one with the ugly secret. However, the viewer is only left to find out that it has all been an act and Leonard is guilty.
          This rollercoaster of plot development is extremely satisfying and makes this film a classic of all times. And when the jury announces that Leonard is found not guilty and the crowds angrily surround Christine, it echoes a previous scene. In Hamburg, Christine is harassed and the show ends after that. With the crowds gone, only Christine and Leonard are left. But this time, she is left with Wilfrid. The implication is clear --- the show is over. She is at that night performing on the stage, charming Leonard; but this time, she is performing in the courtroom, freeing Leonard. When Leonard reveals than he has a new girl, Wilfrid’s monocle makes its final appearance in the film. As he flips it, it reflects its light on the knife, visually cueing Christine to use the knife to stab him. After Leonard is 「executed」, the wig also makes a final appearance as Plimsoll tells Wilfrid that 「it’s not over yet」. Considering the implications these two objects have, it should be concluded that the monocle points the way of truth, which is executing Leonard and the wig signals the continuing career of Wilfrid as a lawyer.
           And as the movie ends with Plimsoll and Wilfrid walking out of the courtroom together, the parallel shows for the last time. Wilfrid’s health is compromised, but his relationship with Plimsoll is reconciled; and while the law is also compromised, it can be restored in a different way. The tricks Wilfrid plays on Plimsoll can get him some cigar and brandy, but that does not mean Plimsoll cannot tell; the acts put on by Leonard and Christine may benefit them in this case, but the truth will be revealed at the end of the day. Just as the scale hanging in Wilfrid’s office suggests, the law may tip one way, but 「ultimately they balance out」. As the credits roll, we once again see the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom that appears in the opening scene, and we are once again reminded of the power of the law. And even for the most flawless of the performances such as those put on by Christine and Leonard, the law remains balanced and 「Dieu et mon droit」 remain defended.






Works Cited:
Witness for the Prosecution. Dir. 比利 Wilder. By 比利 Wilder, Harry Kurnitz, Larry Marcus, Matty Malneck, and Ernest Gold. Prod. Arthur Hornblow and Edith Head. Perf. Tyrone Power, Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, Elsa Lanchester, John 威廉斯, Henry Daniell, Una O'Connor, Torin Thatches, Norma Varden, Philip Tonge, and J. Pat O'Malley. United 阿提斯ts Corp., 1957.