Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil: A True Story

Both in the book and the movie "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," Savannah Georgia has enough murder, men in drag, drugs, and suicide to be confused for a large metropolis. In John Berendt’s novel, the plot revolves around the murder of a drug using; high school dropout named Danny Hansford. The murderer is a wealthy, mansion owning art dealer, named Jim Williams. The twist in the story is that they happen to be lovers.

Jim Williams may have been a wealthy socialite who hosted the best Christmas parties, but he is not what southerners refered to as "old money". Williams grew up in a small town called Gordon, Georgia, a far cry from the elite of Savannah. He eventually built himself up as a respectful art dealer and moved into one of Savannah’s nicest houses, Mercer house, that was rumored to be the former home of the songwriter Johnny Mercer, and that Jacqueline Onassis supposedly offered to buy for two million.

John Berendt, a writer from New York, got the urge to travel and set his sights on Savannah. He immersed himself in the town, got to know the people, and bought his first car to travel around in. He met some interesting people, including a drag queen named Lady Chablis, a man named Luther Driggers who has a long standing threat to poison everyone in Savannah through their water supply, and a lady who practices voodoo on the enemies of Jim Williams, among others.

After the murder of Danny Hansford, Berendt involves himself slightly with the case, becoming acquaintances with Williams’s lawyers. The first time that Williams went to trial, his lawyer was a man named Bobby Lee Cook. The trial ended with Williams being found guilty, with a sentence of life in prison. Pending the appeal, Williams was sent home on a $200,000 bond. While preparing the appeal, Cook received an anonymous copy of the police report in which it was revealed that the arresting officer had contradicted himself. Because of this, the judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

The lawyer for the second trial was a man named Sonny Seiler, the owner of the mascot for the University of Georgia football team. At the second trial, Seiler decided to have Williams openly bring up his sexuality, which he had not done in the first trial. Other than that, not much differed from the first trial. Williams was once again found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Williams was lucky because he was not immediately transferred to the state penitentiary.

Williams got a lucky break when the Georgia Supreme court overthrew the courts decision because the sheriff should not have been allowed to testify as an expert and the prosecutor waited until his closing argument to demonstrate some evidence. It was at this point that Berendt was brought closer to the trial by Williams. Williams decided to tell Berendt the truth of what happened that night. Williams originally said that he and Danny had come home to Mercer house and Danny went wild, knocking over a grandfather clock, wrecking a video game, and breaking a chair. Danny then grabbed one of Williams’s German Luger handguns and aimed it at Williams. He fired three shots, and all three missed. When he attempted to fire again, the gun jammed. Williams, who was sitting at the desk, reached into a drawer, took out another Luger, and fired three times at Hansford, killing him. What Williams decided to tell Berendt was that Danny never did fire, because the gun was on safety. While Danny was struggling to take off the safety, Williams shot him. Williams decided that this information was going to clear him and he couldn’t wait to tell his lawyer. However, when his lawyer arrived, he had some news of his own. It turns out that Hansford’s hands were never bagged by the police at the crime scene. They were actually left unbagged until his body was brought to the hospital where the nurse on duty bagged his hand. This was significant because while unbagged, all the gun residue was removed, and that explained the lack of gunpowder residue on his hands.

The defense had learned that there was only one juror on Williams’s side. One night during the jury’s deliberations, she supposedly called a paramedic to ask some medical questions. Because of this, the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. This would make Jim Williams the first person ever to be tried four time for murder in the state of Georgia.

The fourth trial got under way two years later with a change of venue to Augusta, Georgia. The jury took one hour to come back with a plea of not guilty.

Seven months after his acquittal, on January 14, 1990, Jim Williams collapsed and died. He was 59 years old. He appeared to die from natural causes, but what was thought to be a heart attack was found to be pneumonia after an autopsy was done. Oddly enough, he had been found lying in the exact spot he would have been if Danny Hansford had actually shot him.

Context of the Film

Like most adaptations, there are many noticeable differences between the novel and the movie however; the fact that it is a true story makes it subject to that much more criticism. Many people that have read the book and watched the movie have said that the book is much better (of course). Many people after reading the book were very interested in seeing the movie especially since the book was written by John Berendt, the person the main character is based on. Because of the book’s popularity and the numerous differences between itself and the movie, there where many negative responses.

The parallels between the book and the movie are not the only reason for negative feedback. Of course, Kevin Spacey is the movie’s main attraction, but some of the disappointment surrounding the movie was due to his lack of presence. The movie’s focus stays on Spacey’s co-star, John Cusack who is still very over looked despite his talent. It was said by many that Clint Eastwood made this movie too boring to watch and being the such a "low key" director, his actors where brought down instead of being freed to their potential.

Some of the critiques said "if you haven’t read the book, but watched the movie, the title could be a little bit misleading." When looking at the over all average of how the critics responded, I find that there where primarily two ways of looking at this movie. If you have read the book then watched the movie, you will think that the movie is a long shot from the book. If you have only watched the movie, you will of course, be less disappointed, but not completely satisfied.

I thought Eastwood used some very useful techniques (mostly with visuals) that complimented the film, tended to over indulge with them and make the movie drag on for too long. In the beginning of the movie he had a nice slow build up to the climax of the story, but it doesn’t seem to stop building and once we finally reach the climax it is a bit too late. Clint Eastwood did do a very good job with the sound and color of the film, especially near the end of the movie when there are dizzying sounds experienced that were captured quite well.

Plot Summary & Critique

Clint Eastwood’s adaptation of this non-fictional novel about a murder case in Savannah is driven mostly by its rich variety of characters. John Cusack plays a young journalist hired to cover a Christmas party in the high society of Savanna Georgia. Academy award winner Kevin Spacey is the rich man hosting this annual celebration, who is also an admirer Cusack’s work. After over a half-hour of being introduced to the elaborate setting and bizarre community of modern Savannah, the story finally begins, when Spacey shoots and kills Judd Nelson, his young helper/ lover of at the Christmas Party. Because there are no witnesses, it becomes a mystery that Cusack tries to uncover himself, however the question is not "who killed him", but whether or not it was in self-defense.

Unfortunately, this question does not generate enough drama to keep an audience intrigued for over two and1/2 hours, but Eastwood does know how to give a sense of time and location. His use of color and set is successful in that the audience is given time to absorb Thompson’s unique surroundings and get a sense of the community. He creates a somewhat alien environment by immediately mixing giant willow trees and upper class citizens walking invisible dogs through beautiful parks, statue fountains and foggy cemeteries. What helps keep the audience entertained is the large display of memorable characters Cusack meets while investigating Nelson’s death. He meets a sassy transvestite, a man who attaches his pet flies to himself with strings and claims to carry enough poison in his pocket to terminate the entire town, a voodoo witch doctor who Spacey uses for black magic assistance, Spacey’s heavy set lawyer and an energetic love interest played by Alison Eastwood.

John Cusack, who is in many people’s opinions one of the most over looked actors in Hollywood, delivers a very restrained performance. This is a good thing because he knows not to over act, especially with the character he is portraying. However, the character doesn’t bring much excitement to the screen. Kevin Spacey is successful in sounding like a native of Savannah, and compliments the movie and its setting.

It is an ensemble cast in an interesting setting, with great visuals, but the movie drags on for too long in an attempt to make a rather simple plot more intriguing. Had the film been shorter with more editing it might have been able to maintain the attention of the audience through out the whole thing. But the really interesting scenes are a bit too selective and it is easy to lose interest then regain it several times in two and ½ hours. There is some chemistry between John Cusack and Alison Eastwood, but it’s the scenes between their affair in where Spacey revisits the night of the murder that keeps us interested.

For consideration:

1. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is a film with many interesting characters, including, but not excluding, the Lady Chablis and Menerva. What do these characters bring to the film, and what would the film be like if they weren’t included?
2. Name the theme of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and tell how the separate elements of the film relate to and contribute to the theme.
3. Which actors did you feel were correctly cast in their parts, and which were not? Why? Keep in mind that Lady Chablis played herself in the film.
4. How well did the actors do in mimicking the speech characteristics of the south? Beyond that, were the actors’ mannerisms and gestures suitable for the parts?
5. In regards to editing, did any of the scenes in the film seem long or boring? If so, how could this be fixed without ruining the effect of the film?