I thought she did do it--which is important, give me a break--and that Daniel decided that he couldn't lose both parents. When he is comforting her at the end, it's a little too intimate, almost like the end of Godfather 1 when the family comes to kiss Michael's ring.
I mean, the pre screening “did she do it” is corny and seems like an unwise choice for the entre to the film. And it does seem juvenile to think the films thrust is to have people debate the evidence and murder trial. But the ambiguity is obviously a key element to the film. The commentary on a complicated and human marital dynamic is well said and obvious. As is the reversed gender roles and the tension that creates (though I don’t know if the prosecutor wasn’t just doing his job / the performance was an excellent embodiment of a bull dog - or if their was artistic intent to portray the prosecutor as misogynistic. I’m inclined to agree with the commentary that misogyny in the trial was enough of a recurrent motif that it’s a key part of the films heft.) BUT the ambiguity IS the film. Not in a “debate with the conviction of your judgement” sort of way, but more like a “sit in that uncomfortable ambiguity because it’s an ambiguity every character save the defendant has to cope with” way. Or, think of it as a thrilling artistic rendition Schrödinger's cat. We know that simultaneity is explicitly referenced when the film reveals the idea Sandra plundered from Samuel for her novel. The answer is “she did AND she didn’t”..
I thought she did do it--which is important, give me a break--and that Daniel decided that he couldn't lose both parents. When he is comforting her at the end, it's a little too intimate, almost like the end of Godfather 1 when the family comes to kiss Michael's ring.
hi！the idea of the second picture in your essay is so interesting！may i use it in my film activity in China？looking forward to your replication！
I mean, the pre screening “did she do it” is corny and seems like an unwise choice for the entre to the film. And it does seem juvenile to think the films thrust is to have people debate the evidence and murder trial. But the ambiguity is obviously a key element to the film. The commentary on a complicated and human marital dynamic is well said and obvious. As is the reversed gender roles and the tension that creates (though I don’t know if the prosecutor wasn’t just doing his job / the performance was an excellent embodiment of a bull dog - or if their was artistic intent to portray the prosecutor as misogynistic. I’m inclined to agree with the commentary that misogyny in the trial was enough of a recurrent motif that it’s a key part of the films heft.) BUT the ambiguity IS the film. Not in a “debate with the conviction of your judgement” sort of way, but more like a “sit in that uncomfortable ambiguity because it’s an ambiguity every character save the defendant has to cope with” way. Or, think of it as a thrilling artistic rendition Schrödinger's cat. We know that simultaneity is explicitly referenced when the film reveals the idea Sandra plundered from Samuel for her novel. The answer is “she did AND she didn’t”..