So glad that both our ladies seem to be away taking care of projects, as I make certain comments about women further down … shhhh, don’t tell them about this post.

Just as the film is about five different perspectives on the same woman, there were widely different takes on the film itself, from 5/10 to 10/10. This review rated the film 6/10.

“Jean Kent has been murdered in her bedroom. Duncan Macrae and Joe Linnane conduct the investigation by speaking with the people around her.

The gimmick in this movie is that as each of the witness/suspects describes the events, we see it from the speaker’s viewpoint… and the character, appearance and behavior of every individual changes according to whose version we are hearing. It’s a subjective camera: not a new thing in the movies, but still a novelty. Three years earlier, Hitchcock had misused it in THE PARADINE CASE and the year this came out, Kurosawa directed RASHOMON which seems to assert there is no objective reality.

That’s not what’s happening here. The point is to take the subjective realities and winkle out the objective reality behind them. In the course of so doing, we get to see the actors perform their roles in a variety of manners, particularly Miss Kent, who ranges from slattern to aristocrat. In the US, this would have been a vehicle for the actress in the lead role looking for an Oscar. Look! I can do this line as a loose woman! Look, I can do it as as an impoverished noblewoman! And so forth.”

I seem to recall that Christie also wrote a story, Five Little Pigs, using the device of different perspectives from different witnesses. And did Citizen Kane not do similar? Long time since I saw that.

Moving on, I saw a tweet from a lady, maybe in her mid 20s, early 30s, if her profile pic is to be believed:

Now that may well be a situation I’m being drawn back into this weekend … that whole question of “when they’re done, they’re done” … sometimes it might be best to just let things be.

I know there are many men today who were taken to the cleaners by someone who simply ceased to care and simply became enemy, taking him for everything he had. I’m also not sure the men were always so innocent themselves … some were innocent, chumps, like babes in the wood, but many men … well … who knows?

I find that notion though, which this H Pearl Davis subscribes to, that women are so coldhearted deep down that they would just cut him adrift, move on and not think about him ever again, except negatively … I obviously hope that that is not so … at least not in any woman I know and love(d).

Because, were it so … about all women … then really … what would be the point of men ever investing of themselves in the first place, if that’s how it would inevitably end? Then again, many women think we only want one thing … ready supply of nooky. It’s also tied in with bad boys. I’ve heard women say it’s not “bad boys” per se, it’s him being capable and confident, able to provide and protect.

What though of “modern” woman who can do anything a man can but a thousand times better, kicking butt along the way? Film and gaming is full of such shaitanic bollox. Plus society’s ruling cabal is ultra—keen to wreck the natural order.

What has this to do with today’s film? Well, it’s different perspectives, due to different experiences, innit. I’m curious about this H Pearl Davis though … a troll? Driving in wedges in order to prevent the natural order? And is the deathcult culture the natural order? Nope, it’s twisted and shaitanic.

What of Victorian society? What of Tess of the d’Urbevilles? Is a woman’s life as wretched as it seems? As a man, I’m not qualified to say.