Did she do it?
Does anybody have any ideas? I'm not sure at all.
shareGood question - I think maybe - she did!
share
MovieChat Forums > Madeleine (1950) Discussion > Did she do it?
[deleted]
You're right. Thanks for the input.
-"Is it nothing to you that I shall hate you for this." H. Barret
-"Less than nothing." E.B.
There have been several books written about Madeleine Smith in the century and a half since the trial, but to my knowledge no one has been able to close that case. I suspect that she did do it, but I wouldn't have voted to convict her without more conclusive evidence, so I think the jury was right in its decision.
The movie does not take a stand either way about Madeleine's guilt, which may account in part for why it left many viewers unsatisfied. Kevin Brownlow's David Lean: A Biography includes this opinion Noel Coward supposedly offered to Lean after seeing the film:
"I don't think," said Coward, "that you can make a film in which you, the writer-director, don't know in your own mind what was the outcome. In other words, did she do it or didn't she? And you've never said. You've left it open for the audience to choose and I think that is unsatisfactory as far as a dramatic picture or stage play is concerned."share
daleac says > The movie does not take a stand either way about Madeleine's guilt, which may account in part for why it left many viewers unsatisfied. Kevin Brownlow's David Lean: A Biography includes this opinion Noel Coward supposedly offered to Lean after seeing the film:I wasn't at all dissatisfied with the movie and completely disagree with Noel Coward's opinion. Some of the best movies I've seen are the ones in which the director lets the audience draw their own conclusions. In this particular case, it is perfect that David Lean did not take a stand either way. When the case came to an end it was undecided and they were privy to all the evidence we do not have.
"I don't think," said Coward, "that you can make a film in which you, the writer-director, don't know in your own mind what was the outcome. In other words, did she do it or didn't she? And you've never said. You've left it open for the audience to choose and I think that is unsatisfactory as far as a dramatic picture or stage play is concerned."
That said, I feel the movie was presented in a way that both possibilities exist. We see the defendant's side; L'Angelier did not meet with Madeline on the night he died so how could she have poisoned him? On the other hand, the look on Madeline's face suggests she could very have killed him. In other words, the evidence did not prove her guilt, but wink, wink, she got away with it.
Those who have studied the evidence, testimony, and other court records have come to the conclusion that Madeline really was guilty. Of course, those are merely theories. At this point, I don't think there's any way for us to ever know the truth.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
If the prosecution does not prove its case, then it is a not guilty verdict. There is not an "innocent" verdict. I don't think there was a smirk on her face in the carriage or a big gesture at the end.
Women were property at this point in Scotland (as they still are in much of the world) and the fact that she acted without her Father's permission and against the patriarchal standards weighed popular opinion heavily against her. I think it must have been a very flimsy case for her to be found not guilty.
I also think she did it, but agree, based on the flimsy evidence, I would not have voted to convict. Remember, this crime carried the death penalty!
shareAlix- I am so shocked that someone agrees with me on this site that I am now re-thinking my position!
GOL
Guffawing Out Loud
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
Finally saw the movie.
If I had been on that jury I would have voted Not Guilty. Thought the smirk at the end superfluous and not a very smart gesture on Lean and Todd's part.
I've just now seen Madeleine for the first time and because the Casey Anthony trial is fresh in my memory I couldn't help thinking of it (this is the trial where the young mother in Florida was on trial for killing her little daughter but they weren't able to prove her part in the murder). Like Madeleine, she escaped the death penalty.
All fingers seem to point to both Madeleine Smith and Casey Anthony as guilty but there simply was not enough evidence to convict either one of them.
I especially enjoyed the arguments of the prosecution and defense in the film.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled by the last priest
Smith wasn't acquitted via a 'Not Guilty' verdict - rather, the verdict was "Not Proven," which is also, I believe, sometimes known as "The Scottish Verdict" as it is apparently peculiar to their legal system, meaning that, while the jury did not actually believe her innocent, they did not feel that the Prosecution had proved the case against her.
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
Harold_Robbins says > Smith wasn't acquitted via a 'Not Guilty' verdict - rather, the verdict was "Not Proven," which is also, I believe, sometimes known as "The Scottish Verdict" as it is apparently peculiar to their legal system, meaning that, while the jury did not actually believe her innocent, they did not feel that the Prosecution had proved the case against her.The 'not proven' verdict may be unique to Scotland but it's not as if it doesn't exist anywhere else. In the U.S. when the jury feels the prosecution has not proven its case they render a verdict of not guilty.
'Not guilty' doesn't mean the accused person is innocent. Naturally, that could be the case but really it just means, for whatever reason, the jury could not convict on the evidence the state presented.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
Her life would have been RUINED nonetheless. Everyone her entire life would believe she was guilty anyway, whether of murder, or of being a fallen dishonorable woman. Untouchable. Her fiance ran out of the courtroom early on. Her father would have ignored her his entire life. So it would be death penalty or death by living a miserable ruined life.
shareSince it's a true event you can look it up. Her fiance married someone else about a year later and Madeleine left Scotland, changed her name, got married and had 2 children.
Don't know what happened between her and her father.
nutritionist says > Her life would have been RUINED nonetheless. Everyone her entire life would believe she was guilty anyway, whether of murder, or of being a fallen dishonorable woman.You forget this was long before social media. One could simply leave town, change their name, and go on with their lives. The case was notorious but people were not as plugged in to what was going on that they would necessarily recognize her by appearance only.
Her biography says she was, for the most part, able to escape being stigmatized by the case. She went on to marry twice, had two kids, and lived to a ripe old age.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
[deleted]