"She didn't kill him. She executed him."
Uhh... does that make it right what she did? How is taking the law into your own hands okay? And while it's besides the point, she didn't stab him out of a desire to deliver justice--she stabbed him out of pure feelings of jealousy over his love for another woman.
"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."
!!SPOILER!!
And add the fact that he was found not guilty by his peers she 'executed' an innocent man.
I guess I just saw the quote as a personal expression. He saw things from the perspective of the law, but being human also from a personal perspective. I'm sure he didn't see it as an actual execution, just compared the similarity of the situation to one.
He was a more complicated character than his clownish antics and quips would suggest. It always seemed to be very important that he believed his client was innocent. In the end he probably didn't want to admit that he was duped. So I saw his comment as a way to justify in his mind the final outcome.
Auto-Tune is not a genre, please stop treating it as such.
First of all, a finding of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of innocence. "Not guilty" merely means that the prosecution could not prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant didn't actually commit the crime.
Secondly, while most are not in favor of "taking the law into" one's own hands, most are also sympathetic towards those who do, especially after the system has failed to provide justice. So no, the law does not consider all killing the same, and defines it in different ways for this reason.
So, does that justify what the Dietrich character does? Not necessarily, especially considering her role in obstructing justice. But Laughton's comment indicates to us that he is likely sympathetic, and already preparing a case for her defense. The rest is left up for us to decide or, presumably, the jury in Dietrich's future trial.
Laughton's comment indicates to us that he is likely sympathetic, and already preparing a case for her defense. The rest is left up for us to decide or, presumably, the jury in Dietrich's future trial.
He's a defense lawyer. He's likely never met a potential client he's NOT sympathetic towards!
I would argue that his demeanor in the film tells us he is sympathetic, whether or not it seems to us the likely or correct thing to do on his part. Philosophically, of course, we can argue amongst ourselves about the rightness or wrongness of her act. But Laughton seems to have pity on her for how she was used. We're also shown that Dietrich is not exactly whom she originally seemed to be (i.e., a cold-hearted wench).
Of course Christine killing Leonard was morally wrong, strictly speaking. And she didn't do it to administer any kind of justice, just out of understandable jealousy, frustration and rage. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is absolutly true. However put yourself in her place. She obviously deeply loves Leonard, and concockets this brilliant scheme to get him off. At the same time she selflessly jeopardises her own freedom in the process. I'd do the same for a woman I truly loved. Then instead of expressing any kind of gratitude, both he and his bimbo girlfriend badly insult and mock her. Talk about a couple of selfish ingrates. And he then leaves her high and dry. I can't blame her for her impulsive act, which was not premedatated. So had I been on her jury, due to the extreame mitagating circumstances, I would have voted for aquital without hesatation. Leonard was an ammoral scumbag that deserved his fate. Did you see his crass attitude after the trial? No remorse whatsoever about commiting murder for money. Even though murder is always wrong, justice is sometimes convaluted and paradoxical. I hope they went easy on her. The world wasn't a worse place without him. Feedback please! Agree or disagree?
shareQuite agree. Leonard got what he deserved. He took advantage of and murdered that one woman, who had shown him nothing but kindness. Then quite happily let his wife commit perjury, on his behalf, knowing that she would get a gaol sentence. Okay she does not deserve too much sympathy, knowing what he had done. Then he is very happy to inherit his murder victim's money and clear off with some amoral tart, whom he picked up in a pub. Serves him right.
share[deleted]
This isn't about his sympathy or otherwise... his motivation is to successfully defend and he is always looking to the next case...
his comment simply reflects that he has already moved on, what's happened has happened, and he is already rehearsing in his mind the avenues he might use to defend the next case.
True: she was planning on enjoying the ill-gotten gains with him.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
I was looking at Sir Wilfrid to see if he would say something like that, since he knew Leonard wasn't innocent after all.
Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.
I pretty much saw it as a what goes around, comes around kind of a situation. While Christine acted purely out of personal vengeance and impulse, she also unwittingly committed a (misguided) act of justice. She thwarts the departure of a murderer and essentially punishes him for duping, not one, but 2 naive, unsuspecting women and leading to both their downfalls, as a result.
I guess a similar analogy would the supposed occurrences of child molesters being sought out by other prisoner because they are supposedly at the bottom of the criminal hierarchy.
I have to agree. That was a BS line.
share