Did anyone feel bad for Paul?

I enjoyed the movie but I have to admit, it really annoys me when people treat adultery so casually because it suggests that fidelity is old fashioned and not in step with today's "liberated" sexual mores. There are all sorts of reasons why people will commit adultery but none of them ever seem to make the act justifiable....of course, I am speaking here hypothetically but the movie never really explains WHY she cheated in the first place. Ed was not abusive, he did not cheat on Connie, he worked hard to be a good husband and father and he made a very nice, comfortable life for his family so there is no discernable reason explaining why she did it. To me it was a spur of the moment decision, nothing more and nothing less. Hardly a reason that anybody could accept and endorse.



I agree that Paul did not deserve to be murdered but given the circumstances, he does not emerge as a man whose basic character is very admirable, not to mention he fact that he could have easily refused to do what he did but that would probably be too naïve to expect that to happen.



As one person here remarked, Connie is far more to blame for what happened than anyone and outwardly, she played the role of a loving wife and mother perfectly, but that just tells you that she was a gifted and very smooth liar, something that adultery makes almost inevitable. Ed, to be sure, is guilty of murdering Paul but if I were on the jury, I'd say that he was provoked almost beyond endurance and if ever there could be a case of justifiable homicide, this would be it. And, I suspect that some folks on the jury might be sympathetic enough to Ed to vote for manslaughter, which removes the element of malice and premeditation. Nobody in their right mind could ever insist that he went there to murder Paul; it was most certainly a spur of the moment decision, brought about by Ed's feelings of betrayal and murderous jealousy. Think of Othello, who was goaded beyond endurance by Iago and you will see my point.



Loyalty betrayed is a very painful thing to experience and that must be taken into account of this "morality tale." I understand, also, that the statistics on women who commit adultery are higher than a person might expect and I suppose this could well be true. To suggest otherwise implies that women, somehow, are more "moral" or more "pure" than men are and that is manifestly absurd.



To return to the central question of this post, I felt bad enough for Paul because he was murdered in such an ugly and sordid manner but when you have an affair, you can never tell what the long term consequences might be. In that sense, the movie reflects the reality of how destructive adultery can be. But if that sort of thing doesn't bother you, then your view of marriage is something that, plainly put, I cannot understand.



The ending of the movie was ambiguous and that, too, might be more true to life than most people might expect and that is one of the things that made this an excellent, though highly disturbing film.

yes. he was wrong for being a homewrecker by sleeping with Connie, but aside from being morally wrong, he was not deserving of death. He was an attractive man who took advantage of such a blessing and he used that to get with women, married or not. He also shoulda known that sometimes, when a guy messes with a married or involved woman, the hubby or boyfriend is not going to appreciate it if he finds out. He may get violent, as we saw Edward do.

No he did deserve to have his brain bashed in like that, Not for being involved with a married woman. Jesus. I can see if he like, raped a child or something then it would be debatable. But having sexual relations with a married woman is not justification for being murdered lol