Im still unsure, was she really driving, or did she just continue with the lie to cover up for her lover?
I had a friend who kept thinking that as well. But what reason did she have to lie to Maggie?
"Erroneous, Erroneous, Erroneous on both counts!"
My initial impression when I saw the scene was that he was imagining how it must have been. I think she was driving the car, but I'm not sure it actually happened how he imagined it. It was sort of a Rashomon technique.
shareMy opinion is that Bill was driving. The reason I think so is that there is a part where Bill drives James back to Bill's house, and he drives fast and recklessly, just like Ann tells James she drove on that fateful evening.
I can't think of any other reason the filmmakers let him drive like this unless it is to tell us that he was the guilty party, and Ann was covering for him. It seems pointed.
However it may be a red herring. Perhaps we are not meant to be told, but to have our own opinions on it.
The husband was driving and killed the cyclist then set up his wife and her lover then bedded his secretary with a clear conscience to reassert his manhood after his inability to "score"-(geddit) at cricket and to have children.
Obvious really.
She was driving. Just like in _The Great Gatsby_. I wonder if the screenwriter of _Separate Lies_ consciously or unconciously borrowed this plot element from Fitzgerald's book and/or the movie version.
shareShe was driving.
This film was based on the book 'A Way Through the Wood' by Nigel Balchin, which was written in either the late 40s or 50s. Everyone's behaviour makes a lot more sense in the context of the time when it was written.
No debate really. She was driving. She was also shown driving very recklessly later when she peeled out of the neighborhood to try to beat Wilkinson home, so evert's reckless driving means nothing. I don't think it is a matter of opinion, I think it is clear cut that she was driving.
shareI have not read the book, but having learned from you that it was written in the late 40s + it becomes feasible, just not in this day and age, when everything has deteriorated so much in the UK.
shareI'm pretty sure Bill was driving for several reasons.
Bill's personality is as the main guy's wife describes. He doesn't seem to care for anyone but himself - she claims that he doesn't care for her and that's why she's attracted to him. If this were true, if he truly didn't care for her - then why would he go out of his way to defend her?
The wife expressed a strong attachment to Bill as well.
The wife has a clear habit of lying. First of all, she cheated on her husband and continued to lie about her feelings for Bill. So if she would lie about her feelings, that would make her a strong competitor for lying about the events.
Also, her concern for the cleaning woman would have made itself evident that if she were to hit someone, she would have gotten out to check on him... like she went to the hospital to check up on him.
Another thing is that she is so for taking the hit, she is all for turning herself in. IF she was ok with turning herself in, then why didn't she just help the man she hit? Her lover also is the one that is trying to cover his ass and trying not to let anyone know what happened.
Also - he initially says he did it. And just to make a character analysis based off the movie (I haven't read the book), I would definitely say that he wouldn't be one to just lie outright. He would tell the truth.
To finish off, why would Bill let her drive the car? Weak :)
Hope this helps with your own opinion - because they truly didn't state who was the actual driver (The clip didn't count. That was clearly and obviously a recounted memory or an imaginative scenario), then I believe that it's up to the opinion of the viewer to make their own decision like I have.
I agree the tape doesn't count, because it may just be someone's imagination, or someone's description of how they want others to think it happened.
But I think Anne was driving. It is even implied that right before the police inspector arrives to meet the four of them together, Maggie was bribed into not reporting the killer.
Now, Maggie was grateful to Anne for accepting her, even though Anne knew of Maggie's criminal records. So she wasn't going to report her. But she had no reason not to report Bill for killing her husband. Not even for money.
Why was Anne driving Bill's car? Well, why not? One explanation is they'd been drinking, so maybe he was more drunk than she was.
Why did he take the blame for her accident, being as he was, a selfish person? Maybe that's because he WAS in the car anyway, so he was responsible, too. At least for not trying to help the dying man. Besides, it was HIS car that hit the man. When he confessed to the crime, James didn't still know about Bill and Anne's affair. So Bill had to take the blame for the accident not to explain why Anne was in his car.
And finally, and this is entirely based on film and tv codes, usually when a guilty character dies, he or she is too burdened to take the secret to the grave. I think if Bill had been driving the car, he would have needed to confess to the police. And I think the audience would have known that, too.
[deleted]
This was a really good movie. That is if you like drama, cheating, stuff like that. I think Anne was driving...but they don't tell you 100%, which is good so you can think what you want.
shareMy opinion he was driving.
I think if she had been behind the wheel she would have stopped. He on the other hand was an extremely reckless driver.
And the second she took off by the way, I would have changed the locks, and never spoken to her again. Britain does not have no fault divorce laws. She wouldn't have gotten a thing.
They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety
I think those who pointed out it was NOT clear who was driving merely because it showed Anne driving. That ws shown as the husband may have imagined it.
I also think it was Bill's car, and no offer was given why she would be driving it, hence that argues it was him driving it.
But in the end I don't think it is clear who was. Perhaps that is the point, since the film sees the events through the eyes of the husband. He buys her story that she was driving. We understand later that Anne is quite a liar, but at the point she tells him she was the driver, we do not understand he sees Anne as a liar. Later in the film, when we have plenty of evidence she in fact is quite the liar, he has already bought into the conspiracy, which he was encouraged to do precisely in his understanding that she was the driver.
He thought she was, despite their being things that should have led him to at least question whether that was true. But to the end it seems like he does not truly understand who his wife is. And what she was and is capable of. I think that is why the film allows us to make the case for both having been the driver.
If we really want to get technical--nothing really happened.
Camera adds 10lbs;internet subtracts 50.
"Britain does not have no fault divorce laws. She wouldn't have gotten a thing."
Really? And who told you this?
The most common reason for divorce in England (Scotland has a different legal system) is "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" and is usually by mutual agreement. Fault is not an issue.
Because she was a home maker for a number of years she would be seen as having made an active contribution to the marriage and any settlement would have reflected this.
And because he was a mature, responsible and reasonable man, "the second she took off" he did not change the locks! There is no way he would have wanted there to be any element of "unreasonable behaviour" to have been perceived on his part or on his wife's.