| rdfs:comment
| - The Times of 29 October 1953 was enthusiastic in its praise stating, "The author has two ends in view, and she attains them both. She takes us now into the Old Bailey during an exciting trial for murder, now into chambers where the human reactions of the lawyers engaged in the case may be studied; and when the trial is over and there seems no more to be said, she swiftly ravels again the skein which the law has confidently unravelled and leaves herself with a denouement which is at once surprising and credible." The reviewer outlined the basics of the plot, commenting that Patricia Jessel's performance in the dock was "cold-blooded" and that she "makes a clear-cut image of hatred releasing itself suddenly from inhibitions which have become intolerable" and that Derek Blomfield was "equally
- There is a wonderful scene in the film Witness for the Prosecution that shows how selfless and self-givingness can evoke the miraculous. Sir Wilfred Robarts, a master barrister and an elder man in ill health, takes Leonard Vole on as a client over the protestations of his nurse. Vole is accused of murdering Mrs. French, a rich, older woman who had become enamored of Vole, going so far as to make him the main beneficiary of her will. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence all pointed to Vole as the killer. --Roy Posner 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) H
|
| abstract
| - There is a wonderful scene in the film Witness for the Prosecution that shows how selfless and self-givingness can evoke the miraculous. Sir Wilfred Robarts, a master barrister and an elder man in ill health, takes Leonard Vole on as a client over the protestations of his nurse. Vole is accused of murdering Mrs. French, a rich, older woman who had become enamored of Vole, going so far as to make him the main beneficiary of her will. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence all pointed to Vole as the killer. When Sir Wilfred speaks with Vole's German wife Christine, he finds her rather cold and self-possessed, but she does provide an alibi for Vole’s innocence. Therefore, Sir Wilfred is greatly surprised when she is unexpectedly called as a witness for the prosecution. On the stand, she testifies that Vole admitted to her that he had killed Mrs. French, and that her conscience now forced her to finally come forth and tell the truth. As a result, Vole is likely to be found guilty and sent to the gallows. And yet Sir Wilfred, loyal to the end, presses on despite the futility of the situation, and despite his rapidly deteriorating health. At one point, someone asks him if it is worth pursuing the case any further because it could jeopardize his life. He answers that the life of his client is more important than his own life, and he will do everything he can to pursue the truth. Not a few seconds after he makes that remark, he receives a phone call. It is from a mysterious woman who says she can produce shocking new evidence that will lead to the reversal of the case, which is in fact what occurs. From a consciousness point of view, the phone call and presence of this woman is something more. It is a direct and immediate response from life to Sir Wilfred for having placed the life of someone else above his own. It is an astonishing act of self-sacrifice for which he is instantaneously rewarded with information that suddenly reverses the evidence and wins him the case. This is no clever ploy on the part of the writer to create dramatic effect, but is precisely how life works. When we take to selfless and self-giving behavior, life immediately starts working on our behalf. Negative situations dissipate, unthought of opportunities arise, and other forms of sudden good fortune come our way. It is in essence the phenomenon of “Life Response” in action. When we change our inner condition, life outside instantly responds in kind. --Roy Posner 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) H
- The Times of 29 October 1953 was enthusiastic in its praise stating, "The author has two ends in view, and she attains them both. She takes us now into the Old Bailey during an exciting trial for murder, now into chambers where the human reactions of the lawyers engaged in the case may be studied; and when the trial is over and there seems no more to be said, she swiftly ravels again the skein which the law has confidently unravelled and leaves herself with a denouement which is at once surprising and credible." The reviewer outlined the basics of the plot, commenting that Patricia Jessel's performance in the dock was "cold-blooded" and that she "makes a clear-cut image of hatred releasing itself suddenly from inhibitions which have become intolerable" and that Derek Blomfield was "equally good". The greatest praise was reserved for the climax; "Mrs Christie has by this time got the audience in her pocket. A timely intervention of a woman of the streets offering new evidence seems precisely what the trial needs and when it is resumed the evidence brings it triumphantly to a satisfying conclusion. It is only then that the accomplished thriller writer shows her real hand." Ivor Brown of The Observer said in the issue of 1 November 1953 that the play had, "all the usual advantages of Counsel in conflict, agonised outbreak in the dock, and back-answers from the witness-box. To these are added a considerable and ingenious appendix; the jury's verdict is only the beginning of a story that has as many twists as a pigtail." He summed up with a comment on the performance of Patricia Jessel who, "takes the title-part with cool efficiency. Whether she is snake in the grass or butterfly on the wheel playgoers must find out for themselves. There will be plenty doing that." Philip Hope-Wallace in The Guardian's issue of 30 October 1953 said of the ending, "Justice has been done and has been seen to be done. We nod approvingly, at which moment Mrs Christie says in effect "Oh, so you thought that did you?" and with an unforeseen twist of the cards lets us see how wrong we were. This is satisfying, but it makes criticism almost impossible; first, one must not give away the clue and second, one must reconsider whether those witnesses who seemed the most plausible were not, in fact, less good players than those who seemed somehow not quite 'in character'". Nevertheless, Hope-Wallace did admit that the opening night was, "a great success" and stated that the play presented a, "well-made, humorous, exciting case".
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)