Everything has been said by the other reviewers about the performance of BB, the principle question of premeditated or not.
On the other hand, much of this does not really matter. What we see here is the quest for truth. Truth in the sense of judicial truth, as well as societal 'truth'. The latter being volatile and dependent on circumstances. While the heroine is not exactly a shining star of mankind, she is also a precursor to the '68 revolution. The values of the old days do not tempt her any longer, and this lack is reciprocated by the people living in the Quartier Latin in Paris.
Though, different to many movies made after this one, the director does not take a stand in this societal breakup. He rather looks at much deeper human emotions, independent of France, or 1968. In this respect this movie reminds me of Shakespeare who was likewise interested much more in exploring the depths and shallow parts of mankind rather than write a biography of Kind Lear or Macbeth.
Great examples for Clouzot's eye as independent observer are many in this movie. To name a few, the ridiculousness of committing suicide - or better consistently talking about it - as a kind of past-time as well as self-inflating. The horrible behaviour of the attorneys, for whom the court is nothing but a cheap opportunity to produce oneself.
Truth. The truthiness of the concierge? She's probably the most blatant liar of the whole plot. But exposed with relative ease. The truth of love, however, remains unanswered. Which just shows that the director was humble enough. Others, later, would be less humble. Totally deep down it can't be verified. Love and hate do go together, though, and this is shown profoundly in this movie.
Truth. Is this court actually interested in the truth? Or is it rather interested in following procedures that finally lead to some formal conclusion?
Truth. How tangible is this concept? In the end, we can see a certain truth. We have seen - as far as the flashbacks can be supposed to be objective - what actually happened. Though, we can still not see inside the hearts of the heroines. Can they themselves know what has been driving them through their 6 months together?
Great examples for Clouzot's eye as independent observer are many in this movie. To name a few, the ridiculousness of committing suicide - or better consistently talking about it - as a kind of past-time as well as self-inflating. The horrible behaviour of the attorneys, for whom the court is nothing but a cheap opportunity to produce oneself.
Truth. The truthiness of the concierge? She's probably the most blatant liar of the whole plot. But exposed with relative ease. The truth of love, however, remains unanswered. Which just shows that the director was humble enough. Others, later, would be less humble. Totally deep down it can't be verified. Love and hate do go together, though, and this is shown profoundly in this movie.
Truth. Is this court actually interested in the truth? Or is it rather interested in following procedures that finally lead to some formal conclusion?
Truth. How tangible is this concept? In the end, we can see a certain truth. We have seen - as far as the flashbacks can be supposed to be objective - what actually happened. Though, we can still not see inside the hearts of the heroines. Can they themselves know what has been driving them through their 6 months together?