This movie has fine acting, but the real interest is the moral question around which it revolves: can a man kill another to put her out of incurable misery? As you know, that's a question that is still argued, and probably more argued, today than it was, at least publicly, in 1948 when this film was released.
The end, where the former letter-of-the-law judge, Frederick March, decides that henceforth he needs to consider intentions as well as actions, is very moving because 1) March was a fine actor, and 2) the background music opens our emotions.
But 1) to what extent can the law take intentions into consideration when passing judgment on acts that break the law? 2) Why did the judge not talk about his intentions to end his wife's life with her and with their daughter? I suspect that would have very much weakened his case if it were to be tried today. The point is brought up briefly in one scene between the judge and his daughter near the end, but then nothing is done with it.
It's a well-made movie, but it leaves you with unanswered questions that it doesn't do much to help you consider.
The end, where the former letter-of-the-law judge, Frederick March, decides that henceforth he needs to consider intentions as well as actions, is very moving because 1) March was a fine actor, and 2) the background music opens our emotions.
But 1) to what extent can the law take intentions into consideration when passing judgment on acts that break the law? 2) Why did the judge not talk about his intentions to end his wife's life with her and with their daughter? I suspect that would have very much weakened his case if it were to be tried today. The point is brought up briefly in one scene between the judge and his daughter near the end, but then nothing is done with it.
It's a well-made movie, but it leaves you with unanswered questions that it doesn't do much to help you consider.