This film is based on a true story arising from the use of an obscure old law enabling prosecution to be brought when an adulterous relationship develops. The true story provides a prop for the film to fend off criticism, without which I feel it would be unconvincing and would probably not have been made.
The legal issues take second place in the film, with far more flashbacks to the couple and the affair than time in the court room. If you are hoping for a courtroom drama you will be disappointed, with the mechanics of the trial, and any scenes in the jury room being left out. The question of the standard of proof required to distinguish a woman aiming to break up a marriage, from a woman falling in love with a married man is touched on only lightly.
The film undermines its own structure by putting the end of the trial at the start of the film, and putting the story in as flashbacks. The affair is played out in an entirely predictable manner, with the scenes of deceit, eventual confession and divorce that you might expect. There are only two possible outcomes and when the verdict arrives I felt that it appeared somewhat arbitrary and doesn't justify the wait. There is no major plot point introducing conflict, other than the obvious one of adultery and the legal issue, which are known to the viewer right from the start.
It is played as a comedy as well as a drama - the central characters in the love triangle are deadly serious, but the office workers are played larger than life, for comedic effect. This implies that the film- makers took the view, probably correctly, that it is a somewhat absurd law. Adultery may be wrong, but it is only possible with the consent of the wayward spouse who must share in the blame. So although the premise of the film is an intriguing and original one, the film doesn't present it as one that the viewer can really care about and this limits the emotional impact that the film can ultimately achieve.
The legal issues take second place in the film, with far more flashbacks to the couple and the affair than time in the court room. If you are hoping for a courtroom drama you will be disappointed, with the mechanics of the trial, and any scenes in the jury room being left out. The question of the standard of proof required to distinguish a woman aiming to break up a marriage, from a woman falling in love with a married man is touched on only lightly.
The film undermines its own structure by putting the end of the trial at the start of the film, and putting the story in as flashbacks. The affair is played out in an entirely predictable manner, with the scenes of deceit, eventual confession and divorce that you might expect. There are only two possible outcomes and when the verdict arrives I felt that it appeared somewhat arbitrary and doesn't justify the wait. There is no major plot point introducing conflict, other than the obvious one of adultery and the legal issue, which are known to the viewer right from the start.
It is played as a comedy as well as a drama - the central characters in the love triangle are deadly serious, but the office workers are played larger than life, for comedic effect. This implies that the film- makers took the view, probably correctly, that it is a somewhat absurd law. Adultery may be wrong, but it is only possible with the consent of the wayward spouse who must share in the blame. So although the premise of the film is an intriguing and original one, the film doesn't present it as one that the viewer can really care about and this limits the emotional impact that the film can ultimately achieve.