仁心与冠冕

1949拍1868年的题材，相当于现在拍1939年的片子，两者都感觉所制作题材很久以前了

再一次证明人生重大拐点选择决定人生质量，人生方向

拥有几辈子花不完的钱，另有源源不断现金流收入的富人，这个时候从政就是玩游戏，操纵人生命，制定ta人命运走向，甚至左右无数人的命运

《控方证人》是从此片法庭一节得到的灵感

此片采用了《双重赔偿》的叙事结构

英式下午茶：果茶 红绿茶水+甜品

作案细节拍摄太假，漏洞百出，也许是导演故意不完美，以防有人模仿，给警察破案留有余地

几次作案太儿戏，太假

在牢里写回忆录，都认罪伏法了，且把作案动机细节交代清楚了，又百密一疏出牢时没带出，这种错误不该犯在这样高智商的罪犯身上

此片逻辑不讲究，主要讲的是复仇，没有正义对错，只是立场不同

Brilliant！杀了7个人（一个人自然死亡），结果因为一个自杀的人被冤枉判了死刑。和一个蛇蝎妇人约定好出狱后杀了自己的妻子来换取自己的自由，结果把写有自己杀人历程的回忆录落在了监狱里。

要不是看影评，我都没看出来所有的继承者都是他演的（包括那个女权斗士）！

其实我倒是觉得他和母亲没有公爵继承权也是无可厚非啊。人总要为自己的错误负责，做事情前想好后果啊。

As far as a sociopath goes, Louis D’ Ascoyne Mazzini (Price), the 10th Duke of Chalfont, is not entirely a disagreeable person, although, you might not want to be associated with him at all events, his murderous intent is motivated by accountable vengeance, and he simply wants what is his birthright, only the rub is, there are precisely eight prior dukedom candidates still breathe the same air like him, with which he is bent on doing away.

This Ealing studio’s Edwardian dark comedy is most renowned for the gimmick that Sir Alec Guinness plays all the 8 toffs bearing the D’Ascoyne names (ranging from fop, banker, clergyman, admiral to a suffragist dame) who would one by one, obliviously or not, all too facilely reduce to Louis’ victims, though some of the characters are rather sketchy, Guinness is distinctly pleasurable in donning different garbs, accoutrements and cosmetics, braving his characters’ repetitive pending perdition, again and again, without batting an eyelid.

But the backbone of this morbid affair is irrefutably rooted in Louis, and Price acquits himself superbly with an impeccable layer of politesse, even if when it comes to blows, yet, wearing his heart tangibly on his sleeve, every cunning pensée, every flickering of trepidation or concealed elation, is registered in perfect modicum, and his cool, calm and collected guise is almost too delectable and very nearly, blots out the repugnant aftertaste of the death-dealing practices his Louis perpetrates with cold-blooded precision and aloofness (if not at all practical or plausible).

While the overall performance from the cast defers rigorously to the deadpan seriousness borne out of unalloyed British dignity, which is tonally apposite for a comedy with a darker spine, its pungent irony thrusts deeper into the frothy surface, as we are all led to believe that Louis, who is introduced in the beginning as an inmate on the death row, gets his comeuppance for his dastardly acts, the reveal is that he is indeed wrongfully sentenced for a crime he didn’t actually commit (by his peers in the House of Lords, no less), and moreover, he can get away with that in the eleventh hour if he connives to exact another dispatch which transmutes his solitary derring-do to a folie à deux with his mistress Sibella (a throaty Greenwood is not mincing words to be a faux-naif but with a lethal difference), who outfoxes him for her own social-climbing scheme, they make an adorable pair!

Finally, waffling between his demure wife Edith (a high-toned Hobson) and Sibella, Louis suddenly apprehends that his seemingly brighter future is hanging by a thread as the confessional memoir he minutely composes has been mislaid in the prison cell, and open to anyone who might discover it. This cunningly ambiguous coda is delivered as a timely curveball to a satirical sophistication making the most of the contrast between the prim and proper demeanor and the vile and egocentric ego, a deathless treat for those who consider murder quite a laughing matter in the medium of fiction.

referential entries: Henry Cornelius’ GENEVIEVE (1953, 6.9/10); Alexander Mackendrick’s THE LADYKILLERS (1955, 7.7/10).