chance did a poor woman have against such people?
Overall I think the evidence against her was overwhelming, despite the fact that Link was in many ways a deeply unpleasant man, and that his lawyer was indeed something of a fat cat compared to Conchita’s pleasantly downhome-style lawyer. But what intrigues me is, what did the director, Paul Yule, think? Is he to be congratulated for presenting such an even-handed account of a complex case, or was he in fact persuaded by Conchita? That’s what I couldn”t work out. In a way I wouldn’t blame him if he was: she was quite extraordinary in the belief she had in herself as a wronged woman. Guilty or not, she was the one who made the film so compelling. Could anyone who was guilty possibly have put on such a convincing performance? (Um, yes, they could. People can fool themselves as well as others.)
It’s not only the way Conchita was allowed to dominate the film: there’s also that blurb, with its mention of an “unexpected and sordid twist”, and the line that this is “a story of an America that never was and a society that has fed off the myth ever since.” What’s that all about? Was this intended as another swipe at the corruption at the heart of the American Dream, where you get the justice you pay for? If so, well, I don’t think that’s the film we ended up with, but either way it was gripping stuff
Leave a Reply