This movie illustrates human opacity. Scenes 2-5 in this post follow scene 1, where the camera zooms in on Rex Harrison’s eye. Rex is an orchestra conductor, and these scenes of mayhem depict his fantasies of murdering his wife, fantasies he entertains while conducting Rossini and Wagner and Tchaikovsky. The concert is a great success; everyone agrees that Rex conducted with extraordinary passion. They have no idea why. Later his wife explains away her alleged unfaithfulness, at least to Rex’s satisfaction. But does her story really hold together, does the evidence we’ve seen during the film support her contention?
This movie illustrates human opacity. Scenes 2-5 in this post follow scene 1, where the camera zooms in on Rex Harrison’s eye. Rex is an orchestra conductor, and these scenes of mayhem depict his fantasies of murdering his wife, fantasies he entertains while conducting Rossini and Wagner and Tchaikovsky. The concert is a great success; everyone agrees that Rex conducted with extraordinary passion. They have no idea why. Later his wife explains away her alleged unfaithfulness, at least to Rex’s satisfaction. But does her story really hold together, does the evidence we’ve seen during the film support her contention?
Comment by ktismatics — 16 February 2013 @ 9:33 am