In 1939 Agatha Christie wrote her famous novel "And then there were none" and in 1945 René Clair made the first adaptation for film.
Although the adaptation by Clair was far from perfect, it was not surpassed for a long time. In my opinion the 1987 Russian adaptation by Stanislav Govorukhin was the long awaited improvement.
The Russian version is much more philosophical that that of Clair. In stead of being a "who donnit" the film treats the relationship between criminal law, ethics and (bad) conscience
With respect to the relationship between ethics and conscience there is a remarkable difference between men and women. At the end of the film (and different from the Clair adaptation) her own conscience is punishment enough for the Vera character.
The film creates a huge gap between ethics and criminal law. The assumption seems to be that criminal law only covers those instances in which a person does the wrong thing on purpose. I think in practice the difference is smaller. Criminal law also covers instances in which a person does not act although he ought to (not saving a person in mortal danger when possible) or acts not with the intention of doing harm but accepting the real possibility that harm nevertheles will happen (drunk driving).
Although the adaptation by Clair was far from perfect, it was not surpassed for a long time. In my opinion the 1987 Russian adaptation by Stanislav Govorukhin was the long awaited improvement.
The Russian version is much more philosophical that that of Clair. In stead of being a "who donnit" the film treats the relationship between criminal law, ethics and (bad) conscience
With respect to the relationship between ethics and conscience there is a remarkable difference between men and women. At the end of the film (and different from the Clair adaptation) her own conscience is punishment enough for the Vera character.
The film creates a huge gap between ethics and criminal law. The assumption seems to be that criminal law only covers those instances in which a person does the wrong thing on purpose. I think in practice the difference is smaller. Criminal law also covers instances in which a person does not act although he ought to (not saving a person in mortal danger when possible) or acts not with the intention of doing harm but accepting the real possibility that harm nevertheles will happen (drunk driving).