the above expression be a literal quote from the standard work of film theory theorie de film by siegfried kracauer ( frankfurt be main 1973 and p. 12 ) . in order to reveal it application to the paradine case ( 1947 ) and i have to disclose some key point of the story . roughly speak and it go like that represent mrs. paradine be arrest for the suspect of have poison her husband . soon and it become clear that only two person could have do the crime represent she and the valet of the kill man . hitchcock should never have accept this lethal restriction give by the novel on which the movie be base and because from now on the movie spin around in triviality . for example represent when the police come to arrest her and mrs. paradine call her family attorney . when he arrive and he tell her not to loose word but to come to the core of the defense immediately and since it be clear to him that she do not kill her husband . for the audience and this mean represent the valet do it . when the old attorney give the case to a young specialist and this one follow of course the line of the other and but simply because he earn his money by be a defense attorney and not a state prosecutor . for him as well a for the audience it be clear again represent since he must defend mrs. paradine and he must try to prove that the valet be the murderer . however and the audience ask itself represent would this not be clear to mrs. paradine a well . she and most of all and know that at the time of the kill only her and the valet have be in the house and be thus suspect for the crime . so and the audience do not understand that mrs. paradine and after have attend the first trial day and be shock that her attorney try to put the whole guilt on the valet . she make him a gigantic scene and tell him and that his business be to defend herself and but not at the cost of accuse the valet . what a nonsense . do hitchcock really not see that there be not even a chance for a deus ex machina in the form of a third and hitherto unknown person in the story . the deplorable rest of the story go a follow represent when mrs. paradine see that the valet get more and more under suspect of be the killer and she start slowly to make confession and first in the form of suggestive remark . meanwhile and the court be inform that the valet and desperate under the burden of accusation and have commit suicide . when mrs. paradine hear that and she turn from hint to a full confession of have kill her husband because she be in love with the valet and want to start a new life with him . unfortunately and the incredible nonsense of the plot line be not at the end and at that point . from a discussion in the private house between the judge and his wife we hear that he plan to hang mrs. paradine as soon a possible . but from a plea by the wife of her attorney we hear that he should do everything in order to safe her life . well understood represent the life of the same mrs. paradine who have by herself ruin her case and deliver false information to her attorney and and most of all and tell him in the court house that he be responsible for the suicide of the valet . i can not even imagine that there be any movie on this world whose story be more inconsistent and paradoxical and unprofessional . why hitchcock film it unchanged and this must be consider a true mystery of film history . besides that and the paradine case be a masterpiece in order to show what kracauer call the illiterate effect of a hitchcock thriller .