become emotional
I never thought you British could get so emotional. Especially in public.Witness for the Prosecution · 1957 — 第 27 / 27 章 · 2'22" · C1
Christine Reveals Leonard Was Guilty, Explained：call someone names
On the surface, Christine is gloating over how brilliantly Sir Wilfrid exposed her in court. Underneath, she is confessing the whole trial was a performance they staged together: she lied on the stand so his exposure would make the jury believe Leonard. "There never was a Max," she admits — and then: "I knew he was guilty."
あらすじ
After the verdict, Christine Helm tells Sir Wilfrid the truth about the trial. She explains that she deliberately testified for the prosecution and let him expose her as a liar, because only then would the jury believe Leonard was innocent. She invented the mysterious lover Max, and every blue letter was a performance. Then she delivers the real shock: "I knew he was guilty."
注目の表現
call someone namesin casecharge someone with perjurywhat are you driving at
00:00 / 02:22Space 再生 · ← → セリフ移動 · R リピート
いま
このシーンの表現
call someone names
insult with words
Christine tells Sir Wilfrid she has endured insults and shoves without complaint.
The older kids called him names at school.
このシーンの他の表現
- in case
just so you know
- charge someone with perjury
accuse of lying under oath
- what are you driving at
what is your point
- yer
your, in dialect
- play a vital role
be essential to something
このシーンのメモ一覧
35 行のセリフに 30 件のメモ
around other people
I never thought you British could get so emotional. Especially in public.say sorry for
- I apologise for my compatriots. - It's all right.Link apologise and for; for softens to fer.
- I apologise for my compatriots. - It's all right.be treated roughly
I don't mind being called names or pushed around or even kicked in the shin.kick someone's leg
I don't mind being called names or pushed around or even kicked in the shin.the final pair left
But I have a ladder in my last pair of nylons.not know about
In case you are not familiar with our prison regulations, no silk stockings.jail rules
In case you are not familiar with our prison regulations, no silk stockings.face trial for it
You heard the judge. You will certainly be charged with perjury, - tried for it, and to prison you shall go.act for the state
If I were appearing for the prosecution, it would be.subjunctive: If I were marks an unreal condition; he is not prosecuting, but imagines the result.
If I were appearing for the prosecution, it would be.hate me
You loathe me, don't you? Like the people outside.keep someone alive
and how brilliantly you exposed me and saved Leonard's life. The great Sir Wilfrid Robarts did it again.Run did it again together as one smooth unit.
and how brilliantly you exposed me and saved Leonard's life. The great Sir Wilfrid Robarts did it again.however much
When you said that no jury would believe an alibi given by a loving wife, no matter how much she swore he was innocent?concessive clause: No matter how much introduces a concession: the main claim holds whatever she swore.
When you said that no jury would believe an alibi given by a loving wife, no matter how much she swore he was innocent?inspired the plan
That gave me the idea.inversion after only then: When only then starts the clause, the verb comes before the subject for emphasis.
That I should swear Leonard was guilty and that you should expose me as a liar because only then would they believe Leonard was innocent.everything that happened
So now you know the whole story, Sir Wilfrid.your, dialect — Dialect for your; rough and casual.
I'll give yer something to dream about, mister.sir, to a stranger — Street address to a strange man, often with an edge.
I'll give yer something to dream about, mister.an affectionate nickname — Old British endearment, teasing or fond.
Want to kiss me, ducky?present perfect with since: It has been a long time since marks how long ago something last happened.
It's been a long time since I acted and I never played such a vital role.make up out of nothing
It took me hours to write them, to invent Max. There never was a Max.only that one person
There's never been anyone but Leonard.cooperate with someone
My dear, could you not have trusted me, worked with me truthfully and honourably? We would have won.not understand in the least
No, Sir Wilfrid, you do not understand at all.The t in at nearly drops before all in fast speech.
No, Sir Wilfrid, you do not understand at all.was certain of guilt
I knew he was guilty.「Christine Reveals Leonard Was Guilty」を読み解く
What's really going on
Christine is not gloating; she is explaining a strategy, and the strategy is the twist. She heard Sir Wilfrid say that no jury would believe an alibi from a loving wife, so she did the opposite: "I should be a witness, not for my husband, but for the prosecution." She swore Leonard was guilty, let Sir Wilfrid destroy her on the stand, and trusted the jury to read the collapse as proof of innocence. It was cold, deliberate, and it worked. What she never shared was the one fact that would have stopped him: "I knew he was guilty." Sir Wilfrid's quiet reproach — "could you not have trusted me?" — is the real wound here. She did not trust him, because his belief in Leonard's innocence was exactly what she needed him to keep. The scene turns an acquittal into a confession, and a confession into the film's final blow.
Theme
DeceptionChristine's entire testimony was a deliberate lie, and the acquittal itself was engineered — the truth only surfaces once the verdict is already safe.
TrustSir Wilfrid asks why she could not trust him; her answer is that his belief in Leonard's innocence was a risk she refused to take.
このチャプターで学べること
- Christine's calm is what makes the twist land.
- She built a lie to make the truth believable.
- Sir Wilfrid wins the case but loses the story.
- The last line reframes every earlier scene.
発音のポイント
- apologise for — Link apologise and for; for softens to fer.
- did it again — Run did it again together as one smooth unit.
- at all — The t in at nearly drops before all in fast speech.
There's never been anyone but Leonard.Her defense of the whole scheme: there was no lover, no Max, no betrayal — she has only ever loved Leonard. It reframes every incriminating letter as an act of devotion.
That I should swear Leonard was guilty and that you should expose me as a liar because only then would they believe Leonard was innocent.The mechanics of the trick, spelled out: she would falsely confess and he would publicly expose her lie, because a jury would never believe a wife defending her husband. Reverse psychology, played in open court.
I don't mind being called names or pushed around or even kicked in the shin.A light, almost joking opener: insults, shoving, even a kick do not bother her. It makes the confession that follows feel casual — until it is not.
I knew he was guilty.The final line and the film's last twist: she did not merely arrange an acquittal, she knew the man she saved was guilty. Everything before it is recast.
このシーンについての質問
Why did Christine testify against Leonard if she wanted him free?
Because she believed a loving wife's alibi would never be trusted. By testifying that he was guilty and letting Sir Wilfrid expose her as a liar, she made the jury conclude the opposite — that Leonard was innocent.
Was the mysterious Max real?
No. Christine admits she invented Max and spent hours writing the blue letters herself, purely to create the appearance of a lover. "There never was a Max" is the line that undoes the whole prosecution story.
Did Sir Wilfrid know Christine was acting?
No. He suspected something was wrong but not that she was deliberately lying for the defence. He only learns the full plan from her after the verdict, which is why he asks, "could you not have trusted me?"
Did Christine believe Leonard was innocent?
No — that is the film's last reveal. She staged the whole defence knowing he was guilty, and only tells Sir Wilfrid at the end: "I knew he was guilty." Her motive was love, not belief in his innocence.
What does "call someone names" mean during her speech?
It means to insult or mock someone, not to say their name. Christine uses it lightly — she claims insults and shoving do not hurt her — which is why she can hand Sir Wilfrid the real wound much later.
情婦 · 全 27 章
すべて見る →
第 1 章put it in mothballsSir Wilfrid Goes Home
第 2 章when her back is turnedSir Wilfrid Hides Cigars in His Cane
第 3 章circumstantial evidenceVole Tries to Hire Sir Wilfrid
第 4 章in the hands ofLeonard Tells Sir Wilfrid His Story
第 5 章not cricketHow Vole Met Mrs French
第 6 章a hot potatoLeonard Recounts the Night of the Murder
第 7 章with flying coloursInspector Hearne Arrests Leonard
第 8 章call it what you likeChristine Vole Meets the Lawyers
第 9 章a way with womenChristine and the Green Socks
第 10 章worships the ground I walk onChristine Denies She's His Wife
第 11 章on the chance thatWilfrid Photographs Vole in Prison
第 12 章gave someone ideasLeonard Meets Christine in Hamburg
第 13 章clutching at a razor bladeVole Tells How He Married Christine
第 14 章to a pointLeonard Vole Pleads Not Guilty
第 15 章take someone by surpriseHearne Testifies About the Prints
第 16 章account forThe Bloodstained Jacket in Court
第 17 章hither and thitherJanet McKenzie Takes the Stand
第 18 章a scheming rascalWilfrid Cross-Examines the Housekeeper
第 19 章an accomplice toChristine Testifies Against Vole
第 20 章a chronic and habitual liarMyers Destroys Christine on the Stand
第 21 章shed new light onSir Wilfrid Calls Leonard Vole
第 22 章establish an alibiMyers Cross-Examines Leonard Vole
第 23 章wild-goose chaseThe Call About the German Wife
第 24 章on the slySir Wilfrid Buys the Letters
第 25 章a pack of liesSir Wilfrid's Blue Letter Trap
第 26 章dispose ofVole Is Found Not Guilty
再生中 · 第 27 章call someone namesChristine Reveals Leonard Was Guiltyこの作品の 27 章はここまでです