"Ruth Rendell Mysteries" The Veiled One (1989)

User Rating:

5.7/10   

Director:

Mary McMurray

Writers:

Trevor Preston (screenplay)
Ruth Rendell (novel)

TV Series:

"Ruth Rendell Mysteries" (1988)

Original Air Date:

17 December 1989 (Season 3, Episode 7)

Genre:

Crime | Drama | Mystery

Plot:

Plot Keywords:

Based On Novel

Cast

George Baker	...	Det. Chief Insp. Reg Wexford
Christopher Ravenscroft	...	Det. Insp. Mike Burden
Paola Dionisotti	...	Dorothy Sanders
Camille Coduri	...	Lesley Arbel
Ian Fitzgibbon	...	Clifford Sanders
Hugh Lloyd	...	Ralph Robson
Simon Chandler	...	Reese
Louie Ramsay	...	Dora Wexford
Deborah Poplett	...	Sheila Wexford
Tony Vogel	...	Roy Carroll
David Fleeshman	...	Serge Olson
Arthur Hewlett	...	Archie Greaves
Philip Bretherton	...	John Whitton
Susie Lindeman	...	Nina Jago
Paula Jacobs	...	Dita Jago

Runtime:

120 min | UK:102 min

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Company:

TVS Television

Movie Connections:

Followed by "Ruth Rendell Mysteries: An Unkindness of Ravens: Part One (#4.7)" (1990)

Brilliant and Very Deep - reminds me of Tarkovsky's films

Some previous comments of (about) this movie begin with description of "woman is found strangled", etc, but this movie has very little to do with murder, death, detectives, crimes, etc. This movie is about LIFE! This movie is not for hyperactive 30-minute "Homer-style" "duh" Americans who require that someone is killed every minute in a movie in order to enjoy it. As to comments about Wexford's "doubts about his daughter" - and how it seemingly is unrelated to "second half of the movie" and "makes little sense" - the movie is about doubt and uncertainty that govern this World, and human life, by the way, too. Thus, this movie is not about "detective" and this is not a "detective" (or "Columbo" like) movie - the detective is only an excuse (framing, so to speak) to artfully describe and paint the greater canvas of the Universe (and the human life, as a subset of the greater Universe). Would you blame Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso because some "part of the canvas" is seemingly "unrelated" and "makes little sense" (to only couple of people, perhaps)? Some viewers (minority) of Tarkovsky's films would also accuse him of "plot is a little too confused and it doesn't handle the different threads well at all". Such comments look like clichés, anyway. Read it again: "plot is a little too confused and it doesn't handle the different threads well at all."

Tarkovsky's and Wexford movies are not subjects to clichés. "David Lynch-lite" is laughable and totally cliché comment of Wexford. Life is not about comparing "David Lynch-lite" movies to "Tarkovsky-heavy" movies. I do not want to ever see any "Lynch-like" movies when I see a new movie. Life is infinite in its randomness, doubt and uncertainty. There will be no "David Lynch-lite" movies in the future because there will be Wexford. Life would be too boring if all the movies would automatically fall into only few categories of "Lynch", "Schwartznegger", etc.