The above expression is a literal quote from the standard-work of film theory "Theorie Des Films" by Siegfried Kracauer (Frankfurt Am Main 1973, p. 12). In order to reveal its application to "The Paradine Case" (1947), I have to disclose some key points of the story. Roughly speaking, it goes like that: Mrs. Paradine is arrested for the suspect of having poisoned her husband. Soon, it becomes clear that only two persons could have done the crime: she and the valet of the killed man. Hitchcock should never have accepted this lethal restriction given by the novel on which the movie is based, because from now on the movie spins around in trivialities. For example: When the police comes to arrest her, Mrs. Paradine calls her family-attorney. When he arrives, he tells her not to loose words but to come to the core of the defense immediately, since it is clear to him that she did not kill her husband. For the audience, this means: The valet did it. When the old attorney gives the case to a young specialist, this one follows of course the line of the other, but simply because he earns his money by being a defense attorney and not a state prosecutor. For him as well as for the audience it is clear again: Since he must defend Mrs. Paradine, he must try to prove that the valet is the murderer. However, the audience asks itself: Would this not be clear to Mrs. Paradine as well? She, most of all, knows that at the time of the killing only her and the valet have been in the house and are thus suspects for the crime. So, the audience does not understand that Mrs. Paradine, after having attended the first trial day, is shocked that her attorney tried to put the whole guilt on the valet. She makes him a gigantic scene, telling him, that his business is to defend herself, but not at the cost of accusing the valet. What a nonsense! Did Hitchcock really not see that there is not even a chance for a Deus Ex Machina in the form of a third, hitherto unknown person in the story? The deplorable rest of the story goes as follows: When Mrs. Paradine sees that the valet gets more and more under suspect of being the killer, she starts slowly to make confessions, first in the form of suggestive remarks. Meanwhile, the court is informed that the valet, desperate under the burden of accusations, has committed suicide. When Mrs. Paradine hears that, she turns from hints to a full confession of having killed her husband because she was in love with the valet and wanted to start a new life with him. Unfortunately, the incredible nonsense of the plot line is not at the end, at that point. From a discussion in the private house between the judge and his wife we hear that he plans to hang Mrs. Paradine as soon as 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: the life of the same Mrs. Paradine who has by herself ruined her case, delivered false information to her attorney and, most of all, told him in the court house that he is responsible for the suicide of the valet. I cannot even imagine that there is any movie on this world whose story is more inconsistent, paradoxical and unprofessional. Why Hitchcock filmed it unchanged, this must be considered a true mystery of film history. Besides that, "The Paradine Case" is a masterpiece in order to show what Kracauer called "the illiterate effects of a Hitchcock-thriller".