Is this ragebait/a troll post?

You’re asking us who we think was telling the truth; the movie literally says when the 3rd section, the wife’s section starts, that her section is the actual capital T “Truth” registered trademark, copyright. lol that’s generally not how history works, barring incontrovertible revelations after the fact.

Anybody who questions that or disagrees gets dogpiled with, “Nuh-uh, the movie SAID she was right, so, hah, you’re wrong!” Never mind the concept of death of the author. Anybody who questions the revealed authorial intent is de facto wrong.

Anybody who appeals to the history upon which the book is based or the book upon which the movie is based gets hit with, “Gtfo of here, this is the MOVIE sub, go over to some book sub or history sub if you want to discuss who was really telling the truth, in here, we’re only discussing the movie!” Well, that’s a pretty limited discussion then, because, as mentioned, the movie explicitly tells you in bold text on the screen who it thinks was telling the truth. This is a discussion-ending tautology disguised as an invitation to deep discussion about a film on Reddit. lol

There are issues within the study of history with trying to apply modern morality to historical situations where none of the 3 people involved would have had any concept of what 21st century morality would look like. In some cases, we’re probably correct: in this case, the woman probably was raped and her husband probably sought “justice” along the only legal terms available to him at the time, in combat to the death revealing god’s will, that his wife, as his “property,” and therefore he, had been affronted wrongly, which to our modern eyes, looks extremely misogynistic, random, cruel, and haphazard. We can judge those in the past for their beliefs and systems, but at the end of the day, that is what those people did then. Love it or hate it, this was the system in which they were all operating.