The Headless Woman

The Headless Woman revolves around an act that may or may not have happened. It's never clear whether Vero, distracted by her mobile phone, did indeed run down a child. She certainly killed the dog that was seen at the beginning of the film, but was one the children also a victim? In some respects, whether it happened or not is irrelevant. The important fact is that Vero *believes* she has killed someone, and the film is built around the psychological repurcussions of this. Yes, she's in shock but it never for a moment occurs to her to report the accident. She continues with her privileged life, slightly more detached than usual (expressed in looming closeups of her head), and only several days later - in a queue at a supermarket! - announces to her husband that she's killed someone. But this is a class that believes in taking care of its own and the males make the hospital records, hotel reservation and damaged car all vanish as if nothing ever happened. Yet a boy did die in the flooded canal, possibly drowned, possibly left there by a car accident, but the death means almost nothing to these people. All evidence removed they can continue with their lives, taking as little notice of their Indian servants as they do of the dead Indian boy.