Tom Gunning mentions it as one of the earliest example of the camera playing an "essential role as the mute yet unassailable witness of a crime.

"[4] Christian Quendler cites it as the first example of the way in which the dissonances between human perception and camera vision have been the object of playful exploration in early films.

[6] Katherine Manthorne considers this film as an example of the way in which early cinema, with the ubiquitous camera eye, "provided an invaluable source of carnal knowledge, one that was necessarily acquired through its lens.

This alignment of the point of view of the audience with that of the director "implies that the viewer could be next - that anyone could be filmed in a compromising position and displayed before a jury of their spectatorial peers.

The second, less successful, is an attempt to show at the same time two scenes taking place at two different locations during a telephone call; this was done by superimposition, which made it difficult to distinguish anything.