Une intime conviction

You won't like Nora very much; her interest in the Viguier case has tipped over into obsession. She's neglecting her son who resents her for this, she's treating her boyfriend almost like a servant... she's a piece of work. But she has one saving grace: she's really committed to the case, and she manages to get a first-rate lawyer interested in defending the man who'd already been tried once for murder.

The lawyer, played by Olivier Gourmet, turns out to be almost a magician. His closing speech is a barn burner, it recalls Raimu in Les Inconnus dans la maison in its power. For this finale alone, the film deserves to be seen.

The box gives the title as CONVICTION, which is a concession to tthe North American market which I regret.

On February 27, 2000, Suzanne Viguier disappeared from her home in Toulouse without a trace. Did her husband Jacques, kill her? Nora, who attended Viguier's first trial, is convinced of his innocence. She succeeds in convincing the tenor of the bar Dupont-Moretti to defend him for his second lawsuit. She eventually became his unofficial collaborator. A quest for the truth that gradually turns into an obsession.

The dysfunctions of justice have always interested the cinema. It is therefore not surprising that the Jacques Viguier case has become the subject of a film. Newcomer Antoine Rambault takes the case in hand - and with honors. Fascinated by the affair (which he followed in real life) and relying on a meticulous study of all its aspects, the director manages to give the whole thing a quasi-documentary tone. This does not exclude adventures, suspense or dramatic turns of events. On the interpretation side, Laurent Lucas perfectly renders Viguier's silent and clumsy, almost opaque side, which makes him an « ideal culprit ». The contrast is striking with the flamboyant Olivier Gourmet, his defender with a formidable eloquence. A notable addition to the duo is Nora (wonderful Marina Foïs), the only fictional character in this true story. It's a great find because by following her epic quest for truth, the film acquires an irresistible momentum. The director's commitment, his sincerity, his denunciation of the vices of French justice (among which the principle of intimate conviction, so often denounced by his great elder André Cayatte) give the work a beautiful energy, sometimes raging, which prevents it from falling into the platitudes of mere illustration and demonstration. Should a man accused of killing his wife be condemned if her corpse has never been found? If the police investigation was botched? If potentially decisive leads were overlooked? For Antoine Rambault, the answer is no, no and no. And this is not just a matter of intimate conviction!

The subject is taken from a true story, and this is already the worst presentation card for me. In the specific case: the protagonist - who is unable to understand why she cares about it so much that she loses her job - is unpleasant, the film is too long, it gets lost in the names of French characters who are confused with each other, and the final plea is infinite. The direction then punctuates the debate in the classroom with haphazardly glued close-ups, as in the worst television programs. In summary, the defects prevail over the merits, consisting above all in the raw and realistic cut of the relationship between the defense lawyer and the woman who took over the case.

This movie,although fictionalized,is based on true events .

And to think that a lot of critics used to put disparagement on André Cayatte's works ! He did better in this field than Antoine Raimbaud .André Cayatte would have focused on the character of the suspect ;the excellent Laurent Lucas is given so little time on the screen it's a wonder he 's been given top bill along with the lawyer and the ex-juror : his final lines, however , means more to me than the interminable speech for the defence , a speech the average viewer has already heard a hundred times or more .

Today's movie character is par excellence the brilliant lawyer ; for good measure, the screenwriters call Hitchcock to the rescue . One of the movies they mention is proof positive that Cayatte was right when his movies dealt essentially with the accused : " the wrong man" would have been terribly boring if one had not seen it through the eyes of Henry Fonda 's character.

And Laurent Lucas with his hangdog looks was up to scratch ; a victim of the public opinion , his "way of the cross" (to quote him) could have been absorbing.

Olivier Gourmet is probably ,along with Jérémie Rénier , the best contemporary Belgian actor ; but his character is cardboard ;he does not renew the genre,by a long shot : in this field, he does not cut Charles Vanel and Paul Meurisse ("La vérité") , Raimu ("les inconnus dans la maison" ) or Charles Laughton ("witness for the prosecution") .

The same goes for Marina Foïs ,who can be deeply moving ,even when she is given a thankless part ("darling" ); her fictitious character is clichéd to a fault : of course she is divorced ,her new companion is black -he only serves as a foil to her- , she is a chef in a thriving restaurant.Her accident is pure filler and the last-minute witness is a trick which has been used countless times in the past .(see for instance Clint Eastwood's "true crime" )

The computer age makes the beginning of the movie complicated instead of complex; the viewer gets lost among a lot of characters who play insignificant parts in the tragedy.In fact ,it's mainly interesting when the vanished lady's lover and her babysitter -the actress has to be praised,during her short appearance,she blows everybody off the screen- are in the courtroom .