Le procès Goldman

From france! Arieh worthalter is pierre goldman, a man accused of several robberies and violent crimes against pharmacists in france. While in prison, he wrote a book. Later, his verdict is suspended, and referred to be retried in 1976. But goldman doesn't want to call witnesses, or friends on behalf of his character. He simply states that he is innocent. Will that be enough to exonerate him? Part of his defense is that he was a jew, trying to discover his own family history. Will that be enough? About an hour in to the re-trial, it devolves into a shouting match. The defendant just starts calling everyone racist, and the spectators start repeating it. Why they didn't clear the courtroom is beyond me. Good drama, i guess. An interesting case, for sure. We do find out the results of the trial. Very interesting to watch. For more details, please refer to wikipedia dot org. The family had specific objections to this version of the story. Directed by cédric kahn. He has won numerous film fest awards. Mostly well done.

This is a well done and credible courtroom drama, showing the 1976 trial against Pierre Goldman in an apparently very authentic way. This was a re-trial after Goldman had earlier been accused and convicted of several armed robberies and two murders. He had admitted the robberies but insisted on his innocence regarding the murders. Being a Jew and political activist from the extreme left with a problematic life before the events in question, he felt (probably rightly so) that the earlier trials were biased against him. The re-trial was apparently very prominent in France at the time.

The major attraction here is Arieh Worthalter's stunning performance as Pierre Goldman. I have read that he was generally seen as an unpleasant character, and I see why that is, but I actually ended up liking him a lot. In the very beginning he insists that the trial should focus on what actually happened in order to show his innocence rather than focus on his character and personal history. Proceedings would not totally follow his advice here but at least to some extent. Although it probably wasn't meant like that, I read this also as a critical comment on "The Anatomy of a Fall", another French drama with a heavy courtroom presence, in which I found the court's fixation on the character of the suspect rather silly, to the extent that it made me worry about the French justice system. Not so much here.

Most other acting is fine, too. That said, the film is rather one-dimensional, showing the court proceedings and pretty much nothing else. We learn something about the political climate and background, but overall the focus is "will he be acquitted of the murders or not", and maybe also whether there is manipulation against him going on. He has both support and haters in the audience who often makes itself heard. It annoyed me to some extent that not the full width of the screen was used, apparently for artistic reasons!? So the entertainment value is somewhat below "The Anatomy of a Fall" although the court is more credible. It is a good film though, between 7 and 8 stars.

The way this was filmed is outstanding. It's hard to believe, being so used to the extremely disciplined and regulated American court room experience, that a court where a man's possible fate at the guillotine is tried - amazing fact in itself, so late in history- can be so "interactive", spontaneous, anyone can express a thought for all to hear, interruptions, chaos at times, many personal lives are of interest, the accused may speak at any time, in short, a totally different and incandescent system. It is this recreation and Worthalter's mercurial and passionate performance which make this movie so unique and a must watch. I gave it one less star than I would have otherwise because of historic liberties, most of which I cannot know, but at least one I thought was objectionable: the presence of Goldman's wife at the trial.

I am not familiar with the case of Pierre Goldman but the movie is a good legal drama where emotions and dialogue are tense and engaging including great performances, atmosphere, and direction from Cédric Kahn. Kahn approaches the movie with a blend of drama and documentary style together which helps create the realistic setting and setting of the characters and event. The camerawork of 1:33:1 aspect ratio helps create an isolated feeling for the characters and the production is pretty good, while at times a bit cheap.

All of the performances were really good with Arieh Worthalter standing out with strong emotions and dialogue throughout. As well with the rest of the performances from the cast. The narrative is interesting with interesting themes and ideas explored, but it does prevent the movie from being excellent as some of the writing and narrative choices were a bit too thin and is the typical standard structure.

Throughout, the dialogue is well-written with a few being a bit too cartoonish, there are some pretty good balanced humor, and the pacing is tense. Despite some flaws, it is a good courtroom movie.

I usually enjoy French courtroom dramas. There's none of this "yes m'lud" and "no, your honour" deferential obsequiousness. They are normally much more of a bun-fight with the lawyers, witnesses, jurors and the accused all chipping-in to ask questions and sling plenty of character-assassinating mud about the room. This one is at the livelier end of that scale as the eponymous, self-confessed, robber (Arieh Worthalter) takes to the stand to defend himself from accusations the he shot and killed two pharmacists. I can't say I'd every heard ever heard of this left-wing firebrand, but as the film progresses his quick-wittedness and common-sense approach to his defence, coupled with his uncomfortably plain speaking - especially for his lawyer "Kiejman' (Arthur Harari) - makes for a most unconventional presentation of a scenario where the court president (Stéphan Guérin-Tillié) seemed to be doing most of the questioning and then most of the judging. It's the very lack of the ore traditional static formula that makes this a compelling watch. I found Goldman's character to be smug, self-satisfying and opinionated but his sharp honesty along the lines of "why would I?" begins to cut more and more ice as the prosecution becomes increasingly flabbergasted by his generalising outbursts that provoke temper tantrums from all sides and, more importantly, expose some of the less attractive characteristics of all concerned. It's almost two hours long, but the very natural, at times angry, nature of the scripting and it's delivery gives us a really plausible setting that's more gladiatorial than judicial. He's quite a sarcastic fellow, as is the prosecutor, so there are a few laughs to be had here as they successfully manage to wind each other up, and the close confines of the court - which we never leave - condenses it all nice and tightly. In the end I felt I knew what the verdict would be, but did I necessarily agree with it? Hmmm...?