El caso Goldman

This film takes its audience back to the 70s and the political struggles that took place in the aftermath of the 1968's revolution in France.

As a young man accused of a double murder and numerous hold-ups, Pierre Goldman is depicted as a terrorist, radicalised by his communists parents (jews from Poland who left the pogroms back in the 20's) and by the people he met "along the way" in Poland, Cuba and Venezuela. As stubborn as impulsive, he seems to hold a grudge against the whole world, the cops and the heirs of aristocracy above all.

Will this be a enough to declare this man guilty of a murder ?

Will the French society of the seventies will decide to bury the values of the revolution of 1968 with this trial ?

Is he the scapegoat that everyone was expecting to blame the 68 revolution or a dangerous murderer ?

The fantastic adaptation of this trial will give some anwers for sure on that matter.

Beyond the suspense concerning the character, this film is to me a fantastic depiction of the French society of the 70's with the opposition betweeen conservatism ( those who clearly lean right and who are represented by DeGaule's supporters very keen to defend patriarchy and old bourgeois way of life) and some revolutionary's aspirations of the lefties (inspired by French intellectuals like Simone DeBeauvoir or other communists's supporters also present in the court).

Tensions, and moral values will pull their weight in this trial . The main character interpreted by Arieh Worthalter who definitely deserves an award for his performance (he finally got the Cesar) as well as the other actors (the lawyers, the witnesses, attorneys and prosecutor) are just perfect in the way they express themselves, in the tension and the moral stake they put in the middle of the room. The whole trial looks perfectly genuine and it's highly interesting to see what was at stake morally speaking back in those days.

In Europe, the 1970's are years of rebellion, violences and massive opposition between liberalism and communism. It is this struggle of ideas that is portrayed in this film.

A fantastic adaptation and reproduction of a trial that most of us have forgotten but that could have changed France for good.

We enjoyed this trial film. The trial of Mr. Goldman, a left-wing revolutionary, who finds himself accused of murder, which he denies. The film's interest lies in this character, who doesn't deny some of his misdeeds, who refuses to be defended because he is innocent (according to him) of the murder of which he is accused. The film is in Arieh Worthalter's formidable work, in this character who possesses certain endearing characteristics. The film is also in his responses to the prosecutor's attacks, but also in his relationship with his lawyer and his lawyer's pleadings. The result is a film we can follow from start to finish, thanks to these formidable actors, as well as to the rather subtle screenplay, which manages to create a story by stringing together scenes of court pleadings that at first glance may look the same, but each time the information helps to clarify the character. Cédric Kahn constantly avoids the jurors' point of view, even during their deliberations.

The decision not to use music makes the actors' interpretations even more powerful, and forces viewers to concentrate on the characters at all times. Monsieur Goldman is an astonishing character, unsympathetic according to the thinking of the time (the 70s in France), but with enough elements to make him interesting today.

Pierre Goldman is a complex and fascinating character, a French leftist, a small time criminal and an intellectual.

PG was a Polish Jew born in France towards end of WWII. His parents belonged to the resistance group and separated after the war with his mother, a staunch Communist who returned to Poland.

PG was kicked out of various high schools but managed to graduate from Sorbonne. He didn't join '68 student movements but went to Cuba instead and fought as a guerrilla in Venezuela and robbed a bank! Upon returning to Paris he participated in several small time robberies and was arrested with charges of murdering 2 female pharmacists in a drug store which he vehemently denied. He argued on his own behalf during the trial against the wishes of his defence attorneys.

He famously proclaimed that he died the day he was born!

This movie is fundamentally about that '76 trial in totality, a rousing and intense 1hr 46min film.

The film was strongly directed by Cedric Kahn, an actor-director and starring powerfully by Arich Worthalter as Goldman and Arthur Harari as one of his defence attorneys who also happened to be Jewish but declined to use it as a means to induce sympathy from the judges.

It was a sensational trial which attracted many celebrities and intellectuals at the time in supports to Goldman, particularly during that anti-authority anti-police political climate.

What made this film extraordinary is the superb casting from the leads down to the extras who looked real and authentic down to their appearances. The filmmakers probably had conducted extensive rehearsals which resulted this intense and fascinating courtroom drama. I'm not certain that if the script was based on the actual courtroom transcripts but it was very well written as well.

For more details on Pierre Goldman and the case, you may refer to Pierre Goldman on Wikipedia.

Recommended, as a courtroom drama based on actual events.

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.