Le procès Goldman

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.

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.

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 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.

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...?