Il caso 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.

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.

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.

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...?