Le procès Goldman

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.

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.

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.

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 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...?