poster

The Goldman Case (2023)

7 | Jun 07, 2023 (FR) | Drama, Crime, History | 01:58
Budget: 2 600 000 | Revenue: 2 883 655

I am innocent because I am innocent.

A second trial begins in November 1975 against French left-wing revolutionary Pierre Goldman, accused of several armed robberies and the death of two chemists.

Featured Crew

Director, Screenplay
Stunt Coordinator
Production Sound Mixer
ADR Mixer
Screenplay
Casting
Boom Operator
Sound Re-Recording Mixer
Foley Artist
Makeup Department Head

Cast

profile
Arieh Worthalter
Pierre Goldman
profile
Arthur Harari
Maître Kiejman
profile
Nicolas Briançon
Maître Garaud
profile
Maxime Canat
Policier tapissage
profile
Jeremy Lewin
Maître Francis Chouraqui
profile
Christian Mazucchini
Maître Émile Bartoli
profile
Aurélien Chaussade
L'avocat général
profile
Jerzy Radziwiłowicz
Alter Goldman
profile
Chloé Lecerf
Christiane

Reviews

avatar
CinemaSerf
7 | Sep 22, 2024
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...?