•
Rating:
It must be acknowledged that the state of French cinema is good if a film like "The Goldman Trial", which fits within the judicial genre with action strictly confined to a courtroom, manages to keep the audience's attention. If the performance of the main actors is impeccable, this is complemented by the precise and meticulous evocation of an era tormented by extremist armed struggle, such as the 1970s in France (a small consolation for what also happened in Italy during that same period).
Director Cedric Kahn takes us to the appeal trial of Pierre Goldman, held in 1976. The defendant, the son of a Polish Jew who took refuge in France in the '40s, grew up in a time of great political engagement and, like many others, after having lived directly in Castro's Cuba in the '60s, thought it wise to first go to Venezuela to carry out revolutionary activities. Shortly after, he returned to France, where he began robbing pharmacies to finance his clandestine fight against the bourgeois system. Among the various robberies, one cost the lives of two pharmacists. Arrested, he admitted his actions but declared himself innocent of the double murder.
If these are the preliminary facts, the film takes us straight to the intense trial. Here, the defendant stands out by necessity, both because there is no feeling between him and the defense lawyer (to Goldman, the lawyer is a "salon Jew"), and because he considers himself innocent regardless (a sort of ontological proof of his innocence) and does not wish for witnesses in his favor. Only the witnesses indicated by the prosecution will present themselves. Here we witness embarrassing depositions, skillfully dismantled by the defense lawyer (played by the intense Arthur Harari), demonstrating a general fact: the memory of those who were present is not so solid and unquestionable. A police officer present at the time and called to testify claims to have tried to stop the allegedly guilty defendant and remembers that he was a person of mixed race. But how, Goldman is of white complexion, so who did the key witness for the prosecution actually deal with? And this is just one of the inconsistencies that emerged during the trial. Essentially, it also raises the suspicion of a latent prejudice of the investigators toward a Jewish person of the extreme left, although it seems more attributable to an operational inefficiency on the part of the police.
Regardless of the appeal verdict that acquitted Pierre Goldman (a troubled man destined to die in violent and mysterious circumstances a few years later), a spontaneous reflection arose in me, namely: isn't it a challenging task for a jury called to judge a person accused of a crime to distinguish between the facts examined in a trial and the character of the defendant? Can't the way he is influence the decision of whether he is guilty or innocent? In all honesty, Goldman (played by a great Arieh Werthalter) does nothing to please the audience. He is a tough man, driven by deep convictions like many in that historical period, and he doesn't hold back in addressing the prosecution lawyers. Therefore, the suspicion remains that the events may not have unfolded exactly as he wants to make us believe.
However, it remains indisputable that, in the absence of undeniable proof, the presumption of innocence must always prevail. There is no worse fate for anyone than to be in prison while being innocent. Sometimes it can happen even in so-called civilized nations, and here in Italy, we should not forget illustrious judicial cases like Valpreda and Tortora.
Loading comments slowly
