Dominik Moll
Il caso 137

THE REVIEW

The viewing of "Case 137," the latest work by Dominik Moll, brought to mind the phrase "the tragedy of life is that everyone has their reasons." I cannot recall who wrote or uttered it, but starting from such an assumption, the search for truth becomes an arduous task, especially when one must ascertain the precise dynamics of a crime in order to bring the guilty to justice.

The director draws inspiration from the incidents that took place in Paris in December 2018 between the so-called gilets jaunes and the police forces. In the chaos of those days, it happens that a young protester named Guillaume Girard is seriously injured in the head, struck by a rubber bullet. He survives, but a year later, he is nonetheless left permanently injured, suffering from severe migraines, difficulty concentrating, remembering, and frequent drowsiness. Meanwhile, following a formal complaint from the boy's parents, an investigation is opened, carried out by a police disciplinary commission. Leading the inquiry is a police officer, one Stephanie Bertrand (played by an excellent Lea Drucker), driven by the best intentions to clean up the force from the so-called bad apples. She is on the verge of succeeding when a previously reluctant witness gives her a video (shot secretly) of the incident. The footage shows young Guillaume, unarmed and fleeing, being fired upon twice by two plainclothes officers wearing helmets and balaclavas. The bullet that hits him is indeed rubber, but it inflicts the disabling injuries previously described. From the video, it is impossible to determine which of the two officers is responsible for the injury and, during interrogation, neither admits responsibility. Justice served? Not quite, since both the highest-ranking members of the police force and the union representatives of the diligent officers argue that there is no conclusive evidence to blame one rather than the other; thus, the two agents cannot even be suspended from duty. After all, they are custodians of order called upon for a thankless task. Dear me, it's a blessing they're acting at all in such difficult circumstances.

As I recalled at the start of the review, if everyone can lay claim to good reasons, how can we deny that the police, faced with situations of grave risk, could become nervous and stressed, to the point of resorting to drastic measures? And still, speaking of good reasons, how can we disregard the anger of the protesters at generally unsatisfying, indeed frustrating, living conditions? If, moreover, the protests take place in central Paris, anything can happen: parked cars targeted, shop windows attacked by barrages of stones, etc. A script we have seen many times before.

In short: finding the truth about what actually happened becomes as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack. Even the inspector herself feels a sense of helplessness as she negotiates countless bureaucratic obstacles. Watching playful kittens on YouTube in her free time does little to chase away such thoughts. And the viewer, like the protagonist, cannot find any reason in a reality gone mad. One thing is certain: there is a previously peaceful young protester who is now disabled for life due to the improper behavior of officers rather too nonchalant in managing public order.

Directed with a steady hand and without digressions, the film reminds us of the gray reality we live in. But by now, that particular shade of gray is turning to an irredeemable shade of black. Like night.