
Did you know
Shot for just $2.6M — micro-budget by Hollywood standards.

"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.
“I am innocent because I am innocent.”

Arieh Worthalter
Pierre Goldman

Arthur Harari
Maître Kiejman

Stéphan Guérin-Tillié
Président

Nicolas Briançon
Maître Garaud

Maxime Canat
Policier tapissage

Jeremy Lewin
Maître Francis Chouraqui

Christian Mazucchini
Maître Émile Bartoli

Aurélien Chaussade
L'avocat général
Credits
Want more? Switch to Cinephile mode in the header for DP, composer, budget, box office, production companies, keywords, and release history.
Did you know?
Cinephile deep dive
Cédric Kahn directs. Patrick Ghiringhelli behind the camera. Yann Dedet cuts. Profitable at the box office. Produced in France. Dialogue in French.
Trivia
Also by
Trailers & featurettes
Community reviews
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...?
Production companies

Moonshaker
FR
Tropdebonheur Productions
FR
Themes & keywords
Release history · US
Also known as