The movie tells the story of a beautiful, imprudent and stubborn girl who meets both love and vice and who ends up shooting a young man, in what seems a pretty classic case of a "crime passionnel". The story is told mainly by way of a series of flashbacks related to the functioning and evolution of a criminal trial.
The young woman stands trial and people try to understand, and judge, what happened in order to determine punishment. The defence defends ; the prosecution accuses. As the trial progresses, it becomes clear that the same facts can be interpreted in different, even wildly different ways. At least two possible images of the defendant emerge : for the prosecution, she's a cheap tart with a volcanic temper and a mean streak a mile long, for the defence, she's an inexperienced girl hungry for life who happened to meet the wrong man and suffered grievously as a result. Thus a number of questions arise. Which one of these pictures is true ? Or might they both contain elements of falsehood or truth ? And as to the method : is a courtroom the appropriate vehicle, the appropriate venue, for a search for the truth ? Certainly some of the witnesses seem more concerned with other issues (revenge, reputation, self-protection,...) than with obeying their grave oath.
At the same time the viewer too is being invited to ponder the nature and behaviour of the defendant. In this way the viewer becomes an additional judge or an additional juror.
I found "La vérité" an interesting but not wholly satisfying movie. Within the movie, the woman defendant functions pretty much as a blank canvas upon which to project hypotheses and interpretations. This is an essential part of the moral and intellectual puzzle thrust upon the court AND the viewer, but at the same time it does not make for the most convincing, coherent and compelling of characters (or performances). Perhaps the whole is too clever for its own good.
Still, lovers of courtroom dramas will be sure to appreciate the many fine courtroom scenes. And the movie gets better as it goes along, ending with a poignant climax. (Or perhaps "anti-climax" would be better...)
The young woman stands trial and people try to understand, and judge, what happened in order to determine punishment. The defence defends ; the prosecution accuses. As the trial progresses, it becomes clear that the same facts can be interpreted in different, even wildly different ways. At least two possible images of the defendant emerge : for the prosecution, she's a cheap tart with a volcanic temper and a mean streak a mile long, for the defence, she's an inexperienced girl hungry for life who happened to meet the wrong man and suffered grievously as a result. Thus a number of questions arise. Which one of these pictures is true ? Or might they both contain elements of falsehood or truth ? And as to the method : is a courtroom the appropriate vehicle, the appropriate venue, for a search for the truth ? Certainly some of the witnesses seem more concerned with other issues (revenge, reputation, self-protection,...) than with obeying their grave oath.
At the same time the viewer too is being invited to ponder the nature and behaviour of the defendant. In this way the viewer becomes an additional judge or an additional juror.
I found "La vérité" an interesting but not wholly satisfying movie. Within the movie, the woman defendant functions pretty much as a blank canvas upon which to project hypotheses and interpretations. This is an essential part of the moral and intellectual puzzle thrust upon the court AND the viewer, but at the same time it does not make for the most convincing, coherent and compelling of characters (or performances). Perhaps the whole is too clever for its own good.
Still, lovers of courtroom dramas will be sure to appreciate the many fine courtroom scenes. And the movie gets better as it goes along, ending with a poignant climax. (Or perhaps "anti-climax" would be better...)