Overall an interesting movie. I was really invested in it while watching, but the ending is just not it. It's vague and not clear.
Some points of the narrative are not as clear as they should be and some of them are actually irrelevant to the plot, such as the storyline about Alexander's father.
The trial is indeed catchy, especially if you're interested in law, but its ending is absolutely predictable. It was as if the whole testimonies were absolutely meaningless and the jury already knew who to condemn from the start.
2 and a half hour that resulted in nothing but a blurry and unclear image.
Plot summary
The Farels are a power couple: Jean is a prominent French pundit and his wife Claire an essayist known for her radical feminism. Together they have a model son, Alexandre, who is a student at a prestigious American university. During a brief visit to Paris, Alexandre meets Mila, the daughter of his mother’s new partner, and invites her to a party. The next day, Mila files a complaint against Alexandre for rape, destroying family harmony and setting in motion an inextricable media-judicial machine that posits opposing truths.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
May 23, 2022 at 06:19 AM
Director
Top cast
Movie Reviews
idk how to feel
Grey area
On the surface, this very well-made film looks like a detective-slash-court drama about sexual abuse, which is absolutely true: there's no other topic raised directly. But deep down, and that is only felt as a certain "aftertaste", one can understand it's a lot more than that: cultural and personal norms as well as values, new perspectives on lifestyles, ways of making priorities, contrast and similarities between youth and the elders shown so well by the secondary characters.
Towards the end of it, I was eager to pop inside the jury's heads and see what and why convinces them to bring the verdict. But no, the storyteller remains impartial, and I'm remaining the jury for myself. With more questions than answers and a lot of food for thought. Bravo!
He said, she said - they did (it)
No pun(s) intended - there are a few things that can be said. As in they are facts - things that happened. But how and why did they happen and what does it say about the characters involved and about the ones that have to judge whatever occured. Also I don't quite understand the french justice system - hopefully I never have to be in front of one (any jury that is).
The movie does not give us clear answers - at least it does try to stay as vague as possible. You on the other hand may feel strongly - you may feel that it is crystal clear. Depending on your own views, maybe experiences (life and others) ... you will have a proconceived notion.
If that is the case, it probably means you had something bad happen to you. And the movie deals with what it does to a person. But it also is quite adament to be as "neutral" as possible. Giving us two different perspectives ... the eye of the beholder. No means no of course - even when the word is never uttered? You see this delves into something you may feel strongly about - it has to be said or even if not, it should be obvious when it is meant ... a very hard movie to watch, because it does not give you easy answers ... it does not give you any answers to be honest ... whatever that means to you ... human things, feelings and stuff like that ...