One more legal thriller, you will say. Yes and no. Yes, because it is a thriller in the courtroom with a judge and lawyers and cases, victims and culprits, a jury and all of it. But it is more than that. It is the dilemma of a young lawyer who is confronted to an impossible choice: he is getting involved with his clients, emotionally involved and that is not good. You can't be the lawyer of the woman you love. You can't be the lawyer of a young man who is dying of leukemia and for whom you feel too much compassion. But that problem is secondary in that film, though it explains the end, the very final scene. This film is essential because it deals with three cases that are absolutely typical in our society. The first case is an old woman who has an important inheritance and she does not want to give it to her own son and his wife because they hate her and they only want her money. That's about what we do with our senior citizens, and what they do with themselves if they still have that much control of their future. Then let the lawyer write the will. Then you have a young married woman who is systematically beaten up by her husband and she does not dare to get a divorce because she is afraid. Then the lawyer is the only recourse to convince her she has to put an end to that situation. Then there is the central case, that of the young man dying of leukemia because his insurance company denied the claim. In that case, and that film is not quite young, we have all the arguments we have been able to hear against any kind of public management of health insurance coverage. That case was representative of the debate that had been going on for decades, since the war, since the new bill of rights of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. Public health is a national asset and the nation through its representatives is entitled to manage it for everyone to have access to the best health coverage possible. Along that line the film is extremely emotional, even passionate and the arguments are no longer important when you are dealing with the pictures of a dying young man, of a beaten young woman, of an old hated woman. But the film is effective and calls for a response from the audience. It is that direct address to the audience's feelings and emotions, other than fear, fright and dread, or horror, terror and phobia, or violence, brutality and fury, that make the film interesting and probably lasting.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID