"This film is based on a true story" as one write or say in connection to a movie (or a book), based on an actual event, more or less modified.
In this case we follow a Moroccan immigrant - Omar Raddad - and his fight for justice.
An elderly woman - Ghislaine Marchal - is found dead in her house, in the basement, bathing in blood. This happening in a small town called Mougins.
On a wall she has written(?) the above title of the film, only that when writing this in French in the form "has killed me" or "killed me", it's not written like that but (in French): "Omar m'a tué". As she was a cultivated and educated woman, the suspicion whether or not she had written this should be raised.
As a gardener she - and a neighbour - had employed Omar Raddad and the police, knowing that he is Moroccan, fear that he will leave France wherefore they search him and find him.
From this on Omar Raddad is entangled in a legal fight for his honour, as he claims not having killed this woman.
People are chocked by the event and they need a scape goat and what better one than Raddad, being an immigrant, not having learned the French language sufficiantly to be able to plead for his cause and seemingly not interested in integrating himself in the French society.
Initially there are many circumstantial evidences pointing at him but there are also a great deal of uncertainty around some factors, if one are willing to see them.
The things talking against Omar was that he had debts, caused by a gambling habit, and that he - according to the film - had asked Mme Marchal money in advance.
A journalist takes an interest in his case and he is defended by Jacques Vergès a well known lawyer although somewhat controversial.
The film takes us back and forth through both the legal process and its different legal quibbles, M. Haddad's hopes and despairs, his family's worries and their hopes and despairs but also the different tokens of xenophobia or even racism and how this affected the way one looked upon Omar Raddad and his guilt or innocence.
Thanks to a petition for his release and the fact that the government has made a deal between Morocco and France concerning prisoners, Raddad is released prematurely.
From this day, he starts his own fight to clear his name, among other things asking for a DNA test of the blood and other traces at the crime site, in order to determine if these traces came from him or not.
This fight is going on to this day as the French judicial system has denied access to the results of these tests and the posibility to compare them with known criminals.
It all seems as a clear case of abuse of justice, Omar Raddad being a victim, firstly of the fact that he is a 'foreigner', secondly that he was not regarded being 'integrated' in the French society, thirdly that he had debts (like most people in the world in one way or another), fourthly that he gambled and didn't seem to be a 'responsible' person.
If he actually is the guilty person or not? Who knows more than him and the victim, the latter not able to witness from the other side.
I think that the film displays all these different aspects in a clear and, at the same time, disturbing way, without to much plunging into a sentimental mise-en-scéne and acting, as had more been the case had the film been made in USA.
Sami Bouajila in the role as Raddad is very convincing and one can feel his frustration almost in a tangible way.
Director is actor Roschdy Zem.
(Poster copied from: http://a35.idata.over-blog.com/375x500/4/01/99/77/Juin-2011/Omar-m-a-tuer-affiche.jpg)
In this case we follow a Moroccan immigrant - Omar Raddad - and his fight for justice.
An elderly woman - Ghislaine Marchal - is found dead in her house, in the basement, bathing in blood. This happening in a small town called Mougins.
On a wall she has written(?) the above title of the film, only that when writing this in French in the form "has killed me" or "killed me", it's not written like that but (in French): "Omar m'a tué". As she was a cultivated and educated woman, the suspicion whether or not she had written this should be raised.
As a gardener she - and a neighbour - had employed Omar Raddad and the police, knowing that he is Moroccan, fear that he will leave France wherefore they search him and find him.
From this on Omar Raddad is entangled in a legal fight for his honour, as he claims not having killed this woman.
People are chocked by the event and they need a scape goat and what better one than Raddad, being an immigrant, not having learned the French language sufficiantly to be able to plead for his cause and seemingly not interested in integrating himself in the French society.
Initially there are many circumstantial evidences pointing at him but there are also a great deal of uncertainty around some factors, if one are willing to see them.
The things talking against Omar was that he had debts, caused by a gambling habit, and that he - according to the film - had asked Mme Marchal money in advance.
A journalist takes an interest in his case and he is defended by Jacques Vergès a well known lawyer although somewhat controversial.
The film takes us back and forth through both the legal process and its different legal quibbles, M. Haddad's hopes and despairs, his family's worries and their hopes and despairs but also the different tokens of xenophobia or even racism and how this affected the way one looked upon Omar Raddad and his guilt or innocence.Thanks to a petition for his release and the fact that the government has made a deal between Morocco and France concerning prisoners, Raddad is released prematurely.
From this day, he starts his own fight to clear his name, among other things asking for a DNA test of the blood and other traces at the crime site, in order to determine if these traces came from him or not.
This fight is going on to this day as the French judicial system has denied access to the results of these tests and the posibility to compare them with known criminals.
It all seems as a clear case of abuse of justice, Omar Raddad being a victim, firstly of the fact that he is a 'foreigner', secondly that he was not regarded being 'integrated' in the French society, thirdly that he had debts (like most people in the world in one way or another), fourthly that he gambled and didn't seem to be a 'responsible' person.
If he actually is the guilty person or not? Who knows more than him and the victim, the latter not able to witness from the other side.
I think that the film displays all these different aspects in a clear and, at the same time, disturbing way, without to much plunging into a sentimental mise-en-scéne and acting, as had more been the case had the film been made in USA.
Sami Bouajila in the role as Raddad is very convincing and one can feel his frustration almost in a tangible way.
Director is actor Roschdy Zem.
(Poster copied from: http://a35.idata.over-blog.com/375x500/4/01/99/77/Juin-2011/Omar-m-a-tuer-affiche.jpg)
(Photo Omar Raddad copied from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE4ht-JPuWWi3wyCof6kZFs6m6BYMx29v99SMYlorOk2WbJp8V1wmABQn_GI82o1Im3goheYD0D_KUYqmaXTxEroppEkCDZMFDHo-CR7zIR7uti9dJyEEydMG_dqasLB0HG6xz/s1600/09WIB_Omar-Raddad.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment