The Statement (Widescreen) [Import]

Michael Caine gives another outstanding performance as a man tormented by the guilt of his actions during WWII but gutless to take responsibility for them. He seeks the protection of the Catholic church who remained complacent and did nothing to help the Jews during the war.

Although Alan Bates and Charlotte Rampling are relegated to minor roles, they nevertheless give their usual 100%. Also, there's good chemistry between Tilda Swinton and Jeremy Northam, two highly underrated British actors. Norman Jewison again displays why he is one of the world's greatest directors. The Statement is fast-paced, riveting, superbly acted and has a European feel to it. This is not the usual Hollywood movie where the actors are posturing and the makeup is spackled on.

I rented this DVD solely because of Michael Caine and wasn't disappointed in his performance. I agree with other reviewers that the plot is unreeled slowly and certain key points (the motaives of the conspirators, and the motives of the Roman Catholic Church) are undeveloped and remain cloudy.

My chief disappointment was with the ending. Brossard, the French traitor, is finally gunned down by the government assassins who suceed in placing their STATEMENT on the body. The statement says that Brossard was executed for his war crimes, but then further condemns the Catholic Church for protecting Brossard for nearly 50 years. Is this condemnation the true meaning of the story?

Directly after this scene, in which Tilda Swinton's character of a French judge arrives too late to take Brossard into custody, the film cuts to a ball-room scene. The judge goes up to several highly-placed French officials and subtly informs them that their time is up, and that justice is coming for them. The implication is that the actual assassin (a member of the French police) has been arrested and is naming names. However, we do not see that scene, only the vague reference (just one line) made by the lady judge. (That polieman, in my opinion, would never have named names because he is dedicated to what he believes is a just cause.) Thus the film reminded me of one of those crime dramas of the '30s, where the outcome must always be the same, even if it defies reason: G-Men always get their man and that "crime doesn't pay."

Since the screenplay does not go deeply into the nature of the conspiracy of the French ministers, and we never learn their names, their titles or positions, but instead focuses on Brossard's quest to "die in a state of grace and forgiveness" the film suffers from a split personaility. In the end, the audience is left in the middle. The filmmakers do not finish either story but instead make a statement of their own: that we should not forget the memories of those slaughtered by a reprehensible regime.

It struck me that Brossard actually paid for his crimes when he was shot dead. Did it really matter who did the shooting? If the judge had caught him, he would have been put on trial and sent to prison for the rest of his life (probably a very short time as he was already quite old and suffering from heart disease). Since the entent and purpose of the "official" conspiracy wasn't dealt with in detail, I would have preferred the more ambiguous ending of seeing Brossard gunned down and his assassin successfully escaping into the night. This is a more perfect ending since Brossard kisses a religious icon just before dying, thus believing that he really did die "in a state of grace and forgiveness." I like ambiguity, and in this case, it works perfectly.

I am not familiar with the novel. Should I be? When I see a film, it's story should be enough. I realize that liberties are taken in translating books to screenplays, but either version should stay true to it's theme. But you have to have a theme in the first place. If the theme in this film was to make a statement that we remember the Jews who were betrayed and killed, (but at the same time provide some sense that "justice was done") then the final scene should have been supported by a previous scene in which the policeman responsible made some sort of statement of his own. That, of course, would have meant that the conspiracy story should have been further developed. Otherwise the ending is self-serving and the dramatic structure is betrayed.

,,, about the English cast. Since my karma was bad enough to have me born in France, and aside from the (good) reasons given by N. Jewison (see special features), I can tell that shooting this movie in french would have been very difficult. Although there are a few hints about in the film, nobody is really aware (part of the few who are dont want to be reminded, and worse, the other part don't want to be exposed) that the main change in 1945 was to add communists (one of the worst indignities being that Maurice Thorez, upon Staline's earnest recommendation, got his death sentence commuted in a position as a minister in the governement by de Gaulle himself...) to the Vichy dignitaries who escaped the fate they deserved. And, although it is briefly mentionned, the communists only entered Resistance after Hitler and Staline parted; their only aim was to be his position to deliver France into Staline hands, and maybe their greatest achievement was to perform terrorist attacks when and where they were certain that reprisals victims would be those who didn't share their communist vision: so they could be seen as patriots while getting rid of their opponents.
One other reason for the leniency towards french police (a good one in the short term, but a most poisonous one in the long term), was that nobody wanted to alienate in any way the only organisation thought able (?) to take care of riots and miscellaneous disorders following the 'Liberation'; and, since they were in charge of preventing witch-hunts, it would have been very difficult to make them understand they should have been investigated as well.
One should not forget, for a better understanding of the story background, that after Pie XI (pro-fascit to the core, altough opposed to racism) died in 1939, Pie XII (who was convinced that Hitler represented the last defence against communism) never condemned nazism, and even gave (through his bishops) his blessing to german armies. But, since the Roman Catholic Church was the first one to practice large-scale genocides (remember South America and the Conquistadores' mudering and pillaging in the name of God, which is the proof that the so-called "no prescription for crimes against humanity" should be better understood), maybe he felt some sort of kindred sympathy...