I have read the book of Gilles Perrault "Le pullover rouge" before seing this film.As the title mentions it, the mother of Christian Ranucci was fighting for the lifeof her son who was accused to murder a little girl.This film shows the climate in France in this precisemoment.There is a great pressure to find a guilty man for this murder.Some months ago a man escaped from the death penalty and Mrs Ranucci had the hope to save the life of her son, but in the trial the duty of the defense counselor is quite hard and finally Christian Ranucciwas sentenced to death penalty !!
An interesting film above the a very controversial investigation and trial !!
3 Reviews
Le pull over rouge
dbdumonteil30 January 2007
Michel Drach was the first to film this tragic true story of a young man sentenced to death and guillotined in 1976,if my memory serves me well.His movie called "le Pull Over Rouge" was so risqué for the time (death penalty was not yet abolished in France)that never a French channel showed it since.(satellite TV did however)
In this made-for -TV remake,the writers focus the action on the mother,her fight ,her suffering,her belief in her son's innocence (he's accused of a little girl's murder).Catherine Frot gives a restrained sensitive portrayal of this unfortunate mother,who was always afraid of losing her only son.(She had to leave a brutal alcoholic husband and she had to hide to keep him from abducting their son).
Of course ,we will never know the truth.But too many details are very strange and it's impossible to be sure .Anyway:
-Either Christian was guilty and a life sentence would have made him think of the horrible thing he had done ,alone in a cell...
-Or he was innocent (his last words to his mother were:"clear my name" )and is it what we call justice in the land of Voltaire and Hugo?
In this made-for -TV remake,the writers focus the action on the mother,her fight ,her suffering,her belief in her son's innocence (he's accused of a little girl's murder).Catherine Frot gives a restrained sensitive portrayal of this unfortunate mother,who was always afraid of losing her only son.(She had to leave a brutal alcoholic husband and she had to hide to keep him from abducting their son).
Of course ,we will never know the truth.But too many details are very strange and it's impossible to be sure .Anyway:
-Either Christian was guilty and a life sentence would have made him think of the horrible thing he had done ,alone in a cell...
-Or he was innocent (his last words to his mother were:"clear my name" )and is it what we call justice in the land of Voltaire and Hugo?
A fiction that does not depict the reality of the facts
alessandro-castelli717 February 2014
Having read almost everything on this tragic affair, from those who believe in his innocence (Perrault) and from those who indisputably find him guilty (Bouladou) I am a 100% convinced that he was indeed guilty. This affair reflects how media and political activists can twist reality in order to make money or advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.
Once again, as "Le pull-over rouge" did in its time, this TV-Show does not reflect the reality of the facts. I do not want to enter into too much detail but Ranucci confessed to the murder several times in front of the police, even in subtle ways to his mom through the letters he wrote in his cell and even one of his lawyers (André Fraticelli) refused to follow the strategy of his colleagues (Le Forsonney and Lombard) that consisted of claiming his innocence against overwhelming evidence.
Just a few: he indicated where the crime weapon (his knife with blood on it) was, he was recognized by several witnesses, he confessed, he had blood on his clothes (same blood type as the victim because at that time DNA analysis was yet to be developed) and gave numerous details that only the murderer could have known.
I do think that he did not deserve to be sentenced to death because he was clearly mentally sick. However, the context of the trial and externalities - Patrick Henry, another child murderer was captured several weeks before the trial - and the defense strategy had sealed his fate.
Watch this TV-movie only if you want to be entertained not for historical accuracy...
Once again, as "Le pull-over rouge" did in its time, this TV-Show does not reflect the reality of the facts. I do not want to enter into too much detail but Ranucci confessed to the murder several times in front of the police, even in subtle ways to his mom through the letters he wrote in his cell and even one of his lawyers (André Fraticelli) refused to follow the strategy of his colleagues (Le Forsonney and Lombard) that consisted of claiming his innocence against overwhelming evidence.
Just a few: he indicated where the crime weapon (his knife with blood on it) was, he was recognized by several witnesses, he confessed, he had blood on his clothes (same blood type as the victim because at that time DNA analysis was yet to be developed) and gave numerous details that only the murderer could have known.
I do think that he did not deserve to be sentenced to death because he was clearly mentally sick. However, the context of the trial and externalities - Patrick Henry, another child murderer was captured several weeks before the trial - and the defense strategy had sealed his fate.
Watch this TV-movie only if you want to be entertained not for historical accuracy...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
