‘Re-creation’ review: Vicky Krieps stars in reimagining of Sophie Toscan du Plantier murder trial

Dir/scr: Jim Sheridan, David Merriman. Eire/Luxembourg. 2025. 89mins.

It is without doubt one of the most infamous unsolved crimes in Irish historical past. French movie producer Sophie Toscan du Plantier was murdered outdoors her West Cork vacation dwelling on December 23, 1996. Journalist Ian Bailey was named as the primary suspect, however by no means confronted trial in Eire. He was, nevertheless, tried and located responsible in absentia by the French authorities, however subsequent extradition requests have been denied. This unwieldy mix of reality and fiction imagines what might need been, had Bailey (performed right here in a dialogue-free look by Colm Meaney) confronted trial in Eire.

The movie’s central conceit is each its energy and its weak spot

Opening Galway after premiering in Tribeca, the movie, co-directed by Jim Sheridan (who additionally seems because the jury spokesman) and David Merriman, is a boldly unorthodox try to make clear the flawed police investigation by the technique of a fictionalised jury debate. Nevertheless, this gadget will get in the way in which of any in-depth examination of the case. Given the sensitivity of the subject material, it might need been higher served by a extra standard documentary.

Regardless of having taken place practically 30 years in the past, the homicide of Toscan du Plantier nonetheless exerts a fascination, each in Eire and France. It’s a preoccupation that five-time Oscar nominee Sheridan evidently shares. Earlier than this undertaking, he labored on a long-gestating Sky documentary collection in regards to the case, titled Homicide At The Cottage: The Search For Justice For Sophie. It was additionally introduced originally of this 12 months that the chilly case was set to be reopened, this time with the FBI casting a watch over the proof.

Bailey, who died in January 2024 on the age of 66, maintained his innocence to the top. However, as the start line of this image suggests, he’s nonetheless the primary suspect. Curiosity within the case, and appetites for true crime content material generally – along with the presence of Vicky Krieps in a central function – might assist draw audiences to the image at additional competition screenings. Going ahead, the claustrophobic, nearly solely single room, setting and clunky, laboured construction might imply the movie is best suited to a streaming platform launch fairly than making its case within the overcrowded theatrical market.

Re-creation opens with a closing assertion, emphatically delivered by the prosecuting barrister (Aidan Gillen). It appears unequivocal, a transparent and damning evaluation of Bailey’s guilt. What attainable doubt might there be? All however one of many jurors within the dialogue that follows is satisfied he needs to be discovered responsible of the crime. The holdout – juror quantity eight (Krieps) – is just not, at first, significantly persuasive in expressing her doubts. She has “a sense”, she says. Juror three (John Connors), essentially the most voluble in his offended certainty about Bailey’s guilt, sneers derisively: “Info don’t care about emotions.” However how a lot of the case in opposition to Bailey IS reality? And the way a lot is supposition primarily based on circumstantial proof that has been marshalled within the service of a foregone conclusion? 

Because the movie unfolds and tempers inside the jury chamber develop ever extra heated, the steadiness suggestions progressively and the jury majority strikes in the direction of a not-guilty verdict. Each bit of proof is examined intimately, and the seemingly strong case for the prosecution begins to crumble.

The movie’s central conceit is each its energy and its weak spot. The gadget of an imagined courtroom case provides a contemporary perspective and a unique approach with which to strategy the true crime style. The movie takes as its foundation precise witness statements and real proof. However the addition of fictional characters, whose fictional life occasions are woven into their decision-making processes, muddies the movie and undermines the insights into the case.

Added to that is the considerably manipulative manner through which the opposing viewpoints are couched. Krieps’ juror eight character is empathetic, elegant and the granddaughter of a holocaust survivor. Juror three, then again, is depicted as an aggressive, rage-filled, misogynist troll. It’s abundantly clear which aspect of the argument the viewers is meant to assist.