Was he guilty?
The boy's reaction was a bit suspect at the end. Almost as though he was astonished that he had actually got away with it.
shareOne thing's certain, his lack of thanks to the man who "got him off" would have earned him a severe reprimand from his father in such a strict family and society. I found that very odd.
Perhaps the fact he wasn't in court suggests that he thought it a lost cause because he was guilty. I don't know.
Good point, where were the thanks. As emotionally repressed as this society of people obviously was I would still have expected at least a firm handshake between the two.
shareFor the reason's Jeremy Northam's character stated (after deciding to take on the case) it is clear that the boy is innocent. I thought Ronnie's reaction was in keeping with his manner shown throughout the film.
shareNah, the ungrateful little brat did it, of that there can be no doubt. The solicitor was smitten with his sister from day one, that's the only reason he pursued the case, anyone could see that.
shareI don't think that's the only reason he took the case, although it obviously played a part. I think he also did it because--at least it seems this way to me--he's the kind of guy who would take anything that's a challenge, and this case certainly is one. And I think that he wouldn't have taken it if he didn't believe Ronnie was innocent. Which, I believe, he was.
shareHe was definitely guilty. There was NO ONE else who could have done it, and they didn't come up with any other suspect. Sure the keeper at the post office wasn't positive about his face, but come on, can you remember the faces of every person you encounter with for a few minutes? Point is, she was quite *positive* that the cadet who cashed the forged and stolen postal order was the same one who encashed the 15/6 order. That was Ronnie.
I think in real life, Morton might not have thought or even said that the boy was "plainly innocent." I think, in real life, when he "interrogated" him at his law office, he was just OBSERVING and CHECKING the boy to see if he was worth defending. Meaning:
1. does he have what it takes to INSIST ON THAT STORY (whether true or not) before a jury?
2. no matter what happens in court, can he at least be consistent and convincing in denying culpability?
3. can he do that no matter all the evidence staring him in the face, or will he buckle under pressure?
And obviously, after he had questioned the boy, Morton satisfied himself that Ronnie *could* be relied upon to keep insisting on his innocence, and wouldn't "break down" and change his story amidst intense pressure.
So Morton took on the case. It didn't really matter whether Ronnie was really guilty or innocent. His attitude and demeanor was that of a "good client" to defend. Many lawyers think in those terms.
I think you've seen too many gimmicky American movies with twist after twist after twist. The odd thing about this movie was that we, the audience, were told what to believe and to take it at face value, something that we are not used to as moviegoers. We got so caught up in the question of, is he guilty or not, that we looked for any and all subtle clues for an answer. Actually, his guilt or innocence was sort of beside the point. This is a drama about individual courage and sticking to principle, not a court case about a boy's guilt or innocence. When sir Robert told us the boy was innocent, we were supposed to believe him and proceed on that premise. It is only because of our conditioning as American moviegoers that we persisted in expecting something else. For those who were able to believe that the boy was telling the truth, which I admit I couldn't quite, the rest of the movie has a different meaning and effect. Accept the sincerity of Ronnie and his father and his sister and Sir Robert from the outset and you'll understand the movie better. And think about why Mamet made the relatively insignificant maid be the bearer of the news of victory in the climactic scene, rather than delivering the news in a potentially much more dramatic scene in the courtroom. I think his purpose was to make the point I suggested above, that this was not a movie simply about winning a case in court.
shareI don't think Ronnie's reaction at the end shows guilt.
As Sir Robert said, his lack of put-on airs showed that he wasn't putting on a show for others, but simply saying what he thought. He was also a young boy and probably very tired of all the fuss and legalese.
And one of the characteristics of this movie is the understated tone, which would include the lack of a cliched joyful hugging and tearful embracing by Ronnie at the end of it all.