MovieChat Forums > 36 Quai des Orfèvres (2004) Discussion > Ridiculous (SPOILERS)

Ridiculous (SPOILERS)

posted 14 years ago by Bonzi_ru
11 replies | jump to latest

What did Vrinks get 8 years for? After Silien's death, all the prosecution could have possibly had was the prostitute's testimony and she could have only seen Vrinks through at least two windshields. Klein should have made all the possible efforts to catch Silien alive, that way he could have had something to pin Vrinks down. Otherwise I don't see how in any way they could come up with any charges at all.
And how dumb could the two brothers possibly be to even come up with the idea of killing a high-ranking police official in full view of dozens of people?
Some plot twists make this movie plain ridiculous. Huge disappointment.
Let alone the way Klein have managed to get away with literally anything.

[–] NuggetsVSCavs 14 years ago

Just to name a few ridiculous things:

-A cop is drunk on duty and kills a suspect before identifying himself and ruins the operation leading to the direct death of a policeman and let's the suspects get away. There's no fallback from this because ONE cop's testimony is tainted.

-Vrinks could have easily give up Silien after getting the information from him. His involvement was circumstantial after all. But refuses to do so because of some "informant's code".

-Klein murders a suspect on the job and tries to cover it up and not one cop says anything because of some "cop's code".

I'm all for honor but these "codes" are retarded.

I have to return some video tapes

[–] RioRep 13 years ago

I completely agree! That and other stupid things ruined the filme for me.

I was actually a little surprised that it has a 7.2 rating by IMDb users! I found this movie so bad!

Other ridiculous stuff I didn´t like.

So, a policeman that was bound to be a comissaire or something foes down just because of a protitute´s testimony?!

When Vrinks goes to the guys that were at his surveillance, they await in the car until he popps his gun and put them in the back of the truck?! No way!

And everything Klein does and get away with is just not plausible!

When Eddy died and at the funeral many policemen turn their backs on Klein that alone would make it impossible for him to get the promotion!

I lived in France and know for a fact that French policemen are soft. But it seems to me that they get played around too much!

And finally at the end why Vrinks goes away?! He served his time. He´s got his daughter he loves, he didn’t kill Klein so he can pretty much go on trying to restart his life. But the movie ends with him going away!? Why?!

And him saying that he didn’t want the daughter to see him in jail because he didn’t want to see her go every time! Come on! So cheesy!! She would have gone anyway!

And on and on…

Greetings from Rio de Janeiro!

[–] wooodenelephant 13 years ago

I agree there were lots of implausible details. I didn't really notice though cos of the quality of the acting...

[–] davejimenez 13 years ago

What quality of the acting? Depardieu & Auteuil seem to be sleepwalking through their roles (not to mention they've lost what charisma they had when they were younger), and everybody else was a cardboard character.

[–] barbarossa4188 12 years ago

I agree but, still enjoyed the movie.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

[–] cluniac 13 years ago

You said:

'After Silien's death, all the prosecution could have possibly had was the prostitute's testimony and she could have only seen Vrinks through at least two windshields.'

'Otherwise I don't see how in any way they could come up with any charges at all.'

You're assuming Vrinks actually denied his involvement in the murders. What if, under pressure, he spilled the beans? I don't recall seeing his interrogation and court case in the film, so he might have decided to come clean.

You said:

'And how dumb could the two brothers possibly be to even come up with the idea of killing a high-ranking police official in full view of dozens of people?'

Assassinations and murders as daring as this occur in real life as well as in many movies.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

Well given it's based on a true story of one cop's imprisonment ... call it what you like. Vrinks would have been made an example of by the courts because of his position of trust as a police officer.

Klein gets away with what he did because of internal police politics. Very believeable.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] TheSummer2012 12 years ago

Have to agree with the OP on this one. Even if we suspend disbelief for all the coincidences that occur (Titi rans into one of the Winterstein brothers in the club and later happens to have their knife on him - more than seven years after that incident in the woods), the plot was too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

The internal affairs investigation for example: There were a good dozen officers on the scene who could clearly see that Klein messed up the whole operation. His actions led to a police officer's death. Even if Leo's testimony was dismissed, all the other officers (particularly Verhagen's) would made it impossible for Klein to be cleared. Let's not forget this was Leo's team that was out there and they hated Klein's guts. At the very least, Klein would have been transferred to another unit - yet in the film he gets promoted.

The prostitute's witness statement was also ridiculous - without any additional evidence, this would never have been enough to convict Leo.

And, of course, as another poster has pointed out, why would Leo cover up the murder of a fellow police officer after he got the information he wanted? This is not some petty drug deal that you could just let go - this was a triple homicide no less.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

As your reply came through to me let me respond to a few of your points:

There were a good dozen officers on the scene who could clearly see that Klein messed up the whole operation. His actions led to a police officer's death. Even if Leo's testimony was dismissed, all the other officers (particularly Verhagen's) would made it impossible for Klein to be cleared. Let's not forget this was Leo's team that was out there and they hated Klein's guts. At the very least, Klein would have been transferred to another unit - yet in the film he gets promoted.

You've missed the politics with this. It was made quite clear by Vrinks and Klein's senior officer that he wanted the matter closed preferably by Vrinks taking promotion, which he refused instead putting in a complaint against Klein that angered the police powers-that-be. His team were made aware that they would all be transferred if they rocked the boat. Verhagen did not give any evidence but immediately sought a transfer to a lower position because she was disgusted with the sordid process but knew she would be unable to fight it even with her statement to the internal investigators. The police covered up for one of their senior officers. It happens all the time.

As this is based on a true story there is obviously more to Vrinks's conviction than we are shown and what we are shown is exaggerated for film. I personally find the politics amongst the police shown fascinating, credible and worrying/sad. When it comes to it career police officers don't give a toss about defending the public. I work with police officers and this is quite apparent although it is not explicit of course.

An hour isn't an hour but a little bit of eternity in our hands

[–] TheSummer2012 12 years ago

Well maybe I got this wrong but what I understood was that Vrinks handed his senior officer a dossier containing requests for transfers of his whole team because of the Klein incident. There are also references to strikes and that Vrinks' had a good standing within the police officers union. So we can assume he was quite a force to be reckoned with.

The internal affairs hearing took place after Vrinks' arrest so, following your argument, there must have been quite a lot of pressure from the top on Vrinks' remaining team to shut up at the hearing. That may have been so but it wasn't depicted in the film. The "buying of silence through promotion" was only hinted at AFTER Klein became Chief, which happened AFTER he was cleared by the tribunal.

So my point is: Vrinks still had a lot of support within the police force and given the evidence, Vrinks' team could have brought Klein down at the hearing. Klein was depicted as a loner throughout the film - he didn't seem to have support, which makes a cover-up in his favour even more unlikely. A more realistic scenario (and I take your point about politics entirely) would have been for Klein to be transferred because the officers had simply lost faith in him, to put it mildly - just remember the incident at their colleague's funeral. There was also the risk that not all of the officers could have been "bought" by promotions etc., so the cover-up was a ticking time bomb - there were just too many witnesses and, I repeat, witnesses who hated Klein's guts. One of them could have easily gone to the press. The police couldn't afford another scandal (after Vrinks' arrest), so the deal could have been for Vrinks' team to let Klein off the hook at the hearing on the basis that Klein was to be transferred to some other police force. The second incident (death of Vrinks' wife), of course, was different. Klein had real power then and the number of witnesses was small.

As for "the film is based on a true story", I am not sure this is correct. The film was apparently "inspired by real events" and co-written by an ex-cop. But "inspired by true events" can mean absolutely anything so I don't think this can be used as proof that the slightly dubious plot is any more realistic than had the "inspired by true events" line not been used.

[–] adeoetregi 12 years ago

Director and co-writer Olivier Marchal is himself a former policeman, an ‘inspecteur de police’ in the ‘Brigade criminelle de Versailles’ and also served in the ‘section antiterroriste’. To my mind, an impressive background lending authenticity to his film. 36 Quai des Orfèvres is based on the experiences of co-writer, Dominique Loiseau, a former BRI ‘inspecteur’, and according to Olivier Marchal, the film is Dominique’s true story until the car accident.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/cinema/2008/03/11/03002-20080311ARTFIG00623-oli vier-marchal-retrouve-les-affres-de-son-passe-de-flic.php
http://www.abusdecine.com/fiche-interview.php?numero=707

The arrest fiasco is based on the botched arrest of a notorious band of criminals, the ‘gang des postiches’, where, like the film, the BRB’s then head, Raymond Mertz, recklessly went in by himself firing, and in the ensuing gunfight a policeman, Jean Vrindts, was killed. Police rebelled, threatened strikes; but Metz was protected and a cover-up initiated, and Dominique found himself accused of being a spy or ‘ripoux’ and, convicted, spent almost seven years in prison before being pardoned by François Mitterrand in 1993.
http://www.thespinningimage.co.uk/article/displayarticle.asp?articleid =71
http://www.liberation.fr/france/0101174041-cafouillage-rue-du-dr-blanc he-hold-up-des-postiches-et-defaillance-policiere-aux-assises

There is a short documentary (13 minutes) featuring Dominique here: http://www.citizen-cannes.net/broadcast/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;view=article&id=175:eps-2005-dominique-loiseau-histoire-dun-fli c&catid=57:documentaires&Itemid=144
Dominique also co-wrote a book about it all, Un flic innocent en prison (http://bernardpascuito.com/livre.php?id=10).

Senior people in politics and law enforcement covering up for each other and enjoying near-immunity to the consequences of their mistakes and even actual crimes is touched on again in Olivier Marchal’s later film MR 73, the subject of the linked Figaro article (a much darker tale but still an outstanding film). It is also touched on repeatedly in the acclaimed Engrenages / Spiral.
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0920470/
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0477507/

____________________________________
Still Scottish, Always British—Quis Separabit?