On December 23, 1996, French filmmaker Sophie Toscan du Plantier was found murdered outside of her holiday home in Ireland. Though a man by the name of Ian Kenneth Bailey was eventually accused and arrested for the crime, there was never enough evidence to take him to trial. In the film, Re-Creation, however, acclaimed director and playwright Jim Sheridan teams up with fellow writer David Merriman to assemble a mock jury and determine whether Bailey was really involved. While entirely hypothetical, it might go down as one of the most compelling courtroom dramas ever made.

 

For those unfamiliar with the cold case, the film wastes no time introducing you to the basic details. After the first few minutes, you meet the twelve men and women who must decide Bailey’s fate. Before going over the evidence, the foreman (played by Sheridan) asks to conduct an initial vote. The results reveal that eleven of the jurors believe Bailey’s guilty. One (Vicky Krieps) wants to talk about it. Not because she believes he’s innocent, but because she is uncomfortable rushing to a decision that will change a man’s life.

 

If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because the film is a shameless homage to Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. In similar fashion, what starts out as one person’s attempt to  analyze the facts of the case leads to a series of revelations that create genuine, reasonable doubt among the dozen strangers. Even though it subscribes to the classic story’s formula, the execution is entirely fresh. Sheridan and Merriman put their own signature twist on the story by giving all the jurors access to real evidence from the case.  

 

For a majority of the film’s brisk 90 minute runtime, the group actively rationalizes whether Bailey could really be the man responsible for Sophie’s death, or if investigators got lazy. Their verdict may not carry any weight, but it brilliantly lifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the public. 

 

Sheridan’s performance as the foreman is admittedly arrogant, and the ways in which he guides the jury’s examination isn’t subtle. But given that he’s spent the last few years advocating for a proper investigation in real life (and having succeeded), you might say he’s earned that privilege. Despite initially believing Bailey to be guilty himself, he is the perfect reflection of a world that’s been misguided. He’s fed up and just wants to go home, a luxury Sophie (and so many like her) will never have again. 

 

Vicky Krieps also delivers an admirable performance as the film’s lead, the equivalent of Henry Fonda’s Juror No. 8. The decision to have her be a woman and come from a totally different country adds years layers to the alienation she faces. That’s in addition to the uphill battle she faces trying to convince the others of Bailey’s innocence.

 

Another standout is the film’s equivalent to Lee J. Cobb’s Juror No. 3, actor John Connors. More than the setup, he is the only other aspect in this film that bears a clear resemblance to the original. With every new piece of evidence, and with every turn the jury takes, he refuses to cave. And the monologue in which he finally explains his reasoning is powerful enough to make you wonder why he isn’t a household name.

 

The film’s only shortcoming is the development of some of the other jurors. While they do all have distinguishable physical traits, as the film goes on, they start to blur together. And unlike its richer reference material, it’s harder to pinpoint why some characters change their mind.

On the surface level, Re-Creation is one big silly scenario. Bailey sadly died a few years ago, so the truth is he will never go on trial. At the end of the film, even Sheridan’s character denounces the jury’s deliberation by saying that a proper decision cannot be made now because the whole investigation was done improperly. But the fact that Sheridan and Merriman were passionate enough to lay out the facts because authorities couldn’t is what viewers should really pay attention to. Whether you know the case or not, whether you’re from Europe or not, justice is universal. While the system only allows for crucial decisions to be made by twelve people at a time, the film is a damning reminder of why it’s our duty to bypass that barrier to hold each other accountable.