Anatomy of a Fall
When her husband Samuel is mysteriously found dead in the snow below their secluded chalet, Sandra becomes the main suspect when the police begin to question whether he fell or was pushed.
- Released:
- Runtime: 151 minutes
- Genre: Crime, Drama, Mystery
- Stars: Swann Arlaud, Milo Machado-Graner, Jehnny Beth, Samuel Theis, Antoine Reinartz, Sandra Hüller, Saadia Bentaïeb, Camille Rutherford, Anne Rotger, Sophie Fillières, Arthur Harari, Pierre-François Garel
- Director: Justine Triet
Comments
- danielgroza - 29 June 2024
Peeling away the layers from Lady Justice's blindfold
Justine Triet's "Anatomy of a Fall" is as blunt and cold as its director. While these traits are healthy for a professional human--especially a woman--trying to make ends meet in this stressful industry called cinema, it makes a movie distant and cold. Happily for Triet, this is a double-edged sword, as this also contributes to the perspicacity and wit of its plot.
When was the last time you saw a courtroom drama done right? Honestly, I don't remember which is enough of a reason to say that it was too long ago. The genre looks to be on life support. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it's unappealing to a lot of filmmakers to make a movie whose majority of the runtime happens in a courtroom in a world which demands more and more immediate excitement. Or perhaps it's just a headache. Creating a fictional whodunnit scenario and then having its particularities turned on all its sides without creating an accidental contradiction or plot hole demands a lot of attention. Sure, you could keep it simple, but that would be boring.
But the great thing in "Anatomy of a Fall" is that it's as exciting in the courtroom as it is outside it. The plot revolves around novelist Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller) who lives with her husband, university lecturer Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis) and their half-blind son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner) in an isolated mountain chalet in France. After Samuel is found dead by Daniel seemingly by falling from the attic, Sandra becomes a suspect for murder. From then on, the movie starts peeling away the layers from Lady Justice's blindfold as the authorities scramble to get to the truth. Did Sandra murder her husband? They don't seem to have the happiest of marriages, but would she go that far? There are many questions but don't expect a big reveal at the end--this is not, for instance, "Knives Out". There is no charming detective, just the impersonal cold arm of the law.
The thing about "Anatomy of a Fall" is that you won't gradually grow in satisfaction as the knot unravels, that being because Triet firmly roots the plot in reality--this case could sound like something that could actually happen in the real world--all while keeping the ball rolling from a cinematic point of view. While we are, of course, curious about the final verdict, the journey itself involves a lot of opaque realizations. It deconstructs a marriage; arguments contain suppositions, what-ifs, what-might-have-beens rather than proven theorems. Watching this movie you come to the realization that justice is indeed blind and that it's often carried out with a modicum of instinct, probability and psychological analysis. This kind of approach gives the characters a chance to develop, and Hüller methodically rummages inside for conflictual emotions, bottled anger and frustrations. Her performance is a powerhouse as an expressive but grounded woman ridden with guilt and regret. Extracting so much without being flashy are--I think--the marks of great acting and I doubt we will see anything as good this year.
All in all, this is fascinating stuff. We see Triet as a writer/director who is not concerned with being able to reverse engineer her and co-writer Arthur Harari's plot. She doesn't systematically carve a path to the truth, but rather carves away at a thick concrete wall whose density can only be penetrated to a certain point. It's a brutal truth in a brutally cold film whose only sign of any emotional warmth is ironically found in its only non-human actor: the canine companion of the family. - shopping-35892 - 3 June 2024
Horrific animal abuse
There is a horrific scene of animal suffering in this film. Although the usual disclaimer in fine print says no animals were harmed, I don't believe it. If the animal was trained to do that, then that is also disgusting and abusive.
Otherwise the film is just meh. A standard procedural with more psychological focus because French? Except half the movie is in English.
Visually it is grubby, ugly, and unappealing. Editing is very slow. There are at least 20 minutes of walking around or extra waiting that needed to be cut. Pacing is poor.
I think the reaction to this film is more people jumping on the bandwagon of something that seems sophisticated.
But there should be a stronger rating system for the disgusting animal content. If I watch Human Centipede, I know I'm getting torture porn. But I don't like being blindsided by the sick stuff here. - Sugar9 - 13 May 2024
Fascinating French courtroom
No offense but I usually get so bored watching dragging French speaking movies. Except for this one. If not for Hülers "The Zone of Interest'' I couldn't be more excited. For me a movie can't be long enough so that wasn't even an issue here. This time I very much could appreciate the foreign language as well, especially in the courtroom. Very entertaining, though. Sandra and her legal team's arguments justified every bit and really satisfied me if I had any doubts. Amazingly well done! By the way, is this what a French trial looks like? Ok. So, I was taught during the trial that no one is allowed to randomly interrupt others. It's a bit weird but somehow refreshing to watch.
As for the prosecutor and witnesses, it is really shocking and tormenting to see how easily a case like this gets poisoned by presumptions, actually without a shred of evidence. Really terrible. The open ending, I just have to agree with most of the reviewers, is somehow not very satisfying. There's just too much left to overthink, which of course is exactly the purpose of it. Nevermind, I could sleep well afterwards. As for the ultimate 'whodunit' or better 'whodidnt', to be honest, even if they found the conclusive truth, maybe I wouldn't sleep well for months after all.
