Samuel (Samuel Theis) is found dead by his visually impaired son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner) having fallen from the attic room of the family chalet. His wife Sandra (Sandra Huller) is arrested and tried for his murder.
As a viewer what we witness in the film is the perspective of Sandra and Daniel on the day of the incident and through the trial we get snatches of information through the lens of various professional opinions on the mindset of the deceased and blood spatter experts. A number of possibilities are presented.
Samuel, a failed writer who is jealous of his wife’s successful literary career is depressed and has decided to end it all.
Samuel, a bitter man fed up with his wife’s infidelities and success has decided to end it all but in a manner that will incriminate his wife.
Sandra in a fit of rage murdered her husband whom she still blames for the accident that caused their son’s blindness years ago.
Perhaps one of the more intriguing aspects of the film for me was that a court room drama set within French courts is different to anything I am used to seeing. Both the prosecution (Antoine Reinartz) and the defence (Swann Arlaud) lawyers spend quite a large amount of time interrupting each other and giving supposition as to how events unfolded with much more leeway that one might see in a similar American or English production. Whilst the defendant regardless of whether she was in the witness stand or not is subject to cross questioning at any time. In fact one of the more suspenseful and thought provoking sequences is when Samuel’s therapist is in the witness stand testifying to the deceased’s state of mind and Sandra gets upset about what he is saying and is introduced into the argument. The insight into how two people with intimate knowledge of someone can have a completely different perspective and seemingly know a completely different person really hits home at the idea that no one truly knows anyone.
The very fact that the majority of the film is from the perspective of Sandra or Daniel gives everything we see an unreliable narrator feel as well. Daniel has his sight impairment alongside the mental trauma he has suffered from finding his father dead and his mother put on trial for his death. Whilst Sandra has to continue to care for Daniel but under the watchful eye of a court appointed chaperone whose job it is to protect Daniel’s testimony. Is their recollection of events accurate? Do they remember things how they want to remember things to fit their own narratives and bias?
Anatomy of a Fall is a fascinating movie and one that I took quite some time to truly understand. This is not the court room drama murder mystery that countless other films and television shows will have trained your mind to think it is. There is no bread crumb trail or revelation as to how Samuel died or if anyone else was involved in his death. The tools to unlock a definitive answer are not given to us. What this film explores is the human need to understand, our preconceived ideas that influence and bias our decisions and the fact that sometimes we come up with our own truth in order to make ourselves go on.
The entire package is put together in an assured fashion and Sandra Huller is thoroughly amazing as the wife who has either suffered a huge loss or committed an extreme crime. There is also a spectacular performance from a dog named Messi as Daniel’s assistance animal to admire.
But what could have been a brilliant film I think is let down by two scenes at the end that are far too heavy handed in explaining the purpose and underlying message held within. Something that I think the film did not need and would have been better off without.
Fascinating but with a fumbled ending that prevents it attaining greatness.
Phil the Bear's Film Reviews 