ANATOMY OF A FALL

France, 2023, 151 minutes, Colour.

Sandra Huller, Swann Artaud, Milo Machado Graner, Antoine Reinartz, Samuel Theis, Jehnny Beth, Camille Rutherford, Anne Rotger.

Directed by Justine Triet.

An intriguing film which holds audience attention for 2 ½ hours. It won the Ground Prix at Cannes, 2023 and received five Oscar nominations, including Best Film, Screenplay, Actress.

In 1959, there was a fine American film, Anatomy of a Murder, with James Stewart and George C.Scott. At the core was a murder. But, the film was significant in the anatomy of the murder taking place in police investigations but, especially in the courtroom proceedings.

And, it is the same here, effectively so.

We are tantalised immediately. A journalist comes to interview a noted writer, living with her husband and son in a chalet in the Alps outside Grenoble. They strain to hear each other, as we strain to hear them, because above them, the husband is playing 50 Cent’s music on a loop, loudly, gratingly so, and on and on. Their son takes the dog for a walk. The visitor leaves. And, when the boy arrives back from his walk, he discovers his father dead in the snow outside the chalet.

The possibilities for the husband’s death are threefold. His wife killed him; an intruder killed him; he killed himself. The audience will begin to formulate their own theories, listening to extensive interviews and discussions between the wife and her lawyer, interviews with the boy, elaborate reconstructions of the scene, especially to test whether conversations could be heard over the loud music by the boy outside the chalet. The screenplay offers no easy solutions.

Then a year passes, the court case begins, the wife accused.

The court sequences, many and some quite long, are very well written, the wife present all the time, able to intervene. She is Originally from Germany, meeting her husband in England, using English for communication, passable French, but her being required to give her testimony in French. Her legal team, especially a friend from the past, intervene on her behalf. However, it is the young prosecutor, brimming with self-confidence, those who would not like him dismissing him as smug who commands court and our attention. He is more than incisive, cross-examining the witnesses, minutely probing every word they use, finding incriminating implications, creating them. The witnesses include the initial journalist, an expert with technological demonstration about the nature of the fall blood spattering, the doctor who prescribed medication for the dead man, a technician for recordings that the husband had made in the weeks before his death.

And, throughout the court case, there is the very detailed anatomy of a marriage, the exposure of great detail, intimate detail, conflict, support, resentments, and complications about the son’s accident when he was small.

Ultimately, there is a significant focus on the son, aged 11, and his testimony in the case.

The wife is played by German actress, Sandra Huller, best known for her presence in the very popular German film, Toni Erdmann. She gives an impressive performance here and was also the star of another winner at Cannes, 2023, The Zone of interest.

One of the best of courtroom dramas.

1. The status of the film? Awards nominations?
2. The title, the reference to Samuel and his literal fall to death? The revelation of his character, his personal fall from confidence to suicide?
3. The chalet in the Alps, the beauty of the surroundings, snow, mountains, the interiors of the chalet? The contrast with Grenoble, the court sequences? The countryside, the diners? The musical score?
4. The importance of music throughout the film, the loud music at the beginning,.50 Cents (and accusations of misogyny)? Daniel and his piano pieces, playing with his mother, loud music?
5. The opening, Sandra, the interview with Zoe, the loud music on audience response to it, interrupting the conversation, the interview being taped, discussions about writing, Sandra asking her visitor questions? Breaking off of the interview? Daniel, with the dog, going for the walk? His return, finding the body of his father, Sandra’s reaction, the doctor, the police?
6. Sandra alone with her husband in the house, her version of what happened, talking, the music, translating, the earplugs, sleeping? The plausibility of the suspicions? The possibility of suicide?
7. The writing of the film and its development, the audience participating in the interrogations, observing, identifying, distancing, Jury attitudes?
8. Vincent, his arrival, sympathetic, lawyer, knowing Sandra from the past, the conversations, the audience listening, her explanation of what happened, its plausibility? Vincent and his comments on what she should say, what she should not say, words and phrases that could be interpreted negatively? Incriminating?
9. Daniel, his age, the story of the accident, his father not picking him up, ringing the babysitter, his being hit by the cyclist, destroying his optic nerve, long time in hospital, his father taking the blame, Sandra and her blaming Samuel, the repercussions for Daniel, in the aftermath of the accident, his site, relationship with his parents, the piano, his fondness for the dog?
10. The year passing after the opening interrogations? The court case, Sandra in the dock? The layout of the French court, Sandra’s presence, the judges presiding, the two lawyers on each side, the witnesses at the stand in the centre? The jury? The camera sometimes roving over the jury and the crowd?
11. Audience response to the detail of the court sequences, attitude towards the prosecutor, his self-assurance, quibbling on words, interpreting words all the time, making them incriminating, suggestions, probing? The response of Vincent, counterbalancing, intervening, his assisting counsel and her interventions? The attitude of the presiding judge, seemingly to favour the prosecutor? Her interventions?
12. The revelation of the life of Sandra, Samuel, their marriage, the details, the psychological repercussions, the revelation of such details? Sandra in the court? Listening, her interventions, to speak in French, appealing to speak in English? Her demeanour throughout the trial, giving no indication that she had killed her husband?
13. The range of witnesses, Daniel and his presence observing, the previous record of his memories, his inconsistencies, not seeing well, feeling the bits of material to guide his journey throughout the house and outside, the elaborate testing of whether he could hear an argument between husband and wife with the music blaring? His testimony in the court, treatment by the lawyers? The judge summoning him, his appeal that he had already been hurt and therefore he should stay in the court in order to understand? Her granting this?
14. The journalist, the playing of the interview, the words, the music, the prosecutor and his insinuations, Sandra bisexual, the discussion of seduction and her manner, definitions of seduction, precision, the prosecutor and his conclusions, smug and self-satisfied?
15. The medical experts, for and against Sandra, the fall, the body weight, somebody lifting the body, the fall, the blood spattering, the scientific explanation in diagrams and details? What was possible?
16. The situation of Samuel, psychological states, the prescriptions, of the reasons, his wanting to get off the medication, the psychologist and his interpretation, in favour of Samuel, highly critical of Sandra, his conclusions? Sandra and her indication of Samuel’s vomiting, the remnants of the pills? This evidence dismissed because of its being her word? Her confronting of this man, his partial knowledge of the situation?
17. The introduction of the tape, the playing of the tape, the flashbacks, the audience seeing and hearing whereas the court and jury hearing only? Audience response to Sandra on the evidence of the flashbacks, her generally being calm, rational, her explanations, Samuel, erratic, his decisions, the aftermath of the accident, forcing them all to go to the chalet, his lecturing, his home tutoring Daniel, yet his wanting time, giving up on his writing, allowing Sandra to use a key idea, her reading his work, encouraging him? The exasperation, his accusations about her affair, the anger, the violence? And this only a day before he died? The interpretation that Sandra would kill him? The interpretation that he was at his wits and, would take his life? The money difficulties? Sandra success with her novels, jealousies and resentments?
18. Sandra, exposed to hearing all this detail, her explanations of the relationship with her husband, her interpretation of the recording, credible?
19. Daniel, his decision to testify again, the importance of the young woman assigned to guard him, prevent discussions about the case, her relationship with him? His asking her opinion, her refusing? Urging him to decide? Wanting his mother away for the weekend? The dog, the pills, helping the dog, the hot water, vomiting? His memories of the dog vomiting before, that it it had lapped up his father’s vomit?
20. In the court, his explanation of the situation, the prosecutor saying it was only his testimony and ideas, but Daniel’s speech, becoming the focus of the case, remembering his father driving him, no music, the dog and the vet, his father preparing him that the dog would die – and Daniel realising that he was speaking about himself and his death?
21. The audience learning of the acquittal not in the court, the journalist, speaking to camera, hearing the news, seeing the people coming out of the court, the interviews with Sandra?
22. Daniel, his going home, being with his guard? Sandra, the phone call, asking about whether she could come home that night, her joy when he said yes, the dinner with Vincent and the emotions at the end of the dinner?
23. Her return home, the embrace with Daniel, and the meaning of her going to lie down, and the dog coming, the dog who provided the situation for her acquittal?
24. A satisfying analysis of the situation, in court, out-of-court, the minute detail to be analysed for making a judgement?