.png)
"Anatomy Of A Fall"
For the past year, Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), her husband Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis), and their eleven-year-old son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) have lived a secluded life in a remote town in the French Alps. When Samuel is found dead in the snow below their chalet, the police question whether he was murdered or committed suicide. Samuel's suspicious death is presumed murder, and Sandra becomes the main suspect. Little by little, the trial becomes not just an investigation into the circumstances of Samuel's death but an unsettling psychological journey into the depths of Sandra and Samuel's conflicted relationship.
"Anatomy Of A Fall" portrays the downfall of a couple's relationship. The concept is to depict the physical and emotional descent of a body in a technical manner, symbolizing the decline of their love story. This couple has a son who discovers their tumultuous relationship during a trial that scrutinizes every aspect of their past. As the trial unfolds, the boy transitions from a state of complete trust in his mother to one of doubt, marking a crucial turning point in his life. The film follows this transformation closely. The film wants to incorporate the child's perspective into the narrative and juxtapose it with Sandra's, the main character, for a more balanced portrayal of the events. The film takes on the form of an extended interrogation, with scenes shifting from the couple's home to the courtroom, where characters are incessantly questioned. But there's no sense of realism, it's more a documentary style both in the writing and the cinematography. The film begins with a disorienting shot of a ball rolling down a flight of stairs. This obsession with falling is a recurring motif throughout the film, initially in a literal sense. We're are fascinated with the sensation of body weight and what it feels like to fall, which was sparked by the opening credits of Mad Men, where a man keeps falling.
The film constantly ascend and descend stairs, observing the fall from various angles to unravel how it happened. The film introduces the ball as a symbol of the fall, caught by a dog who looks at Sandra, the central character, and sets the stage for the two and a half hour exploration of her story. It's the battle between a couple with a child, delving into the complexities of time-sharing in a relationship. It's a theme that isn't often explored in cinema and raises important questions about reciprocity, trust, and the dynamics of a partnership. The characters challenge the traditional couple schema by reversing their roles. Sandra's pursuit of her freedom and will creates an imbalance, leading to an exploration of equality in a relationship that is both powerful and questionable. The film invites us to question our preconceived notions of democracy in a relationship and how it can be derailed by dictatorial impulses and a dimension of rivalry. Despite their struggles, the couple's idealism and refusal to resign themselves to a less-than-perfect situation is admirable. Even in their arguments, which are actually negotiations, they continue to be honest with each other, revealing a deep love that persists despite their challenges.
The use of different languages, French, English, and German adds a layer of complexity to Sandra's character and creates a sense of opacity. It also maintains a distance between her and the audience as a foreigner on trial in France, who must navigate her way through the languages of her husband and son. Sandra is a complex character with many layers, which the trial will explore. They do not speak the same language. This makes their negotiation even more concrete, with the idea of a third language serving as neutral ground. It's clear that there's a real love of language and verbal sparring in the courtroom scenes, and Advocat général (Antoine Reinartz) has a lot to do with that. He adds an otherness to the film and brings the contemporary world into it, which breaks the dusty solemnity of the trial. Although he plays the villain, he portrays a very seductive, devious, and flamboyant character. He speaks on behalf of the deceased, whom we hardly ever see, and must make him endearing to both the jurors and the audience. Advocat brings an arena dimension to the court and portrays the civilized violence of the prosecution. On the contrary Maitre Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud) plays a rather fragile character, sensitive, on the defensive. He's good but not idealized. It's clear that Sandra and knew each other years ago, and that there's still something between them that's not entirely extinguished.
The film has no flashbacks, the focus is on the spoken word. In a trial, truth is elusive, and there's a void that needs to be filled by the spoken word. And in reality, these exceptions are not flashbacks: in the scene of the argument, it is a sound recording that suddenly materializes on screen, creating a sense of presence. There's also the scene where Daniel reenacts his dead father's words, but it belongs to a different category. This time we've the image, but it's an account of a memory, an invention, or at best, a testimony without proof, as pointed out by the public prosecutor. The courtroom is essentially where our history no longer belongs to us, where it's judged by others who have to piece it together from scattered and ambiguous elements.
Written by Gregory Mann
