2023 – Anatomy of a Fall
I thought this was a good enough movie, but my goodness! It moved at a snail’s pace. The acting was first-rate and the story was interesting, but it seemed to take forever to get through the two and a half hour run-time. It was a long, deep look into its characters and their relationships. Directed by Justine Triet, it was a French film that used both the English and French languages to move the story, create tension, and exaggerate the difficulties between a French man and his German-born wife. And it also tries to answer the question of whether or not she murdered him by pushing him out of a second story window. And that was where this slow film kept my attention.
What follows is a ‘did she, or didn’t she?’ trial, where Sandra Voyter must defend herself. Sandra is expertly played by Sandra Hüller. Her character is a German author who is put on trial in a French court, where the judge requires everyone to speak in French. Sandra must try to make her case in a language that is not her own, making things more difficult for her. Her visually impaired son, Daniel, wonderfully played by Milo Machado-Graner is a willing participant in the trial, in which he learns things about both his parents that maybe a child would be better off not knowing.
Sandra’s lawyer, Vincent Renzi, played by Swann Arlaud, helps her to prepare for the trial, and produces arguments that put her guilt in question. Meanwhile, the prosecuting attorney, played by Antoine Reinartz, attempts to manipulate the facts of the case against Sandra. And another important member of the cast was Jehnny Beth, playing Marge, Daniel’s state appointed guardian during the trial, who I thought did a fine job, helping to guide the boy through his emotional challenges. They all did a great job and brought a lot to the movie. And, of course there was Daniel’s service dog, Snoop, played by canine actor, Messi.
All the actors in the movie really did a fantastic job, but a few of them really impressed me with their performances. First was the lead actress, Hüller. She was incredibly good. Half her lines had to be delivered in French, the other half in English. She did a great job, which isn’t a surprise, as the film was literally written for her. You can not only hear her native German accent in her Englich dialogue, but you can also read her pragmatic and logical German attitude and mannerisms, even when she is not speaking. Partly, it was the way her character was written, but more than that, it was the way Hüller played her. She was very matter-of-fact about things which one might expect her to be more passionate. For example, while she loved her husband and son very much, there was an emotional distance from both of them that was both undeniable and yet very appropriate for the roll..
But I also have to give a special shout-out to Graner, who played her son. First, he did a great job portraying the visual impairment. There were times when he’d had an unfocused look in his eyes, and sometimes he had to feel for things with his hands as a way of perceiving them. And second, he had a couple of really powerful emotional scenes that was impressive for so young an actor. There was a scene in which he poisons his assistance dog on purpose, as a way of verifying parts of his mother’s testimony, in order to convince himself of her innocence. Once the animal is saved, he breaks down in tears, explaining what he has done, and why.
I also really liked two other actors in the courtroom scenes. The first was Reinartz. He was pitiless and relentless in his efforts to prove Sandra’s guilt, and though I ended up feeling anger towards his character, it was exactly how I think I was supposed to react to him. That says something good about the actor. The other was the judge or, the President, played by Anne Rotger. She had a fairly small supporting roll, but she stood out to me as memorable, as she was always calm and clearly in control of her courtroom.
But as the movie was mostly about the examination of the death of Sandra’s husband, Samuel, played in flashbacks and visualized testimony by Samuel Theis, and the alleged murder trial, the nature of Sandra’s complicated marriage relationship was intensely explored. It examined both the mental and emotional states of both husband and wife, their bonds and their differences. It touched on their careers, and how their individual passions contributed to the marital tensions that preceded the death. It went into Sandra’s success as an author and her husband’s lack of it. It also shined a light on Sandra’s infidelities, and Samuel’s struggles with depression and suicidal episodes. And the movie also explored Sandra’s difficult relationship with her son Daniel.
So yes, there was plenty of drama to keep my attention. I really liked the scene with the recorded audio of a discussion that became an argument, that turned into a fight, which escalated into a physical altercation the day before Samuel’s death. And the film did a very good job of keeping me unsure of Sandra’s innocence or guilt until the very end, so that was good. It wasn’t a bad movie at all. I ultimately enjoyed watching it. It was just so incredibly slow-paced, which, at times, made it a bit of a chore to watch.