Anatomy of a Fall

I just finished watching this, and while I expect I will want to watch it a few more times to make sure, for now it has leaped provisionally into the ranks of my top 10 movies ever (and I have been watching movies for almost 40 years). All of the main actors gave standout performances - Sandra Huller in particular I had never seen but was just brilliant, even though she was almost every scene, often in close-up. The score was brilliant. And crucially the screenplay was never less than totally engaging throughout. Somehow, while the whole film was clearly crafted meticulously, the dialogue managed to feel much more true to life than any script I can remember.

If you don't like talky subtitled middle class movies where "nothing happens" and there are few characters you can identify with, clearly you won't like this (but if you knew you were like that why go to this movie in the first place?). I also have to acknowledge that it is not subtle about hammering home its focus on ambiguity and interpretation, which it approaches through language, through a courtroom drama, through a failing marriage...

But what it delivers, it delivers in spades - a compelling study of the desire for and impossibility of narrative closure which time and again had me feeling as if I would finally be comfortable knowing where I "stood" only to have the rug yanked out from under my feet once again. I could have discussed how it made me think and feel for hours after, and I can't wait to watch it again and see if my impressions of it and of the people and their stories change again on second viewing...

Watched this with my friend without any context, he liked it. I love the plot that give a space for its viewers to think

This is an interesting one, where my perception of the movie has improved quite a bit from my initial viewing. I went in expecting a murder mystery/legal thriller. And I don't think that is what this movie is. It's a bit dry, a bit overlong, and slow. However, that is not to say it is a bad thing, just very different from what I was expecting. I will highlight that I don't think this is an exploration on the subjective nature of truth a la Rashomon or anything. Instead, it's a very well acted movie (especially from the dog) that examines a failing marriage and utilizes the trial format to explore what is left unsaid in these types of relationships. This theme is something I've seen movies become more interested in recently, and I find it fascinating. It does such a good job of exploring this marriage from so many different angles and perspectives that I now really respect how the movie puts the actual viewer on trial in addition to the characters.

Did she do it? Was it an accident? Or perhaps suicide? These are all questions that "Anatomy of a Fall" is not too interested in answering. Instead, this legal drama is more about dissecting a couple's complicated relationship in the course of a trial. The viewer takes on the role of a juror and must ultimately decide for themselves whether the main character Sandra (Sandra Hüller) is responsible for the death of her husband.

Although the film is quite long (151 minutes) and extremely dialog-heavy, you hardly ever notice its length. The strong performances are a major reason for this, as Hüller is truly fantastic and young actor Milo Machado Graner is also a revelation. Furthermore, the tension is constantly sustained, with the courtroom confrontations being varied and intelligent. But the clear highlight is a flashback to a lengthy argument between Sandra and her husband near the end of the trial, the escalation of which should have everyone on the edge of their seats.

Ultimately, it's fair to say that there have been thousands of legal dramas in the past, but "Anatomy of a Fall" effortlessly places itself in the top tier of this sub-genre. Carried by Sandra Hüller's strong performance, this film is a must-see this awards season.

In my opinion, this film highlights first of all the morbid approach that ordinary people have towards trials and judicial cases.

People have an absolute need to find a culprit, and journalists generally fuel this morbidity.

The task of finding the truth, and therefore convicting or acquitting, lies with the courts, not with the people or journalists.

While the job of journalists should be to tell the facts, to keep people informed.

But people always need to take the side of one or the other, the accused or the victim. People don't care what is true, they only care about the clash between the parties, the anger, the violence.

The only truth is the one told by Daniel. What is this process for? To find the truth, which is impossible anyway, given the only circumstantial evidence. Or understand why all this happened?

I really liked this film, with a dry narration, objective writing, an authentic interpretation by all the actors, because it doesn't lead you to take anyone's side, but makes you catch the importance of understanding why these tragedies happen.

_Marriage Story_ but better.
The first hour was a bit unfocused, but I think that was by choice, in order to be as objective as possible, so the audience can form their own presumptions of the events. While in the second half, we get to discover more and more the subjective nuances of the family's relationships. I empathized with the relatable issues it explored, regarding Samuel's character, [spoiler]like guilt, shame, self-loathing, self-sacrifice, fragile narcissism, perfectionism, fear of failure, procrastination etc.[/spoiler]

Set against the snowy backdrop of a remote French village, this gripping drama unfolds with a chilling and methodical exploration of a couple's fractured relationship and the intense scrutiny of a courtroom. The story centers on Sandra, played by the exceptional Sandra Hüller, whose life is upended after a tragic incident. As the case unravels, the narrative delves into the complexities of truth, perception, and the intricate dynamics of human relationships.

Justine Triet's direction is deliberate and patient, drawing the audience into a narrative that seamlessly balances emotional depth and intellectual rigor. The courtroom becomes a stage where every word and gesture is scrutinized, making the film not only a legal drama but also a profound character study. Triet's ability to maintain tension while leaving key questions unanswered adds layers to the storytelling, keeping viewers on edge throughout.

The performances are a masterclass in subtlety and intensity. Sandra Hüller shines with a nuanced portrayal that captures both vulnerability and strength. Her interactions with Milo Machado Graner, who plays her son, Daniel, are particularly poignant, adding an emotional weight that anchors the film. The supporting cast further enriches the narrative, contributing to the film’s multifaceted exploration of truth and perspective.

The cinematography and sound design are equally notable, enhancing the film's atmosphere and drawing the audience into its world. The restrained visuals and ambient soundscape amplify the tension, making even the quietest moments resonate. This attention to detail underscores the film's commitment to realism and its refusal to resort to melodrama.

Themes of ambiguity and moral complexity permeate the story, inviting the audience to question their assumptions and biases. The film doesn't offer easy answers or clear resolutions, instead leaving viewers to grapple with the uncertainty that defines human relationships and the justice system. This layered approach ensures that the story lingers long after the credits roll.

With its intricate storytelling, compelling performances, and thought-provoking themes, this film stands out as a testament to the power of understated yet impactful filmmaking. It challenges the audience to engage actively with the narrative, rewarding their attention with a deeply satisfying cinematic experience.

It is not surprising that this film won the Oscar and BAFTA for BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, the PALME d‘OR at Cannes, plus a variety of other awards (99 award wins & 182 nominations). This almost redefines the genre of Crime Mystery, as it meticulously winds its way through the lives and emotions of a family experiencing a tragic loss while under the threat of indictment. Sandra Hüller, who was nominated for her performance, plays her character with such transparency and complexity that it is almost impossible to determine her guilt or innocence. Milo Machado-Graner gives a performance that defies his youth. The story is skillfully woven, the acting is solid, and the mystery takes you though all the possibilities until the final scenes. Although the movie is long (2h 31m) there are pivotal scenes that pull you back into it, time and time again. In an interview with Sabra Hüller and the director, I was intrigued by the how they felt the conclusions that the audience members came to were more based on who those individuals were, than on who the script pointed to. I give this film a 9 (brilliantly executed) out of 10. [Crime Mystery]

The fight scene reminded me of "Marriage Story." Brilliant performances.

Captivating. It's long, but I was engaged throughout. The manipulations of various facts throughout the trial to assist both sides really plays with our perception of events. Triet directed (and co-wrote) this wonderfully and Hüller was fantastic. Strong 8.5 here.