Anatomy of a Fall

INT. THE ANATOMY OF ANATOMY OF A FALL - DAY
Anatomy of a Fall is an excellent film crafted from the mind of Justine Triet. It's beautifully acted, shot, scored and edited together. So let's look at the Anatomy of Anatomy of a Fall.

Story:
The story revolves around the unconfirmed cause of death of Samuel, who has fallen out of his attic window. The only person in the house was his wife Sandra, Sandra Hüller, the prime suspect. Their son Daniel, blind from an unfortunate event, is the only witness. The story is from the perspective of Sandra, and just like any courtroom drama, details are revealed over time. Fortunately, it's at a steady pace, never announcing too much or too little, giving us the correct information at the right time. While I'm mostly positive about the story, some moments slow right down, and we come to a standstill; overall, thanks to the following few components, they considerably make up for the story's flaws.

Performance:
Its lead is Anatomy of a Fall's greatest asset, Sandra Hüller. She is tremendous, pulling no punches in the role of Sandra, the deceased's wife. For the rest of the cast, no one except the dog is ever greater than Sandra!

Cinematography:
The camera in this film is on a swivel, always moving, keeping us engaged. The camera uses Visual humour quite a bit, which is always great to see. Finally, the colour grade felt natural and, at times, warm, giving a homely vibe.

Score:
A simple piano piece plays throughout the film; it is excellent.
Finally, the editing:
This was a stand-out for me. It was cleverly cutting at points to hide us from the horrors but holding onto moments before it became too much.
There's a lot of love about this film — a highlight of the Cannes 2023 run.

FADE OUT.

When young "Daniel" (Milo Machado Graner) returns from a walk in the snow with his dog ("Snoop") he discovers the body of his father lying on the snow in front of their alpine house. He shouts for his mother, writer "Sandra" (Sandra Hüller) and soon the police investigation is out to establish just what happened. What do we know? Well, not a lot really - just that before the young man left for his stroll, his mother was giving an interview in their kitchen to a journalist that was being increasingly drowned out by the intrusive music emanating from her husband upstairs, and - that young "Daniel" is blind. "Sandra" enlists the help of a friend who represents her as after many a re-enactment the authorities conclude that there is enough evidence that she lobbed him over the balcony and murdered him. A curiously relaxed courtroom drama now ensues. Those of us used to watching British or American scenarios like this might find the approach, usually entirely speculative, taken by prosecuting counsel to essentially draw his own conclusion from evidence that may or not be there is quite entertaining to watch. The President of the tribunal rarely intercedes in what becomes a frequently unsubstantiated analysis of the sometimes turbulent marriage of the two, we learn of the cause of the boy's blindness, of his mother's sexuality and by the denouement I felt that Justine Triet had worked well with a strong cast to create a whodunit where there might have been no crime at all! That denouement is a little rushed, but leaves a lovely degree of doubt in the mind of the one member of the cast who probably needed convincing the most! It's just a shade too long, a wee bit too much build up, but once it's in full swing this is a strongly performed, sometimes quite funny and dark crime drama that is well worth a watch.

It’s always disappointing when a film aspires to greatness that it never achieves. Such is the case with the latest offering from French writer-director Justine Triet, whose allegedly suspenseful thriller is about as appetizing as a plate of tepid leftovers. This crime investigation/courtroom drama about the mysterious death of a middle-aged unsuccessful writer (Samuel Theis) who falls from the second story of his mountain chalet looks into whether his demise is due to suicide or murder, with his wife (Sandra Hüller), herself a best-selling author, being the prime suspect. Despite an intriguing premise, however, the movie is overlong, needlessly talky and inherently flat, with a cold, clinical, unengaging narrative and characters who engender no connection, compassion or empathy. In essence, this is a “whodunnit” that plays like an extended “whocares.” Fault the screenplay here, which seeks to tell a tale in the same gripping vein as such great courtroom dramas as “Anatomy of a Murder” (1959) but that never achieves the level of tension, mystery and audience engagement needed to pull that off. The meticulously orchestrated script feels calculated and derivative virtually from start to finish, especially in its trial sequences, which explore an array of possible motives and explanations, including everything from infidelity to plagiarism to previous suicide attempts, that rely on often-implausible speculation and inflated conjecture to carry forward a proceeding that probably never should have ended up in court in the first place. What’s more, the double entendre that is the picture’s title is so obvious that any hopes of nuance, subtlety or profundity evaporate quickly once the failing nature of the couple’s troubled relationship surfaces. While the film admittedly features a fine performance by Hüller, it’s far from enough to rescue a picture with big aspirations that never pan out. How this release has garnered so much exaggerated awards season buzz is beyond me, especially given its intrinsically insipid, underwhelming, overstated character. There are plenty of other films of this ilk out there that are far more worth watching than this one, so grab one of those better selections instead and give this one the well-earned pass it genuinely deserves.