Anatomy of a Fall reviews

[Mister Tee]

Apparently I'm the outlier on this -- not in the world at large, but here -- because I think this is a terrific film. If it's a Law & Order episode, it's one written by peak Bergman. This, despite the outward appearance of a courtroom procedural, isn't about a legal outcome (the actual verdict is a virtual throwaway); it's about the dissection of a marriage and, relatedly, a family. And about how differences in perspective alter what a set of facts means. I find this a plenty big subject for a film, and the 2 1/2 hours sailed by for me (in fact, when the end came, I was surprised it had come so quickly).

Back before he went to the dark side, Alan Dershowitz once observed that juries need to understand their role is not to solve the crime, but to judge whether guilt has been proven. The set-up for this film is the sort of case of which he might have been thinking: one's first thought, seeing where the body landed, knowing who was in the house, is, basically, she HAD to have pushed him. And, as that on-air pundit says, it's a much more juicy explanation, making us more inclined to believe. When the first blood-splatter witness testifies, the noose feels like it's tightened around Huller irrevocably.

But then, the second blood expert appears, and tells us it's precisely the opposite. An unspoken (but hard to miss) element: the first witness is male, the second is female. Huller's husband has a cadre of male acquaintances/advocates (the shrink, the transcriber, the prosecutor) who all seem ready to take the husband's POV as truth. It takes Huller's team -- and Huller herself -- to demonstrate that there are other explanations for simple matters (the "stolen" plot point in her novel) that render the husband's descriptions (and conclusions drawn from them) not only limited, but misleading. These don't play, as in standard courtroom drama, as cat-and-mouse parries/reversals, but as offering fuller understanding of the complicated situation between a man and a woman in a marriage -- a state in which nuance/compromise is eternally present, and rarely clear to outsiders looking in.

When Presumed Innocent -- the novel, not the movie -- came out and was a sensation in summer 1987, something that made it so successful, beyond clever twists, was how it forced readers to confront the title phrase. We're told defendants in trials are presumed innocent, but I don't think most of us truly see it that way: by and large, I think we presume neutrality; feel that, as long as we look at the evidence, we can decide guilt by preponderance of facts, even when -- not infrequently -- a jury might rule otherwise. (You rarely hear, after an unexpected verdict, I guess the jury must be right; you hear, The guy got off.) What the justice system actually demands is that we, rather, presume innocence...unless guilt is clear and definitive, we should grant benefit of doubt. Presumed Innocent's cop character/friend of the protagonist operates on that basis: he suspects his friend might have killed the victim, but chooses to presume innocence and continue being his friend.

Huller's son, in this film, makes the same choice. His talk with his guardian, about how, when facts are ambiguous, one has to decide which to believe, could have come out of Scott Turow's universe. We don't know how far the kid goes in tilting to his mother's side -- might his story of the conversation about the dog be manufactured, to make her look better? What we do know is, he's decided to continue life with her; chosen the set of facts to which he will subscribe. (Incidentally: that testing sequence with the dog may have been the most painful part of the film, for me.)

The jury comes to the same conclusion, as they should have. I have no idea if Huller pushed him or not. It's hard to believe he could have just slipped and fallen. (Though, as someone I read elsewhere suggested, we keep seeing those shots of the dog rolling the rubber ball around the house -- what if one was near the window and he just slipped on it?) But guilt was clearly not proven, and, in that case, the path forward is clear: presume Huller innocent.

Two small things:

I agree with okri, the free-wheeling nature of the French legal system (I've seen it in numerous films, so I presume it's accurately depicted) will never not be jarring to me, as I'm imagining the multitude of objections that would have been entered in an American court.

I read someone elsewhere who thought it was too convenient that the kitchen argument between Huller and husband seemed to contain every element under contention in their marriage. (Extraordinary scene, by the way.) But, as someone who was married 28 years, let me assure you that, after you've been together long enough, every argument that reaches nuclear level ends up encompassing all the resentments each party has built up over the years. This could not have been more accurate.

[Sabin]

It’s fine. Huller’s great. The opening scene or so is amazing, but it never really became like…. a story for me with any sort of meaning to gleam from it. There are some very good moments but the closest I can come to figuring out what it’s all about is some sort of narrative about narratives that we tell ourselves, truth vs fiction, but none of this is compellingly dramatized. And for 2.5 hours, I want that.

Definitely worthwhile. It looks like Neon is doing a real full court press for the Academy Awards. They have their work cut out for them but the audiences I saw it with seemed to like it so what do I know?

[Okri]

Okri wrote
Having now seen Anatomy of a Fall, I have to say I think Triet is completely out to lunch for really one reason. A lot of the film is in English. Not only that, English is important to the characterizations/plot AND the best scene of the film (I'd assert) is in English. I would wager the committee was just hedging its bets against disqualification

Looking forward to your thoughts on the film.

I enjoyed it, but the Cannes win is a bit of an eyebrow raiser.

It has a few ideas at it's heart. The difficulty inherent in cross-cultural relationships [much is made of the point that English is neither of their first languages]. The rise of auto-fiction and the value/lack thereof. That it was co-written by her and her partner will launch a hundred think pieces. There's a fight between the wife and husband that is absolutely lacerating and would probably earn a screenplay nomination all on it's own. Huller and Arlaud are both terrific and it was nice seeing Antoine Reinartz again. Huller doesn't beg for sympathy and I didn't leave the film convinced in either direction, if I'm being honest. There are a couple hiccups. The storytelling developments with the son come off like an attempt at misdirection. There are expository elements to the script that Triet/Harari don't weave in a elegantly as I would've liked. I feel like the French legal system [or at least how it's depicted] stretches credulity sometimes (see Saint Omer) that I genuinely have to remind myself that they have a different approach.

This is only the second film I've seen from the slate so I can't judge based on competition. But like I mentioned, I find the Palme D'Or a little puzzling. Mike D'Angelo referred to it as a super-long Law and Order episode and while snarky, that's not as far from the truth as you'd think for something that actually won at Cannes. It's not audacious in tone or style (a la Titante or Uncle Boonmee); Triet's not a longtime director gradually building up Cannes credits (a la Ceylan or Audiard). It doesn't feel like an undeniable choice (like Blue is the Warmest Colour or Tree of Life). It feels like a well made movie. I could imagine a masterpiece being made from this material, but this isn't that.

From an Oscar perspective, I can see Huller [Tee, a lot of her performance is in English, which is part of the point] and screenplay, but I'd be surprised at more than that. And, again, it's a good film that is worth your time.

[Mister Tee]

Being a sort-of courtroom drama, it may be "accessible". And Sandra Huller seems an early front-runner for the lead actress prize.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235496751/

https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/a ... 235620196/