French courtroom dramas hit differently. There is something so inherently French about how justice is conducted like a philosophical debate between two parties, mediated by a judge with their own political bias.

Witnesses are called to be scrutinised, and every word and action is deconstructed like the prosecution and defence are set on a battle of wits. Last years Saint Omer (one of LSJs best of 2023) transcribed and dramatised, almost verbatim, the trial of Senegalese immigrant standing accused of the murder of her infant daughter. It was a compelling work, even before we looked into the films substance, because the court scenes were transfixing.

It didnt need the over-dramatised treatment of fiction; it didnt have to be entertaining, it just was.

Anatomy of a Fall, though, works overtime to deliver the goods. Its acutely aware of its audience, and that the Frenchs unique legal process is to analyse our interaction and parasocial relationship with the characters.

Directed by Justine Triet, who also co-wrote it with her partner Arthur Harari, Anatomy of a Fall starts with an interview. Sandra (Sandra Hller) is being interviewed in her own house about her career as a novelist. The chat ends abruptly when Sandras husband, Samuel (Samuel Theis), blasts loud, abrasive music in the attic where he works on renovations. The interviewer leaves, Sandra goes for a rest, and the couples blind son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), takes his dog for a walk. When he returns, Samuels body lies dead in the snow.

In the first third of the story, Anatomy of a Fall is an investigation of the death. First deemed a suicide, there are suspicions Sandra could be involved. She was the only person at home when it happened, and details about their relationship paint a strenuous and potentially toxic marriage.

Sandra is German but lives with her family in Samuels tiny mountain hometown. Her French isnt perfect, so she prefers to speak in English at home, so if something is lost in translation, its lost to everybody. Alone in a place she never wanted to be in the first place, Sandra feels the brunt of a community she doesnt want to connect with. Its interesting that Triet sees the European dream as a complex reality rarely addressed. Sandra and Samuel perfectly encapsulate elements of their culture and the difficulties in finding harmony on the middle ground.

And this is all explored as soon as the trial starts.

If the films first act is a slow burn, it is because the procedural nature of the investigation isnt that captivating. There are no moral judgments, just assumptions based on out-of-context evidence. When Sandra has to stand in court, Anatomy of a Fallshows its hand. A film that looked like a simple Hitchcockian whodunnit (or more, didtheydoit?) turns into an examination of how we as a society deem the personality profile as worthy of judgment. Its an idea that Camus explored in The Stranger, so preposterous it breaks the protagonist from his stoicism to accuse society of being unreasonable and absurd.

Triet compares this to our, the filmgoers, relationship with the story. Social media does this; we like to over-examine the behaviours of people we dont know because we believe that the key to a mystery we dont understand lies in them. Interestingly, the French word for court hearing is audience because thats precisely what Triet does.

Witnesses take the stand and are subjected to a debate about what they perceive as the truth and their own motivations to do so. Evidence is removed from context but presented in a way that seems ironclad. In a particular tremendous moment, an audio clip of an argument between Sandra and Samuel plays in the court. Triet playfully cuts between the courtroom reaction to the audio and the actual scene that happened letting us know more than what the people in court can see while still keeping the mystery open for us to unpack.

Her point is not whether Sandra murdered her husband or not; the point is that we cannot know by listening to one audio clip recorded days before, or by asking the opinion of snarky psychologists.

Triet does give the trial a conclusion, even though I dont think she had to. The final climax is an intense series of events revolving around Daniel and a piece of information he once saw as innocuous, but after listening to the hearing, he believes he can turn things around. Its a great moment because it both supports and justifies the absurdity of the investigation. The conclusion could not have been reached without the hearing, yet it comes not from psychological scrutiny but from actual concrete evidence.

Hller plays Sandra with unsettling detachment. Its not an overreaction to say this is a thunderous performance. Every little revelation about her character is a surprise but also somehow fits her like a glove. Hller, who you may remember from Maren Ades tremendous Toni Erdmann, has a strength of character that is strangely disconcerting. Her eyes pierce, but its always unsure if shes quietly judging you. And when she is irate, shes announcing the end of the world. I havent remembered a performance as intense as this since Isabelle Huppert inThe Piano Teacher.

The end is a bittersweet moment. After a lengthy (the film stretches more than 150 minutes, which, in my opinion, pass quickly but others may not be that accommodating) examination of a relationship breaking apart for the pleasure of both us, the viewers, and the characters present in court, Tiet ends on a quiet emotional note between two characters without explaining what it means. After all, the last thing we get to demand is the meaning of a look, a touch, or an embrace. Some things are just personal.

Verdict: 4 and a half out of 5 Masterfully directed and complemented by one of the best performances of the past decade, Anatomy of a Fall asks some very uncomfortable questions about our failures to communicate and our misguided stubborn eagerness to overanalyse everyone around us.

Read the original:
Film of the week: Anatomy of a Fall - Law Society Journal