"I'm innocent, you know that, right?"
Sandra: I did not kill him.
Vincent: That's not the point.
Vincent: That's not the point.
Anatomy of a Fall is a 2023 mystery-drama film, directed by Justine Triet and co-written by Triet and her partner Arthur Harari. It stars Sandra Hüller, Swann Arlaud, Milo Machado-Graner, and Samuel Theis.
Sandra Voyter (Hüller) is a successful novelist who finds herself in the center of a media circus when her husband Samuel (Theis) is found dead after falling from the second floor of their chalet while doing renovations. Foul play cannot be entirely ruled out, and Sandra is indicted and brought to court, where she finds her entire life - her marriage, her sexuality, her writing, and her relationship with her visually impaired son Daniel (Graner) - put on trial. She may or may not be innocent, but as her lawyer Vincent (Arlaud) tells her, that may not be the point.
Anatomy of a Fall premiered at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival ahead of theatrical releases later that year.
This film provides examples of:
- all lowercase letters: used for the entirety of the opening credits as well as the "one year later" time skip chyron.
- Ambiguous Ending: Whether Sandra did it or not is never answered. Also, does Daniel really believe his mother is innocent, and did the conversation with his father actually take place? Note that, while Daniel gives his testimony, we see a flashback, but when Samuel speaks, it's only through Daniel's voice-over, as if he's literally putting words in his father's mouth.
- Ambiguously Evil: "Evil" is almost certainly too strong of a word to be used here, but the central conflict of the film revolves around whether or not Sandra killed her husband. The film ends without a definitive verdict, though it leans more towards the "didn't" side.
- Ambiguous Situation: On top of the many ambiguities of the Ambiguous Ending, there's also:
- What was going on with the interviewer? The prosecutor says that Sandra was trying to seduce her, and that Samuel blasting his music was an attempt to ruin the moment. Sandra denies it, and we never find out more information about it.
- What exactly happened during the fight and who struck who is completely ambiguous. As opposed to the argument that preceded, which is shown on screen to the audience, only the audio of the physical struggle is heard. Both sides' attorneys present different versions of what the jury is hearing.
- And Then What?: Discussed. After being acquitted, Sandra tells Vincent that she expected to feel relieved, but she doesn't.
- Bittersweet Ending: After a long and emotionally taxing trial, Sandra is finally acquitted - but how the trial affected her, as well as where her relationship with her son goes from here, remains unknown.
- Cathartic Crying: Sandra, who hasn't shown many emotions throughout the investigation, suddenly has a crying fit in her lawyer friend's car after her son requested her to leave the house a couple of days before his hearing.
- Chekhov's Gun: Earlier in the film, Sandra mentions that she came across a puddle of her husband's vomit one day, and saw white specks of what appeared to be aspirin in it, leading her to believe he might have attempted suicide. While it's initially unclear if she's telling the truth or trying to corroborate her own story, Daniel confirms that Snoop got sick after licking up the vomit later, suggesting that there was, in fact, aspirin in it. This testimony is key to Sandra's acquittal.
- Deadpan Snarker: The prosecutor can physically not stop himself from peppering his analyses and retorts with biting sarcasm, which makes him come off as the closest thing the movie has to an antagonist, and in turns makes the audience sympathise with Sandra to an extent.
- Double-Meaning Title: The titular "anatomy of a fall" refers to both the characters trying to figure out the exact circumstances regarding Samuel's fatal fall and also Sandra coming to grips with how her relationship with her husband fell apart.
- Evil-Detecting Dog: When Sandra is calling emergency services for her dead husband, the camera zooms in on Daniel's guide dog, Snoop, who appears to be glaring balefully up at Sandra. This is eventually subverted: Snoop is, after all, just a dog, and has no bearing on Sandra's innocence or guilt.
- Hypocritical Humor: The prosecutor spends the whole movie spinning wild, bad faith theories based on little more than conjecture, but when Daniel testifies about the conversation he had with his father, he then warns the jury that his testimony is "extremely subjective" and that they shouldn't be so quick to believe things without proof.
- I Need a Freaking Drink: After they won the trial, Sandra tells her lawyer that she needs a drink.
- Jerkass: The prosecutor is a complete asshole, dredging up tangential evidence seemingly just to humiliate Sandra and spins wild, spurious theories regarding her writing, sexuality and relationships. Granted, he is talking to/about someone that he thinks committed a murder, he is just doing his job and some of his theories aren't entirely wrong but he's still needlessly nasty and combatative.
- Language Barrier: Sandra, a German living in France, is not entirely fluent in French. With her husband, she speaks English, a language they are both fluent in, but she occasionally struggles to connect with her son Daniel, whose native language is French. The situation is only exacerbated when she's tried in a French court, where she occasionally requires a translator to make sure she's understood.
- Law Procedural: Much of the film is dedicated to the investigation of Samuel's murder and Sandra's trial.
- Licked by the Dog: At the end of the movie, Sandra falls asleep cuddling with Snoop, symbolizing hope for a renewed relationship with her son.
- Media Scrum: Sandra and her lawyers have to fight their way through a crowd of reporters after they exit the courthouse at the end.
- Moment Killer: According to the prosecutor, Samuel must have been blasting the same song over and over again while Sandra was hitting it off with her interviewer to prevent the interaction from getting too flirty.
- Nice Guy: Vincent, Sandra's lawyer, is a kind man who remains supportive of Sandra's innocence basically from the start to the very end.
- The Not-Love Interest: Sandra's lawyer fulfills the role of a potential love interest and even delivers a Love Confession to her but there is no romantic subplot developing between the two.
- Obligatory Earpiece Touch: Outside the courthouse, a report on camera suddenly tips her earpiece, letting us know that something important has happened. Sure enough, acquitted Sandra and her lawyers come exiting the courthouse.
- Plot-Triggering Death: Samuel's death sets the plot in motion.
- Posthumous Character: Samuel is alive at the beginning of the film, and his loud playing of music disturbs Sandra's interview with a reporter, but we pointedly do not get to see him until he's dead. He later shows up in flashbacks.
- Precision F-Strike: After Daniel pleads for assistance from his court-mandated caretaker to tell him whether she thinks his mother is guilty, to no avail, he finally blurts out "fucking help me!".
- Punch a Wall: We learn that Samuel used to punch walls with his fist out of frustration and even broke a finger once doing so.
- "The Reason You Suck" Speech: An argument between Sandra and Samuel boiled over into this from Sandra, raking Samuel over the coals for blaming her and Daniel for his failures as a writer and inability to make time for himself.
- Shout-Out: The title is a reference to Anatomy of a Murder, another Courtroom Drama of a trial lawyer trying to get his client acquitted.
- Sleeping Single: By the time of his death, Samuel and Sandra had been sleeping in separate bedrooms. The prosecution tries to use this to bolster their argument of their broken marriage and Sandra murdering him, though Sandra insists that they were still in love.
- Soundtrack Dissonance: An instrumental steel drum cover of 50 Cent's "P.I.M.P." was playing when Samuel's body was discovered, and its recurrence throughout the first half of the film provides some wry laughs.
- Tampering with Food and Drink: Daniel mixes aspirine into Snoop's food to see how the dog would react to it. It almost kills Snoop.
- Til Murder Do Us Part: The driving question — Sandra and her husband Samuel had been having marital problems before his death, so did she kill him? The film never gives a definitive answer.
- Time Skip: We skip one year ahead after the first act to the time when the trial begins.
- You Monster!: Samuel calls Sandra a monster during their recorded dispute and adds that Daniel thinks the same thing about her.
