Anatomy of a Fall - Review

Rating: 5 out of 5

PALME d'Or winning Anatomy of a Fall is a thrillingly complex legal drama that exists way beyond its initial suggestion of being merely a question of guilt or otherwise.

It's far more bold and expansive than that, instead opting to take an apparently simple premise - whether a man fell to his death, jumped, or was pushed - and using it as an opportunity to dissect everything from marriage to parenthood, guilt (in many different forms) and subjectivity. It even takes a swing at societal expectation as well as the notion of subjectivity and its effect on the legal system.

In short, it's a film that poses many questions about the nature of life and the human condition that - perhaps frustratingly for some, more mainstream inclined viewers - doesn't offer easy answers. Indeed, anyone seeking neatly wrapped resolutions need not apply.

Directed by Justine Triet from a script she co-wrote with Arthur Harari, the film opens with an interview between leading lady Sandra (Sandra Huller) and an attractive female journalist, keen to find out more about her work as a famous author. The interview is interrupted by the loud music being played by her husband, an aspiring writer named Samuel (Samuel Theis), who is working on renovating their French home in the snowy mountains, for potential use as a B&B.

The tension created by this intrusion is immediately palpable, even though Samuel never reveals himself. Rather, Sandra terminates the interview, while the pair's 11-year-old son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) takes the dog out for a walk, sensing that an argument may be forthcoming.

When Daniel returns, however, he finds his father dead in the snow outside their home, bleeding from a pronounced head wound, having apparently fallen from the upper balcony or window of their home.

The cause of death proves inconclusive, prompting the French authorities to indict Sandra on suspicion of murder, whereupon she enlists the help of a former acquaintance and lawyer, Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), to defend her. But as the subsequent trial progresses, potential motives are unearthed that throw Sandra's testimony into question.

The ensuing drama plays out over an expansive 2hrs and 30 minutes but seldom feels drawn out or contrived. Rather, it's an intense and riveting character drama that takes the time to explore all of the issues that it puts before viewers.

First and foremost, is the nature of relationships and marriage. It is clear from the outset that Sandra and Samuel are not as close as they once were, yet over the course of the trial, the reasons for their drift - and the subsequent tensions that appeared - become clear.

Primary among them is an injury suffered by Daniel when he was four: the result of a collision with a motorcycle he suffered while crossing the road from school with his babysitter. It's an injury that left Daniel partially sighted and deeply traumatised, affecting his ability to attend school. But it's clear that it placed an immediate strain on the relationship between Sandra and Samuel, as issues of blame and guilty emerged.

Then there are other revelations, about affairs that Sandra conducted, as well as whether she plundered an idea of Samuel's for one of her own successful novels. The sacrifices both made to pursue their ambitions and careers also come under the spotlight, along with the resentments that followed.

Triet's film drip-feeds the audience, forcing them to confront their own ideologies and effectively turning them into jurors. Each new revelation arrives like a bolt out of the blue, challenging perceptions and posing new questions.

But it's in this way that Triet's film excels, as she broadens the scope of the film beyond mere courtroom drama with consistently bold and provocative choices. Is it deliberate, for example, that virtually every specialist witness called by the prosecution is male? Or that the defence experts are female? Certainly, the notion of sexism is implied - not just by this choice, but also by an argument between Sandra and Samuel, in which the notion of their roles is dissected, thereby raising the question of the role of masculinity in the modern age (with all its corresponding associations).

And then there's the role played by subjectivity in trials of this nature - which, essentially, comes down to a 'his word against hers' type of scenario. When a tenacious prosecution lawyer invites the presumption of guilt by calling upon Sandra's written work as self-incriminating evidence, he expects the jury to do the same, yet dismisses some similarly subjective testimony from a key witness as mere speculation, not grounded in fact.

Is it, therefore, more sexy to assume someone is guilty for Samuel's death, rather than play out the alternatives - ie, accident or suicide? Does the justice system have its own questions to answer about expectation and pre-conceived guilt? Likewise, society (Sandra's trial is also watched on by much of France)?

There is so much at play in Triet's film that much of the delight in watching it lies in subsequently taking the time to explore what it has to say. And that's without also taking an additional few moments to admire the quality of the performances - most notably from Huller as the suitably conflicted, yet somewhat icy Sandra, whose true motivations (or not) are impossible to read. She gives away nothing, yet leaves plenty of room to explore her emotions - as a mother, as a successful writer and as a lover and wife. She's a complex individual, given the space she deserves to exist. The film doesn't judge her - merely inviting audiences to do so, without being spoon-fed.

Likewise, young Graner, who gives a performance of maturity way beyond his years. His portrayal of Daniel is as raw and sympathetic as you might expect, yet also incredibly nuanced, with his own motivations and interpretations adding to the complexity of the overall piece.

Anatomy of a Fall is such a rich piece that it almost demands repeat viewing, in order to allow viewers the opportunity to come at it from different perspectives, once they have as much of the evidence as the screenplay is prepared to give. It's a film to savour and to keep you guessing. And it's one that undoubtedly invites (and probably expects) ravenous debate and thought for some time afterwards. It's unmissable viewing.