Justine Triet’s Oscar-winning Anatomy of a Fall beguiled audiences last winter with one of cinema’s most unforgettable performances. I’m of course talking about Messi, the Border Collie whose believable overdose scene has been called “the greatest acting performance of my life” by Ayo Edebiri. It’s a thrilling debut by an assured rising star who spent the whole award season laughing it up with Hollywood’s biggest names. He even returned to Cannes this year as a reporter, talk about flipping the script. Yes, his future is almost as bright as those blue eyes but, aside from Messi, does Anatomy of a Fall having anything going for it?
First of all, I am legally required to point out that this is a movie about defenestration. Let me explain: A couple and their son live together in an isolated mountain chalet in snowy southeastern France. One day, the son, Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner), takes his dog, Snoop (Messi!), for a walk and comes home to find his father, Samuel (Samuel Theis) lying dead in the snow. Daniel calls for his mother, Sandra (2023 megastar Sandra Hüller), who comes running out and immediately calls the police. Daniel and Sandra surmise that Samuel fell out of the attic window but the evidence gathered does not conclusively rule out foul play, so Sandra becomes a suspect. She contacts her old friend and lawyer, Vincent (Swann Arlaud), and soon enough charges are brought and we’re off to the races.
As the prosecution starts building a case against Sandra, Vincent advises her that making the case that Samuel accidentally fell is too difficult. So they instead decide try to convince the jury that Samuel killed himself. And so we watch the brutal reality of this kind of case – when the evidence can only take you so far, the rest is about choosing what you want to believe. The prosecution decides to portray Sandra as an abusive, domineering, unfaithful wife and Samuel as a troubled man who was trying to make a better life for himself. The defense argues their marriage had been strained after an accident left Daniel visually impaired and the Samuel had become depressed, jealous, and suicidal. The couples’ inner lives are dragged out into public for the world to watch, including poor Daniel, who doesn’t know what to think.
One of the hardest things about the reality of cases like this (and the legal dramas about them) is that they don’t have the built in catharsis of more fun stories like Erin Brockovich or My Cousin Vinny. No this is more of a Philadelphia, A Few Good Men, Anatomy of a Murder type story where there’s so much ambiguity really the only two possible outcomes is a family will be further ripped apart or endure months of hardship just to once again be left alone to grieve. It’s enough to make you question why we even have a legal apparatus like this, what are we trying to accomplish? Are we really stuck with this flawed system this just because it’s better than the alternative?
I don’t know, but those are definitely the types of questions I think Anatomy of a Fall wanted me to wonder about after I finished it. There’s another hypothetical that I want to believe Justine Triet would encourage us to ponder: how differently would this story have been if the genders were reversed? If the mom died and the dad was put on trial. If Samuel was the one on trial, would the prosecutor have treated him so dismissively and with such an undercurrent of hostility? Society definitely has a track record of not believing women. On the other hand, would hypothetical Samuel have been allowed such low bail? To be reunited with Daniel? I see I’m starting to go a little Gone Girl here but needless to say, I very much enjoyed this movie and am eager to keep thinking about it later when I don’t have to type up this post instead of going to bed.