Artwork by Michael DiMilo
★★★★1/2
The Slippery Truth: Film Review of Anatomy of a Fall
Truth, especially in today’s age of informational—and misinformational—excess, is an elusive beast. We are surrounded by conspiracy theorists, science skeptics, and straight-out liars. Politicians, pundits, and opportunists twist and bend the truth into weapons to further their—usually—personal and professional agendas. In our time, truth is no longer an ideal, a goal, or a virtue.
Aspects of this elusive nature of truth and knowledge is probed in Justine Triet’s brilliant film, Anatomy of a Fall, which follows the investigation of a man’s mysterious death after falling from an attic window. Part psychological thriller, part courtroom drama, and part inquiry into the nature of existential knowledge, this film is an intelligent and perceptive analysis of the subjective nature of truth and its tenuous relation to love, family, and justice.
As the film begins, Sandra Voyter (Sandra Huller) is being interviewed in her secluded home by a student Zoe (Camille Rutherford). Their meeting is rudely interrupted by Sandra’s husband Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis) playing music so loudly from his workplace upstairs that the two cannot hear each other. Zoe leaves, and Sandra’s son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) leaves for a walk with Snoop, the family dog.
Daniel, who is vision impaired, returns home to find his father Samuel lying dead in the snow, apparently the victim of a fall from the attic window. The police come, investigate, and a forensic examination of Samuel’s wounds are analyzed by the coroner, who determines his head trauma is inconsistent with a fall. The police return and continue their investigations, interviewing family members, reenacting the fall, and collecting data from Samuel’s computer. Eleven-year-old Daniel is interrogated mercilessly by the police and magistrates over a conversation he heard his parents having before leaving on his walk. Inconsistencies in the story coupled with Daniel’s impaired vision stir the police’s suspicions.
As the investigation progresses, slowly, layer by layer, intimate details of their family life are revealed. Jealousies, infidelities, admiration, love, and guilt between—and in—each character are interwoven as intricately as Irish lace. The complexities and richness of their lives are revealed as a byproduct of the investigation Samuel’s death. Sandra calls her old friend Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), a lawyer. Although Sandra has logical explanations for every question the police have, the evidence piles up and she is indicted.
During the trial, a tape Samuel had surreptitiously recorded of an argument between him and Sandra is played. Interestingly, during most of the argument, the camera focuses on the actual argument in the Maleski kitchen, but toward the end, when the fight becomes violent, the camera cuts back to the courtroom. The sounds of slapping, punching, Samuel crying out, and Sandra yelling are ambiguous at best. Had the camera stayed in the kitchen, the audience would have known what happened, but the director deliberately—through this editing—casts a fog over the truth.
Daniel was close to both his parents. Because they fear her presence might affect his testimony, the court appoints a court monitor, Marge (Jenny Beth) to ensure that the boy is not influenced by his mother.Anguished over what is happening to his family, Daniel confides to Marge that he is having a difficult time trying to uncover the truth. Marge tells him that when it’s impossible to find the real truth, then we must believe what is true for us, and this is the existential fulcrum on which this story is balanced.
Objective truth is elusive. Even the most logical scientific facts may be colored by the motives of those using them to prove points. The pathologist who determined that Samuel’s head wound was not consistent with the fall is a case in point. He looked at the facts and reported what he believed to be the truth. Peeling away the emotions, experiences, and motives of Sandra, Daniel, Samuel, and even Vincent leads the audience only to a simulacrum of the truth. We cannot, in this case, know what happened.
Anatomy of a Fall is a marvel of a film. Always intelligent and insightful, it portrays the complex interior lives of its characters as they are mercilessly dissected in a court of law, and, in doing so, proves nothing so much as human knowledge is nothing more than illusion, a palimpsest of what we would like it to be. Justine Triet has written a masterpiece of a screenplay. The characters resonate as not only real people, but as random victims of nothing more than life itself.
The acting in this film is nothing short of superb. As Sandra, Sandra Huller gives a stellar performance as an intelligent, measured, and compassionate woman. She is a successful novelist and teacher but is unhappy with much of her life. The complexities within the character are carefully calibrated by Huller and revealed through the most subtle movements or expressions. The rest of the cast, particularly Graner as Daniel, are also outstanding.
Anatomy of a Fall itself hides and reveals truths through editing, writing, and sound. We never see Samuel at the beginning. We only hear his loud and obnoxious music spoiling Sandra’s interview. We only have hints as to the true nature of Vincent and Sandra’s past relationship. We only see Samuel through the eyes of Daniel or Sandra. This is a powerful and subtle movie that points out the elusive nature of reality. What really happened to Samuel? We can only make educated guesses.
Anatomy of a Fall is not only a courtroom drama. It is about who we are and how we construct our everyday realities, how we excuse ourselves, redeem ourselves, and reward ourselves. Truth is an illusion, but our lives are not.