← Back to Reviews
in
Anatomy of a Fall, 2023
Sandra (Sandra Huller) is a lives in an isolated chalet with her husband, Samuel (Samuel Theis). It is apparent that there are tensions between the couple, and when their partially-blind son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner) leaves the house to take his dog for a walk, he returns to find his father dead in the snow. Did he fall to his death, or did Sandra murder him? A lengthy, emotional trial probes this question as Sandra and Daniel try to cope with the stress of having their lives under a microscope.
Fantastic lead and supporting performances meet a nicely nuanced take on marriage drama.
I will admit that in the first few minutes of this film I made some judgments: namely that Samuel seemed like a controlling jerk and that it was no surprise that someone might want to push him out a window. Indeed, the first few minutes set you up for the kind of movie where the premise is “yeah, he kinda (in movie-logic-world) deserved to die, but did she do it?”. What unfolds instead is a look at a relationship dynamic that many people will recognize.
As the trial goes on, we get more and more glimpses into Sandra and Samuel’s marriage, and start to get an understanding of how they came to that fateful day that ended in a deadly fall. The strongest throughline, for me, was the way that the film portrayed the kind of situation where two people have compromised and yet can only see the things that they have given up. Sandra resents Samuel because she’s agreed to move to an isolated house in a foreign country, while Samuel resents Sandra’s career success. Each of them stews in their resentment until they lash out at each other in verbal and sometimes physical battles.
And as our view of their relationship deepens, we watch as the lawyers on either side attempt to interpret the evidence in their own light. Another very strong aspect of the film is the way it portrays the tortuous process of being involved in such a trial. Everything in Sandra’s life becomes fair game, and there’s something particularly brutal about watching someone attempt to explain a complex, nuanced situation in a language that is not her native tongue.
Then there’s just the suspense of having to decide who and what to believe. I found Sandra to be a very credible witness, but at the same time you have to always question her motivations. When she waits a while to reveal that Samuel had a history involving self-harm, we must decide if she is protecting her husband’s privacy and legacy, or if this is something she has made up in order to divert suspicion from herself.
And while Huller is an incredibly solid center of the film, it’s Machado-Graner as the couple’s devastated son---and his amazing canine companion, Snoop--- who gives the film the heart it needs. Daniel is too closely involved to be a perfect audience surrogate, but we can feel some echo of his pain as he must decide if his mother could have killed his father. As Sandra testifies about different situations, some of them previously unknown to Daniel, he is forced to reevaluate what he thought of his parents. Machado-Graner brings a deeply-felt sorrow to his character, as well as a potent guilt and anxiety as his testimony about the fatal day could be the element that either frees or condemns his mother. Daniel also constantly calls attention to the fact that, for this young man, he must either believe that his mother is a killer or that his father wanted to die.
The only thing I didn’t love about this film was that it felt as if it could have easily been about 20 minutes shorter. There were a few scenes in the last act that could have been shortened without a negative impact on the story or flow of the film.
Overall, however, I thought that this film was pretty great.
Anatomy of a Fall, 2023
Sandra (Sandra Huller) is a lives in an isolated chalet with her husband, Samuel (Samuel Theis). It is apparent that there are tensions between the couple, and when their partially-blind son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner) leaves the house to take his dog for a walk, he returns to find his father dead in the snow. Did he fall to his death, or did Sandra murder him? A lengthy, emotional trial probes this question as Sandra and Daniel try to cope with the stress of having their lives under a microscope.
Fantastic lead and supporting performances meet a nicely nuanced take on marriage drama.
I will admit that in the first few minutes of this film I made some judgments: namely that Samuel seemed like a controlling jerk and that it was no surprise that someone might want to push him out a window. Indeed, the first few minutes set you up for the kind of movie where the premise is “yeah, he kinda (in movie-logic-world) deserved to die, but did she do it?”. What unfolds instead is a look at a relationship dynamic that many people will recognize.
As the trial goes on, we get more and more glimpses into Sandra and Samuel’s marriage, and start to get an understanding of how they came to that fateful day that ended in a deadly fall. The strongest throughline, for me, was the way that the film portrayed the kind of situation where two people have compromised and yet can only see the things that they have given up. Sandra resents Samuel because she’s agreed to move to an isolated house in a foreign country, while Samuel resents Sandra’s career success. Each of them stews in their resentment until they lash out at each other in verbal and sometimes physical battles.
And as our view of their relationship deepens, we watch as the lawyers on either side attempt to interpret the evidence in their own light. Another very strong aspect of the film is the way it portrays the tortuous process of being involved in such a trial. Everything in Sandra’s life becomes fair game, and there’s something particularly brutal about watching someone attempt to explain a complex, nuanced situation in a language that is not her native tongue.
Then there’s just the suspense of having to decide who and what to believe. I found Sandra to be a very credible witness, but at the same time you have to always question her motivations. When she waits a while to reveal that Samuel had a history involving self-harm, we must decide if she is protecting her husband’s privacy and legacy, or if this is something she has made up in order to divert suspicion from herself.
And while Huller is an incredibly solid center of the film, it’s Machado-Graner as the couple’s devastated son---and his amazing canine companion, Snoop--- who gives the film the heart it needs. Daniel is too closely involved to be a perfect audience surrogate, but we can feel some echo of his pain as he must decide if his mother could have killed his father. As Sandra testifies about different situations, some of them previously unknown to Daniel, he is forced to reevaluate what he thought of his parents. Machado-Graner brings a deeply-felt sorrow to his character, as well as a potent guilt and anxiety as his testimony about the fatal day could be the element that either frees or condemns his mother. Daniel also constantly calls attention to the fact that, for this young man, he must either believe that his mother is a killer or that his father wanted to die.
The only thing I didn’t love about this film was that it felt as if it could have easily been about 20 minutes shorter. There were a few scenes in the last act that could have been shortened without a negative impact on the story or flow of the film.
Overall, however, I thought that this film was pretty great.