Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 25,773
Likes: 5,479
Location:
Last Online May 6, 2024 0:38:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 30, 2023 19:23:18 GMT -5
Anatomy of a Fall(10/26/2023) Based on the reporting I read, it sounded like the competition at the Cannes Film Festival for the top prize this year came down to two movies: Jonathan Glazer’s holocaust drama The Zone of Interest, which was probably the most anticipated film in the lineup, and a film that emerged as a dark horse after its premiere called Anatomy of a Fall, which would go on to win. The film was made by a lady named Justine Triet, who made a couple of movies that I vaguely recall having seen mentioned in festival round-ups but which hadn’t really made much of an international splash and certainly hadn’t made her a major auteur whose films were hotly anticipated. Since then the film has been positioned as something of a potential Oscar contender, especially for the film’s lead performance by Sandra Hüller and there’s been some talk of Triet getting into the director race. So that put me as a viewer into an unusual place in which I was heading to a movie that was about as hotly anticipated as the recent released by people like Martin Scorsese and David Fincher and yet with this one I wasn’t really sure what I was going to get as it was from a filmmaker who up until now had been well off my radar.
The film begins at a large house in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes with one of its residents, an acclaimed author named Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), having to cut an interview short after her husband starts blasting music in a passive aggressive gesture to derail said interview. Their eleven year old son, a blind boy named Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner), takes a walk to get away from the music and the whole situation but when he comes back he finds his father Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis) lying on the ground dead with a big gash on his head, having apparently fallen from one of the top floors of the rather tall house. He screams for his mother, who rushes out and calls the police upon seeing the body. From there an investigation begins largely focused on the question of whether Samuel killed himself by jumping from the upper level window or whether Sandra bashed him in the head during a fight and pushed him from an upper balcony. Voyter calls in an old friend named Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), who is also a lawyer, and he agrees to help her with the case. Eventually she’s indicted and must defend herself in court in a case that increasingly becomes something of a dissection of her marriage and must also contend the awkwardness of going through this whole process while her son is under the pressure of being something of a key witness in the trial of his mother.
We do not see the “fall” itself during the film’s opening scene and while the film does contain flashbacks we are never given any sort of definitive and unequivocal answer as to Sandra’s guilt in the movie, so in some ways we’re put in the position of the jury members to the whole case but we’re seeing a lot more than any jury would see since we’re also following Sandra outside of the courtroom. This is not, however, a case that’s going to be solved with forensics. Both the prosecution and the defense bring in expert witnesses to analyze the blood spatter and fall trajectory with neither being significantly more convincing than the other and sort of cancel each other out. Instead this case largely comes down to looking at the motivations of both parties and trying to find the story that makes the most sense. Over the course of the testimony we find out what divided the couple: how Voyter on some level blamed her husband for the accident that blinded their son and at one point did have an affair with someone and also how the husband became increasingly withdrawn and paranoid about future affairs while also being increasingly envious of her success as an author while he struggled with his own writing aspirations. The prospect that the husband (or the wife) may have been physically abusive kind of looms over the film without ever quite coming to dominate it, to the point where one wonders why the possibility that the attack at the film’s center may have been an act of self-defense on the part of Voyter is never floated.
Voyter is German born in the film and apparently has a weak grasp on the French language despite being married to a French man and currently living in France. The two of them apparently met while both were living in London and they primarily spoke English to one another and Voyter spends much of the film speaking English with friends and attorneys and is somewhat disadvantaged while in court because of this. The film’s bilingual element certainly stands out and certainly seems to have been added with intention. As an Anglophone watcher this puts you in the odd position of understanding the portions of the film that is presumably meant to seem distanced to the film’s intended domestic audience while relying on subtitles for the portions that are meant to be familiar. And even when English is being spoken there’s still a foreignness to it as even though Voyter speaks the language fluently and doesn’t even have a particularly strong accent there’s still a discernible ESL intonation to the acting. The point of this is presumably to highlight Voyter’s position as something of an outsider in this court system and also a bit of an outsider in her marriage as it’s eventually revealed that this linguistic mismatch was something of a point of separation for the two and one way or another becomes something of a barrier that also distances her from the film’s audience.
So, there are definitely some layers to all this but I’m not sure they quite run as deeply as I was maybe hoping they would given the somewhat heightened expectations its Palme d’Or win lent to it. There are some age old questions about the “subjectivity of truth” and the like to be found here if you look for them and some basic satire about highly publicized spectacle trials, but I’m not sure I got a whole lot more than what I’ve gotten from a lot of other movies around those topics. I also would not say I was in as much suspense about the truth of the central crime as I was supposed to be. To some extent that’s by design and the court basically presents two theories of the crime that don’t quite fit together perfectly, but I’m not sure the movie entirely got that balance right. Voyter certainly doesn’t seem like a murderer throughout the film and the prosecution’s evidence that she may have been prone to violent rages seems rather unconvincing, but I’m not sure the theory of this as a suicide quite makes sense either given the circumstances, but the film does ultimately put its thumb on one side of the scale by the end to the point where they don’t really pull off the potential of this being some ambiguous “unknowable mystery” like I think they were trying to make it.
On a more superficial level I found the basic filmmaking here quite good but perhaps not masterful. Simon Beaufils’s cinematography is kind of drab and digital looking with some early shots almost invoking the movement of consumer grade cameras meant to invoke a sort of reality but it also doesn’t necessarily commit to some sort of gritty documentary-like feel either. Sandra Hüller central performance is certainly good, and in some moments of heightened emotion it even veers into being great, but I’m not quite sure she hits that balance of moral ambiguity either. The film may have been better served by making her a slightly more distant and unlikable figure one is more likely to view and a killer than the desperate motherly figure we get for most of the film. On the other hand maybe the point is to suggest that she’s actually more likable than the caricature the prosecution is trying to pain in the courtroom? It’s hard to tell. Still, dispose of the baggage of this being a Palme d’Or winner and there’s still a whole lot of good courtroom drama to chew on and certainly some interesting characters to dig into. It’s a good movie but I think I wanted a little bit more out of it. **** out of Five
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,235
Likes: 3,820
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 30, 2023 19:44:37 GMT -5
Pretty good poster.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 63,564
Likes: 8,195
Location:
Last Online May 6, 2024 0:18:35 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 30, 2023 20:20:11 GMT -5
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,235
Likes: 3,820
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 30, 2023 21:11:30 GMT -5
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 22,681
Likes: 6,291
Location:
Last Online May 6, 2024 0:25:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 31, 2023 13:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,171
Likes: 2,913
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 22:20:58 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Nov 1, 2023 14:25:10 GMT -5
The latest winner of the Palme d'Or, Anatomy of a Fall, focuses on the trial that ensues when author Sandra Voyter's (Sandra Huller from the wonderful Toni Erdmann some years ago) husband dies after falling from the attic window of their home in the Alps. Rather than presume that it was an accident, Sandra immediately finds herself under intense scrutiny and accusation with seemingly her only real ally being her lawyer and friend (Swann Arlaud) and her visually impaired son, Daniel (Milo Machado Grader). This is a film that doesn't so much as provide answers through its reveals, but is focused on the French justice system seeking to provide a rationale to a tragedy that perhaps has none. Voyter is not a native to France. Voyter used ideas from her husband's failed novel and found acclaim with them in her own. Voyter had affairs, sometimes with women. She's under constant attack for her flaws as a person, but does that make her liable for murder?
The film certainly wears these ideas on its sleeves, with characters explicitly stating these positions on multiple occasions. Anyone waiting for the big twist to explain the incident away won't be met with that satisfaction. There are plenty of reveals along the way, including a flashback of an argument between Voyter and her husband that is the film's best scene and highlights that while the marriage was far from a perfect one does that mean foul play or the actions of Sandra were involved in her husband's death? Courtroom dramas can be a tricky exercise to pull off, with most of them falling into repetitive histrionics and gotcha twists. Director Justine Triet thankfully avoids these, though still leans on some of the genre's tropes to great effect (my favorite being the sardonic prosecutor played exceptionally well by Antoine Reinartz) that keeps the film exciting. I think it's fair to assume that the winner of the coveted Palme d'Or would pack more of a wallop in its final act than this does, but Anatomy of a Fall has a lot more going for it than relying on peppering the film with twists and mysteries waiting to be solved. It's an examination of the justice system looking to pin the blame of a tragedy on someone instead of seeing it through an objective lens as something unfortunate that just happened. A dangerous lust for the how and not the why.
8/10
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,235
Likes: 3,820
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Nov 5, 2023 22:31:28 GMT -5
One of my favourites this year so far.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,235
Likes: 3,820
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Nov 23, 2023 11:54:06 GMT -5
Nothing generates buzz quite like a Palme d'Or. I'm not even sure I had heard of Justine Triet before May but winning the top prize at Cannes certainly established her as a major talent and Anatomy of a Fall as one of the most buzzed movie releases of 2023. How wonderful it is for the film to live up to that excitement. The movie is essentially a courtroom drama about a woman accused of killing her husband and absolutely delivers on the base pleasures that narrative promises. Anatomy of a Fall never reveals what exactly happened to the victim. It's clear the man fell to his death, but the act is never shown, with audience left to weigh the prosecution's argument that the man was pushed by his wife from the second floor and the defense's argument that he deliberately jumped from the attic. Forensics cannot rule out either theory completely so the question really comes down to motivation and character.
Watching both threads unravel in court is positively riveting, as insights are given into both the fraught marriage at the center of the case and the accused herself. Sandra Voyter proves a rather compelling character, intelligent, ambitious, and extremely sympathetic, but not so much so that you can write-off the potential of guilt. Sandra Hüller gives an incredible lead performance, struggling to balance Voyter's grief as a widow, her heartbreak as a mother revealing the pain of her marriage in front of her son, and as a non-French speaker disadvantaged by the predominately French courtroom. I've never wished I spoke French more than here so I could better detect the nuances in Hüller's delivery, but even with subtitles the power of her work is evident. I was also blown away by child actor Milo Machado-Graner who has an incredibly demanding role as the young son of the couple and key witness in the trial. Certain developments with his character prove quite affecting.
Like a lot of courtroom dramas, Anatomy of a Fall is something of a rumination on truth. More than though, the film is a rumination on the forms we use to both interpret and represent reality. From re-enactments filmed on consumer-grade digital cameras to audio-recordings played in court, to the different languages spoken throughout the film, Triet frequently draws attention to the forms with which we try to make sense of the world around us, and how those forms are inherently limiting. To contain an idea or experience - in image, sound, or language - to reduce it. The capture is never complete, crucial components are always elided or minimized, resulting in a warped understanding. For this idea to be dramatized in a courtroom makes the exploration all the more vivid. Indeed, the basic notion of the trial at hand is a reduction. The argument is predicated on one of two possibilities: either Sandra killed her husband, or he killed himself. Any other alternatives, the possibility that he fell by accident or was pushed by an intruder, are tossed out before they even make it to court. There are reasonable arguments for why these theories should be tossed out, but all the same it is a form of reduction, an example of how the process of interpretation creates limitation. That these omissions are made at least in part as strategy by the defense is another layer to consider. How little we really know of the world and our experiences within it. Sometimes we just have to decide.
Anatomy of a Fall is one of the best movies of the year, the kind of cinematic accomplishment which offers thoughtful contemplation on the nature of human experience while also succeeding as a narrative entertainment. Utterly absorbing in more ways than one.
A+
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,060
Likes: 2,887
Location:
Last Online May 1, 2024 23:30:46 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Jan 7, 2024 19:47:17 GMT -5
This is going straight onto my Best of the Year list. Wow.
|
|
frankyt
CS! Gold
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 21,691
Likes: 1,866
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 20:32:03 GMT -5
|
Post by frankyt on Jan 8, 2024 11:49:47 GMT -5
Yea this was awesome - great court room drama.
9/10
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,060
Likes: 2,887
Location:
Last Online May 1, 2024 23:30:46 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Jan 14, 2024 21:21:42 GMT -5
Anatomy of a Fall not only made me realize just how much I miss these good old-fashioned courtroom dramas, it's also a welcome reminder of just how damn compelling they can be when done this well. I'll admit that I raised my eyebrow somewhat at seeing the 2 1/2 hour running time for this film, but I gotta give it up...Anatomy of a Fall doesn't waste a single one of those minutes. The film concerns the circumstances surrounding the death of a husband/father in a family of three and the court case as the wife/mother is put on trial after suspicions arise about her potential role in said death. The storyline involving the court case itself is already gripping, and writer/director Justine Triet's screenplay is simply riveting in how it unfolds everything. It really gets in deep with both the story and the characters, unraveling in ways that are at once both gripping and unpredictable. On its surface, Anatomy of a Fall is an extremely well-executed courtroom procedural, but it gradually reveals layers that get into marriage tensions and relationship struggles that add to the narrative and -- I never thought I'd actually use this term -- illuminate certain truths about the human condition in ways that feel honest and harsh and real. It's actually kind of hard to describe just how great this movie is apart from that it's an expertly-crafted and executed courtroom procedural with searing performances and fascinating character drama, but that's really what it is. It's a film so simple in description, yet so layered, thoughtful, fascinating and emotional in execution. Speaking of the performances, though, both Sandra Huller and Milo Machado-Graner are outstanding. Huller has to do so much in communicating enough aspects of her character to make us buy into the cloud of doubt surrounding her character and wonder whether or not she actually murdered her husband. So many layers to this role, and Huller pulls them off in spades.And Milo Machado-Graner...wow, is this kid great. He's arguably the emotional anchor of the whole film. There's so much that the film puts on his shoulders, yet he crushes it at every turn. Both might just be two of the best performances from the past year, period. Anatomy of a Fall is simply one of the best films of the year. It's one whose greatness just snowballs the more it goes on, and by the end, I was just left in kind of a stupor. First-rate filmmaking all around.
****/****
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,226
Likes: 4,797
Location:
Last Online May 5, 2024 16:49:12 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Jan 26, 2024 14:37:16 GMT -5
Really enjoyed this. Appreciate how it doesn't handhold you into your doubts with a prosecutors speech on each of them. I still left the film doubting the main character's character, if not her guilt. Lots to chew on here.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 22,681
Likes: 6,291
Location:
Last Online May 6, 2024 0:25:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jan 31, 2024 1:45:23 GMT -5
I enjoyed it but you don't need to be a JD or trial attorney to see a bunch of red flags in the actual courtroom scenes. I'm not sure how the justice system works in Europe but the entire trial is almost nothing but conjecture, speculation, and exhibits that are completely irrelevant. This trial should have been about 5 minutes and the prosecutor stripped of his bar license (or European equivalent). I understand that we aren't supposed to know exactly what happened but I was glad that she ended up being acquitted, if she were found guilty it would have been kinda ridiculous.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 25,773
Likes: 5,479
Location:
Last Online May 6, 2024 0:38:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Jan 31, 2024 7:39:49 GMT -5
I enjoyed it but you don't need to be a JD or trial attorney to see a bunch of red flags in the actual courtroom scenes. I'm not sure how the justice system works in Europe but the entire trial is almost nothing but conjecture, speculation, and exhibits that are completely irrelevant. This trial should have been about 5 minutes and the prosecutor stripped of his bar license (or European equivalent). I understand that we aren't supposed to know exactly what happened but I was glad that she ended up being acquitted, if she were found guilty it would have been kinda ridiculous. The movie certainly gave me a renewed appreciation for the fifth amendment.
|
|