Who knows what goes on in a marriage and how others might interpret that? That’s the crux of the French drama “Anatomy of a Fall (Anatomie d’une chute),” a “Marriage Story/Scenes from a Marriage” examined by the legal system via a murder trial.
The latest from director and co-writer Justine Triet (“Sibyl,””Age of Panic”) dares to suggest there are things about how couples relate to one another that are unknowable, especially by the provable-facts standards of the courts. And she dares to dawdle about a bit as she makes that seemingly simple but actually opaque point.
Two married writers — a German and a Frenchman who also teaches — are well into the “troubled” years in their marriage.
She’s become a great success. He’s struggling, “blocked,” perhaps pondering if her success is somehow due to what she’s taking from him. An accident sometime before blinded their now-11-year-old son, Daniel, adding guilt to the relationship. And they might be financially over-extended.
Samuel (Samuel Theis of “Party Girl”) is given to little bursts of aggression — turning up his 50 Cent cover-music too loud to interrupt an interview being conducted downstairs, a fresh blow struck against his resented wife, Sandra (Sandra Hüller of “I’m Your Man” and “Munich: The Edge of War”).
He winds up bleeding-out on the snow below the upstairs window of their Grenoble home. Sandra winds up in court, accused of somehow causing that to happen.
The bulk of “Anatomy of a Fall” renders the title into “truth in advertising.” How did Samuel fall?
The prosecutor (Antoine Reinartz) examines the state of this marriage, the competition between spouses, a competition which the embittered Samuel was losing, causing him to lash out and Sandra to give as good as she gets, putting her under greater and greater suspicion.
“People exaggerate and alter facts when they argue,” she protests (testifying in English to his questions in subtitled French).
Her own writing introduces doubt about her innocence, with characters fantasizing about ridding themselves of unwanted friends or lovers. The trial descends into literary criticism, with vigorous objections from her lawyer (Swann Arlaud)
But whatever was going on with the marriage and with Samuel, the husband got into the habit of recording his life and their lives, especially the fights. The recordings can be damning. But who could defend themselves against words spoken in anger and taken out of context?
Sandra seems torn — with guilt, perhaps unjustified, battling her fear of conviction and worries about what this trial is doing to their little boy (Milo Machado Graner), sitting in court, taking this all in and perhaps convicting his mother in his own mind. The court assigns the son a guardian (Jehnny Beth) whose chief job seems to be blocking the mother from coaching the kid’s perceptions, beliefs about what he “witnessed” and tainting his testimony.
The case involving two writers creates a media frenzy as experts on TV debate the careers and the fiction of the wife and the dead husband and what makes for better “drama,” a “depressed” and blocked novelist throwing himself out a window or a “writer killing her hsuband.”
That allows Triet to add a new wrinkle to that peculiar affectation in which French films flatter the culture. Exported French movies, by and large, suggest that no one in France watches TV save for intellectually-minded talk shows. Such programs are so common (in French movies) that we see movie characters–often writers– interviewed on TV more than we ever see Frenchfolk simply vegging out in front of the tube.
Triet plays with our expectations and sews doubt in any conclusions we dare to reach with the court scenes. Foreign viewers will find the differences in the court systems intriguing, even as sparring attorneys and wry judges are a shared trope of trial movies.
“Anatomy of a Fall” is carried by the subtler shades of Hüller’s performance. Her embattled Sandra makes us reconsider an idea introduced by the title character in last summer’s “Oppenheimer.” Who would want their lives dissected like this, and how would any of us fare under such scrutiny?
But as all this slowly unfolds, Triet cleverly turns the third act into how all this is impacting the witness/child, someone who — like the court — struggles to come to a conclusion but who deploys more simplistic juvenile means of reaching one.
There are gripping moments here, but even they are muted as Triet takes pains to not let the viewer off the hook and perhaps intentionally dulls the senses with the convoluted, overlong court sequences. The storytelling here can be more soporific than immersive.
The film this reminded me of most was “Force Majeure,” which was almost as cryptic, darkly funny, but also more satisfyingly judgmental, engrossing and damning in a human-nature-examined sense.
Whatever we think we know we don’t know, our co-writer/director tells us, time and again. And seeking to know the unknowable in court can be just as futile, even when one thinks there’s “evidence” that falls just short of a smoking gun.
Our ability to”know” and a system’s ability to uncover “the truth” both have their limits.
Rating: R for profanity, sexual references and violent images
Cast: Sandra Hüller, Swann Arlaud, Antoine Reinartz, Jehnny Beth, Milo Machado Graner and Samuel Theis
Credits: Directed by Justine Triet, scripted by Justine Triet and Arthur Harari. A Neon release.
Running time: 2:31


































