Female killers in movies are often shown as complex and ruthless creatures, even a little inhuman. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) in the film The basic Instinct She was cruel, twisted, but attractive. Just like Amy Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, able to fake her own death and then kill to frame her unfaithful husband. Something of both characters is present in the main figure Anatomy of a fall directed by Justine Triet.
Sandra (Sandra Hüller) is a successful writer with a flawed personality. On the other hand, her husband is a mediocre aspiring writer who dies under more than suspicious circumstances. The script by the same director and Arthur Harari carefully and without unnecessary information tells everything you need to know about the deceased.. This, generally speaking, is in the first minutes of the film. Namely, that Samuel (Samuel Tice) is an ordinary man with a boring life. The argument, which does not provide direct answers, suggests that there is a clear imbalance of power between the couple. The one in which Sandra has everything to win. Especially since she seems to be less involved in the relationship than her husband.
All of the above will appear in court as soon as the law decides that death Samuel It was murder. And the main suspect, of course, Sandra. But not because of his aggressive behavior and not because of any direct indications indicating his guilt. In reality, the problem the character poses is what is being discussed in court: his character flaws or his actions. The plot shows again and again how everything associated with an inconvenient accused is tested and discussed as a greater evil. The big question of whether he was actually capable of killing Samuel remains on a secondary level. Which makes the second part of the story more uncomfortable and well told.
The woman who could be to blame
Simon Bofils’ photographs give context to the characters without saying much. Using muted and cool tones, symmetrical camera angles and silent close-ups, he makes the audience part of the jury that must decide on a murder trial. Moreover, thanks to changes in angle and focus, it feels like everything is happening in the real moment. But the question that is not resolved – and not immediately – is whether Sandrahad the motive, opportunity, or even intent to kill Samuel. There may be subtlety to it, but the director and script use the accused’s sense of coldness towards the case to play with expectations.
Sandra doesn’t seem to care about the accusations. And don’t talk about your family life in a boring and neutral tone. The prosecutor (Antoine Reinartz) is confused by this emotional distance regarding death. It is this point of view that is one of the most interesting in the argument, which little by little makes it clear that justice will never answer what happened to Samuel. Or, at least, who wants to do it. In fact, He is interested in demonstrating that the writer is capable of killing and being undaunted.
Of course, the film is an intellectual drama, and the director keeps it strictly in this layer. It is a brutal assessment of the accused, but without falling into formulaicism about politics, gender or sexual identity. Not because of emotions or sensitive manipulation. In fact, the message at the end of the script is unusual for films based on murders and their subsequent trial. Those sitting on the stand must not only be innocent, but also appear so.
An accumulation of half-truths and lies
One of the most brilliant elements of the film is its ability to cover multiple themes without emphasizing them, insisting on them, or showing them clearly. The story moves slowly but never becomes obvious. So Sandra’s possible guilt always remains a mystery that continues to force the viewer to draw a conclusion. On the one hand, their contradictions, lies and hidden facts are suspicious, but not serious and not a crime. On the other hand, there is a possibility that she committed murder and that the imperfect armor protects her from imprisonment.is the mystery that divides the debate.
However, Anatomy of a fall he does not intend for his imprisonment to be a death sentence. Or, in any case, let this be the most important point in thinking about what Sandra did or could do. In fact, the script is smart enough to take the entire story into more challenging terrain. To do this, he points to the possibility that each person in the world is a combination of his own shortcomings and strengths. Which leads to the following conclusion: If we were judged by these contradictions, what would happen?
The discrepancy—the criss-crossing interpretations of Samuel and Sandra’s lives—is ultimately the crossroads that anchors this smart, poignant story. What makes it the best film of the year, full of seemingly bigger and brighter offerings?but never as deep as Justine Triet’s.
Source: Hiper Textual
