‘Anatomy of a Fall’: Justine Triet’s courtroom drama is more like ‘Parasite’ than ‘A Few Good Men’
Despite her critical acclaim as a triumphant writer-director, Justine Triet maintains her humility when describing her film ‘Anatomy of a Fall’ quite simply “as a courtroom drama.” While it does mostly maintain the genre’s traditional structure, ‘Anatomy of a Fall’ is a better comparison to the narrative and technical finesse of ‘Parasite’ than ‘A Few Good Men’.
It’s true, most of the film is set in a courtroom conducting the trial of Sandra (Sandra Hüller) who is accused by the state of murdering her husband after a fatal fall from the balcony of their snowy French chalet. We spend a significant amount of time oscillating from witness testimony and cross examination (a choice that sometimes made for brief yet noticeable lethargic swells).
However, this genre categorization sells the film short. It is ridded with contradictions and complexities that break from the strict tonal formula of courtroom dramas. From its soundtrack (which includes amateur classical piano playing and the blasting instrumental version of 50 Cent’s “P.I.M.P.”) to the cinematography (a quite stunning mélange of sweeping omniscient wide shots and hand-held POV photography).
All of this contributes to the presentation of the trial. As in all court proceedings, information is revealed that force people apart: husband and wife, mother and son, etc. Through all of it, Triet acts as master puppeteer, playing with her audience as if tied to strings. This is not to say that she undermines our intellect. It is rather the opposite. She holds her audience in high regard, having confidence in our ability to judge testimony (which can be as little as a sentence) and determine its credibility.
It is this that the script excels at. Every question, every answer, every sigh, tear, laugh, is calculated. A title with such medical overtones is purposeful. Triet is a surgeon of storytelling, administering exact doses of information which leaves very little to parse through or read into. Everything we are supposed to feel we subconsciously experience. There is no need to search for it. Admittedly, it is a bizarre feeling to be manipulated in this way. To have a film so in command of my emotions. It can turn away those who look for the grey stripes on a zebra, but I embraced the surgical nature of it.
The script is brought to life by an equally intelligent and enthralling cast spearheaded by festival season’s It-Girl Sandra Hüller (also starring in Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Zone of Interest’). Hüller delivers a performance that practically explodes on screen. One that balances culpability and innocence while pulling every ounce of sympathy from it’s audience.
The film begins and, ultimately, ends with Sandra but not before the final act of the film shifts to her young son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner). In many ways his performance didn’t need to do too much. The film is carried by Hüller and supported by the other contributors in the trial, all veteran actors with veteran performances. However, Graner’s performance is what I believe put this film at a Palme d’Or caliber.
He becomes our vessel into the pathos of the story. Following his father’s death, Daniel cries “I don’t understand.” He’s consoled by his nanny who tells him it is alright to not understand. This gives him little solace. “I want to understand,” he demands. Daniel is faced the grief of losing his father and the doubt about his mother’s innocence. It is a heavy burden that we, as an audience, are vicariously forced to experience. We do not understand how this happened but we so desperately want to.
While Triet commandeers our hearts and minds throughout the film she ultimately lets go of our hand by the end. It is up to us to decide what to believe. We are forced to make a choice and equally forced to live with it. Depending on what you decide, this can be most empowering. Or the decision that destroys everything.
