“it doesn’t shock, surprise or set new boundaries that you would expect of an award winner. Don’t let it stop you being moved and intrigued.“
Con Nats
3.5 Gavels
An interview is interrupted and aborted by the loud music of Sandra’s (Sandra Huller) invisible husband Samuel (Samuel Maleski). He likes loud metal while he works. Their blind son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) takes his dog for a walk in snow laden forest surrounding their idyllic French home. When he returns he finds the body of his father and the investigation into his death begins.
Sandra hires a lawyer Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), who is an old acquaintance, as the investigation begins and this story settles into a courtroom drama. The ice cold setting contrasts with the heat of the emotions, but also acts as a barrier to it becoming a melodrama.
It pays to have a basic understanding of the French legal system as its difference to ours jarred on me. The Magistrate is involved at all stages, from the crime scene to the final trial. They decide if there’s enough evidence to go before a grand jury of judges who decide if the case should go before a jury. So while there’s a technical presumption of innocence there is a strong assumption of guilt.
The Napoleonic model of court procedure is very different to ours. Instead of strict protocols about questions and evidence, the French system is almost like a workshop where questions to a witness came from either side and any party, including the defendant. Lawyers interrupt each other and go into soliloquies, almost randomly. After one such performance the judge reminded the court it wasn’t a closing argument, although it could have been.
Where this film impressed is that is avoided the predictable tricks and twists of a US courtroom drama. There are no complicating relationships, smoking guns or surprise witnesses. This focuses on how the court trial system can strip a person down for others to pick at and judge. And in the middle of this is a shattered 11 year old scraping at every memory to make sense of his father’s death.
One telling scene is where the husband’s psychologist calls Sandra a monster. She then asks him directly how his opinion could be valid when he only hears from one party and his job is to comfort them, not judge others. The scowl on his face says it all.
In this regard, the two leads stand out. Huller as the mother has a strong sense of being beleaguered and shattered at having to prove her innocence. Graner as the blind son also evokes a sensitive and moving performance. Their relationship is held by a tether of doubt.
Some of the supporting cast were below their standard, (the prosecutor throws away a potentially brilliant role) and much of the Justine Triet’s direction and hand-held photography with sudden zooms seemed to be about adding to the drama than giving a sense of reality.
Anatomy of a Fall carries the weight of being a Palme D’or winner in last year’s Cannes Film Festival. Reputation can set an expectation that can lead to disillusion. Anatomy of a Fall is a fine film which really is a drama about a family dealing with depression and disability, as well as a courtroom drama.
This is well trodden ground. While it eschews the typical tricks of this genre, it doesn’t shock, surprise or set new boundaries that you would expect of an award winner. Don’t let it stop you being moved and intrigued.
Con Nats, On The Screen
