… …
Anatomy of a Fall explained | Fiction becomes reality

Like Anatomy of a Fall?

Join our movie club to get similar movie recommendations and stories delivered to your inbox every Friday.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

We hate bad email too, so we don’t send it or share your email with anyone.

Reader Interactions

Discussion

  1. Thank you so much for this. The ball and the dog metaphor is something that I was thinking about too. I stumbled upon this article actually to see whether anywhere the painting at the court has been discussed. I don’t know what painting it is exactly. I couldn’t get the hang of it when I rewatched that scene in the trailer. It did look like a metaphorical reference too. The painting had a character fall and there are other characters – a renaissance painting of sorts.

    • Thanks for reading! Now that Anatomy is streaming, I should look up the painting. It probably is getting at that idea of prosecution.

  2. Question about the film’s legal proceedings, and how accurate they were wrt the French judicial system. As an American I found it shocking that a suspect would be interrogated by police for hours on end without their lawyer being present. I was also taken aback when witnesses in court were asked (even encouraged) by the attorneys to speculate on events that they did not personally see or hear. How is that allowed? It also appeared to me that during the trial there was no presumption of innocence that we Americans take for granted. The vibe I got from the film was that Sandra had to prove she didn’t commit murder, rather than the prosecutor having to prove she did. Your thoughts?

  3. Why didn’t the defence or prosecution call the vet who treated the sick dog? Surely this would be an obvious tactic to prove or disprove the “dog ate my dad’s suicide attempt vomit” story which was key to the acquittal?

    • They didn’t take the dog to a vet. Instead, Marge searched for treatment guidance on her phone and they fed him salted water until it made the dog vomit. That was a little too “convenient” for me. I don’t think pouring salted water around the teeth of a dog that is essentially unconscious would get the desired effect… but, again, I guess you suspend belief when you need to.

  4. <>

    To expand on this point: The sense of doubt is, ultimately, what every trial is about. The jury (or judge) must choose between two conflicting presentations of the truth. At some point, they have to choose one or the other. But that doesn’t make the verdict the truth — it is only what the decision maker chose as the truth at that point in time. We can see this in the cases where a conviction is reversed based on newly discovered evidence. Are we certain that the second verdict is now the truth, or is it the truth only because it is the decision that comes later in time?

Write a response