French film Anatomie d'une chute (2023), directed by Justine Trier. It would seem that the film is based on a detective story - a man falls out of the window of the chalet, in respect of whose death the examination cannot make a clear conclusion whether it was a suicide or a murder, but in the end everything turns into a psychological drama. Since only he and his wife were in the house at that time, she becomes a suspect, the investigation lasts more than a year, in the end it comes to a verdict, by which the woman is found innocent. And over 2.5 hours of screen time, we are monitoring what leads the court to this decision.
The main character Sandra Voiter (Sandra Hüller) is a quite successful writer, once she left Germany for England, where she met her French husband Samuel Malesky (Samuel Tays), who worked there as a teacher at the university, fell in love with him, married, they had a son, everything seemed to turn out quite well until an accident occurred with his son, as a result of which he almost lost his sight. A year in the hospital, the treatment of their son, all this undermined their relationship, especially since the husband constantly reproached himself for the fact that he was guilty of everything, who did not take the child from school, which, however, really played a fatal role. They moved to their husband’s homeland in France, where he hoped to improve his financial situation, but things initially went wrong. He also tried to become a writer, but his attempts failed. However, all the details become known to us not immediately, but gradually, many of them are revealed as a result of the investigation. We see that the husband, of course, was still that type - a kind of loser, blaming his wife for everything, although he made some decisions, but she is far from being a saint, who also did not perform very good deeds. However, if you dig into the lives of many people, then there is still no idea what can be revealed. The defense is led by her old lawyer friend Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlo), who has long been in love with her, he does everything possible to find both mitigating circumstances and lapses in the investigation. And he, I must say, succeeds, although the heroine sometimes doubts that he believes her. In addition, despite some false testimony, the heroine still does not give the impression of a murderer, although 100% can never be sure, sometimes defending herself, she kind of protects her husband. So the film is conversational, some said that they were bored to watch, I can not say this about myself, it is interesting to watch how the characters are revealed, the actors tried to fame, they did it perfectly, although the characters do not cause much sympathy. The key figure is the son, his behavior for a 12-year-old boy is also not very characteristic, of course, he is a deeply traumatized child with a large physical disability, it is felt that he is used as a plot-forming character, although, as you know, such parents could have such a son. Love for his guide dog did not stop him from conducting a cruel experiment on her.
What do I often dislike about modern movies? The fact that many of the actions of the characters necessarily want to attract to the sexual background – in court, the prosecutor literally immediately tries to accuse heroine of bisexuality and explain her sympathy and interest in the girl who came to interview, it is sexual interest, he does not even think of the simple idea that a rather sociable woman sitting in such a wilderness can experience just universal sympathy and interest in his interlocutor. Everywhere this sexual agenda, preferably homosexual orientation. The professionalism of the investigative bodies also raises some doubts, they widely operate with doubts, not evidence. To whom there are no complaints - it is a wonderful dog Snoop.