What I find interesting about the movie is not only do we not know what exactly happened, we don‘t even really know who Samuel is. We only get a lot of subjective hearsay and some snippets, but it really feels like we are the jury and we have to make a decision not really based on facts, just like the woman accompanying the boy says it.

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Exactly! I love that.

@rickallen9099

7 ай бұрын

Samuel was clearly a basket case and probably suicidal. I think we can surmise that.

@SuperBartul

6 ай бұрын

Yes it is interesting type of approach. But don't like it overall

@Hautenani

5 ай бұрын

I feel like we knew a lot about his tactics and how low he was willing to go, how bad he felt about himself and how much he resented her. I think that’s all relevant to the case. That argument is extremely telling from him recording it, to him starting the fight to how far he was willing to go to get a reaction. Gender plays a huge role in how they are viewed and what they each get away with.

@iliafigueroa4820

5 ай бұрын

Ok, but on the oooother hand, she was also a loonie. Yes, she took the kid to school and sometimes helped with the piano, but the father was the one that really cared for him and bonded more and homeschooled him and else. She was his mother and blamed sam, obviously, for the accident, but she was really more into herself, her books, her life, more than the whole conglomerate or family… Plus, she stole his book idea and lied about it, was violent, lied maaaaany times and about everything, cheated more than once, what else can i tell you? Everyone was guilty. 😂 Even the dog for being stupid and eating aspirin twice. He don’t learn. 😂😂😂

The dog looked so knowingly at the crime scene as if he could sniff exactly what had happened; I thought him feeling comfortable and safe enough to cuddle her in the very last shot of the film was a very deliberate choice to imply her innocence, seeing as he trusts her.

@iliafigueroa4820

5 ай бұрын

Ok, but on the oooother hand, she was also a loonie. Yes, she took the kid to school and sometimes helped with the piano, but the father was the one that really cared for him and bonded more and homeschooled him and else. She was his mother and blamed sam, obviously, for the accident, but she was really more into herself, her books, her life, more than the whole conglomerate or family… Plus, she stole his book idea and lied about it, was violent, lied maaaaany times and about everything, cheated more than once, what else can i tell you? Everyone was guilty. 😂 Even the dog for being stupid and eating aspirin twice. He don’t learn. 😂😂😂😂

@ytelevy

4 ай бұрын

Right, especially if her husband referred to himself as a DOG

@iliafigueroa4820

4 ай бұрын

In any case, when the dude threw himself or she did…the dog was with the kid, so the dog has NO idea if she is guilty or not. 😆😆😆

@elainegmorrison

4 ай бұрын

I noticed that too. He left the child he is supposed to protect, and who poisoned him. Dogs also go for the leader of the pack. The mother obviously was the head of that family. So there's that, too. But they also know of a person's soul. And he went to sleep side by side with the mother.

@iliafigueroa4820

4 ай бұрын

@@elainegmorrison Maybe the damned dog was tired of everyone’s bs?! 😆😆😆 That happens. Just like the kid, he just said, weeell, let me just be cool and try living with this also weirdo woman. Btw, i’m tired and cold, move over and let me be a while… 😆😆👍

Anyone notice all the references to the shining? Tennis ball bouncing down stairs in first shot, kid called Danny who has ‘visions’, same haircut, same top, isolated mountaintop location where he struggles to write, hotel/prospective Airbnb, Stephen king mentioned in court…

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Interesting catches…

@tonybennett4159

6 ай бұрын

No thanks. This was a great movie, The Shining Kubrick's worst and I'm a big fan of his.

@antonymorris1962

6 ай бұрын

@@tonybennett4159 Strange comment

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

noticed the visuals, but missed the others. good catch!

@blixacash5458

5 ай бұрын

A review in "Die Zeit" mentioned the Shining reference. The Shining ends with mother and daughter escaping the scene, where the husband died under mysterious circumstances. And this movie picks up the idea of what might happen after. The people drillig into you, very private things pull to light, the public judging you. Imagine the suspended life in the year before the trial. The would likely not besten able to move to another place and stuck in the traumatic chalet. It's a great movie with all kinds of fine shades.

She laid down on his office couch in the end scene. She had mentioned in the trial sometimes joining him there after he finished working and they'd sleep together on it. It indicates that she misses him. Doesn't say she's innocent. But ...

@dodoltcrow

5 ай бұрын

I believe his presence is simbolized by the dog - as he compared himself to the dog before.

@spjr99

4 ай бұрын

@@dodoltcrow yes and danny tells a story in his last testimony. where his father tells danny that the dog will not be around forever, one day he will leave. this can be seen as a metaphor for him foreshadowing his own suicide, therefore the dog cozying up to Sandra could be seen as the embodiment of the father

My guess points : 1. The mother is guilty 2. The child lied at the beginning during the reenactment to protect his mother (he changed his mind) 3. he lied again at the end of the trial, my perspective is seeing the director's way of conveying it with the way the father speaks in his son's voice, making it look like a lie being voiced by his son 4. maybe with the long trial process, he thought that rather than losing both of his parents, he chose to lie (as his guard said: it's better to decide by speaking as if it were true) 5. At the end of the film, the child kisses his mother as if the child is protecting his mother and his mother thanks him without saying it, because his mother seems to have a high ego when listening to the recording (with the flashback) sorry for my bad English, but I want to discuss and express my opinion because this film is really Amazing ❤

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

i think you put your opinions out perfectly, and I agree!

@LadyEng

5 ай бұрын

I totally agree. Especially because the father has the voice of the son

@fafahb5444

5 ай бұрын

You're English is totally fine and thank you for sharing ❤

@lehlophof4074

5 ай бұрын

Thanks

@hbrekel7327

5 ай бұрын

What if she switched the tape , so the boy never lied (he should be able to tell the difference between inside and outside), so they were yelling and possibly fighting

Just like she said in the end "When you lose, you lose. And if you win... You expect some reward. But there isn't any. Its just over"

one of my theories was Samuel also might have done that to ruin her life? the fact he recorded himself and their conversations made it look like he was building the case against her, knowing what he would have done. That's not really brought up in the movie, but Idk it felt like very possible while I was watching and seeing how he really projected all his problems to her felt like that would have been his way of taking her down with him. Anyway it's not too important, I love the fact we didn't get an answer and the movie is a masterpiece and I'm happy of how the story played out.

@jackieOAT

5 ай бұрын

He sounds like a narcissist.

@carlacruz893

4 ай бұрын

I tought the same. I told my partner that the recording of that specific argument seemed too suspicious

@lorshijolie6679

4 ай бұрын

This is what I think also

@daphnedaphn3

4 ай бұрын

I think he very much Gone Girl-ed her (atleast attempted to).

She didn't kill him, but she did. He was emotionally unstable and was crying for help, she looked down on him and "wore earplugs". The movie is a brillantly subtle examination of how any couple, even the most seemingly functional one, can be its very own kind of a private hell

I tend to believe the suicide theory, because the murder theory lacks a piece of evidence: the murder weapon. They say he had blunt force trauma before falling…but no murder weapon is ever found. I know it was mentioned that things like disappear somewhere during the courtroom scene but I feel like the narrative purposely moves away from the importance of a murder weapon to maintain the ambiguity.

@moussesucree

4 ай бұрын

The prosecutor advocate said it was easy to hide in the forest / mountains.

@djomla7

3 ай бұрын

​​@@c.j.giordano2129I doubt it, because if that's the case, then kid is serious psichopath and manipulator based on his reactions to whole situation in movie

@nineteenfortyeight6762

3 ай бұрын

Have you considered any other theories?

you didnt answer the question: why is the dog so damn cute?

@pratikharwal

4 ай бұрын

One could ask the same about you

@polisherci

4 ай бұрын

best pickup line of 2024 for me so far XD @@pratikharwal

@Blckk89

4 ай бұрын

​@@pratikharwalsmooth

What I really found to be profound was when Sandra testifies that she realized the loud music would not stop once it started playing again, leading her to stop the interview. I find that super metaphorical to the viewers experience. We as the viewer realize that the constant back and forth between 2 subjective realities won’t come to an end, and so we must get out of the “who-dunit” mentality and become as objective as an actual jury. RIP Samuel.

I think he killed himself and made the scene look very suspicious( he recorded arguments, the way he talked to his doctor, what he was saying in the audio), he wanted her to be blamed,he wanted to get revenge about the way he was treated by her( I think he felt dead a long time ago by all that abuse) , I think he planned the whole thing so at least for one to win against her, and I think she was the killer ( not by the act of killing,she didn't kill him I believe).

@UrbanDecayLova247

5 ай бұрын

Agreed - that fight led me to this opinion. When she said his generosity concealed something dirtier and meaner…I believed her & him playing that song to ruin her interview right before he took his life lines up to that. It didn’t feel like she hated or resented him the way he did with her. Her comments were don’t blame me for the choices you made, but his comments were deliberately trying to hurt her.

@chrisvillegas5182

4 ай бұрын

agreed

@MDBrook58

4 ай бұрын

I think some things point towards that but no one would EVER try to kill themselves by jumping from that short of a height. If you were to have 100 people fall from that height, 98 of them would live and would only have broken bones. That’s like if you’re going to slit your wrists and you try doing it with a spoon. A suicidal person wants to die, not just hurt themselves

@borneocoolpad7833

3 ай бұрын

He did killed himself. The movie tries to potray that she was not innocent. she did not kill him literally. Both were narcicist but Sandra are the worse. She did not admit at all why their marriage is gone. She only think him as to blame wheres she think only him that failed the marriage.

What I`ve noticed: clothes color coding. Prosecutor wears red in court, red = she`s guilty. During the conversation around the fire, the lawyer wears a blue scarf: he sympathizes with her and protects her, blue = she is innocent. During the investigative experiment, son wears a blue-red sweater: he is not sure about the events and the guilt of the mother (she's wearing a red shirt 😉), changes his testimony. In the begining of trial son wears blue. In flashback scene husband wears dark red and she wears pink (= light red). When son asks her to leave, she wears blue and he wears red. And when he talks to the woman about how unsure he`s, he wears blue and brown (= desaturated red) coat. In the restaurant, the lawyer wears a pale blue shirt, perhaps his faith in her innocence is weak, and he also does not feel that "they won." She wears white (= innocent). Restaurant background is mostly red. Remember old husband and wife photo? Also red bg. In the end of the film son wears bright red in trial and when hugs and kisses his mum. During the credits, she is wearing a gray sweater with dark patches, because she blames herself for her husband's death.

@jjjjjjjjj3000

5 ай бұрын

That’s some colors right there

@iliafigueroa4820

5 ай бұрын

This guy eats his cheerios with that big crayola box with the 234.67 damned colors…😂😂🎉

@user-rc5sh4gn7r

4 ай бұрын

I thought this is a bit brilliant..

@nadiaalonso2631

4 ай бұрын

Genius

@nrtg6290

4 ай бұрын

I think you make a lot of sense. Symbolizes hidden messages right from the writers

I do not think that she killed him directly; but in a way and as explained during the fight scene, the relationship pushed him to kill himself. She is partly responsible for not being able to save him. When Snoop the dog comes lying next to her and she clearly feels emotional, his presence his reassuring, but she pictures Samuel there. Remember how Samuel compared himself to the dog in the car while explaining his son that he will not always be there.

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Great catch!

@disierra-amado5596

6 ай бұрын

tell me you are a man without telling me you are a man

@kerushun

6 ай бұрын

Yes, and Samuel also explained that the dog would be more tired than any other dog its age because it has had to look after the son by anticipating his needs and so on, just like Samuel.

@georgie8154

6 ай бұрын

If you are talking about suicide, the fault is only his no one else's.

@stevenponte6655

5 ай бұрын

I think the son was lying to protect her.

The 1st scene, dog steps, ball falling down from the stairs, dog shot, dog looking at the dead body. It was an accident, doggo take his ball upstairs, Sam didn't see it, stepped on it, fallen out the window. Why would he commit suicide this way? With a chance that his boy to find him, also risking that he will not die, just badly injured, make no sense.

@ShayVidz

3 ай бұрын

True

All I know is that the boy lied about the conversation with his Dad.

@abcdaffaa

4 ай бұрын

Why? Because he tried to protected his mother or what

@trao1938

4 ай бұрын

@@abcdaffaa Bingo. The giveaway is in the conversation Marge has with him when Snoop is revived. If you don't know what to believe, then choose the truth you want most. Daniel had already cracked under the pressure before when trying to tell the truth, and learning that his answers only result in being asked more difficult questons. He also knew he couldn't allege that his father discussed suicide before, because that would be too on-the-nose and definitely result in some hard-hitting cross exam. So Daniel invents a conversation where his father used the dog as an indirect metaphor for himself. By doing it this way, the court could cleverly make the inference of suicide all on its own- and without Daniel's needing to overtly suggest it. Daniel believed enough in his mom's innocence based on the aspirin experiment, and that if the truth couln't save her then a lie was the only recourse. As the saying goes, Justice is Blind. Another giveaway is that whenever the film showed actual flashbacks, we see the characters speaking the words. But when Daniel is describing the conversation, the alleged words coming out of his father's mouth are purposely muted. And for a blind kid, the sound would be more crucial than the visual. The dad never said those words.

@dunkinnatalie

4 ай бұрын

​@@abcdaffaabecause that scene was in the boys voice when every other flashback was in the characters own voices.

@user-kj7nd6lu5n

4 ай бұрын

@@dunkinnataliebut the thing is-we also don't have a flashback, in fact-it's the recording of the conversation

@oriana9542

Ай бұрын

@@dunkinnatalie I thought so though, but every other flashback came from evidence while this one came from his memory, so that might be why...

“Trial is not about truth, it is about how it is seen”. And also there was nice part with boy and his gov protector in the end talking about “taking decision”

came into the movie thinking it'd be an whodunnit came out confused but i still think she killed him her son looked so unsure at the end i felt as thought he was lying to protect her

@XMagiX21

6 ай бұрын

Thats what I thought. I did think he made the whole story of Samuel giving the dog analogy in the car up. He was told by the caretaker before that he had a choice to make. And he chose to make his mom innocent, and to free her in court. No matter the cost! And the ending scenes, Sandra’s emotions, all add up.

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

yeah, the ending made me think that too. and the way she acted during the dinner with the advocates etc

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

also the way "Marge" was it? she tells Daniel when there's no evidence, we need to choose a side. And it seems like Daniel chose his mom because the dad is dead, and what would he earn by getting his mom arrested?

@UrbanDecayLova247

5 ай бұрын

I don’t think she did it, but I do think Daniel exaggerated that conversation he had with his dad.

@iliafigueroa4820

5 ай бұрын

Ok, but on the oooother hand, she was also a loonie. Yes, she took the kid to school and sometimes helped with the piano, but the father was the one that really cared for him and bonded more and homeschooled him and else. She was his mother and blamed sam, obviously, for the accident, but she was really more into herself, her books, her life, more than the whole conglomerate or family… Plus, she stole his book idea and lied about it, was violent, lied maaaaany times and about everything, cheated more than once, what else can i tell you? Everyone was guilty. 😂 Even the dog for being stupid and eating aspirin twice. He don’t learn. 😂😂😂😂

The boy is visually impaired. We see him putting a box of tablets near to his eyes to read what it says, we see him looking at an enlarged musical score as he plays the piano. A dark body lying on snow would not be too difficult to see given the amount of sight he still retains. If you reject the idea that this is a murder mystery, you won't be disappointed. The clue is in the title : Anatomy of a Fall, it could be as much about describing the cracks and tensions that are causing the marriage to fall apart as about a fall to the ground.

Something I noticed is Samuel’s body. It seems like he crawled 1 or 2 meters away from his house. So, was that his last move/strength to escape from her? If I were to fall by accident, I would try to go into my house to ask for help. 🤷‍♂️ but again the movie does a really good job of making us speculate. I enjoyed it! 8.5/10.

There’s so much behind the relationship because she seems like a terrible person with her affairs but the husband simply kept up the burden of all the issues when he could leave. There’s a lot of depth in this movie I blind watched it but it’s a film analysis that could be done with it.

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Going in blind is the best way to go.

@Hautenani

5 ай бұрын

Nah, that's how it appears on the surface but he didn't keep up any burden except the one inside himself that he created and fueled. It's funny because if the roles were reversed everyone would see how horrible the victim mentality person is but since he is a man, society falls into the "poor baby" role instead. He prioritized unnecessary things over his writing and she did not. He decided to stay stuck and she did not. If he was such a sacrificing dad, the accident would have never happened because he would have simply stopped to pick up his son. There is a lot that everyone is missing simply because of gender. If she was the one who decided to keep writing and not pick up her son then an accident happened, everyone would have a completely different view. The argument is very telling from him recording it, starting the fight and the things he said in it. All he had was finger pointing, put downs and low blows while she remained calm through most of it. He kept pushing until he got the reaction he wanted, his goal was not to get more writing time but to emotionally abuse her. If she had said, "sure take some time" do you really think the argument would have stopped there? LOL hell no, because he didn't really want that time, he just wanted to excuse to be a failure and to make her unhappy in her success. Everyone misses how he started yelling for no reason and she continued to be calm, tell him she loved him and poured him some more wine, she even complimented the food. She clearly refused to have that conversation because she knew where it was going and she knew he didn't really want more writing time because he already had it. But these types of people always figure out a way to pull you down and make you go off because they have to be the victim, smh.

@warden1733

5 ай бұрын

@@Hautenaniur stereotypes are sickening honestly This has nothing to do with man/woman Just bc u had a personal experience dealing with (according to you) a narcissist husband And if u paid attention to the movie, you would’ve understood that there are a lot of layers in a relationship and that 2 people can be right at the same time But you have to put your 1side glasses away to see that

@warden1733

5 ай бұрын

@@HautenaniI am also 100% sure that after you read my comments you instantly think I’m a man Which confirms how biased you are You had a bad experience with a man and now you hate men in general Try to more look at it on a personal level And my advice to you is Not every man is bad Just as not every woman is bad Stop thinking like you do at the moment and you will be more happy in life

@osamita4701

4 ай бұрын

​@@Hautenaniif the roles were reversed, we would see how he was a bad husband that never gave her enough time for herself and abused her generosity 😹, saying that the people arguing that she is guilty of abusing him as a "gender role biased opinion" is just as biased as you say, as you can't get through the barrier of genre and can't interpret them as just mere people; she was a his partner and she looked so unestressed and calm at the beggining of the movie and at the flashbacks meanwhile he was overwhelmed by all the pressure he had and the responsability he took, they don't say the reason why they travel to France but her only problem was that while the husbands life was tearing apart and she was so selfish not to even take one extra responsabilitie. They were a partner and if you see your partner struggling with responsabilities while you have enough time to be happy and live a calm life while refusing to help and also blaming the other person on the bad decisions (that hurt even more your partner) you take that you can't even get to comunicate to your partner (because that is the ideal case in a couple to solve problems), then you are the most selfish person ever regardless of the genre.

This is magnificent movie and in my opinion a psychological masterpiece. The depth and process of the screenplay is detailed, dimensional and quite complex. The Director, J Triet, stated that her intention was to have the main character played as she was innocent and to have the spectators draw their own conclusions. The languages are used as a mirror tool to create ambiguity between all the characters. The viewer (us) becomes the real juror and in my opinion the mother is innocent. The end of the story is perfectly concluded by the court prosecutor, "I implore the jurors to bear in mind, this story is extremely subjective".

Sandra did it, Daniel protected her. Daniel assumed the roll of parent/protector after his parents couldn't protect him. The walk: he trains her French. A piano scene: alone, he plays only her notes she played in their duet. The coversation in the car with Samuel was a creation of Daniel's (the visual depiction of his accounting of the conversation never had Daniel speak his words instead only what Samuel was to have said). Only aware of the "overdose" from the section of the trial he fought to be present for. "Recreates" it with Snoop. Stroking his mother's head at the end in the manner in which he did felt just so paternal. He fully assumed the roll of the protector.

@yeldanayernar4891

3 ай бұрын

This is the saddest thing about the movie

It was an ancident, the suicide THEORY was used by the lawyer as an strategy

One thing I noticed watching the film: except for the last scene, the son NEVER talks to the mother. Like literally everytime they have a conversation he gives her silent treatment/refuse to talk (even though he literally replies to anyone if they ask the same thing one second after, like when he refuses to eat). Also, she speaks in English with him, but he only speaks French during the film, and the only time they actually talk they both speak French.

@Anbababa

5 ай бұрын

He talked to her when they went for a walk with the woman who keeps an eye on daniel

Great analysis, especially the "turns a mirror around towards the audience" perspective. This also made me think about what Daniel was told towards the end about when missing an element you need to find subjective reasons in order to make a decision. That's exactly what I thought about when I decided that Samuel actually killed himself. A perfectly acted movie, with the fight scene between Sandra and Samuel being one of the best of the year.

Samuel committed suicide and before his death built up a case against her, as one last way to make her pay back time that he had sacrificed/lost. Also I think he thought that if was found not guilty, atleast everyone would hear in trial about how she stole his ideas, a nasty vindictive person and was cold as ice.

@seal3081

3 ай бұрын

I don't think that's likely. It's incredibly difficult for someone to plan out an act like this perfectly so that experts don't know what happened. Too many moving parts. It's def possible but I don't think that's likely.

@borneocoolpad7833

3 ай бұрын

​@@seal3081He did killed himself. The movie tries to potray that she was not innocent. she did not kill him literally. Both were narcicist but Sandra are the worse. She did not admit at all why their marriage is gone. She only think him as to blame wheres she think only him that failed the marriage.

The problem with court is that it doesn’t matter how things actually are so much as how they are perceived.

@RendanLovell

6 ай бұрын

Very good point

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

i was thinking about how flawed some countries' legal systems are. it's all about convincing the jury and putting on a show. i'm lucky that's not the case in mine.

Can you add a coda about how she couldn't have hit him with such force to give him such head trauma. That wasn't really discussed in the trial

I actually thought this video was going to teach me the anatomy of A FALL.

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

LOL I can still teach you that if you want.

@goosebumpsemiliano9104

7 ай бұрын

Thanks but I'm good. I'll watch people fall over. It happens a lot in California. @@RendanLovell

My theory is she killed him by accident and deeply regrets the accident but it was not intentional. 1. I can’t imagine she actually fell asleep with that insanely loud music playing even with earplugs in, they most likely did argue during that time 2. With the way the evidence showcased his fall and how she had violent tendencies prior, I think they fought right on that ledge, she hit him, and he slipped maybe which led to the fall 3. The son kept going back and forth with his memories and I think by the end he chose to keep a parent because he already lost one so he didn’t want to lose another

Probably the most thought provoking movie up for the award.

She’s guilty of manslaughter. - son changes his statement up top after being VERY convinced and using that textured tape EVERYWHERE. I never saw him have an issue knowing where he was in the house during the whole film. - jumping from the third story to kill yourself is just ludicrous. No one would look at that and think “yeah, if I jump, I’m definitely goneskies” - NO! - Daniel doesn’t want to be without another parent but he isn’t convinced of his mother’s innocence. I think the experiment with the dog was a desperate attempt to convince himself. He had to create a new narrative in order to decide to defend his mother wholly. - If Sandra can go from 0 emotion to 100% rage in an argument that culminates in her hitting and slapping her husband, she can definitely bash him over the head with something in an impulsive fit of rage after he sabotages her interview. - How tf did Daniel remember what his father said to him in the car WORD FOR WORD?? It seemed very rehearsed. And in the courtroom Sandra almost looked proud of him. Like she knew he was lying. - Daniel couldn’t picture his mother killing his father but let’s not forget that he also said he had no idea their fights were as violent as the one their father recorded. It could be argued that it was the first time Sandra had got physical with him, but abuse like that normally escalates over periods of time, so I doubt it. And wouldn’t the reasonable assumption be that it escalated to a bash over the head where he stumbles and falls over the balcony? I could go on but I’ll leave it there for now. Anyway, great movie.

The kid did it and he is pretending to be blind. No, but seriously, if this was reality I would think the lady was guilty. He was supposed to jump from such a low height deliberately on his head? Who commits suicide like that? Especially after already trying it with pills.

@horrorpowerfilms9481

6 ай бұрын

Exactly, she is guilty as hell!

@jackieOAT

5 ай бұрын

You can bet your life that an average narcissist would do exactly that! To show her... potentially frame her.

@nrtg6290

4 ай бұрын

Bingo, too short of a fall to ensure death. Would be too hard to do it this way in ones own mind.

I mean… he was a writer but not suicidal letter left? Not a goodbye to his son or wife? Talk about what he is going to do that day with his wife and right after that killing himself? The wife never said what he answered about his plans for the day.

@elainejohnsonoflynn8913

5 ай бұрын

He wanted her to take the fall

@Hautenani

5 ай бұрын

I don't think he wanted to die. I think he wanted to be a victim as she said and as he showed in that argument. He wanted excuses and he wanted to stop what she had going. That argument wasn't about writing time lol. He had time to write what he didn't have was the self-esteem to actually finish and put out a book and her doing so over and over was too much for him. If she was the one hitting him in the recording, he would have been vocal about it. He even said "You're violent!" but was silent during repeated blows? Lol yeah, I think most people have never dealt with covert narcissists and perpetual victims because this is how they are. They do everything for appearance. The opening scene showed he was willing to sabotage her in anyway, that's why she told the interviewer we should have done this in town. He would rather be dead than have her outshine him. It's crazy how no one registered the jealousy because its a man. Had it been a woman jealousy would have been the first thing out of people's mouths. The recorded argument tells us everything we need to know. Look how she remained calm and complemented the meal, told him she loved him after he started yelling at her and putting her down, she even refilled his glass. She had an explanation for all his claims so he did anything to get a reaction out of her even using her son. How is no one talking about that? SMH the way we see men and the way we see women is still so biased. I still believe she could have done it after he started another reactionary abuse argument and got her in a fit of rage, still that's her fault if he did, but I don't think so because I think he would have recorded it. She refused to humor him during the recorded argument because you could tell they had been there before. Him blaming everything on her, pretending to do everything and using her as a punching bag. Please re-watch the argument and tell me it doesn't open your eyes the second time around.

@warden1733

5 ай бұрын

@@Hautenani ‘the way we see men and woman is so biased’ says the person who uses stereotypes The hypocrisy is insane and it makes you delusional Some people (not you) listen to the story and look deeper than gender Ur personal biases are clear as day I don’t even think she killed him but there is still a possibility but you’re too blind to see that because you just go by your own personal views Maybe you are the narcissist all along Ever thought of that? Or Maybe you’re not as good as a person as you convince yourself

@lorshijolie6679

4 ай бұрын

He hate her that she is right. He is playing a victim 🤷‍♀️

@eskarlation

3 ай бұрын

​@@HautenaniEXACTLY this!! thanks for the great comment

My thoughts are shes not a murderer but she definitely played a part in her husband choosing to out himself. I feel like she knows that even if she doesn't mention it directly, you can see shes trying not to crumble, and she knows she didn't win anything. One, because shes innocent so being declared innocent is what she already was and two, because she still blames herself, feels guilty regardless, and has to deal with it. Great movie but I kind of wish that last conversation with her son would have revealed some dark things accompanied by an evil piano piece. LOL

@niculaelaurentiu1201

4 ай бұрын

Definitely she wasn't innocent in all of what happened a way or the other

While I'm uncertain if there even is a right answer or not, if there is, I'm more inclined to believe she did it. One of the biggest reasons is due simply to the fact that her story seemed unrealistic, imo. She says that after Samuel ruined her interview by blaring P.I.M.P. (presumably in reference to Sandra acting like a pimp by cheating on him so much), her reaction was simply to head to her bedroom for a while. Then Samuel eventually pops in and they briefly have a casual conversation about nothing in particular. Then he goes back to working and listening to music and she starts doing some work in her bedroom for another 10 min before she plops in some earplugs and takes a nap. Then she's woken up an hour later by her son screaming. It seems unlikely, to me, that there wasn't a fight that erupted directly after her husband embarrassed her and ruined her interview like he did. This is the same woman who, the day prior, nearly burst a vein in her neck screaming at him and who began physically hitting him during an argument. But she didn't say a word to him about THIS humiliation? And why would he keep playing it so loudly even after the interviewer left? And KEEP playing it throughout their casual conversation together? Then keep playing it for at least another 10 minutes while continuing to work on the house? For fun? I doubt even 50 Cent could tolerate the song on loop for that long. Granted, of course, I guess this could be argued as what drove him to suicide. Add onto this her having lied about the wounds on her arm to both the police and her lawyer; her failing to mention their prior argument until a recording of it was unearthed; and the fact that right after the lawyer implies to her that a suicide is their best alternative explanation to his death, Sandra conveniently remembers an attempted suicide that literally no one else (including Samuel's shrink) has ever heard hair of before.

I know a real story almost similar to it. The husband was a famous actor. And he recorded conversations on a tape recorder. The husband & the wife had a fight the night before he was found dead. The court discharged the wife as they didn't find any conclusive evidence if the wife killed him. It happened in 1996. And the wife is now married to her third husband, living happily.

I found myself pretty distracted by all the digital zooms in this film, did anyone else notice this? Some zooms are more subtle than others, but the first one happens on the shot revealing the body. Another one on a CU of the boy later in the film. It could have been some sort of visual storytelling device, perhaps to explore his warped perspective as a disabled child enduring all this emotional distress, or perhaps a visual expression of "not seeing the whole picture" which would be quite thematically appropriate for this movie ... but I'm not a fuckin nerd so who cares. It ugly. me no like I also like the subtitles of the discussion of this man's clear emasculation and insecurity surrounding it, and how his extremely loud cries for help were mostly misinterpreted or ignored, which was partially his own fault. It could have been so much more heavy handed and lame, but all we needed was information and clever visual storytelling (her having a more manly haircut while he has a long feminine one, her being the breadwinner, her cheating, the loud music being extremely disruptive yet going ignored until court, where it sticks out like a sore thumb, etc.) I watched this shit with my buddy and his wife who had a recent cheating issue. They didn't care for the film. Peak discomfort. 8/10

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

I wasn’t in love with all the direction either but it really comes together into something great.

@sToRmZzDsG

6 ай бұрын

I think the first zoom revealing the body was possibly a coverup of a shaky and/or undesired framing of the scene so she decided to push-in with the zoom. The second zoom CU of the boy felt jarring to me as well but I think they wanted to mimic the little camcorder zoom camera that was setup in the interrogation room.

@polisherci

5 ай бұрын

tbf, i had to laugh in one of the zooms because it was straight out of an episode of "the Office" (the one in the court room, zooming in to the judge)

@ndudshandu

5 ай бұрын

For me the zooms purposely mimicked news coverage or a documentary feel. So I liked the truth in it's ugliness.

Love that you used a Blur song, The Universal in the intro :)

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Nice spot! One of my favs

Part of the cause of his suicide is her. I dont see her blaming herself to what happened to her husband. None. Zero. I dont see her blaming herself even just 10%. She is not a killer but she is a narcissist. Her husband is at his own failure. She was right about that as well. The nature of the film is abiguity, just like our preception to what happened to people or what people do or say. It all just assumptions. She was also right we only know a very small part of people's lives.

@Hautenani

5 ай бұрын

Its funny because I have a vulnerable covert narcissist ex-husband and I found Samuel to be the narcissist. Re-watch the argument. Not only did he record it and start the fight but his method was reactionary abuse. This argument was just like the arguments with my ex-husband. The difference with her is that she refused to buy into the blame for his bs but many of us aren't able to do that. When she remained calm and had a response for all of his complaints, he only could respond with personal insults and low blows. He called her a monster, called her shameless, claimed she didn't have a relationship with her son, claimed Daniel said bad things about her and agreed with him, and brought Daniel into his victim mentality. No, he shows way more signs of being a narc but many people have no idea what a narc really is and that the majority are not overt and boisterous but they are fake self-sacrificing, coverts. Think of those mothers who guilt and shame their children into living a life solely for them! That's the kind of man he was. He was jealous of her success and wanted her to apologize for it and then stop what she was doing so he could take her place the only problem was he lacked the ability. My ex-husband sabotaged everything I did and claimed I didn't contribute to the house and sadly I believed him. When we went to court and they asked who did what for the children, it was all me. It was me bringing in the money, filling out applications for him, giving him jobs, trying to help him start his own business and doing it all myself while he claimed otherwise. Narcs have extreme guilt and shame, that is what runs them so they have to project it onto everyone around them. She could have killed him in a fit of rage from his reactionary abuse, that is absolutely possible but his committing suicide is not her fault. He hated himself as all narcs do. That's why he couldn't finish a book, because he was too critical of himself to ever do anything and he envied the fact that his wife didn't have the same hang ups. No normal parent would put the burden of their marriage on the children yet he did it every chance he could. Daniel didn't even know about his father's shortcomings because she hid them from him to keep him safe and happy, no narcissistic parent would do that. They would use the other parent's mental health issues to turn the child against them. She never spoke poorly about dad to Daniel either. Samuel was a piece of work and a self-defeated man who could not take personal responsibility and was jealous of his own wife. She was absolutely manipulative when necessary too, doesn't make her a murderer.

@endgamefond

5 ай бұрын

@@Hautenani I am really sorry for what happened to you. I hope everyhing is okay. Yeah, I also agree with you about her husband. The problem with the film is we dont really get Samuel's story. We just get a glimps of it. Samuel was at his own fault (he made decisions by himself), and she was right about that. This film represents how complicated a relationship can be.

@endgamefond

5 ай бұрын

@@Hautenani this might not relate to the film. If you dont like answering, it is fine. I wonder if you started a business with your husband? And the fight involved money that you guys making from the business. I am sorry if I asked you that coz I am kinda dealing with it with my sibling (kinda money related but client related). We dont fight or anything but I see the trejectory of our business is bad in the future, coz we basically looking for clients and one has to back down so the other one can work. I am trying to avoid the fight. I dont regret I have put hours into that business but I learn a big lesson that 'love your family but seperate business from family'

@lalalabizola

5 ай бұрын

@@Hautenani You described my thoughts watching this movie perfectly. I had a strong intuition she was innocent from the very beginning. The movie seems to pile up on that, showing the ordeals she had to suffer to prove what to her was obvious. That insufferable prosecutor (who might as well have gotten his degree in drama school, not law) is a caricature representing the absurdity of the trial that poor woman had to endure. The scenes of her argument with the husband and her crying on the car just cemented this impression on me. People who go through the movie and still wonder if she's innocent have not watched it really. Oh, BTW I'd just like to add that justice is often pictured as a blind person.

@shaynedurkin3062

4 ай бұрын

@@lalalabizolaomg that’s such a good point!!!

I think she killed but probably semi accidentally during a fight and her son protected her so as to not lose both parents. And he kisses her at the end as a sort of "I got you".

Okay but DID Rendan kill his roommate?!? Has anyone seen Brendan lately?

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

😳🤔

i think sandra did it, and daniel lied to protect her, almost trying to implement things into his memory to try to make sandra’s innocence believeable. He might have not wanted to lose two weeks parents. However, I think the suicide theory could also be a thing, since Samuel seemed so stressed and worn down by the relationship.

Simple. Samuel recorded the fight so he could frame her for murder after he committed suicide.

It was obvious that the dog did it. Come on people

@Jonullman

3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

New suscriber! Congrats for the analysis!

It was probably accident involving Snoop. If you pay attention to all the subtle unspoken context, the director is basically pointing big red arrows at Snoop through the entire movie. This makes perfect sense, and reaffirms the themes of the film.

I think the dog did it. When Daniel realized he heard them arguing because he was inside the house, i think he let the leash go & the dog ran upstairs to where the aggression was & knocked Samuel over the edge

Movie #473 about why you shouldn't get married or have kids! 🤣

I think the son killed him. He poisoned his own dog. I think he also decided to lie to protect the mother because he actually was responsible. I'm not sure what all the symbolism was around the son, I'd have to watch it again, but he was highly intelligent and a capable piano player despite his near-blindness. He walked by small cliffs without difficulty. I think perhaps the son accidentally poisoned the father just as he intentionally poisoned his own dog. As a result of that and the alcohol abuse the father fell out the window. But the son was out on his walk, you say. Yes, I'd have to watch it again, carefully.

Ok, I'm gonna be that one person and just say it: you can't copyright an idea, so the concept of her "stealing his idea" is at best extremely questionable...

I have to say that while it’s interesting to hear that a lot of people don’t think she did kill him, I take a much different approach and would say - she did! The coroner said it was consistent with blunt force trauma and the government felt they had a solid case (which they didn’t obviously). That said, she had motive, she had means, she lied about her arm and completely omitted the prior days’ physical altercation whereby she assaulted him. Sorry, I fall on the other side and would say she was unconsciously admitting to it at the very end, at the dinner when she mentioned not getting a reward and no feeling of relief… which to me was guilt knocking on her mind. Case closed.

ya'll don't understand that in the end, she killed him either way. through blame or physically. it doesn't matter...

the boy chose to believe his mother. End of story.

PIMP song at the beginning is the reason why she killed him. She's a bisexual, trying to flirt, but she's being disturb by his annoying husband, which she and him has some fight before She can't take it no more, that's why she killed him And the son He's already lost his father, he doesn't want to lose his mom, so je protect her at any cost

Let us all not to forgot that the kid did lie about what his father told him about the dog, he made him looks like he is suacidal but i guess he chose to say that tovsave his mother ...

Great review! My question is if Samuel made many recordings apparently a lot them just talking to himself…didn’t he mention anything about possibly killing himself?

I love that this contains more clips from shrek than the anatomy of a fall

first of all, have not seen this movie. second, I often think about this and say to my boyfriend when he tries to reach high places by climbing on a chair's top rail, please don't die in an accident that might incriminate me cause who gonna take care of the cats then? be safe people! if not for yourselves, for the people you live with that are defo gonna be sus

My friend fell asleep but I finished it. Now I have no one to discuss it with, so i found your video! I think she did it personally. In some sense we are Daniels eye's. You want to believe Daniel from the start but he immediately makes a pivotal error in his memory and becomes unreliable. Sandra lies about the fight, the pills, cheating etc making her unreliable as well. Maybe she lied because she felt his suicide was her fault or because she was absent to Daniel. We are even led to believe her own lawyer doesn't believe her. We the viewer are the true final verdict. Are we meant to uncover what Daniel cannot see? Or has Daniel come to terms that his father was battling depression. Idk. The more i think about it, the more i enjoyed it. Cant recommend to most people due to the length. But i loved it. Subscribed!

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

I think what I got from the movie was the complications and chaos of a relationship , I think both are to blame She's a cheater and a thief (maybe) too , while He has victim mentality who easily give up who wallows in his failure and guilt .

She 100% didn't do it. The film is smart at trying to imply that just cause a partner has cheated or gets into an argument then it can implicate them in a murder. But arguments between couples happens. What we know for sure is the tape recording and if you listen carefully the husband is the one who is picking a fight, twisting words and blaming the wife. He is the one with the issues not her. He fell, it was an accident.

Brilliant analysis. He was messed up. But you really thought she did it when her son asked her to leave the house for the weekend, didntcha?

The dog is responsible for Samuel's death unintentionally... had something to do with that ball and fetch maybe he tripped on the ball or fell over backwards throwing it to the dog but the dog knows

its interesting that nobody should have talking to the boy during the weekend before he decided to give his last testify....but interestingly that lady the guardian is actually suggesting him indirectly how to change his opinion about the death!

i watched this movie right after i watched anatomy of a murder. are these 2 epic movies related?!

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

🤔🤔

@ndudshandu

5 ай бұрын

The director was inspired by Anatomy Of A Murder.

I haven't changed a single thing since the beginning about her having killed him, even if unintentionally, that rewatching the death scene, you can clearly understand that he was there fixing something because he had tools and because of the loud music disturbing her interview and flirting, she freaked out again like the inner night, she doesn't cry, she doesn't miss, she lies and lies again, she doesn't feel ashamed or remorse for talking in front of strangers that she cheated and flirted with, when she cries it's because Daniel sends her away and there she feels that If he finds out the truth she's fucked.

These movie again proved that most of movies that have been nominated for Oscars are dumb. I got headache after watching just 30 min of it and came here to see review instead of the movie.

I love what was said by Marge about how trials are about how things are seen. The ambiguity was torturing Daniel so he had to formulate what he believed may have happened despite not being 100% sure. This relates to all of us these days especially us as truth and reality become more difficult to grasp. We are all doing our best to make sense based on what may or may not be true. I love the ambiguity and the messiness of the film. Beautifully adapted and psychologically satisfying film.

I think she's manipulative. She lied on several occasions. She didn't spend much time with her son. Samuel is pissed that she doesn't meet him halfway on things like parenting or sexual things.I think she killed him. Father wouldn't kill himself cuz he cared so much for his son. He wouldn't put his son in a situation to find his father dead. Daniel in the end lied for his Mother's protection. Just like his Mother lies so does the son.The boy says he's afraid. He's afraid of her

just watched this and I thought it could've easily been alternately titled as Anatomy of a Sadboi 😂 Samuel was insufferable

This movie made me feel dirty.

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Agreed

Now I want a medium-rare filet mignon 🤤

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

That’s all I can think about

I don’t think she killed him. I don’t think he killed himself either. It’s brought up early in the film that she thinks he simply fell. It was an accident. Movie is about how nobody will believe that so they have to create a story they can believe. The lawyer even says that Another big thing. The wife says explicitly their argument was just one moment in their relationship. There was more to it than that. His “suicide attempt” with the pills is also just ONE moment. Even the conversation he has with his son in the car is just ONE moment. They don’t explain anything but it’s a story that’s more believable than an accident

I thought the brief synopsis the film provided was profound and accurate, “a female writer is suspected of killing her husband”

My first conclusion was that this film, which was made in 2023 when mental health is a very hot topic, gives another angle on the whole mental health thing. I mean that suicide can lead to even more pain an suffering to those close to the person who commited suicide than just missing that person and being confused and suffering the loss.

The title and the dog. An accident.

The dog knows.

People who love this movie, for once should watch "Talvar" movie too. I think now they will appreciate that movie much more than its release time.

I only watched till end to improve she kill him with the metronome. Thats why the kid plays so bad Asturias. Know we'll never know

this is my theory: The Mother did kill Samuel and wrote about it in her own books. Crushed the aspirin for him to eat, which he puked up, and the dog did eat. Realising that there had been an attempt on his life the way she had written in her books, Samuel tells the Son metaphorically, one day he will be gone. I believe that she mentioned the aspirin in small pieces in his puke so that the Son will remember the time he smelled sick on the dog and piece the two together. At the end, the mother hugs her Son. Having deciphered the truth, he reciprocates the hug with a mix of authority and understanding, empathizing with the Mother's actions.

Dear friends and lovers of good cinema, analyzing small details, it can be inferred that it was indeed an accident. I base this on the following: 1.-During the celebration dinner with her legal team, Sandra expressed her dissatisfaction with the trial verdict. Although she knows she is innocent, the shadow of Samuel's alleged decision to take his own life persists in the atmosphere. This falsehood deeply disturbs her, as Samuel did not commit suicide, but her defense was based on that narrative. Despite lying to protect herself, Sandra considered it the only way to achieve justice. 2.-Since the beginning of the movie, Sandra's lawyer warns her that no one will accept the possibility of an accident and that the argument of suicide is her only defense. Sandra resists accepting it, finding it hard to believe that Samuel, so close to his son, would have opted for that solution. Despite her doubts, her lawyer insists that suicide is the only defense, thus inducing her to lie. 3.-In a key scene, Sandra appears reflective and decides to invent a suicide story that her lawyer barely believes but proves useful for her case. During this scene, her son might have overheard that lie while he was playing the piano, possibly arousing suspicions about his mother. 4.-Her son's doubts reflect those of the viewer throughout the movie. Daniel, seeking answers, pleads with his caregiver to share her opinion, but she remains neutral, arguing that sometimes it's necessary to make decisions instead of remaining in uncertainty. Daniel understands that his only reasonable option is to support his mother, even though doubts persist in his mind. After all, reasonable doubt must always favor the accused. The experiment with his dog helps him to believe the lie he will sustain before the jury. 5.-A revealing scene dispels doubts about the accident, although unfortunately Daniel will never witness it, possibly being the true victim chosen by Justine Triet for her work. In a brief 30-second interval (from minute 8:33 to 9:00), after Samuel is found by his son and dog, images are shown ascending the stairs of the house to reach the attic where Samuel worked. His dedication as the head of the family is evident, with tools, a laptop, and insulation material on the roof. It's undoubtedly not the scene for someone contemplating suicide. The open attic window and the view from it show Samuel, already deceased, Sandra and their son embracing, as well as the shed roof, with a section on the upper left without ice unlike the rest of the roof, indicating an impact, presumably from Samuel's head before finally lying on the ground. It was an accident.

The scene where the kid was with his dad in the car,.the father s talking but with the voice of the kid. that shows that what he said in the end was a lie..it s only a story to protect his mother

youre lucky pinnochio was released devember 9, 2022

@RendanLovell

7 ай бұрын

Criterion Blu-ray coming soon 👀

Bro the festival crowd bumping 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

too good

she killed him, but she didnt. samuel died by suicide, but one significant cause of his suicide is his wife, sandra.

@simba4337

3 ай бұрын

No she wasnt. He had problems and decided to make anyone but himself responsible for them. He was a bad dad and terrible husband. He emotional abused her. He blastef obnoxious loud music with no regard for his blind son, just to punish his wife. He recorded her without knowing and send it to a third party thinking it would get him further. He was all in all just an awful human being

What "Anatomy of A Fall" also highlights is the separate and unequal lens a woman must go through in her public trial; she is questioned about her sexuality, her faithfulness, her devotion and loyalty to her husband. But he is simply the victim. He is spared the inequities of a society that still treats women differently.

@kevinl.942

4 ай бұрын

Well... She is alive and he is dead

at some point I felt it was like gone girl coded. Samuel being Amy. Mainly for the recording

Can we all just agree that he’s so fvcking hot. Sorry but that just facts.

masterpiece!........you can talk the whole day about this movie! she must win an oscar for that role............its like watching Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction....

Wish I would have watched this instead of movie. Would have saved time.

Im french and i love your video

he fell down, just like sandra says!

Here for the Shrek clips.

The movie was great. 2023 had two movies with Sandra Huller

I think the writters were lazy enough to think in a good plot twist, so they let it all to interpretation, for you to you have to imagine it, and call them genius

@RendanLovell

5 ай бұрын

This is a dumb comment that shows thoroughly you missed the point of the film. Pretty crazy actually

I must be the only person who has a different theory, but…. “She holds her son…then lays with snoops the dog.” No, no. Weirdly, she doesn’t hold her son. Other way around. Which was a bit weird, but too weird. Subtly done. Now go watch scene before at restaurant. Who is holding who? In exact same way. Affair happened to be with a woman? Why was a it a woman she admitted to having affair with? Wasn’t a woman. It was the lawyer. Daniel is lawyer’s son. Husband’s real shame was that. But it was the “Shame” he could never live with, so he never talked about it even though deep down, he knew. Red herrings everywhere in this move to cover that up. Go watch again more closely with that premise and let me know your thoughts. Just a theory. But, food for thought.

She's sterotype of german in general. Or if you married with german. I hate her character in these movie. She maybe not the reason why his husband failed at his life but she was at least half of the problem. And she wont even admit it.