I Can’t Stop Thinking About ‘Anatomy of a Fall’ and the Nonsense of French Court
Anatomy of a Fall may be a dive into the gender dynamics in a marriage and what happens when a woman becomes more successful than a man, but it is also a look into how off the rails the French court system is. Like what is that?!
The Justine Triet film (which is nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards) documents the case of a woman, Sandra (Sandra Hüller), as she is being tried for the potential murder of her husband. After his fall from the top floor of their home, Sandra and their son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) find him dead in the snow. The investigators on the case do not rule it an accident and do not consider it to be a suicide, but do try Sandra in court for her potential involvement in his death.
This leads to an absolutely unhinged look at what the French court system is supposedly like. I say supposedly because I do not think there is any way you could have a man talking to you like L’Avocate Général (Antoine Reinartz) does. Actually, you probably would, but still, it establishes how wild the French court system can be.
Basically, from what I gather in Anatomy of a Fall, you can say whatever you want in court in France. While in the United States, we have things like leading the witness or bringing information into the court that is not relevant, and these things can get you in trouble, in France, they just put ideas into your head all willy-nilly.
There is an entire moment in the courtroom when they are talking about the 50 Cent song “P.I.M.P.” and how it’s misogynistic! For what?!
And that is not even the strangest tactic used in the courtroom throughout the movie.
The book issue
While they listen to a bunch of witnesses who basically just make up what they think happened (many of whom are men), L’Avocate Général goes to extreme measures to try to plead his case, using Sandra’s fictional writing as a way of saying she murdered her husband. Not only does he point to her fictional work, but he reads a whole passage to the court. It’s just like reading time in Kindergarten.
One: It is absolute nonsense to use a fictional piece of writing against someone in a court of law. Two: Why did the judges just let him read for so long? This scene did bring me my favorite moment in the movie, when Vincent (Swann Arlaud) pushes back against the use of her novel by saying “Is Stephen King a serial killer?”
While I was watching the movie, I thought, “Surely this will be the wildest thing that happens.” Then, Daniel came back.
Letting this kid kind of decide things
Daniel decides that he has to try to kill their dog for a science experiment to prove his mother right. Then, he says, “Okay, judge and jury, let me talk to you guys on the downlow,” before admitting to the entire court that he tried an experiment on Snoop the dog! If I were in that court room and heard this kid admit to giving a dog a bunch of aspirin, I would get that animal out of that house so fast.
You famously cannot give your pets aspirin! It will kill them! Does the French court system not care about animal cruelty?
Beyond Daniel telling them, “Hey I almost killed my dog to try and prove a point,” he then just explains to them that he remembered his dog smelling like vomit, which proves his mother was right about finding his father after a suicide attempt weeks prior to his death. And the court just says, “Okay, thanks dude” and lets her go free.
While that was the outcome I wanted, it is fundamentally deranged that the lawyers can just pose ideas to the court and pretend like they could maybe be facts! Really makes it clear to us all that we should never do a crime or be near one in France.
(featured image: Neon)
Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com
