The Wikipedia entry for Anatomy of a Fall describes it as a “French legal drama thriller” and I’m struck by how that somehow sounds so dull when the film isn’t but the description is accurate. It’s receiving rave reviews and won the top prize at the Canne Film Festival. (I know it hurts but I promise it’s pronounced more like “can” than it is like “carn”, Aussies!)
It didn’t quite live up to the reviews for me. It was great and I’m glad I saw it and I’d happily recommend it but IT WAS TOO LONG! Regular readers will know I say that quite a bit but honestly, at 2.5 hours this film is great but at 2 hours it could have been brilliant. Call me Eddie the Expert but it just seems like undisciplined film making to me.
The main character is Sandra, a German woman living in the French alps with her French husband and son who has low vision. Sandra’s husband dies early in the film and she is suspected of his murder and faces trial, defended by an old lawyer friend. The trial reveals the complexity of their relationship including infidelities and accusations of plagiarism; Sandra and her husband are both writers. It also reveals the complexity of having low vision… did you really see that or did you think… or perhaps hope, you saw that?!
Anatomy of a Fall is great. It’s interesting that almost always the French version of language is more beautiful than the English, with the exception of the name of this film which is French is ‘Anatomie d’une Chute’. Just makes me chuckle.
This film is in cinemas now, runs for 2.5 hours (as discussed sigh) and is rated MA15+. If you see it, let me know what you reckon. Trailer here.