In the car conversation we don’t hear the father’s voice, we just see his image and lips moving, but we hear Daniel’s voice all the time. For me this was the directors way of saying he was creating all that conversation and it never happened. He was lying because he chose to protect his mother.
I agree, I think he did this because he could not really tell them about his experiment with the dog but in his heart believed his mother didn't do it. Instead he made up this conversation. m
@@trosanlosan8803 He's 15 now, born 31-08-2008. He was 13 when playing Daniel who was 11 at the time of the fall and would have been older by the time the trial actually came to court. Daniel was probably 12 or 13 by the time the trial came around.
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.
i still don’t understand how people come to this conclusion? this is just straight up dogshit head cannon, and not a single thing in the movie indicated anything like this😂 sometimes i wonder how y’all think this wrong
@@wzz225 well how? After all we don't know how long Samuel was dead for prior to being found which seems to have been deliberately left out by the director to make our job as jury to be even harder. We aren't actually suppose to investigate most of it should've been done for us. We're suppose to come up with verdict. The fall itself doesn't make sense either. HIs body was moved whether he moved or someone dragged him. I don't believe he slid from the impact because there's no reason for him to have been bleeding from his legs if all he did was fall. Holy shit!
I think Daniel didn’t want to lose his mother after already losing his father. It was in his interest to imagine a scenario which would introduce a reasonable doubt and lead to her acquittal. Great analysis by the way.
Yeah there's a big incentive for Daniel to believe in his mother. He can't bring his father back, and while he wouldn't want to tarnish the memory of his father the consequences for going against his mom are more severe! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
But how come the jury didn't take a note of that .. Ofcourse it's in the interest of the boy to take a side of his mother she's the only one he has.. I am preety sure he took the side of his mother since he had that converstion with that girl the judge assigned to saty with him .
@@mahbubrm2148 who can say they didn't take it in to account? And Sandra was found not guilty not because of Daniel's testimony but because there was really no evidence she committed a crime. It was all a circus. The closest thing to evidence against Sandra was the blood splatter analysis but there was another expert testimony with a different theory. Everything else was all pure speculation.
The lack of affect in each of the performances is striking and beautiful. So many American films are star-driven, with absurd dialogue and preening. I deeply appreciate the lack of vanity in this film. It deeply affected me.
I would bet that what actually happened was an accident. Snoop was wet after the bath, the noise caught its attention so it went to the place where Samuel was working. The floor got wet, Samuel slipped and fell through the window.
Wow! How do you come up with theories like that? Do you watch multiple times? I try to analyze every detail but, most of the times I cannot come up with anything. I am not saying your theory is correct. At least it is a theory. I would like to interpret the clues given by the directors/writers.
I think the final scene where the kid opens the window and checks how it can be done shows that he probably thought his mother did it. Remember he said to the judge at the beginning that he did not hear them fighting but talking when he left the house for walk even telling the judge he could feel the shed because his dad made some adjustments. And as the case unravels in the court he and us the audience really get into analyzing the fall both physically and emotionally. That is the physical reasons and emotional reasons. Yes its not conclusive. And yes everything is interpretation. That is why it is so well made.
Why is it never discussed that IF she was implicated in the death, it was because they were fighting in front of the window and he fell. An accident. To believe that a woman could throw a man (who is presumably fighting back) out a window beggars belief. That this question is never raised shows a serious flaw in the director's judgement.
I don't believe Daniel would have been mistaken about being inside or outside. He's partially blind, not fully, he'd absolutely know if he's inside or outside. My reading on him checking the window was that he was feeling out accepting suicide as an explanation. Thanks for your comment!
@@c.a.savage5689 It was discussed, and was dismissed pretty early in the movie. The fall couldn't have been an accident because the window was too high. Hence why the rest of the movie was only focused on suicide v homicide.
I don’t believe she could throw him off a balcony or push him out the window - men do damage to women all the time because they can, because they are usually physically stronger. It’s a flaw in the story if we are supposed to believe that she could overpower him or even catch him off guard/balance. However I didn’t think it was particularly likely he would have committed suicide in such a way either. If she had known what had happened to him before the son found him surely she would have turned that dreadful music off! It was a great performance by the actress (and the boy) because there was very little plot but she kept up the interest in the film because of her portrayal of a complex character. Great dog too!
Yes it was all very carefully crafted so each scenario was unbelievable. I tried to avoid getting too involved speculating on why it happened in the video....but what the heck, it's impossible to resist. There's blood on the wood shed roof which is why I circled it in the thumbnail. The prosecutor argued that if he fell or jumped there should be blood and DNA on the wood shed roof and the defence argued that the snow melted and washed it away, but if you zoom in on the roof immediately after the fall there is an impact where the snow has been dislodged and there are what looks like specs of blood. The suicide narrative only really came about since attack was deemed to be the best form of defence. Sandra didn't believe it. She says so and when her defence lawyer attacks Samuel in court she says to him "That wasn't Samuel", but she needs to argue this to save herself. As I said in my video I think he fell. Of course I can't think of any reason why that would happen. Why would he climb out in a risky way? I have no idea, but none of the other theories make any sense either. The dog, Snoop, was the star of the show for me! Thanks so much for your comment Shelia!
If it were real life, sure. But it’s the commonest thing in movies for women to toss men around like ragdolls. Especially if it’s an empowered woman vs a man who questions her in any way. The kid must think she did it or he wouldn’t be checking. Either the wife did it or the dog did it. I’m very conflicted after seeing the dog implicated before I saw this video. I never knew this movie exists until I read the Oscars winners. Now it’s all very murky. 😂
Actually Sandra says it at the beginning, "it s an accident" and her lawyer answers "but no one will believe it,I don t" so it s not the truth that matter,it s what is believable.
Danielle's stake in having his mom be innocent was he'd lost 1 parent. He had a life long impairment that was helped by Sandra's responsible and successful career. If she were to be imprisoned. He and snoop would go where? I didn't see any extended family, so what was left is institution or at best foster care. I think Daniel asking his mom to leave the house before his second testimony was a message to her. But strategically he needed her and he knew it.
Going you’re way with this cognitive dissonance thing, I really though that Samuel was believing his lies to justify his own misery (he cannot write because he doesn’t have enough time, because of Sandra and Daniel condition) and, after the argument with Sandra, he had to face the truth and he was the one who cannot handle it. But then Sandra tells maybe Samuel did start their argument for his book project. So maybe Samuel didn’t really believe his own lies… That’s why this movie so good, as you say, it don’t tell you the truth but speaks about the truth or lie each of us makes and believes to live, to regulate this cognitive dissonance. Personally, I really connect with Samuel character: I know too much what it’s to making excuses for your own incapacity to commit to your art and craft (« I don’t have enough time to write » must be the most common lie among writers, lol)
Thanks for your comment! I think both ways of looking at it could be right. It could be possible for a human being to believe something and not believe at the same time. If you really want to blow your mind read up on the split-brain patient research. To describe it in a cartoonish way... The human brain is divided into two halves that are joined together by the corpus callosum which is like a big bundle of wires that connects these two sides of your brain. For patients with severe epilepsy they sometimes cut this "cable" to alleviate symptoms as a last resort. The treatment works to help the epileptic seizures and for the most part the patients keep their brain function in most aspects of everyday life. But certain experimental circumstances reveal that the left brain and right brain are working very much like two brains in the one body. The key thing is that the left brain, which is the side involved in much of the interpretive storytelling, rationalising, justifying etc is the only side of the brain that can speak, because the language vocalisation areas are on the left side. The right brain, even when cut off from the left brain, CAN understand language to an extent. You can ask the right brain questions by showing information to only 1 eye, and it can answer by actions like picking up something up off a table with the arm it controls. The left brain doesn't understand why the right brain did what it did, it never saw the question, but it will make up it's best attempt at a believable story and run with it in full confidence even if it's totally false. Now Samuel didn't have his Corpus Callosum cut, but any time you have a sensation that you believe something but there is part of you that doesn't believe it, maybe that's more true than we realise.
@@TheCinemaDetective You're absolutely right, sometimes we really are on this thin bridge, were we know we are lying to ourselves but still believe in our lies anyway. Didn't know about the corpus callosum cut, that's so weird lol !
@daylite34 I don't think you know what pseudoscience is. The split-brain research mentioned won a Noble Prize for Roger Sperry. Yes I presented it in a cartoonish way appropriate for a TH-cam comments section discussing a movie but the research provides empirical evidence for the independent functioning of the brain's hemispheres when the corpus callosum is severed. The speculative parts of my comment, that some level of independent functioning might apply even when the corpus callousum hasn't been severed, were clearly speculative since I used words like 'could be' 'maybe' and wasn't claiming it as scientific, proven, or factual. Are you just trolling?
I think Samuel was victimizing himself, the most evident aspect of it being his broken hand, but in their argument she also seemed extremely conceited, selfish, and always had an excuse for everything. It made me think of her as a narcissist. Which I could see. She is a cheater, and seems generally low in empathy. I however do think that the death was most likely accidental.
Great take! Opened my eyes to the most credible resolution for me that I couldn't quite put my finger on. TW: suicide (comes with the movie commentary I suppose) In both versions - murder or suicide - the parent responsible for the scene would know their child would find out. Given how attached they both were to their son, that's unlikely. But it really struck me when you said that a person planning suicide is not likely to jump as this height might cause injury but death is unsure (not impossible to attempt but hear me out). However, if his goal was to victimize himself once again and punish Sandra, maybe he jumped hoping for an injury and accidentally met his tragic end. I can't remember if both windows on the attic could be open, but the window he fell from is the one above the shed, making the distance smaller. Maybe he hoped he would bounce and land on the snow. He's also known to have injured himself before during/after their fights (breaking his finger while hitting the wall, which he did many times). He certainly wouldn't have guessed that he would hit his head on the edge of the shed, and if he didn't, he might have survived the fall. This version makes the most sense to me, and as you said, there's no one to blame directly. What do you guys think? 🤔
"In both versions - murder or suicide - the parent responsible for the scene would know their child would find out. Given how attached they both were to their son, that's unlikely." That's a very good way to frame it. I think he accidentally fell from the window, that's the most logical explanation. The hard part is thinking why this could happen. It's also the subject of my latest video "How Snoop Killed Samuel" :) Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Interesting. The audio recording also got the sounds of somebody hitting someone, and Sandra said Samuel started hitting himself. Though, of course, we don't know if that's true.
Such a great, concise analysis of the movie's themes and message. I recently watched it and am floored by how hauntingly good it is. Also thank you for providing subtitles!
One thing I wanna add is that the movie is not just a commentary on us creating a truth by our own preconceptions. It's also a commentary on the search for truth itself. We as the audience have this intense impulse to decide whether something is true or not when the information given to us is absolutely ambiguous. The search for truth itself is just in vain. Which also makes it fitting that the movie is set in a courtroom, the entire purpose of which is to find the truth, creating a tension between these two ideas. At the end of the day it does not matter if Sandra killed Samuel or that Daniel is misremembering or misinterpreting the conversation. We are as powerless to decide as we were to stop the death.
Here is the Truth!!!....... Snoop (the Dog), did it with the ball that rolled down the stairs in the first scene..... he took it back up to Samuel who had thrown it (because Daniel was running the bath for Snoop)..... Samuel, after checking out his handy work on the Reno, stepped back, tripped over the ball and fell out of the window. The End!!!..... Thanks to *Cinema Detective* for making the other video to explain this..... I've Subscribed :) Cheers Don, Perth W.Australia (Dons Shed and Xplor Overland)
I would add that there is a third option as well - perhaps Sandra was the one who pushed him to commit suicide. Of course, there is not enough evidence to conclude that, but the last scene, where Sandra explains that although she won, she is not happy, makes me think that she might feel guilt or responsibility for his suicide.
During the argument Sandra told Samuel some home truths about himself, I'm pretty certain that the director Justine Triet thinks Sandra was speaking the truth, that Samuel was blaming the wrong thing for his lack of being able to write. I have some "proof" about that, there is a little hidden easter egg that sheds some more light on the argument and it will be the subject of my next video when I get around to it. So if she did push him to do it then it was by telling him the truth. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Snoop did it. Collies are well known ppl protectors and he wanted to protect Sandra from Samuel's intimidating playing of that music. Not to mention his projection of his own failure onto her. Good boy Snoop.
When they went up that hill, they could see the house. Snoop can see the attic my first thought was maybe they caught their attention slipped and fell.
The thing they never brought up is how there was no blood traces on the third floor. There was wood everywhere and you can’t easily clean blood from wood that quickly. If she hit him with something or threw something blood would have gotten somewhere other than on the bottom levels. I thought it interesting that defense never brought that up. On the same token, I think Daniel not knowing the truth himself embellished a conversation he had with Samuel to get his mom cleared. Even the memory is in his voice instead of a true flashback with Samuel speaking himself. Seemed intentional to make it Daniel’s words. And since both his parents are writers, maybe the doesn’t fall far. So my theory? She didn’t do it but was about to be convicted of it and her son couldn’t decide what he believed. All he knew is he needs is mother and can’t let himself believe she’s a deliberate or accidental murderer. So his memory brings up things to support his need for her to be innocent, even if means accepting truthfully or otherwise that his father may have killed himself 🤷🏽♂️
I think Samuel was playing ball with Snoop and fell when grabbing the ball somewhere upstairs. The falling ball is the first we hear and see in the movie, so I think it was an accident one can hardly believe in and therefore rather excluding it as an explanation.
Great analysis. Where did you learn to explain movies? Is there any books or courses? I would like to understand movies on a deeper level. But, most of the time I have to watch these kinds of videos to totally understand it.
Thanks! I'm sure there are books and courses but I have no training and haven't read any guides. My process is just to watch the film, then rewatch it, I will also read comments anywhere I can find them, some I agree with some I don't. I read reviews, interviews with the actors and director, read the screenplay. Once you start to have an idea or a framework rewatching will generate more ideas around your basic premise. The hook for this video was the idea of cognitive dissonance, which was something I learned about when I studied Psychology at university a long time ago. I probably watched Anatomy of a Fall at least 6 times and spent many many hours and days making this video. It's a painful process :) The illusion is that I just watched the film and these were my thoughts but that's not really the case. On my first watch I'm as clueless as the next guy. The great thing that I'm finding is that it's really rewarding. Anatomy of a Fall was like a 6/10 of the first watch for me, I was bored and annoyed that they didn't reveal who did it. Each time I watched I appreciated it more and in the end I rate it really highly. So I'd say if you want to understand a film, or at least feel like you do, then set yourself the challenge of writing about it. You will find that you know it even better than you're able to communicate because getting your thoughts across is really hard. Thanks for watching!
@@TheCinemaDetective Wow. I was not expecting a reply with that much detail. Thank you. I will work on your suggestions. I almost never rewatch a movie. There was a time when I would watch lots of movies. I was chasing numbers. And, rewatching meant wasting time. Now that life has humbled me a lot, I think I have the composure to rewatch movies to truly appreciate the art.
@@racecarjonny8460 I was the same, watch a movie once then never again. It's weird how we do that. If we like a song we will listen on repeat and slowly the meaning of the lyrics will develop, songs and music are allowed to grow on us, we accept that as part of the process, but we rarely do that with movies and treat them like they are disposable. It's a shame really, especially when you think of the effort invested in a good script. If you take Anatomy of a Fall, all that dialogue with Zoe and Sandra at the start was so intentional, not a line is wasted, Triet must have spent so much time thinking about those lines, but on first watch all most people take away is that Sandra and Zoe had a chat and Samuel was playing his music. We're distracted by the drama of the loud music. But with a good script not a line is wasted, so I suppose that's something to think about, because often a message of a movie might be hidden in those lines that don't really seem significant on first watch. They're not really driving the plot but a scriptwriter needs to be so economical they don't have space for filler. On my third beer and chilling 😎 hence the long replies!
@@TheCinemaDetective You are right. We treat movies as something disposable. That changes today for me. I think books are the same as well. They need to be re-read. A few months ago I read 'Kafka on the shore', and I was clueless after I was done. But, I didn’t care to re-read the book. I checked your channel and you haven’t uploaded any video in months. Hope you are working on something interesting. Will be waiting for your videos.
You M. NIght Shamalamadingdonged us at the end hahahah! Personally i believe the husband killed himself, but you bring up an interesting point about him falling without the intention of dying to gaslight his wife, but ended up actually killing himself.
yeah i’ve seen some people say the son was fabricating the story of his father OR even more interestingly it was actually the mother that took him to the vets and told that to him.
I want that detail!!!!!!! I can handle the truth. Im going to rewatch. I wonder why there was a long shot on the utensils in the attic. Also, that weird large opening window would delay someone getting to the outside patio. Plus, if the mom noticed the puke on the floor, how did the dog lick it up? Even if the dad puked, why did he not pick it up and also how would mom see it before the dog? Also, mom totally could have pushed the dad over if he was leaning that way or if he didnt hear her. The window seemed quiet. Yes, the boy was grappling with himself and the dissonance, but was that the point of the movie? It seemed all the charactets were. I was looking for a give away with the woman, yet she had me convinced of innocence. I also wonder what the backstory is with her and that lawyer. Was she also fing him with the touchy feely? I didnt catch how they knew each other as well. Im going to have to put the detective hat on and watch again
Our compulsion, strong desire, to find a story that makes sense to us was the point. She's using our own psychological response to the movie and feelings towards the lack of answers to make a point about human psychology in general. Everyone desperately trying to find a story to believe when there isn't enough facts to decide is doing exactly what she is criticising. The court according to Justine Triet is a form of delirium where we're supposed to find the truth but where instead fiction is created. Our psychology makes us vulnerable to jumping to the wrong conclusions. We can't handle THE SEARCH for truth. We're really bad at it. We all have biases, we are too quick to believe in hearsay or speculation, we're too ready to believe things that fit our interests or existing set of beliefs. Or reject things that don't fit our interests or existing beliefs. Whether Sandra was a bitch or whether Samuel was unhappy doesn't really give any answers. There's very little evidence to support any of the two arguments. I mean real evidence. If she wrote something in a book or if Samuel said that one day Snoop might not be around... it's all grasping at straws. It's all storytelling. We do it in real life, we do it in courts, it's what we do and it's what Triet is highlighting. Having said all that, I couldn't resist speculating too )) So here is my favourite theory: th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tq7fDbZ1OTCtJuWN But it's only a theory and not "the truth" even if it feels plausible to you because the truth wasn't revealed.
They were friends with Vincent when Sandra and Samuel lived in London before moving to France I think. Nothing happened with him and Sandra before but he wanted it.
You're right it's not just Daniel. All the characters have their biases that will influence and possibly impede their search for the truth. Vincent's feelings for Sandra. Monica, Daniel's godmother, has her belief in psychic mediums. Zoe has her feminism. The therapist his faith in his profession. Everyone has something. And we viewers all have our biases too, everyone brings their own bias making the search for truth fraught with danger.
Samuel fell after leaning out the window to try and see the roof he was working on from a different angle. There are so many versions of the truth in these comments!
It is interesting what you mention about the etymology of the verb “decide” meaning “to cut”, and the psychiatrist during the trial describing Sandra’s behaviour toward Samuel as “castrating”. From a psychoanalytic perspective, particularly Lacan who delves a lot into the concept of castration and how this orients our own subjective experience, and thus interpretation, towards reality, this is an interesting idea to reflect on. Another thing with Chopin’s prelude and its relation to cognitive dissonance is that there are two “different” parts being played at the same time, and it is interesting how there are two different scenes that show Daniel playing Chopin’s prelude but only playing one part and not the other, maybe reflecting his own internal experience at the time of exploring one interpretation/belief about what happened independently of another.
Thank you! I'm glad you liked my video! I don't think I'd rate AOAF quite as highly as you, it was a good movie for me but I didn't so much enjoy it but more appreciated it and it took time and rewatching for me to reach that appreciation. On my first watch there were a few moments where I wished it would hurry up and finish but maybe that was because it was late at night and I was tired. Thanks for your comment!
11:40 The jury doesn’t need to buy how/why she didn’t do it to find not guilty - it just needs to not fully buy that she DID (unless it’s drastically differs from North America, which i didn’t get the sense it did)
Yes I agree. Just the emphasis in the story implied that it was pivotal, although the significance could have been more about how the trial was impacting Daniel's perception of things.
How can she can hear her child screaming while using earplug?. She use earplug so that she can sleep from a very loud music but not when her child screaming?
It seems pretty clear to me that she did it. The autopsy showed that there was a contusion on his head that he got before the fall and that they couldn't rule out foul play and the couple had a violent argument just the day before, so the science was there and the motive was there and the boy's story was obviously made up,why didn't he tell that story when he first testified, it's kind of important to the case, but he only brings it up at the very end of the trial, like "oh yeah, I forgot to mention this"? The jury of judges would have seen through that,If this was real life, a jury of judges would have seen that as a lie by the boy made up to help his mother and they would have looked at all the evidence, the motive and forensic evidence and convicted her in five minutes,the acquittal was poetic license. And as for the husband,who would be stupid enough to try to take their life by jumping out of a window that was not really that high up onto some soft snow, wouldn't most people worry that they would survive and become a quadriplegic or get severe brain damage? My guess is that the son believed his mother was guilty, but told the story to save her anyway, that is why they had that embrace at the end, his mom knew what he did for her and was expressing gratitude, and she embraced the dog at the end because the dog was also responsible for her acquittal in an indirect way because he was the focal point of the boy's story. But I do think that talking about her guilt or innocence is missing the forest for the trees a bit, I think the movie is really a philosophical look at the nature of reality and how much we can really understand about the world around us and how we choose to live our lives and the choices we make in spite of that uncertainty, but it is fun to look at it as a who done it as well. It's a brilliant film.
That's quite an accusatory comment :) No I'd never heard of you or watched any of your videos. I do sometimes watch and read other analysis when I'm writing an essay, so I would never claim to be doing something entirely unique or original. For this video I watched interviews with Justine Triet and read a few reddit threads. I don't really get where you're coming from. I've just watched 2 videos that you have on your channel now about AOAF. And though I don't speak Spanish I turned on the subtitles. It seems to me that although there is a little overlap we have quite different interpretations. You seem to be arguing that Sandra did it and that Daniel knew she did it, that's quite far from my position. You argue that Daniel playing the sad Chopin piece is him accepting his mother's guilt whereas I'm saying it's him trying to accept his father's suicide and hence her innocence. I don't mean to be rude but even if I had watched your video beforehand there wouldn't have been all that much that I would have taken from it because we seem to disagree quite a lot in our interpretations.
@@TheCinemaDetective Daniel Playing chopin as changing the discourse. Not an accusation, im not the legitime owner of anyhting, but some arguments and scenes you picked reminded me of my own, im not acussing you of plagiarism, that'd be silly.
Well no I didn't see your videos ) I'm much more interested to talk about why you think Sandra did it? Discrediting Daniel's testimony deflates the suicide theory but it doesn't really provide any evidence for Sandra being guilty. The evidence for the suicide theory being weak doesn't mean the evidence for the murder theory is strong.
It seems like a view many are likely to conclude separately. If the movie strongly suggests a view, a lot of people are likely to see it that way after watching the movie.
The audio was to show us how manipulative Sandra was. I think she killed him. Samuel wouldn’t commit suicide near his son cuz he knew how traumatizing that would be for the son. He loved his son too much
I don’t know what the author’s secret truth is, but judged against our reality, the characters+circumstances absolutely lend themselves to a plain old, typical, immature, and self-obsessed person taking their own life upon being cut down, while envisioning vengeful satisfaction from _whatever_ mess it brings (whether intentional by the author or not). Statistics show that while most suicides are NOT vengeful, some of them actually are. PS: It bothered the shit out do me that the defense never argues that in its rejection of the sun melting the suicide theory’s blunt force trauma evidence off the shed, the prosecution never produces an alternative murder weapon or explains how she would have gotten rid of it so well in so little time + opportunity in that remote location.
Wow what a brilliant and deep analysis. Thank you! I even envy, in a good way, of your ability to build such an analysis. Cognitive dissonance idea fits perfectly and also provoked me to reflect on my own life experiences
I think that's the most interesting aspect of the movie, when we use it to reflect upon ourselves. Finally, 20 years later, my Psychology degree is turning out to be useful for something lol It's fun writing these essays, with this one I was constantly questioning how much I was twisting the story actually told in the film to fit the story I wanted to tell about cognitive dissonance and our susceptibly to errors in our thinking. I know I was cherry picking examples from the film to fit my own narrative, so my own video essay becomes an example of what I was talking about. So I'm glad you thought the cognitive dissonance idea fit! Thanks for your comment!
@@TheCinemaDetective interesting thought, the more I try to wrap my mind around something like a film plot, the more I understand that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. And I agree that our mind is a rigid structure tending to keep its wholesomeness by finding proofs to its own suggestions. Also I heard that our mind tends to seek for completion (like we may feel the discomfort when a melody pattern is stopped abruptly in the middle), that is one of the reasons this film works as a hook. I also like when cinematography doesn't provide answers and teaching us to enjoy the process of reflection
Please make a video on swimming pool 2003 movie the mystery is really confusing and the one writer wants us to believe in mostly doesn't make sense at all as there are lots of important point that were of main focus but was never considered
Very nice work, subsribed. Start of the video was not misleading - made me look to the movie from another angle - Ending scene with a child hugging his mother totally crushed me (unloke previously when I just interpreted it as emorioms crushing down). Adult defenition to me indeed is - very often we do decide the truth and than everything else that comes with it, just so we could move on. ( also - the child from the beginning was portrayed as more mature, addition to the disability I guess)
This is such an impressive argument you advance. I did immediately subscribe. My quibbles about the movie: why does the psychiatrist get to use the notes to her husband's sessions without rebuttal by her own expert psychiatrist? When an expert uses testimony about the wife's emasculation of her husband it really tips the scales heavily as to our own conclusion about its veracity. Of course, he was a whiny, unsympathetic whinge utterly outclassed by his wife's accomplishments. But that simply makes us not care about whether he was suicidal. Much better to have the ambiguity achieved by having us respect him. Here, I think she is being hyper-feminist. It's a cheap shot, because one member of a marriage will often be dominant. Murder or suicide are not necessarily the result. I thought it a stretch that this even purported to be a court case. Also, the re-enactment of the fall seemed like what we in the US call junk-science. There are enough flaws in claiming it is a model of what happened to drive a truck through. Doing it in front of the family is barbaric. Having the court rep instruct the boy that he should resolve dissonance (great explanation there, by Cinema Detective) is betraying her assigned role of protecting him from adult interference. Having the boy actually in court hearing his mother under attack calls for him in another room with a videotape to my ears. Does the French court system, admittedly different from Law and Order, allow so little protection for the boy? One great point Cinema Detective made was whether a meta explanation of the writing derives from a fight Harari and Triet might well have made. Brilliant! There are a number of details about stealing from one another that couple-writers would understand. As I see it, Triet pulls off a bit of a parlor trick by creating a lane to the Oscars premised on a French Judicial system I would want to hear more about. I am also suspicious of her rendering of French trial rules of evidence. Plus defiance of the politicization of the French submission with her outburst at the Cesar's only greased the wheels to her ride to Hollywood. But the movie is provocative, and clearly has a lot of us reading your analysis searching for answers! Chapeau bas, Cinema Detective!
You raise a number of interesting questions, much like the video here. The director's own comments at the Césars were political and classless. From the very beginning of the film and she telegraphed her preconceptions about feminist/ gender roles. The 2 main characters, male and female were "antipathique" (cold, self-involved, distant). It was hard to believe that they were ever in love. I didn't really care much about what really happened one way or the other and the courtroom scenes were interminable. I did enjoy this video and especially your comment. Thank you.
Thanks David! I've been reading a bit about the French legal system and how well it was represented in Anatomy Of A Fall. In reality a psychiatrist wouldn't be able to breach patient confidentially so easily. So the whole idea that he's testifying in the first place is a bit of a stretch. The idea that a court rep would be assigned to live with Daniel to prevent Sandra influencing the witness doesn't see to hold much sway either. So there are lots of discrepancies. However, some French legal commentators have said that despite these artistic liberties there is something that feels real about how the trial is shown. Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse was the French judicial advisor to the screenwriters. www.actu-juridique.fr/professions/anatomie-dune-chute-pose-la-question-aimeriez-vous-etre-juge-comme-ca/ He says that, of course it's a story and not a documentary, but that the film captures the sensations and experiences of a French criminal trial. It seems that the deep probing into personal lives, relationships, and private matters, often publicly, in the courtroom was representative and that it captures the psychologization of a criminal trial in France, the extent to which psychological factors play a role in determining guilt, innocence, and understanding the circumstances of a crime. In the French system the judge (the president), isn't a neutral referee, they play an active role in the inquisition. It's up to the individual judge which evidence is deemed admissible. France has less stringent rules about the types of evidence that can be admitted. For example, hearsay and other forms of indirect evidence may be considered if the judge deems them relevant. The US in comparison has strict rules about the admissibility of evidence and heresay would be able to be blocked pre-trial. And yes Marge really overstepped her role when she told Daniel that he should decide. She was supposed to be there to stop any influence on the witness but she ended swaying the outcome of the trial. On the other hand, seeing a young boy in such distress and screaming "help me!" I can see why she would be tempted to offer some words of wisdom. Thanks for your comment and for subscribing!
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.
The father was suicidal - once in that mode you do not think about other people - and perhaps not much about what you are doing - if it will work - and if it does not work - you may achive that you get the attention you may want - that is - whether you survive or not you cant fail. The mother was flirting with the girl in the beginning - that is obvious. I do think the boy in his final witness statement tells the truth - and he does interpret his fathers words right. Things make sense - finally - the dog made that happen - it was the knock out dog that did it - tied up the loose ends :)
While I agree that a suicidal person might not act rationally, and I agree that Sandra was flirting, I don't think there is a lot of solid evidence that Samuel was suicidal. Essentially that argument boils down to Daniel's story about the conversation in the car and I think he's been influenced by the trial. The suicide theory actually originated from Vincent the defence lawyer. The therapist didn't think he was suicidal, Sandra didn’t think so. Nobody thought so. But Daniel listened to this defence and he had a motivation to believe it. But you might be right that the dog delivered the knock out blow and if you've watched my other AOAF video you'll understand why :) Thanks for watching and commenting!
I keep thinking if the roles were reversed the husband would have gone straight to jail. Imagine, a successful man whose wife is spiraling into a deep depression. It’s discovered the man has cheated on the wife. The jury and society would have NO room for sympathy for the man, yet in this film it becomes a women’s empowerment film about removing dead weight (ie the husband)
Maybe in 1954, not 2024. I think we both agree that if was a man/woman it's hard to have sympathy for the "suspected" murderer character.@@TheCinemaDetective
If it's a suicide, how did he hurt his head? He could hurt his legs or any part of the body. And how's the part of the house where he hit, is exactly straight from the window he fell from?
A most interesting and thought-provoking video. Much more enjoyable than the film which l found to be dull, over-intellectualized and ultimately devoid of interest, from my POV. The 2 main characters left me completely indifferent. Both seemed to be utterly self-involved, selfish and lacking in simple humanity. Consequently, l found it extremely difficult to care one way or the other about what really happened. The child and the dog were excellent. So is your video. Thank you.
When I'm making these videos I first sit down and watch the film without trying to analyse it. I don't want to stop watching films just for the sake of watching films. For me a truly great movie takes me away to a different world where I am fully engaged, absorbed, invested in characters, and where I forget myself. On my first watch of AOAF I did really want to know what happened, but less from caring about the characters and more just from curiosity. The slow realisation that the truth wouldn't be revealed was disappointing just from the POV of sitting down and enjoying a film. I even laughingly swore at the screen when it ended without answers. "You fkrs!" is what I said, if I remember right. So I can appreciate the opinion of any viewer that didn't love Anatomy Of A Fall. Then my job for this channel is to sit down and try to analyse and interpret it. I'm finding that process can be more enjoyable than watching the movie, but it is still dependant on the movie for sparking the discussion. There's something to appreciate on an intellectual level about AOAF, and when you spend a lot of time digging into it some of that appreciation rubs off on the movie in a more general way. But for me the best movies are loved not appreciated, I don't just want to say "that was clever" or "thought-provoking" I want to be emotionally engaged. So let's say 6/10 from me for first viewing maybe just scraping 7/10 when I understood it better. I will add though that I think we live in a time where we are really spoiled by our access to entertainment and the rich history of the art form. We all have our beautiful big screens at home, movies can be cheap to access. If we took someone from the 1800's and sat them down to watch AOAF or even something much worse they'd be absolutely blown away by the experience. In general, I love movies so much that even a crap movie can be seen as awesome in a way. I try to keep this perspective in mind. My guilty secret is a low expectation, crappy rom-com, with little to think about. We're so well-fed that we crave fine dining, but if we were starving we'd eat trash and delight in it. I hope that makes sense! Thanks for much for your comments and for watching and subscribing!
@@TheCinemaDetective Thank you very much for your comment. I agree in general with your thinking. A well-made film, even if it's not to one's particular taste, is miles better than the vast majority of what's available on Netflix, for example, and there's no question that AOAF is certainly that. I live in France and read/heard much of the hype surrounding the film, comparing it to Hitchcock, so brilliant, etc. So l was somewhat underwhelmed at the time and didn't understand what all the fuss was about. The ambiguity didn't bother me as much as the lack of an emotional connection between the characters. I felt the same way about Tar. I've shared your video with French friends who liked the film.
I think if you don't know European intellectuals, or more how intellectualized people operate it can actually be a harder characters to connect with. Their relationship is in the details, in the dialogue including their separation after their son's accident, bearing in mind that 80% of couples who suffer large losses separate. The characters' helplessness is very evident if you look at the details, . But it's okay not to connect, sometimes it's a question of age, sometimes of time, or taste. No one is forced to like everything and that's ok.
Great job with your *interesting* analysis here! I've been haunted by this movie and have been thinking about it a lot and here's my take: After her husband ruined her get-together and after she notices from the balcony that her son has left the premises, she confronts him. It leads to another violent confrontation (just like the tape) and in a moment of fury (we already know how furious she can get), she accidentally kills him. She is creative and cunning enough to make it appear like a suicide. Otherwise, I find it hard to swallow that a young boy would be better at psychology than a professionally trained therapist who did not see a threat of suicide. If this were not the case, then the filmmakers have a very negative view of therapy, which would cast an unfortunate negative light on the whole film. But then again, if the conversation was partly invented and the insights were potentially spoon-fed by his mother, it is an act of brilliance. So, you decide and make a choice here ;)
@@ArashFarzaneh it's possible he was hoping his wife would find him first, but with the music on he couldn't be sure either. I am definitely leaning towards the accident version. I wouldn't be sure Sandra didn't kill him but I can't believe for a second she would then go to her room and leave her son find him like this, who is also blind. Finding out by seeing him would be traumatising enough but realising while you're feeling his body lying on the ground.... Cmon that's so cruel.
@@boyanaplamenova8325 Was the music still on? I don't recall. I believe it was an accident either way. The therapist comes to mind with the difference between attempting versus committing suicide. It might have been a cry for help that led to his accidental demise because I think he should have survived the fall from that height...
I was trying to be a smart ass and mirror what Anatomy Of A Film did to us all by not revealing the answer ) If you want a more concrete look at why I circled the woodshed in the thumbnail and what I think the truth of the story might be then watch my other video "How Snoop Killed Samuel". And yes it's a clickbait tile too but the explanation/theory of Samuel's death that wasn't in this video is in that one I promise.
I think the female judgment angel is missing that women are also a lot easier of in trials, not being considered guilty as easy as well as receiving less punishments if found guilty. The way the lead actress reacts to her son in court is that she clearly knows her son is living for her. That dos not mean she must be guilty, but the mother is protected. How would have ended if she had been the one that fell to her death in the beginning?
Good analysis! Thanks for sharing! An interesting perspective is that the kid is partially blind, and it made me think of him representing our moden Justice system, as a concept, which supposedly should be blind, not partially bliend... perhaps the whole is about a modern take on Justice.
You could definitely argue that a critique of the French legal system is a central theme, that's it's too speculative and based on psychology and character dissection and hence open to the kinds of human cognitive biases that I talked about. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for the deep dive. I just watched the film and it is one I will think about for a long time. You gave me much more to think about. One component of the that I did not buy was the child poisoning his dog.
You're welcome! It seemed to me like Sandra invented the story about the pills and the vomit in the first place. Initially she had no recollection of this "suicide attempt" and then suspiciously suddenly remembered it saying she saw "white spots in the vomit". By the time the trial happens the "white spots" had turned into aspirin and was claiming the empty packets were in the trash. I guess with Daniel the idea is that desperate times lead to desperate measures but I wouldn't argue that it's hard to accept he would do this. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for the comment! I made a video about what might have caused the accidental fall that you might like :) th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rJ633rVbs0CmtSwn
very well thought out and explained! I never really understood coginitve dissonance before this people through the concept around a lot but never really explain it
brilliant video! ur almost at anatomy of a fall level compelling lolll 👏 thanks for adding onto the discussion!… although I don’t think Daniel would make up the entire dialogue he had with his dad. The outcome they described Samuel had seems like an understandable yet lamentable outcome for what he was going through. Even the argument between Sandra and Samuel the night before, it was clear he was in a miserable state and his wife still cared deeply for him and the family. But at the same time I’m not sure what the intentions of ANYONE are in this film😭 I must watch this film again to really let it sink in. Give me a couple of days and I’ll get back to u with complete other thoughts lollll
You know what... I said in the video that I'd lean towards the dialogue with his dad being "entirely fiction" but after I'd uploaded the video I regretted that phrase but it was too much work to remake the video. I'd probably go with the idea that there was some conversation but it gets reimagined and reinterpreted. Thanks for the comment and please do come back with more thoughts after you rewatch!
excellent work! I was thinking very much along the lines you presented here. Your analysis was very helpful with many details and insights that I had missed, especially concerning the music play of the boy. As a psychology major I disagree with your use of cognitive dissonance, I would always advocate for a more narrow understanding of the term. I recognize that your usage is popular though. If you are interested, I can share why I don't think the boy necessarily experienced cognitive dissonance and under what circumstances I think it would have been the case.
Simple explanation... You can not "believe in God" and "not believe in God" at the same time. Those two beliefs can not coexist. Cognitive dissonance is similar to trying to live in a state of denial. No matter how hard you try, the opposing beliefs continue to battle each other and cause the individual unrest.
Did you mean 'believe' and 'not believe' ? If yes then I agree that's a good example. If no them I'm a little confused. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
In the car conversation we don’t hear the father’s voice, we just see his image and lips moving, but we hear Daniel’s voice all the time. For me this was the directors way of saying he was creating all that conversation and it never happened. He was lying because he chose to protect his mother.
I agree with you this might have been a way to tell us Daniel fabricated this story to save his mother.
I agree, I think he did this because he could not really tell them about his experiment with the dog but in his heart believed his mother didn't do it. Instead he made up this conversation. m
Good point
The court heard about his experiment with the dog
I agree with this comment but im so frustrated because nobody around me sees that scene that way 😅
Best child acting! Unbelievable
Yes! Milo Machado-Graner was fantastic!
ما اسم الفلم كامل علا اليوتيوب ❤@@TheCinemaDetective
I checked him while watching the movie and he is 16
@@trosanlosan8803 He's 15 now, born 31-08-2008. He was 13 when playing Daniel who was 11 at the time of the fall and would have been older by the time the trial actually came to court. Daniel was probably 12 or 13 by the time the trial came around.
And dog!
People were debating whether Lily Gladstone or Emma Stone deserved to win the Oscar when Sandra Hueller gave the best performance 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.
THISSSSSSSSS
That's very gone girl of him
what if Snoop killed him
i still don’t understand how people come to this conclusion? this is just straight up dogshit head cannon, and not a single thing in the movie indicated anything like this😂 sometimes i wonder how y’all think this wrong
@@wzz225 well how? After all we don't know how long Samuel was dead for prior to being found which seems to have been deliberately left out by the director to make our job as jury to be even harder. We aren't actually suppose to investigate most of it should've been done for us. We're suppose to come up with verdict. The fall itself doesn't make sense either. HIs body was moved whether he moved or someone dragged him. I don't believe he slid from the impact because there's no reason for him to have been bleeding from his legs if all he did was fall. Holy shit!
Every actor in this movie played their role perfectly, very great writing and cinematography as well. 9/10
I agree the acting and the screenplay were great, I don't think I'd go as high as 9 but the more time I spend with this movie the more it grows on me.
French Korean and iranian films acting you can't question
Including the dog who deserves an Oscar too
I think Daniel didn’t want to lose his mother after already losing his father. It was in his interest to imagine a scenario which would introduce a reasonable doubt and lead to her acquittal. Great analysis by the way.
Yeah there's a big incentive for Daniel to believe in his mother. He can't bring his father back, and while he wouldn't want to tarnish the memory of his father the consequences for going against his mom are more severe! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
Yeah!!!
But how come the jury didn't take a note of that .. Ofcourse it's in the interest of the boy to take a side of his mother she's the only one he has.. I am preety sure he took the side of his mother since he had that converstion with that girl the judge assigned to saty with him .
@@mahbubrm2148 who can say they didn't take it in to account? And Sandra was found not guilty not because of Daniel's testimony but because there was really no evidence she committed a crime. It was all a circus. The closest thing to evidence against Sandra was the blood splatter analysis but there was another expert testimony with a different theory. Everything else was all pure speculation.
this movie is still living rent free almost 2 months into watching it, i think it's time for me to consider it a modern masterpiece
Yeah it's hard to forget! Thanks for commenting!
have you watched any other movies? lol
A masterpiece?!
The lack of affect in each of the performances is striking and beautiful. So many American films are star-driven, with absurd dialogue and preening.
I deeply appreciate the lack of vanity in this film. It deeply affected me.
Very true!!
I would bet that what actually happened was an accident. Snoop was wet after the bath, the noise caught its attention so it went to the place where Samuel was working. The floor got wet, Samuel slipped and fell through the window.
There was also the ball, in one of the first scenes we see the ball bouncing the stairs, Snoop take the ball upstairs, wet floor...
Wow! How do you come up with theories like that? Do you watch multiple times? I try to analyze every detail but, most of the times I cannot come up with anything. I am not saying your theory is correct. At least it is a theory. I would like to interpret the clues given by the directors/writers.
I just can't believe this movie didn't won the Oscar for best movie of the year. I can't deal with it
Best movie was The Holdovers for me!
I really liked it, but my favorite movie was The Society of the Snow.
Well , at least it won Best Original Screenplay
I feel your pain. Hang in there. Pray, seek help, speak to a professional.
Lost Oscars Recovery People (LORP) helps me.
Oppenheimer was better, but this is still an exceptional movie with great acting from both human and canine actors.
I think the final scene where the kid opens the window and checks how it can be done shows that he probably thought his mother did it. Remember he said to the judge at the beginning that he did not hear them fighting but talking when he left the house for walk even telling the judge he could feel the shed because his dad made some adjustments.
And as the case unravels in the court he and us the audience really get into analyzing the fall both physically and emotionally. That is the physical reasons and emotional reasons.
Yes its not conclusive. And yes everything is interpretation. That is why it is so well made.
she did
Why is it never discussed that IF she was implicated in the death, it was because they were fighting in front of the window and he fell. An accident. To believe that a woman could throw a man (who is presumably fighting back) out a window beggars belief.
That this question is never raised shows a serious flaw in the director's judgement.
I don't believe Daniel would have been mistaken about being inside or outside. He's partially blind, not fully, he'd absolutely know if he's inside or outside. My reading on him checking the window was that he was feeling out accepting suicide as an explanation. Thanks for your comment!
@@c.a.savage5689 It was discussed, and was dismissed pretty early in the movie. The fall couldn't have been an accident because the window was too high. Hence why the rest of the movie was only focused on suicide v homicide.
@@avhotaistudios1206 what if he was working with his body half outside of the window ? He could have accidentally fallen
"So sorry you're not getting the truth..Because you can't handle the truth." Extremely compelling analysis . KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!!
Thanks Alex! An analysis of Spaceman starring Adam Sandler will be next. It's on Netflix.
I don’t believe she could throw him off a balcony or push him out the window - men do damage to women all the time because they can, because they are usually physically stronger. It’s a flaw in the story if we are supposed to believe that she could overpower him or even catch him off guard/balance. However I didn’t think it was particularly likely he would have committed suicide in such a way either.
If she had known what had happened to him before the son found him surely she would have turned that dreadful music off!
It was a great performance by the actress (and the boy) because there was very little plot but she kept up the interest in the film because of her portrayal of a complex character. Great dog too!
Yes it was all very carefully crafted so each scenario was unbelievable.
I tried to avoid getting too involved speculating on why it happened in the video....but what the heck, it's impossible to resist. There's blood on the wood shed roof which is why I circled it in the thumbnail. The prosecutor argued that if he fell or jumped there should be blood and DNA on the wood shed roof and the defence argued that the snow melted and washed it away, but if you zoom in on the roof immediately after the fall there is an impact where the snow has been dislodged and there are what looks like specs of blood.
The suicide narrative only really came about since attack was deemed to be the best form of defence. Sandra didn't believe it. She says so and when her defence lawyer attacks Samuel in court she says to him "That wasn't Samuel", but she needs to argue this to save herself.
As I said in my video I think he fell. Of course I can't think of any reason why that would happen. Why would he climb out in a risky way? I have no idea, but none of the other theories make any sense either.
The dog, Snoop, was the star of the show for me! Thanks so much for your comment Shelia!
That doggie was a good boi!
@@pussycats456 Hmm I thought so too but now I'm not so sure ;)
If it were real life, sure. But it’s the commonest thing in movies for women to toss men around like ragdolls. Especially if it’s an empowered woman vs a man who questions her in any way. The kid must think she did it or he wouldn’t be checking. Either the wife did it or the dog did it. I’m very conflicted after seeing the dog implicated before I saw this video. I never knew this movie exists until I read the Oscars winners. Now it’s all very murky. 😂
Actually Sandra says it at the beginning, "it s an accident" and her lawyer answers "but no one will believe it,I don t" so it s not the truth that matter,it s what is believable.
Danielle's stake in having his mom be innocent was he'd lost 1 parent. He had a life long impairment that was helped by Sandra's responsible and successful career. If she were to be imprisoned. He and snoop would go where? I didn't see any extended family, so what was left is institution or at best foster care. I think Daniel asking his mom to leave the house before his second testimony was a message to her. But strategically he needed her and he knew it.
Going you’re way with this cognitive dissonance thing, I really though that Samuel was believing his lies to justify his own misery (he cannot write because he doesn’t have enough time, because of Sandra and Daniel condition) and, after the argument with Sandra, he had to face the truth and he was the one who cannot handle it.
But then Sandra tells maybe Samuel did start their argument for his book project. So maybe Samuel didn’t really believe his own lies…
That’s why this movie so good, as you say, it don’t tell you the truth but speaks about the truth or lie each of us makes and believes to live, to regulate this cognitive dissonance.
Personally, I really connect with Samuel character: I know too much what it’s to making excuses for your own incapacity to commit to your art and craft (« I don’t have enough time to write » must be the most common lie among writers, lol)
Thanks for your comment! I think both ways of looking at it could be right. It could be possible for a human being to believe something and not believe at the same time.
If you really want to blow your mind read up on the split-brain patient research.
To describe it in a cartoonish way...
The human brain is divided into two halves that are joined together by the corpus callosum which is like a big bundle of wires that connects these two sides of your brain.
For patients with severe epilepsy they sometimes cut this "cable" to alleviate symptoms as a last resort. The treatment works to help the epileptic seizures and for the most part the patients keep their brain function in most aspects of everyday life.
But certain experimental circumstances reveal that the left brain and right brain are working very much like two brains in the one body. The key thing is that the left brain, which is the side involved in much of the interpretive storytelling, rationalising, justifying etc is the only side of the brain that can speak, because the language vocalisation areas are on the left side.
The right brain, even when cut off from the left brain, CAN understand language to an extent. You can ask the right brain questions by showing information to only 1 eye, and it can answer by actions like picking up something up off a table with the arm it controls.
The left brain doesn't understand why the right brain did what it did, it never saw the question, but it will make up it's best attempt at a believable story and run with it in full confidence even if it's totally false.
Now Samuel didn't have his Corpus Callosum cut, but any time you have a sensation that you believe something but there is part of you that doesn't believe it, maybe that's more true than we realise.
@@TheCinemaDetective You're absolutely right, sometimes we really are on this thin bridge, were we know we are lying to ourselves but still believe in our lies anyway.
Didn't know about the corpus callosum cut, that's so weird lol !
@@TheCinemaDetective this is pseudoscience.
@daylite34 I don't think you know what pseudoscience is.
The split-brain research mentioned won a Noble Prize for Roger Sperry. Yes I presented it in a cartoonish way appropriate for a TH-cam comments section discussing a movie but the research provides empirical evidence for the independent functioning of the brain's hemispheres when the corpus callosum is severed.
The speculative parts of my comment, that some level of independent functioning might apply even when the corpus callousum hasn't been severed, were clearly speculative since I used words like 'could be' 'maybe' and wasn't claiming it as scientific, proven, or factual.
Are you just trolling?
I think Samuel was victimizing himself, the most evident aspect of it being his broken hand, but in their argument she also seemed extremely conceited, selfish, and always had an excuse for everything. It made me think of her as a narcissist. Which I could see. She is a cheater, and seems generally low in empathy.
I however do think that the death was most likely accidental.
Great take! Opened my eyes to the most credible resolution for me that I couldn't quite put my finger on. TW: suicide (comes with the movie commentary I suppose)
In both versions - murder or suicide - the parent responsible for the scene would know their child would find out. Given how attached they both were to their son, that's unlikely.
But it really struck me when you said that a person planning suicide is not likely to jump as this height might cause injury but death is unsure (not impossible to attempt but hear me out).
However, if his goal was to victimize himself once again and punish Sandra, maybe he jumped hoping for an injury and accidentally met his tragic end. I can't remember if both windows on the attic could be open, but the window he fell from is the one above the shed, making the distance smaller. Maybe he hoped he would bounce and land on the snow. He's also known to have injured himself before during/after their fights (breaking his finger while hitting the wall, which he did many times). He certainly wouldn't have guessed that he would hit his head on the edge of the shed, and if he didn't, he might have survived the fall.
This version makes the most sense to me, and as you said, there's no one to blame directly. What do you guys think? 🤔
"In both versions - murder or suicide - the parent responsible for the scene would know their child would find out. Given how attached they both were to their son, that's unlikely."
That's a very good way to frame it.
I think he accidentally fell from the window, that's the most logical explanation. The hard part is thinking why this could happen.
It's also the subject of my latest video "How Snoop Killed Samuel" :)
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Interesting. The audio recording also got the sounds of somebody hitting someone, and Sandra said Samuel started hitting himself. Though, of course, we don't know if that's true.
Such a great, concise analysis of the movie's themes and message. I recently watched it and am floored by how hauntingly good it is. Also thank you for providing subtitles!
It was Snoop's ball.
howw???
I love the way you think dude. Your mindset aligns so well with my own. This movie asks all the right questions.
This channel deserves so many more views.
Thanks Heather! I'm happy to see you commenting again!
So true!!!!
Dude. Speechless. What an amazing input. Well done
Thanks! Words of encouragement help a lot! Cinema Detective is still a new channel and I'm still learning how to make these videos :)
One thing I wanna add is that the movie is not just a commentary on us creating a truth by our own preconceptions. It's also a commentary on the search for truth itself. We as the audience have this intense impulse to decide whether something is true or not when the information given to us is absolutely ambiguous. The search for truth itself is just in vain. Which also makes it fitting that the movie is set in a courtroom, the entire purpose of which is to find the truth, creating a tension between these two ideas. At the end of the day it does not matter if Sandra killed Samuel or that Daniel is misremembering or misinterpreting the conversation. We are as powerless to decide as we were to stop the death.
Here is the Truth!!!....... Snoop (the Dog), did it with the ball that rolled down the stairs in the first scene..... he took it back up to Samuel who had thrown it (because Daniel was running the bath for Snoop)..... Samuel, after checking out his handy work on the Reno, stepped back, tripped over the ball and fell out of the window. The End!!!..... Thanks to *Cinema Detective* for making the other video to explain this..... I've Subscribed :) Cheers Don, Perth W.Australia (Dons Shed and Xplor Overland)
I would add that there is a third option as well - perhaps Sandra was the one who pushed him to commit suicide. Of course, there is not enough evidence to conclude that, but the last scene, where Sandra explains that although she won, she is not happy, makes me think that she might feel guilt or responsibility for his suicide.
During the argument Sandra told Samuel some home truths about himself, I'm pretty certain that the director Justine Triet thinks Sandra was speaking the truth, that Samuel was blaming the wrong thing for his lack of being able to write. I have some "proof" about that, there is a little hidden easter egg that sheds some more light on the argument and it will be the subject of my next video when I get around to it. So if she did push him to do it then it was by telling him the truth.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
In the scenario she even tells him to drop dead. If he commited suicide she definitely feels responsible for it.
Snoop did it. Collies are well known ppl protectors and he wanted to protect Sandra from Samuel's intimidating playing of that music. Not to mention his projection of his own failure onto her. Good boy Snoop.
When they went up that hill, they could see the house. Snoop can see the attic my first thought was maybe they caught their attention slipped and fell.
The thing they never brought up is how there was no blood traces on the third floor. There was wood everywhere and you can’t easily clean blood from wood that quickly. If she hit him with something or threw something blood would have gotten somewhere other than on the bottom levels. I thought it interesting that defense never brought that up.
On the same token, I think Daniel not knowing the truth himself embellished a conversation he had with Samuel to get his mom cleared. Even the memory is in his voice instead of a true flashback with Samuel speaking himself. Seemed intentional to make it Daniel’s words. And since both his parents are writers, maybe the doesn’t fall far.
So my theory? She didn’t do it but was about to be convicted of it and her son couldn’t decide what he believed. All he knew is he needs is mother and can’t let himself believe she’s a deliberate or accidental murderer. So his memory brings up things to support his need for her to be innocent, even if means accepting truthfully or otherwise that his father may have killed himself 🤷🏽♂️
I think Samuel was playing ball with Snoop and fell when grabbing the ball somewhere upstairs. The falling ball is the first we hear and see in the movie, so I think it was an accident one can hardly believe in and therefore rather excluding it as an explanation.
The fact this detail was overlooked is fascinating
One of the best perspectives of this movie. The accent though had been tricky for me to navigate through, nevertheless, pleasant.
Great analysis. Where did you learn to explain movies? Is there any books or courses? I would like to understand movies on a deeper level. But, most of the time I have to watch these kinds of videos to totally understand it.
Thanks! I'm sure there are books and courses but I have no training and haven't read any guides. My process is just to watch the film, then rewatch it, I will also read comments anywhere I can find them, some I agree with some I don't. I read reviews, interviews with the actors and director, read the screenplay. Once you start to have an idea or a framework rewatching will generate more ideas around your basic premise. The hook for this video was the idea of cognitive dissonance, which was something I learned about when I studied Psychology at university a long time ago. I probably watched Anatomy of a Fall at least 6 times and spent many many hours and days making this video. It's a painful process :) The illusion is that I just watched the film and these were my thoughts but that's not really the case. On my first watch I'm as clueless as the next guy. The great thing that I'm finding is that it's really rewarding. Anatomy of a Fall was like a 6/10 of the first watch for me, I was bored and annoyed that they didn't reveal who did it. Each time I watched I appreciated it more and in the end I rate it really highly. So I'd say if you want to understand a film, or at least feel like you do, then set yourself the challenge of writing about it. You will find that you know it even better than you're able to communicate because getting your thoughts across is really hard. Thanks for watching!
@@TheCinemaDetective Wow. I was not expecting a reply with that much detail. Thank you.
I will work on your suggestions. I almost never rewatch a movie. There was a time when I would watch lots of movies. I was chasing numbers. And, rewatching meant wasting time. Now that life has humbled me a lot, I think I have the composure to rewatch movies to truly appreciate the art.
@@racecarjonny8460 I was the same, watch a movie once then never again. It's weird how we do that. If we like a song we will listen on repeat and slowly the meaning of the lyrics will develop, songs and music are allowed to grow on us, we accept that as part of the process, but we rarely do that with movies and treat them like they are disposable. It's a shame really, especially when you think of the effort invested in a good script. If you take Anatomy of a Fall, all that dialogue with Zoe and Sandra at the start was so intentional, not a line is wasted, Triet must have spent so much time thinking about those lines, but on first watch all most people take away is that Sandra and Zoe had a chat and Samuel was playing his music. We're distracted by the drama of the loud music. But with a good script not a line is wasted, so I suppose that's something to think about, because often a message of a movie might be hidden in those lines that don't really seem significant on first watch. They're not really driving the plot but a scriptwriter needs to be so economical they don't have space for filler.
On my third beer and chilling 😎 hence the long replies!
@@TheCinemaDetective You are right. We treat movies as something disposable. That changes today for me. I think books are the same as well. They need to be re-read. A few months ago I read 'Kafka on the shore', and I was clueless after I was done. But, I didn’t care to re-read the book.
I checked your channel and you haven’t uploaded any video in months. Hope you are working on something interesting. Will be waiting for your videos.
You M. NIght Shamalamadingdonged us at the end hahahah! Personally i believe the husband killed himself, but you bring up an interesting point about him falling without the intention of dying to gaslight his wife, but ended up actually killing himself.
yeah i’ve seen some people say the son was fabricating the story of his father OR even more interestingly it was actually the mother that took him to the vets and told that to him.
I want that detail!!!!!!! I can handle the truth. Im going to rewatch. I wonder why there was a long shot on the utensils in the attic. Also, that weird large opening window would delay someone getting to the outside patio. Plus, if the mom noticed the puke on the floor, how did the dog lick it up? Even if the dad puked, why did he not pick it up and also how would mom see it before the dog? Also, mom totally could have pushed the dad over if he was leaning that way or if he didnt hear her. The window seemed quiet. Yes, the boy was grappling with himself and the dissonance, but was that the point of the movie? It seemed all the charactets were. I was looking for a give away with the woman, yet she had me convinced of innocence. I also wonder what the backstory is with her and that lawyer. Was she also fing him with the touchy feely? I didnt catch how they knew each other as well. Im going to have to put the detective hat on and watch again
Our compulsion, strong desire, to find a story that makes sense to us was the point. She's using our own psychological response to the movie and feelings towards the lack of answers to make a point about human psychology in general.
Everyone desperately trying to find a story to believe when there isn't enough facts to decide is doing exactly what she is criticising. The court according to Justine Triet is a form of delirium where we're supposed to find the truth but where instead fiction is created.
Our psychology makes us vulnerable to jumping to the wrong conclusions. We can't handle THE SEARCH for truth. We're really bad at it. We all have biases, we are too quick to believe in hearsay or speculation, we're too ready to believe things that fit our interests or existing set of beliefs. Or reject things that don't fit our interests or existing beliefs.
Whether Sandra was a bitch or whether Samuel was unhappy doesn't really give any answers. There's very little evidence to support any of the two arguments. I mean real evidence. If she wrote something in a book or if Samuel said that one day Snoop might not be around... it's all grasping at straws. It's all storytelling. We do it in real life, we do it in courts, it's what we do and it's what Triet is highlighting.
Having said all that, I couldn't resist speculating too ))
So here is my favourite theory:
th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tq7fDbZ1OTCtJuWN
But it's only a theory and not "the truth" even if it feels plausible to you because the truth wasn't revealed.
You make very good points about the vomit btw ))
They were friends with Vincent when Sandra and Samuel lived in London before moving to France I think. Nothing happened with him and Sandra before but he wanted it.
You're right it's not just Daniel. All the characters have their biases that will influence and possibly impede their search for the truth. Vincent's feelings for Sandra. Monica, Daniel's godmother, has her belief in psychic mediums. Zoe has her feminism. The therapist his faith in his profession. Everyone has something. And we viewers all have our biases too, everyone brings their own bias making the search for truth fraught with danger.
Was the boy playing the exorcist theme at the first half of the film. Doesn't two people wind falling out a window in that film?
Oh ok I guess it is not the exorcist theme, sounds very similar. 😂
Are you talking about Tubular bells?
@@ajordan1976 yes I thought he was playing tubular bells but I was mistaken
@@josephr9930 no worries
Samuel fell after leaning out the window to try and see the roof he was working on from a different angle. There are so many versions of the truth in these comments!
It is interesting what you mention about the etymology of the verb “decide” meaning “to cut”, and the psychiatrist during the trial describing Sandra’s behaviour toward Samuel as “castrating”. From a psychoanalytic perspective, particularly Lacan who delves a lot into the concept of castration and how this orients our own subjective experience, and thus interpretation, towards reality, this is an interesting idea to reflect on.
Another thing with Chopin’s prelude and its relation to cognitive dissonance is that there are two “different” parts being played at the same time, and it is interesting how there are two different scenes that show Daniel playing Chopin’s prelude but only playing one part and not the other, maybe reflecting his own internal experience at the time of exploring one interpretation/belief about what happened independently of another.
Very good interpretation, imho! This film is a masterpiece!
Thank you! I'm glad you liked my video! I don't think I'd rate AOAF quite as highly as you, it was a good movie for me but I didn't so much enjoy it but more appreciated it and it took time and rewatching for me to reach that appreciation.
On my first watch there were a few moments where I wished it would hurry up and finish but maybe that was because it was late at night and I was tired. Thanks for your comment!
11:40 The jury doesn’t need to buy how/why she didn’t do it to find not guilty - it just needs to not fully buy that she DID (unless it’s drastically differs from North America, which i didn’t get the sense it did)
Yes I agree. Just the emphasis in the story implied that it was pivotal, although the significance could have been more about how the trial was impacting Daniel's perception of things.
@@TheCinemaDetective agreed. Good point
How can she can hear her child screaming while using earplug?. She use earplug so that she can sleep from a very loud music but not when her child screaming?
Great! Thank you for your analysis!
Please, make more videos for us! 🙏🏽
It seems pretty clear to me that she did it. The autopsy showed that there was a contusion on his head that he got before the fall and that they couldn't rule out foul play and the couple had a violent argument just the day before, so the science was there and the motive was there and the boy's story was obviously made up,why didn't he tell that story when he first testified, it's kind of important to the case, but he only brings it up at the very end of the trial, like "oh yeah, I forgot to mention this"? The jury of judges would have seen through that,If this was real life, a jury of judges would have seen that as a lie by the boy made up to help his mother and they would have looked at all the evidence, the motive and forensic evidence and convicted her in five minutes,the acquittal was poetic license. And as for the husband,who would be stupid enough to try to take their life by jumping out of a window that was not really that high up onto some soft snow, wouldn't most people worry that they would survive and become a quadriplegic or get severe brain damage? My guess is that the son believed his mother was guilty, but told the story to save her anyway, that is why they had that embrace at the end, his mom knew what he did for her and was expressing gratitude, and she embraced the dog at the end because the dog was also responsible for her acquittal in an indirect way because he was the focal point of the boy's story. But I do think that talking about her guilt or innocence is missing the forest for the trees a bit, I think the movie is really a philosophical look at the nature of reality and how much we can really understand about the world around us and how we choose to live our lives and the choices we make in spite of that uncertainty, but it is fun to look at it as a who done it as well. It's a brilliant film.
The prosecutor was amazing.
If she killled him, when did she do it? Sandra was doing the interview, the music was loud.
All this aside, WHAT + WHERE is the murder weapon if the blunt force trauma DIDN’T come from the shed (which the prosecution refutes)???
It was the shed but I don't think he jumped.
th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eWt-bvExK0ak3BhN
Perfect. Nailed it. The only PLAUSIBLE solution. Congratulations!
did you come to this interpretation by yourself or did you watch my essay? :)
That's quite an accusatory comment :)
No I'd never heard of you or watched any of your videos.
I do sometimes watch and read other analysis when I'm writing an essay, so I would never claim to be doing something entirely unique or original. For this video I watched interviews with Justine Triet and read a few reddit threads.
I don't really get where you're coming from. I've just watched 2 videos that you have on your channel now about AOAF. And though I don't speak Spanish I turned on the subtitles. It seems to me that although there is a little overlap we have quite different interpretations.
You seem to be arguing that Sandra did it and that Daniel knew she did it, that's quite far from my position. You argue that Daniel playing the sad Chopin piece is him accepting his mother's guilt whereas I'm saying it's him trying to accept his father's suicide and hence her innocence.
I don't mean to be rude but even if I had watched your video beforehand there wouldn't have been all that much that I would have taken from it because we seem to disagree quite a lot in our interpretations.
@@TheCinemaDetective Daniel Playing chopin as changing the discourse. Not an accusation, im not the legitime owner of anyhting, but some arguments and scenes you picked reminded me of my own, im not acussing you of plagiarism, that'd be silly.
Well no I didn't see your videos )
I'm much more interested to talk about why you think Sandra did it?
Discrediting Daniel's testimony deflates the suicide theory but it doesn't really provide any evidence for Sandra being guilty. The evidence for the suicide theory being weak doesn't mean the evidence for the murder theory is strong.
It seems like a view many are likely to conclude separately. If the movie strongly suggests a view, a lot of people are likely to see it that way after watching the movie.
The audio was to show us how manipulative Sandra was. I think she killed him. Samuel wouldn’t commit suicide near his son cuz he knew how traumatizing that would be for the son. He loved his son too much
Such a great film and analysis! Daniel was the star!!!
If they ever make a movie about Anton Chigurh , then Daniel should play his role as a young kid growing up becoming the person Anton did.
lol right?
I don’t know what the author’s secret truth is, but judged against our reality, the characters+circumstances absolutely lend themselves to a plain old, typical, immature, and self-obsessed person taking their own life upon being cut down, while envisioning vengeful satisfaction from _whatever_ mess it brings (whether intentional by the author or not). Statistics show that while most suicides are NOT vengeful, some of them actually are.
PS: It bothered the shit out do me that the defense never argues that in its rejection of the sun melting the suicide theory’s blunt force trauma evidence off the shed, the prosecution never produces an alternative murder weapon or explains how she would have gotten rid of it so well in so little time + opportunity in that remote location.
I don't think there is strong evidence for either murder or suicide.
That first example you used to explain Cognitive Dissonance.. 😢❤
This is an incredible good film. It has depth with one superb actress. Should of won best film.
Great analysis, thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Wow what a brilliant and deep analysis. Thank you! I even envy, in a good way, of your ability to build such an analysis. Cognitive dissonance idea fits perfectly and also provoked me to reflect on my own life experiences
I think that's the most interesting aspect of the movie, when we use it to reflect upon ourselves.
Finally, 20 years later, my Psychology degree is turning out to be useful for something lol
It's fun writing these essays, with this one I was constantly questioning how much I was twisting the story actually told in the film to fit the story I wanted to tell about cognitive dissonance and our susceptibly to errors in our thinking.
I know I was cherry picking examples from the film to fit my own narrative, so my own video essay becomes an example of what I was talking about.
So I'm glad you thought the cognitive dissonance idea fit! Thanks for your comment!
@@TheCinemaDetective interesting thought, the more I try to wrap my mind around something like a film plot, the more I understand that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. And I agree that our mind is a rigid structure tending to keep its wholesomeness by finding proofs to its own suggestions. Also I heard that our mind tends to seek for completion (like we may feel the discomfort when a melody pattern is stopped abruptly in the middle), that is one of the reasons this film works as a hook. I also like when cinematography doesn't provide answers and teaching us to enjoy the process of reflection
Please make a video on swimming pool 2003 movie the mystery is really confusing and the one writer wants us to believe in mostly doesn't make sense at all as there are lots of important point that were of main focus but was never considered
Very nice work, subsribed. Start of the video was not misleading - made me look to the movie from another angle - Ending scene with a child hugging his mother totally crushed me (unloke previously when I just interpreted it as emorioms crushing down). Adult defenition to me indeed is - very often we do decide the truth and than everything else that comes with it, just so we could move on.
( also - the child from the beginning was portrayed as more mature, addition to the disability I guess)
This was an incredible analysis of the video, the best one in my opinion.
Thanks Sarah!
Mind blowing film. Excellent review
The ball may be caused that blood spatter too 😮😮😮
This is such an impressive argument you advance. I did immediately subscribe. My quibbles about the movie: why does the psychiatrist get to use the notes to her husband's sessions without rebuttal by her own expert psychiatrist? When an expert uses testimony about the wife's emasculation of her husband it really tips the scales heavily as to our own conclusion about its veracity. Of course, he was a whiny, unsympathetic whinge utterly outclassed by his wife's accomplishments. But that simply makes us not care about whether he was suicidal. Much better to have the ambiguity achieved by having us respect him. Here, I think she is being hyper-feminist. It's a cheap shot, because one member of a marriage will often be dominant. Murder or suicide are not necessarily the result. I thought it a stretch that this even purported to be a court case. Also, the re-enactment of the fall seemed like what we in the US call junk-science. There are enough flaws in claiming it is a model of what happened to drive a truck through. Doing it in front of the family is barbaric. Having the court rep instruct the boy that he should resolve dissonance (great explanation there, by Cinema Detective) is betraying her assigned role of protecting him from adult interference. Having the boy actually in court hearing his mother under attack calls for him in another room with a videotape to my ears. Does the French court system, admittedly different from Law and Order, allow so little protection for the boy? One great point Cinema Detective made was whether a meta explanation of the writing derives from a fight Harari and Triet might well have made. Brilliant! There are a number of details about stealing from one another that couple-writers would understand. As I see it, Triet pulls off a bit of a parlor trick by creating a lane to the Oscars premised on a French Judicial system I would want to hear more about. I am also suspicious of her rendering of French trial rules of evidence. Plus defiance of the politicization of the French submission with her outburst at the Cesar's only greased the wheels to her ride to Hollywood. But the movie is provocative, and clearly has a lot of us reading your analysis searching for answers! Chapeau bas, Cinema Detective!
You raise a number of interesting questions, much like the video here.
The director's own comments at the Césars were political and classless. From the very beginning of the film and she telegraphed her preconceptions about feminist/ gender roles. The 2 main characters, male and female were "antipathique" (cold, self-involved, distant). It was hard to believe that they were ever in love. I didn't really care much about what really happened one way or the other and the courtroom scenes were interminable. I did enjoy this video and especially your comment. Thank you.
Thanks David! I've been reading a bit about the French legal system and how well it was represented in Anatomy Of A Fall.
In reality a psychiatrist wouldn't be able to breach patient confidentially so easily. So the whole idea that he's testifying in the first place is a bit of a stretch.
The idea that a court rep would be assigned to live with Daniel to prevent Sandra influencing the witness doesn't see to hold much sway either.
So there are lots of discrepancies. However, some French legal commentators have said that despite these artistic liberties there is something that feels real about how the trial is shown.
Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse was the French judicial advisor to the screenwriters.
www.actu-juridique.fr/professions/anatomie-dune-chute-pose-la-question-aimeriez-vous-etre-juge-comme-ca/
He says that, of course it's a story and not a documentary, but that the film captures the sensations and experiences of a French criminal trial.
It seems that the deep probing into personal lives, relationships, and private matters, often publicly, in the courtroom was representative and that it captures the psychologization of a criminal trial in France, the extent to which psychological factors play a role in determining guilt, innocence, and understanding the circumstances of a crime.
In the French system the judge (the president), isn't a neutral referee, they play an active role in the inquisition. It's up to the individual judge which evidence is deemed admissible.
France has less stringent rules about the types of evidence that can be admitted. For example, hearsay and other forms of indirect evidence may be considered if the judge deems them relevant. The US in comparison has strict rules about the admissibility of evidence and heresay would be able to be blocked pre-trial.
And yes Marge really overstepped her role when she told Daniel that he should decide. She was supposed to be there to stop any influence on the witness but she ended swaying the outcome of the trial. On the other hand, seeing a young boy in such distress and screaming "help me!" I can see why she would be tempted to offer some words of wisdom.
Thanks for your comment and for subscribing!
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.
If we assume it couldn't have been an accident, then Daniel's truth is that one of his parents killed one of his parents.
The father was suicidal - once in that mode you do not think about other people - and perhaps not much about what you are doing - if it will work - and if it does not work - you may achive that you get the attention you may want - that is - whether you survive or not you cant fail. The mother was flirting with the girl in the beginning - that is obvious. I do think the boy in his final witness statement tells the truth - and he does interpret his fathers words right. Things make sense - finally - the dog made that happen - it was the knock out dog that did it - tied up the loose ends :)
While I agree that a suicidal person might not act rationally, and I agree that Sandra was flirting, I don't think there is a lot of solid evidence that Samuel was suicidal. Essentially that argument boils down to Daniel's story about the conversation in the car and I think he's been influenced by the trial. The suicide theory actually originated from Vincent the defence lawyer. The therapist didn't think he was suicidal, Sandra didn’t think so. Nobody thought so. But Daniel listened to this defence and he had a motivation to believe it.
But you might be right that the dog delivered the knock out blow and if you've watched my other AOAF video you'll understand why :)
Thanks for watching and commenting!
If you look at the husband's jeans, he has blood on his knees? how did it get there?
Snoop did it. Snoop was also the second gunman who killed JFK.
I keep thinking if the roles were reversed the husband would have gone straight to jail. Imagine, a successful man whose wife is spiraling into a deep depression. It’s discovered the man has cheated on the wife. The jury and society would have NO room for sympathy for the man, yet in this film it becomes a women’s empowerment film about removing dead weight (ie the husband)
Bro nobody thinks this film is about removing dead weight (the husband) except for u but what a take 😂
I got the impression we were meant to think Sandra was being judged negatively for things that a nobody would care about if she was a man.
Maybe in 1954, not 2024. I think we both agree that if was a man/woman it's hard to have sympathy for the "suspected" murderer character.@@TheCinemaDetective
If it's a suicide, how did he hurt his head? He could hurt his legs or any part of the body. And how's the part of the house where he hit, is exactly straight from the window he fell from?
Loved your video, loved the film
Thank you!
A most interesting and thought-provoking video. Much more enjoyable than the film which l found to be dull, over-intellectualized and ultimately devoid of interest, from my POV. The 2 main characters left me completely indifferent. Both seemed to be utterly self-involved, selfish and lacking in simple humanity. Consequently, l found it extremely difficult to care one way or the other about what really happened. The child and the dog were excellent.
So is your video. Thank you.
When I'm making these videos I first sit down and watch the film without trying to analyse it. I don't want to stop watching films just for the sake of watching films.
For me a truly great movie takes me away to a different world where I am fully engaged, absorbed, invested in characters, and where I forget myself.
On my first watch of AOAF I did really want to know what happened, but less from caring about the characters and more just from curiosity. The slow realisation that the truth wouldn't be revealed was disappointing just from the POV of sitting down and enjoying a film. I even laughingly swore at the screen when it ended without answers. "You fkrs!" is what I said, if I remember right.
So I can appreciate the opinion of any viewer that didn't love Anatomy Of A Fall.
Then my job for this channel is to sit down and try to analyse and interpret it. I'm finding that process can be more enjoyable than watching the movie, but it is still dependant on the movie for sparking the discussion.
There's something to appreciate on an intellectual level about AOAF, and when you spend a lot of time digging into it some of that appreciation rubs off on the movie in a more general way.
But for me the best movies are loved not appreciated, I don't just want to say "that was clever" or "thought-provoking" I want to be emotionally engaged.
So let's say 6/10 from me for first viewing maybe just scraping 7/10 when I understood it better.
I will add though that I think we live in a time where we are really spoiled by our access to entertainment and the rich history of the art form. We all have our beautiful big screens at home, movies can be cheap to access. If we took someone from the 1800's and sat them down to watch AOAF or even something much worse they'd be absolutely blown away by the experience.
In general, I love movies so much that even a crap movie can be seen as awesome in a way. I try to keep this perspective in mind. My guilty secret is a low expectation, crappy rom-com, with little to think about. We're so well-fed that we crave fine dining, but if we were starving we'd eat trash and delight in it. I hope that makes sense!
Thanks for much for your comments and for watching and subscribing!
@@TheCinemaDetective Thank you very much for your comment. I agree in general with your thinking. A well-made film, even if it's not to one's particular taste, is miles better than the vast majority of what's available on Netflix, for example, and there's no question that AOAF is certainly that. I live in France and read/heard much of the hype surrounding the film, comparing it to Hitchcock, so brilliant, etc. So l was somewhat underwhelmed at the time and didn't understand what all the fuss was about. The ambiguity didn't bother me as much as the lack of an emotional connection between the characters. I felt the same way about Tar. I've shared your video with French friends who liked the film.
I think if you don't know European intellectuals, or more how intellectualized people operate it can actually be a harder characters to connect with. Their relationship is in the details, in the dialogue including their separation after their son's accident, bearing in mind that 80% of couples who suffer large losses separate. The characters' helplessness is very evident if you look at the details, . But it's okay not to connect, sometimes it's a question of age, sometimes of time, or taste. No one is forced to like everything and that's ok.
Well, at least you admitted you f***** with us
the best review!
Thank you )
I LOVED this. ❤
Subscribed. 👍🏻
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it and your positivity motivates me to make more videos!
Same! Also you can be a resource to point us to great films.
Ditto! 🖤 For me it's the Scottish accent 😂
Great job with your *interesting* analysis here! I've been haunted by this movie and have been thinking about it a lot and here's my take: After her husband ruined her get-together and after she notices from the balcony that her son has left the premises, she confronts him. It leads to another violent confrontation (just like the tape) and in a moment of fury (we already know how furious she can get), she accidentally kills him. She is creative and cunning enough to make it appear like a suicide.
Otherwise, I find it hard to swallow that a young boy would be better at psychology than a professionally trained therapist who did not see a threat of suicide. If this were not the case, then the filmmakers have a very negative view of therapy, which would cast an unfortunate negative light on the whole film. But then again, if the conversation was partly invented and the insights were potentially spoon-fed by his mother, it is an act of brilliance. So, you decide and make a choice here ;)
But do you believe she would let her son find him like this?
@@boyanaplamenova8325 Do you believe he would let his son find him like this? Plus, it was most likely an accident and she did not plan it like that.
@@ArashFarzaneh it's possible he was hoping his wife would find him first, but with the music on he couldn't be sure either.
I am definitely leaning towards the accident version. I wouldn't be sure Sandra didn't kill him but I can't believe for a second she would then go to her room and leave her son find him like this, who is also blind. Finding out by seeing him would be traumatising enough but realising while you're feeling his body lying on the ground.... Cmon that's so cruel.
@@boyanaplamenova8325 Was the music still on? I don't recall. I believe it was an accident either way.
The therapist comes to mind with the difference between attempting versus committing suicide. It might have been a cry for help that led to his accidental demise because I think he should have survived the fall from that height...
Thank you both for your comments! Yes the music was still on when he was found.
Clickbait then. We'll played Mr Detective.
Great film.
I was trying to be a smart ass and mirror what Anatomy Of A Film did to us all by not revealing the answer )
If you want a more concrete look at why I circled the woodshed in the thumbnail and what I think the truth of the story might be then watch my other video "How Snoop Killed Samuel".
And yes it's a clickbait tile too but the explanation/theory of Samuel's death that wasn't in this video is in that one I promise.
I think the female judgment angel is missing that women are also a lot easier of in trials, not being considered guilty as easy as well as receiving less punishments if found guilty. The way the lead actress reacts to her son in court is that she clearly knows her son is living for her. That dos not mean she must be guilty, but the mother is protected. How would have ended if she had been the one that fell to her death in the beginning?
Yes that's an interesting thought experiment, how would the trial have went if the roles were reversed? Thanks for your comment!
You analyses are absolutely incredible. Thank you for your hard work, attention to detail, and refreshing perspectives!
Thank you! My head will explode now )))
great video!
Very well done! ❤
Thanks for the encouragement! It probably means more than you realise!
Haha! I lived the video and I haven’t even heard of the film.
Oh you should watch it now then!
What if the only people who know the endings truth is actual forensic scientist? 🤔🤫
Good analysis! Thanks for sharing! An interesting perspective is that the kid is partially blind, and it made me think of him representing our moden Justice system, as a concept, which supposedly should be blind, not partially bliend... perhaps the whole is about a modern take on Justice.
You could definitely argue that a critique of the French legal system is a central theme, that's it's too speculative and based on psychology and character dissection and hence open to the kinds of human cognitive biases that I talked about. Thanks for your comment!
Fantastic video. Thank you.
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it!
Thanks for the deep dive. I just watched the film and it is one I will think about for a long time. You gave me much more to think about. One component of the that I did not buy was the child poisoning his dog.
You're welcome!
It seemed to me like Sandra invented the story about the pills and the vomit in the first place. Initially she had no recollection of this "suicide attempt" and then suspiciously suddenly remembered it saying she saw "white spots in the vomit".
By the time the trial happens the "white spots" had turned into aspirin and was claiming the empty packets were in the trash. I guess with Daniel the idea is that desperate times lead to desperate measures but I wouldn't argue that it's hard to accept he would do this.
Thanks for your comment!
Sorry I phrased that wrong!
I wouldn't argue against anyone that finds it hard to accept he would do this. I agree it's a bit of a stretch!
Between trying to understand what one of The Proclaimers is saying and the annoying piano music in the background, I bailed after 4 minutes.
That’s called click bait 😂
I hope it wasn't a frustrating experience and that the video provided value even if it wasn't what you might have been expecting )
Yeah I think the most logical conclusion was that he took a bad fall trying to fix something
Thanks for the comment!
I made a video about what might have caused the accidental fall that you might like :)
th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rJ633rVbs0CmtSwn
very well thought out and explained! I never really understood coginitve dissonance before this people through the concept around a lot but never really explain it
Thank you! I wasn't sure if I should include the psychology lesson so I'm glad someone liked it!
Truth is not for everyone.
Music too loud
The Dawg was a paid actor
I think we got a lot of truth from the film.
Wasnt murder or suicide. It was an accident
The myth of justice.
brilliant video! ur almost at anatomy of a fall level compelling lolll 👏 thanks for adding onto the discussion!… although I don’t think Daniel would make up the entire dialogue he had with his dad. The outcome they described Samuel had seems like an understandable yet lamentable outcome for what he was going through. Even the argument between Sandra and Samuel the night before, it was clear he was in a miserable state and his wife still cared deeply for him and the family. But at the same time I’m not sure what the intentions of ANYONE are in this film😭 I must watch this film again to really let it sink in. Give me a couple of days and I’ll get back to u with complete other thoughts lollll
You know what... I said in the video that I'd lean towards the dialogue with his dad being "entirely fiction" but after I'd uploaded the video I regretted that phrase but it was too much work to remake the video. I'd probably go with the idea that there was some conversation but it gets reimagined and reinterpreted.
Thanks for the comment and please do come back with more thoughts after you rewatch!
excellent work! I was thinking very much along the lines you presented here. Your analysis was very helpful with many details and insights that I had missed, especially concerning the music play of the boy.
As a psychology major I disagree with your use of cognitive dissonance, I would always advocate for a more narrow understanding of the term. I recognize that your usage is popular though. If you are interested, I can share why I don't think the boy necessarily experienced cognitive dissonance and under what circumstances I think it would have been the case.
I’m interested to hear your take!
Thank you!
Yes please feel free to share your thoughts! I also have a degree in Psychology but it was 20 years ago so I'm interested to hear!
It wasn’t good to bite back on your words to reveal the truth!
Okay if you think you can handle it...
th-cam.com/video/qCvY8zKnNQc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=XsXQx0C-P62jwBA4
@@TheCinemaDetective am sure this is another click bait! You build all the story and in the end you just don’t tell anything and leave us hanging!
Simple explanation...
You can not "believe in God" and "not believe in God" at the same time. Those two beliefs can not coexist. Cognitive dissonance is similar to trying to live in a state of denial. No matter how hard you try, the opposing beliefs continue to battle each other and cause the individual unrest.
Did you mean 'believe' and 'not believe' ? If yes then I agree that's a good example. If no them I'm a little confused. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@TheCinemaDetective I added quotes for clarity. Great video. I recently watched this, and your review was well thought out.
9/10 times it's always the spouse
This movie was so good.. one of the better one's I've seen in a long time