Anatomy of a Fall, Justine Triet’s spectacular courtroom drama is one of the best narratives that investigates the deep layers of a crime and its associates. This Palm d’Or-winning film has portrayed an intricate study of the characters in it. At the core, the movie navigates through the deep layers of a troubled marriage, searching for truth, grief, and trust. However, one big question remains among the vivid layers of the film: did Sandra kill Samuel? The ambiguity of the film has challenged the audience to search for fragmented pieces of truth. Since we do not have a team of blood sputter experts and detectives around us like in the movie, let’s delve deeper into the mystery of Anatomy of a Fall and its delicate conclusion. <h2>The Plot: A complex mystery</h2>The movie begins with the death of Samuel (played by Samuel Theis) on the icy grounds of their home in an isolated location in France. He lived there with his wife, a German author Sandra Voyter (played by Sandra Huller), their 11-year-old visually impaired son Daniel (played by Milo Machado Graner), and Snoop, their border collie dog. Snoop and Daniel find the lifeless body of Daniel on the snow, just beneath their home and the story unravels from here. After the police were called and investigations began, Sandra was suspected of murdering Samuel. Could the death of Samuel be the result of an accident? Or did Sandra murder him because of the increasing tension in their marriage, professional rivalry, mutual resentment, and financial difficulties? Or has Samuel committed suicide?As the investigation of the death proceeds, every action and details of the death are put under the microscope. The reason this courtroom drama is different than the rest is because it never gives any definitive answer to the question. Rather, it follows the arguments of both sides. By portraying the story of both sides, it has blurred the line between the objective truth and emotional plausibility of the situation which in turn can reflect on the actions and intentions of a person. The audience will remain in the grey area of understanding the truth behind the death and its cause.&nbsp; <h2>Sandra’s innocence</h2>Since the beginning of the trial, the trouble in Sandra’s marriage has been taken into consideration and it portrayed a picture of Sandra as a murderer. Her calm and composed demeanor has also been seen as a woman who is capable of murder. Is she repressing grief or is she unphased by the murder of her husband? The narrative does not play a clear picture which keeps Sandra as an enigmatic, strong, and compelling character.&nbsp;Sandra’s innocence also lies in the lack of any direct evidence against her. Samuel’s depression regarding his lack of success, constant tension regarding their shared household residency, and partial blaming of their son’s previous accident which led them to his visual disparity, and finally, Sandra’s success in the literary field have been collective evidence that indicated this might be a suicide.&nbsp;On the other hand, Daniel’s testimony plays a crucial role in this matter. His testimony is deeply personal and inconclusive but he could not provide a solution to what actually transpired before Samuel’s death. Although he witnessed an argument between Samuel and Sandra, there is no clear evidence that it led to the fall. This amplifies the central truth of the film, the elusiveness of the objective truth behind Samuel’s death.&nbsp; <h2>The prosecution’s argument</h2>The prosecution has from the very beginning portrayed Sandra as the killer. From the lack of balance between the spouses in their respective fields to the constant tension in their marital life, everything was scrutinized. One of the main evidence was the blood stain found on Sandra’s clothes. Although the defense argued that the blood stain was the result of Sandra’s effort to move the body, the court’s perspective nullified that. The ambiguity in this scenario showcases how the small details can be interpreted in multiple ways.&nbsp;The prosecution also looked into the fiction written by Sandra which mentions violence and gore. They argued that her literary tendencies might have harbored her capacity to kill. This reasoning is another element that suggests how perception plays a serious role in a courtroom over hard evidence.&nbsp; <h2>Crucial role of Daniel</h2>There are arguments and shreds of evidence from both the prosecution and defense. But the end of the courtroom drama turns crucial with the testimony of Daniel. Just before the trial ends, the court announces that there will be a break for a week before the final hearing. This weekend, Daniel, who was given a court-appointed guardian Marge, asks for distance from his mother. In this due time, he runs an experiment by feeding Snoop some aspirin. He panics when Snoop does not wake up. But with some assistance from Marge, they managed Snoop to vomit. This led Daniel to a revelation where he explained that after his father’s attempted suicide, Snoop had fallen sick at the same time. He might have hovered around Samuel’s vomit and fallen sick. After seeing the same result for Snoop’s sickness through aspirin, he believed in the claims of suicide made by Sandra.The pivotal line of the film comes when Daniel is skeptical of his mother and seeks guidance from Marge, who tells him that he must decide on what is true for himself. During his testimony to the court, he explains his experiment and theory to the court explaining that while he doesn’t believe that Sandra killed Samuel, there is a possibility that Samuel has killed himself. He also tells the court a story where Samuel and Daniel are coming back from the vet. Samuel tells Daniel that Snoop will not be around forever, which can be a thinly veiled interpretation of a goodbye from Samuel. After this, Sandra is acquitted and reunites with Daniel. The reunion is uneasy and Snoop leaves Daniel to join Sandra on the sofa where she was sleeping.&nbsp; <h2>The ending of Anatomy of a Fall analyzed</h2>Justine Triet’s masterpiece lies in the perspectives of each scene through the eyes of the characters. This makes it impossible for the audience to understand the real reason behind Samuel’s death. The movie would not have made a mark on our minds if Triet had spelled it out for us. Through constant portrayal of tension and meaningful ambiguity, the director has shown multiple versions of the incident. The flashbacks between the courtroom representation have made the audience think and reassess their judgment every time.&nbsp;The visual setting of the movie also played an important role. The cold and isolated nature of the Alps symbolizes the cold nature of the couple’s relationship. Meanwhile, the claustrophobic courtroom symbolizes the scrutiny of Sandra’s character. Triet’s decision to show the voice recordings of Sanda and Samuel’s arguments also made a huge impact, forcing the audience to show their biases toward understanding who is the manipulator and who seems more reasonable.&nbsp;By refusing to portray a clear picture Triet has challenged the audience to be more engaged in the movie and make their own interpretations. The lack of closure is the mirror image of real life which is directly connected to the complexities and tragedies in a relationship.Anatomy of a Fall is a spectacular association of grief and trust in a marriage. Though remains unresolved, it has invited debates and perceptions regarding the central theme while creating layers in each scene. The amalgamation of Triet’s direction and the powerful performance of Sandra Huller has given birth to a thought-provoking masterpiece. In the end, the question of whether Sandra has killed Samuel subsides, as the movie delves into the complexities of an impossible factor of not fully knowing a person. In this sense, it is indeed a masterpiece!

Did Sandra Kill Samuel in Anatomy of a Fall, Explained

Useful links

Company

Information

Content Writers

Freelancers

Freelance Jobs

Online Jobs

Designers

Developers

Translations