[Quick Summary: After her husband falls to his death in France, his wife is on trial, and their sight-impaired son is the main witness.]
Did Sandra hit her husband? Or did her depressed husband commit suicide?
Though I did not know for sure, I found myself having decided opinions, and was impressed how this script played with those assumptions.
One of the characters that shaped my view of Sandra was her defense attorney.
I found him believable, and not flat, i.e., he didn't exist just to make a point about Sandra. It was clear he had a life of his own outside this case.
Their conversations dropped hints about their previous relationship (more assumptions!). I had to re-think again when he started asking questions.
I changed my mind yet again after he argued her position in court.
The last line below hit home because it was a subconscious belief that I had not realized I was carrying:
VINCENT (on his way) Embarked
on a headlong rush, he only postpones the moment of realizing that transcribing
is not writing: Paul Nachez's silence has enlightened him all too cruelly on
this truth. The energy we hear in the argument of November 23 is that of
despair, a desire that insists before giving up. What marked the last months of
this man's life was not a war in his relationship, it was the realization of a
personal bankruptcy, one failure too many. If Sandra Voyter is guilty of
anything, it is that she succeeded where her husband failed. (bolded emphasis mine)
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that this supporting character brought out something (both literally in this dialogue, but also in their interactions) about the main character, which she alone could not do.
Anatomy of a Fall (2023)by Justine Triet & Arthur Harari
No comments:
Post a Comment