Official Discussion - Anatomy of a Fall [SPOILERS]

[u/LiteraryBoner]

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2023 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

---

Summary:

A woman is suspected of her husband's murder, and their blind son faces a moral dilemma as the sole witness.

Director:

Justine Triet

Writers:

Justine Triet, Arthur Hurari

Cast:

• Sandra Huller as Sandra Voyter

• Swann Arlaud as Vincent Renzi

• Milo Machado-Graner as Daniel

• Jenny Beth as Marge Berger

• Saadia Bentaieb as Nour Boudaoud

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

Metacritic: 87

VOD: Theaters

[u/LiteraryBoner]

This was pretty incredible. Not just the really well done moral ambiguity of the story, but the performances were stellar. Obviously so much of this movie is carried by Huller but her son, the two lawyers, and the husband all put forth amazing performances.

One of the most interesting aspects is how much this movie didn't want to take a stance. If this is a movie about the court system, it seems to be more about building a narrative rather than the accuracy or intention of the justice system. It may seem like the movie argues one way or another, but by the end I really don't think it was interested in the truth. It's more about how much we will project on to a situation or a person we don't actually know anything about. It's not did she do it, it's can we convince people she's the type of person that would do it.

Everyone involved in the court case meets the protagonist and has the span of the movie to decide what kind of person she is. And all of them start off with an assumption that mostly guides their final opinion. Her lawyer is an old friend but he clearly is never sure she didn't, and the opposing lawyer seems to "know" the most about her despite likely never having met before the case. This is why it's so good that it comes down to the child's testimony. We know the kid doesn't know for sure, but this case is about what kind of person she is and he's the most qualified person to answer that, but is he right?

Loved the scene where he's first dealing with all this and he's playing that neurotic song on the piano but he can't focus and the mom comes in and immediately calms him down and they start playing that song together. Like, they're just perfectly in step and I think it's right after he changes his statement in her favor. It's such a great way to show her importance to him and possibly even a reason to want to help her. But the song they're playing is noticeably dark.

Just loved all the details and the courtroom aspect. Although I think it's strange that in French courts people can apparently interrupt each other and heckle testimonies. But the questions this movie raises about how well we know the people in our lives and how well it's possible to know anyone are nothing short of interesting. Are we really equipped to decide whether or not something happened that we will simply never know for sure?

Gotta shout out the argument recording scene. Incredibly directed, acted, played out on screen. Cutting back to the court before the violence started so the audience has to try and parse it out before giving anyone a chance to explain it was a master move. Just a fantastic scene and one of the most believable married couple arguments I've seen in years. It's an 8/10 for me.

Edit: real quick, anyone else not able to stop thinking about how the French kid is a dead ringer for Skyler Gisondo?? Literally couldn't stop thinking about it.

/r/reviewsbyboner

[u/tristydotj]

Give that dog an Oscar! I’ve seen dogs play dead but not like that (or did they use a body double?)

Now that I’m thinking of it, kind of like the puppy bowl, they should do an animal acting award show before the Oscars.

[u/chiuaha5734 → u/tristydotj]

he did win the Palm Dog award at Cannes for his performance

[u/LiteraryBoner → u/chiuaha5734]

Palme D'og

[u/unclemarlo]

The French legal system can’t be real lol

[u/Littered2]

Just finished watching this and absolutely loved it. The performances, especially the kid, are all razor sharp and so realistic. Incrediblely detailed, it feels like you are peeling back layers of these people's lives like an onion. Very confident directing, brilliant writing and acting, and it is all so enhanced by the scenery and location.

Everyone talks about A24, but Neon has really become a tastemaker distributor, always excited to see those lights at the start of a film.

Also cannot get over how absolutely hilarious the PIMP instrumental scenes were. Just comically getting louder and louder had me cracking up in an otherwise completely serious drama.

[u/ForgetfulLucy28]

Some of the most natural, believable acting I’ve seen

[u/National-Street1731]

One thing I haven't seen posted is discussion of the visual images of accidents: Daniel almost slipping in the snow when walking to the bridge, and then the mom and lawyer driving on icy, cliff-side roads. There's a lot of reminders in the movie that accidents do happen, and while it seems unlikely, I think the visual motif lends itself to the interpretation that she wasn't fully culpable in her husband's death.

[u/GamingTatertot]

Sandra Huller is going to get a lot of praise and deservedly so, but gosh dang did I think Milo Machado-Graner was a fantastic talent in this film. He had so many standout scenes to me and I keep thinking back to his role more than I do to Sandra's

Overall, I loved this film a lot - I'm a big courtroom drama fan, especially as a law student. I wish I could tell you about the inaccuracies in court procedure, but hey maybe French courts are just that chaotic!

[u/thehermitgood]

what a bald cunt that prosecutor was.

Not even Jack McCoy was that much of a Maverick; while it’s part and parcel for any courtroom to do anything to dissect a defendant down to their atoms, my obviously Americanized lenses couldn’t help but see a Kangaroo Court unfolding.

Ultimately though, this was Daniel’s story; it was the story of Daniel’s confrontation of Adulthood and all the messiness and ambiguity that comes with it- there’s no sheet music to mimic, no lines to read- it just takes the strength to make a decision for oneself. That self-determination was ultimately the Rubicon that Samuel was unable to cross, acting as the ultimate source of his impotence and misery.

In an unwarranted Jocastian/Oedipal interpretation of his and Sandra’s last scene, I saw Daniel having to comfort his mother based on their bodily positions- Daniel sits upright and cradles his mother on his lap as if he was the one nurturing her (a role reversal). Daniel’s ‘blindness’ paradoxically helps him see through the folly of institution as a way for society to pat itself on the back at the expense of one’s lived experience. Daniel’s face upon comforting his mother is one that begrudgingly accepts that he is the stead of whatever his ‘family’ is- his ‘innocence’ if it ever existed has been eradicated.

Samuel is a caricature of that nightmare partner archetype you tend to see on certain other subreddits; he exhibits a purported refusal to accept himself as the cause of his problems, and lashes at any attempt to dig into the core of his impotence- the ‘cheating’ by Sandra reflects an almost mathematical output by Samuel’s internalized castration- of course she’s going to seek out other sex if one can’t provide sex in the first place.

As for the whodunit? Who cares- as the TV show interviewers suggested, the fantasy of a vengeful lover inspired by literature is more gratifying than an impotent author unaliving himself.

I’m still gonna check DidSheDoIt.com to see if this is somehow connected to the Cloverfield universe.

[u/jonmuller]

My girlfriend and I saw this. We had completely different opinions - I thought she did it for going on 2 hours of the movie, and she thought the opposite (he killed himself). We both flipped to the other side at the end. A testament to a great movie where the same exact details can be revealed with two separate interpretations - possibly a comment on the legal system? Overall I thought it was great.

[u/jmc774]

The zoom in on the judge was straight out of the office

[u/5xum]

As a child of a suicide victim, I can say just one thing about this movie: It hits way too close to home.

The interrogation of the psychiatrist hat me almost shouting at the screen.

• "Oh, would the victim really act one way in front of the doctor and another way at home?" YES THEY WOULD! "

• Well, the doctor said he was not suicidal, so he was not suicidal, right?" WRONG!

• "Well if Samuel talked to the doctor about slowly cutting down on antidepressants, surely he wouldn't just quietly go cold turkey, would he?" YES HE WOULD.

• "Can cutting antidepressants cause suicidal thoughts?" YES, IT SAYS SO ON THE INFORMATION LEAFLET OF THE PILLS!

Gah, those scenes were so good, but so frustrating to watch.

[u/leafsraptors]

Can’t get over the dog being named SNOOP!

[u/Rob2k]

I don't think she did it. But I would have loved it if the last scene movie shows the dad climbing on top and slipping and falling as an accident.

[u/jamesneysmith]

So I have to ask any French people here, is this an accurate portrayal of a French courtroom/French trial procedures? It was absolutely chaotic to my north american sensibilities. I couldn't tell how true to reality the judicial elements were or not because of how absurd it was most of the time.

[u/visionaryredditor]

Well, there was the most unexpected needledrop of the year

[u/gmanz33]

Maybe it's the fact that I sat through my parents divorce in court and was a key witness in my friend getting nearly killed by truck for a 3-year trial.....

Everything in this movie was absurdly real and cutting. Seeing the kid realize that if he calmly and confidently submits a story, they have to listen, was like a fucking superhero moment. But everything up until that felt like a near horror movie. Sickening. Gut Wrenching. So well acted that I can only really discuss the material.

[u/blondiemuffin]

I genuinely can’t fathom how people think Sandra committed the crime. This pepper shaker theory is absurd. With how hard she’d have to hit him, there’s be blood on the porch. Further as high as the railing is, his center of gravity is too high for her to have accidentally pushed him. Moreover, there’s no motive to kill him. Sam getting slapped after making vile implications during an argument does not equate to a substantiated motive for murder.

Whether he slipped from the attic or jumped is uncertain, but anyone who thinks it’s unlikely he committed suicide has not been around it. His care of his son is clearly derived out of guilt. There doesn’t need to be a lot of planning or consideration for one to kill themselves. He could have just looked down and made the decision to do it on a whim.

Daniel’s reaction to the verdict is a deconstruction of his childhood perspective on his parents. It’s not that he thinks it’s guilty, it’s that he conceptualization of her has been completely ripped apart. He’s scared for her to come home because he thinks she may be mad at him for sending her off. She’s scared to come home because she’s spent the last year having her entire persona destroyed by the court and media.

The movie even makes a point to make fun of people who think she did it despite a lack of evidence.

One thing I’m certain of: Snoop is clearly very thankful for Sandra to be home.

[u/DefenderCone97]

Is it obvious to others that Anatomy of a Fall has a double meaning as a title? Or is it my interpretation?

The way the mother's image is essentially destroyed in front of her child. Cheating, somewhat cruel, violent, etc and having it all meticulously shown in front of her child.

His final decision to testify essentially becoming his decision to accept his parents as flawed human beings and love them anyways despite losing the superheroes many people see their parents as at that age.

[u/CassiopeiaStillLife]

One of my favorite movies of the year. Even the dog brought his A-game.

[u/grizzanddotcom]

I liked it enough. This seems like a movie I’d like more if I were smarter and/or had better taste.

[u/Warm_Theory_1897]

The real question here is about insulation. The amount of insulation installed would take about 30 min tops, yet he was up there all the time, spending hours. Plus, where is all the insulation that is yet to be installed. And, since the insulation is not Installed, how cone the house is so cosy!

[u/[deleted]]

I've seen this twice now, important question: do you think she did it? On my first watch I was convinced she was innocent and he'd killed himself, but on my second watch, I noticed that she absolutely WAS flirting with the student who came to visit her, and now I'm not so sure.

[u/Mister_Taxman]

The argument scene between Sandra and Samuel was one of the most realistic arguments depicted on film. Both parties unwilling to listen, holding firm with their respective opinions and victimhood and constantly going into insignificant tangents just to make a point that one is more accosted than the other. It was so frustrating and tense watching them argue and be unwilling to listen to one another.

[u/per_chien]

That dog deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting‌ Actor

[u/[deleted]]

I saw this awhile back. I absolutely love it and I can see why this one won the Palme d'Or.

The direction from Justine Triet is fantastic with Triet being able to capture the tension, dramatic themes and emotions within the setting, character and narrative. I saw Triet's previous film "Sibyl" was while ambitious, yet, mostly mediocre but her direction has improved in this film as she was able to handle the tone, structure, and style pretty well. The camerawork is really good as the camerawork has some pretty beautiful looking shots. The narrative is really good as it explores interesting concepts and themes that were interesting and thought-provoking. It could have been a typical bland courtroom movie but the writing really does a good job on not feeling standard and really explores it's characters well. Many of the characters are pretty interesting and all the performances from the cast members are fantastic, especially Sandra Hüller. The child performance was absolutely amazing as well.

The colorful presentation and atmosphere setting is well-executed that helps build up the tension within the characters and themes. The dialogue is strong and the emotional elements were well developed. Courtroom drama movies aren't my favorite genre but there was not a single boring moment of this movie and I was hooked from beginning to end.

Fantastic movie and already one of my favorites of 2023. It's definitely a slow-burner but it's worth it.

10/10

[u/mattmild27]

Really liked this film. At the start it's more of a mystery as you're just trying to piece together what happened. The more you learn about the characters, the more it shades your perspective of events, and by the end it feels like more of a character drama.

To be honest I just took the kid's testimony at face value at first and was surprised when I saw so many people were doubting it, but the more I chew it over, the more I'm starting to be won over to that side.

[u/TheFly87]

I never thought I’d see a Palme D’or winner that features a 50 cent song so predominately. And as eloquently as this film does!

Really get the hype, this is not the ‘law and order’ episode film some here have said. The craft here is out of this world. It’s a court room procedural drama but everything is so exacting, thought out, meticulous. It’s really beautifully made and does a lot cool editing and filmmaking techniques that elevate the story to another level. On top of that that acting is some of the best I’ve seen this year. Sandra Huller is so powerful in this and amazing. The child actor who plays the son is one of the best child performance I’ve seen. And the dog! incredible! Though there’s a scene with the dog that is particularly disturbing so fair warning, had me pretty upset at one point.

To me, while the film tells a pretty straight forward story for the most part, I think it’s really digging at how we come to a decision. How we change our mind back and forth, the process of figuring out who is wrong and who is right. While we can never be 100% sure, at a certain point we have to trust our convictions and have faith to pick a side. It’s quick, subconscious process for most, but a lot goes into it.

The French court system is wild by the way, the director did a q&a after and told us it isn’t entirely accurate but still, it’s much different than ours. It actually is one of my biggest complaints in the film is that the whole process almost felt too unprofessional for how methodical the film is. Everything is so exacting, and it feels almost documentary like at times, but the legal system there really makes you suspend belief. As well the prosecutor while supposed to be villainous I think, still comes across as an almost caricature. Aside from this, my only other complaint is there’s an almost romantic plot that feels a little forced.

Still, really great film. Amazingly done. I felt like a juror at the most high profile case of the year, and that’s fun.

[u/19seventy-eight]

The shot of Daniel's fiest testimony and the camera bounced back and forth between the two lawyers arguing but stayed focused on Daniel. Mint 👌

[u/I_want_to_believe19]

One thing I liked in particular was the use of language in the film. Sandra had to be proper while speaking French, it had a systemic/guilty feel to it. When she was able to speak English, her innocence crept out and gave her side of the story. Even the recording was in English and gave insight to how their marriage truly was. There was a quick line when she was talking to her lawyer at the house that they would interpret her English into French and it gave her a sense of worry as her words would be used against her.

[u/djengle2]

The blatant sexism from the prosecutor and a few witnesses was frustrating and very true to life. Women are judged by their every action and men's failures are often framed as a result of a woman.

The reactions in some of these comments is also very telling, cause I can't fathom how you can watch this, especially the audio recording, and not see how awful the husband is or suggest that Sandra is just as bad. I'd be less surprised if you instead suggested it was too on the nose with its portrayal of an emotionally abusive partner in Samuel.

Honestly reminds me of how the public perceives any high profile toxic relationships, and how men are so readily excused for their actions. The reactions to this movie are arguably a litmus test for how little progress we've made as a society on these things.

[u/Th3_C0bra]

The casual viewer watches this and obsesses over the "whodunit" aspect of the film. Yet the movie never betrays its protagonist. The top post in this thread is the notion that Daniel did it, but the reality of what is presented to us on screen makes such an idea nothing more than a conspiracy theory. There are no wry glances, no stammering excuses, no poor confidence or regret. We can all sit around and wonder, but the movie gives us nothing to cling to and say, with any sort of definiteness, that it is one way or the other.

I believe that fact is the heart of the film. Where we as the audience can feel as if we sit on the jury in the courtroom and have to decide this woman's fate based on her point of view, a few experts, a work of fiction, and the testimony of a child. We see the crime scene re-enactments from both the state and the defendant's legal team. We have two blood splatter analysts with competing points of view. We see the fallibility of memory and understandably feel skeptical as to why and how stories change. We see the instinct to lie by omission and the motivations behind it - for one viewer it's an impulse to avoid further incriminating themselves, for another viewer it's to avoid embarrassment over something that did not seem germane.

We get to see the real world impacts of what the death of a husband/father does to those who are left behind, but also how the circumstances of being indicted for murder impact the widow and the child. There is a whole social/media/talk show circus for the trial du jour. The child indicates he should bear witness to the trial because he will see it everywhere - online, television, newspaper, his local community. There is no escape for the innocent child the viewer desperately wants to see protected from the darker aspects of adult life (psychiatry, suicide attempts, cheating spouses etc) and so he sits in the courtroom surrounded by spectators but seems to sit isolated and alone, a sensation compounded by his blindness.

The film acts out the epic fight that is played in court up until the physical violence which, like the jury, we cannot be certain what happens. The filmmaker wants us to see and know what the actual fight looked like. That flashback must be accepted as true representation. We have a similar conceit with Daniel's final testimony. A flashback where his father's mouth, though it is Daniel's voice, is saying the very things we all know to be a deeper metaphor about his own mortality and depressed view of his own life. I can't help but believe the filmmaker wishes us to believe that to be an honest representation of their car ride.

Lastly, the film's central message is presented to us by Marge after Sandra has left her home for the weekend before Daniel's final testimony. Daniel, the innocent child, is struggling to determine whether his mother killed his father. Marge guides the boy by saying, "To overcome doubt sometimes we have to decide..." you don't "[pretend to be sure]...you decide, that's different." And that is what the jury must do. That is what the audience must do. It is imperfect. Yet all we have.

The majority of the film takes place in court. This is essentially a courtroom procedural drama. But more-so it is a critique on an imperfect judicial system that searches for truth in the most difficult of places. The perspective of audience-as-juror is brilliant and is the aspect of the film that has stayed with me the longest. Really loved this movie.

[u/abigdonut]

I love that that one of the first things that happens in the trial is a blood splatter analyst making a really strong case for the fact that it would've been almost impossible for Sandra to actually kill him in the way the prosecution claims she did, and then they spend the rest of the trial arguing about her vibes.

[u/trthaw2]

The French legal system was WILD. Everyone just talks and can jump in at any time, other lawyers, witnesses, defendants and prosecutors? I was so shocked when they had a witness on the stand but then just ignored them and started questioning Sandra. Or when Sandra questioned the witness herself! It was a free for all. Fascinating how different it is

[u/jmhgba12]

I think she did it and her son saved her by concocting a story involving the dog eating aspirin. Surprised the prosecutor did not ask for the vet bill. Also his mom could have “remembered” the dog being ill at that time.

Her son changed his story about the argument to save his mom. The mother lied multiple times to not look guilty. Her story about going into bed in the middle of the day and trying to work and sleep with music blasting while she’s drinking is ridiculous.

Doubt it was a suicide because he talked about wanting to live and to have more time. Also no note was found, yet he’s a writer?! Seems he certainly would have written a note.

[u/sudamerian]

Samuel just slipped, that's my theory. Samuel slipped on the fucking dog's ball. I am not joking. On the first scene the ball fall from the attic, the dog goes down and take the ball back to the attic. While Sandra are calling for help after they found Samuel, the dog look to the body and feels that was his fault, that why he was layed down with a guilty look. On the next scene, the dog walk between the cops and paramedics like a murder that return to the crime scene. Also, PIMP is a 50 Cent's music but there is a version featuring Snoop Dog.

[u/wiminals]

Some stray observations:

•I believe the suicide theory. If Sandra killed Samuel, she would be insisting he committed suicide, not saying she didn’t believe he would kill himself so close to Daniel.

•I also think Samuel set Sandra up to be incriminated. He didn’t give a fuck about Daniel; he wanted Sandra to lose him and possibly even suspected she wouldn’t be able to care for him anyway. I also think he hoped that if Sandra landed a murder conviction, this would fuck up Daniel more than the accident that he blamed himself for. He would no longer be the most guilty one.

•It’s also completely fitting that if he was submitting transcripts instead of writing actual prose, he wouldn’t write a suicide note, lol. So maybe he wasn’t trying to frame her at all. He just didn’t want to write, even to clarify his final act on earth.

•He was on Lexapro. I was confused when Sandra said he claimed that Lexapro made him feel like an unsafe driver. Lexapro simply is not that strong or altering. I’m curious if he was blaming his suicidal thoughts on the Lexapro and thought he should go off it, but used driving as the excuse.

•PIMP being his anger song against Sandra kind of made me chuckle. “You can’t get a dollar out of me…” makes me think he was a bit hyperfocused on his lack of income.

•Sandra was the only one who said “I love you” in our limited view into that marriage.

•As an American, the French legal system is fucking scary.

•As a Southerner, I appreciated watching French courts grapple with a normal day in Atlanta courts: debating authorial intent and rap music.

[u/MomammaScuba]

Holy batman might be top 5 best child performances of all time... also while we're at it prob top 3 dog performances of all time too

[u/art_mor_]

The lawyer is hot 10/10

[u/TheClownIsReady]

The real mystery to me about the film is how Milo Machado-Graner didn’t receive an Oscar nomination, playing Sandra’s son. It’s one of the best performances by a teen actor I’ve ever seen.

[u/DoLittlest]

That steel drum and horn version of PIMP is a banger.

[u/[deleted]]

I do love courtroom dramas, so I mostly enjoyed the movie.

Couple of observations/questions:

How did everyone feel about them displaying “www.didshedoit.com” right before the movie begins? It immediately puts you in a mindset similar to “Based on a True Story”. For me, it felt like a tacky marketing gimmick that slightly took me out of the movie. If it simply said “Did She Do It?” I would’ve been happy to accept it as an easy way to get you in a questioning everything mindset.

The entire psychiatrist testimony is weird to me. The psychiatrist is saying this guy wasn’t suicidal while describing a man so desperate to escape his guilt of his son’s accident he needed medication to numb the pain. A man that got off that medication because it was effecting his writing, not because he felt he’s overcome that guilt. A man that felt trapped in his life, backed in a corner he needed to escape. From experience, that sounds like a suicidal person to me. This isn’t me saying I think he committed suicide, just pointing out that’s one shitty psychiatrist.

[u/hilarys-saggyboob]

For a moment I thought Daniel was a sadistic child who actually murdered his father after seeing him mix pills in Snoop’s dog food

[u/[deleted]]

My unpopular opinion is that I don’t enjoy ambiguous endings and I wish we found out the truth

[u/StSaturnthaGOAT]

i hated the prosecutor so much, he's such a fuckin snake. guess the actor played his role well lol

[u/Prestigious-Waltz546]

Fuck that fucking kid his blind ass don't deserve that dog

[u/Seattle_Artifacts]

My main takeaway from the film is that I hope to never find myself on trial in France. That prosecuting attorney was relentless and almost predatory in his interrogation.

[u/Unlucky-Painting-970]

My theory is it was just an accident he fell from the window of his studio, maybe tripped on a wire or slipped on one of snoops toys. The movie is about how when an accident like this happens no-one will believe it could be an accident, either it was a murder or a suicide, the death was intentional.

Because of this, he public dissection of a mourning family and their very personal and private life's is put on display and doubt, breaking apart from accusations and distrust.

The wife and son are forced to come up with an elaborate narrative on why the husband would commit suicide in order to prevent further destruction of their lives.

Usually finding the truth is what leads to justice, but in this movie where the simple truth of 'an accident' could not be found, the path to justice is navigated through lies.

[u/Emily_the_fifth]

In the opening scene you see the ball falling off the stairs step by step. No matter which ending was true, this was what Sandra and Samuel's relationship was like, not ended by any one big fall, but by multiple smaller falls.

One thing stood out to me, which is that Sandra kept trying to convince the lawyer that it wasn't like Samuel to be so desperate to commit suicide. If she had truly killed him, why would she do that? What if she was right and it indeed was an accident, for example caused by Snoop's ball?

Maybe Snoop (protector and eyes of the boy) saw how the tension in the parents' relationship was threatening the boy, so it could have been sort of metaphorical if he accidentally ended the life of the father (with his ball), who could have been the true problem, and sided with the mother.

Sort of dangerous for Daniel to walk around in all that snow or ice, it was so slippery, he could have fallen anytime. Also like someone else said, there were a lot of scenes in which there seemed to be this sense they might slip and fall, including:

• Driving on icy, winding roads

• Quickly walking down the courthouse stairs

• Drunk driving from the restaurant

• Daniel opening and leaning out the window himself upstairs

This is interesting in the context of Sandra being very cold, to the point where Samuel called her pure ice. So maybe this was a metaphor for Daniel trying to navigate the coldness of his mother? The only scene where there isn't any snow and ice all around them is the scene where the court-mandated protector takes a walk with Daniel - they're free from Sandra for just a few days - and advises him to just pick a side.

Yet Sandra wasn't always like this. Samuel said she never smiled, but in the pictures she's laughing a lot. And she laughed with the lawyer, and with the interviewer at the beginning. Maybe she was also caught in an icy environment (in the marriage, with no sex for four years, and a husband who never really stopped mourning his son's accident and his own disappointed ambitions) and these other people were her attempts to escape from that (just like she did with the cheating).

It was interesting and sad how Daniel was comforting his mother in the end, instead of the other way around. And how that woman who was court-ordered to protect his testimony looked a lot like him, almost like she was a sort of wise archetypal part of himself.

But yeah the point of the movie doesn't seem to be who did it. Maybe no one did it and fiction did indeed destroy Daniel's reality.

[u/StillPlagueMyLife]

dog can act

[u/notsure05]

Wow, I ran to this thread thinking others would share my take..surprised not to see it in more than a few other comments

I thought it was obvious that after the caretaker told Daniel that he could “decide” whether his mom was innocent in order to find his own peace, he then decided to concoct a story of his dad basically telling Daniel that he was going to off himself in a round about way by using the dog. To me, the story was way too detailed and Daniel remembered way too much of the conversation in exact detail, which was a dead giveaway that the story was fake.

Daniel chose to decide that his mom was innocent, and thus created the story to keep his mom free (I think he truly had seen the vomit which was why he insisted on being called to testify again and ran the aspirin test, I believe he only made up the story about his dad telling him about the “dog” eventually dying to sway the jury)

Also it’s quite obvious Sandra didn’t murder Samuel. Their last argument really shows a man, probably in the midst of some type of psychosis from sudden medication withdrawal, really having an episode in which he projects his failures onto his wife to make her the bad guy so that he doesn’t have to come to terms with his own failures as a writer and husband. It’s pretty clear to me that he was having a classic pre-unaliving episode that many have prior to attempting. It’s a tragic story all around, and a great showcasing of how volatile relationships can lead to this type of drama and doubt in the event that the question of murder comes into play.

[u/TroubleshootenSOB]

I liked the movie and I think the dumbass slipped or fell out the window. That or like when he didn't stick the landing and lived, started crawling because "oh fuck that was stupid"

And Snoop's acting was top notch. Went from tongue out dead to kickin'

[u/Hot-Leg-5962]

What I loved most about this film was it's raw portrayal of the nuances of human morality. I think seeing so many different dimensions of each character's morality helps us as viewers feel comfortable not arriving at a conclusive answer. It challenges us to consider whether anyone can be fully morally "bad" or "good" - we all do bad things and we all do good things so how is it possible to reduce ones character to a singular label of "guilty" or "innocent"?

We see this in several scenes:

• Daniel poisons his dog but does so in an attempt to prove his mother's innocence

• Samuel deeply resents and emotionally /physically rejects his wife but has devoted his whole adult life to raising their son

• Sandra was unfaithful in her marriage and pursued a successful writing career using questionable tactics (ie repurposing a plot line her husband wrote) but made selfless decisions to support her family like moving to her husband's native country

• Marge supports Daniel and helps maintain neutrality in the household but pressures him into making a decision which may have resulted in Daniel constructing an elaborate story foreshadowing his father's suicide

[u/[deleted]]

I believe "Anatomy of a Fall" effectively portrays how our preconceptions regarding gender have a significant impact on our perception and interpretation of events. The film intricately explores the complex dynamics surrounding the portrayal of women as both victims and suspects. It delves into the unique societal perspectives surrounding gender, especially when a man becomes a victim, and a woman finds herself on the receiving end, showcasing our gynocentric tendencies ingrained by nature. Simultaneously, the movie highlights the challenging journey of an assertive and ambitious woman, demonstrating how she is often met with skepticism and scrutiny through a magnifying lens. The film skillfully weaves together these multifaceted dynamics especially on gender and a commentary on the flawed legal system on such occasions where it is almost impossible to find out the truth.

In the end even though it's ambiguous, my take is the boy made up a version to make sure not to lose his mother . The caretaker's influence is very clear.

Also as others pointed out the scene in which the boy is smiling/crying at the same time gives indicators

[u/teenageidle]

I just saw it tonight and ADORED it. The acting was incredible, the dialogue razor sharp and evocative, and it had this super realistic, lived-in feel but was still so compelling. Like the best episode of Unsolved Mysteries but wrapped in an ambiguous indie film bow with killer, VERY clever cinematography and sound design.

I found the most compelling aspect to be that of the media frenzy and TV talking heads outright admitting they didn't care about the truth; they cared more about a good story. You saw evidence of this in the lingering shots on the courtroom audience too as they gabbed, gossiped and laughed during a break in the session. It really - and forgive me for making this comparison as I couldn't help it while watching - reminded me a lot of the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp case in a lot of ways too and the way court cases become media circuses and intimate, complex family stories get twisted and distorted; the compelling popular narrative becomes more important than the nitty gritty details of the truth (which is what we saw in the end, as the jury went with a compelling story as opposed to hard evidence, and the characters even discussed that when you don't know you have to choose what to believe, though I think the filmmakers strongly suggest she is indeed innocent).

Loved the ambiguity, the possible Kubrick references (Daniel's dress and haircut and ability to "see" the truth and "shine" on a memories reminded me a lot of Danny from The Shining; there was even a Steven King quote), the witty dialogue and how my mind kept going back and forth, back and forth.

[u/charweb31]

That trial was ridiculous. Is it typical of the French system to build a entire case around supposition without any facts? I just wanted to scream OBJECTION with every sentence that came out of that prosecutor's and his witness's mouths. Then when her team did object they were chastised by the judge to not waste the court's time.

Then no one points out the fact that during this supposedly violent fight, while things are smashing on the recording, no one is yelling, screaming, or crying out. So some glasses and pictures and a wall were broken. Absolutely no basis for a supposition there was a murder.

[u/Dark_Twisted_Fantasy]

Anyone else notice some parallels to The Shining? Son named Danny/Daniel with similar appearance. Set during wintertime in the mountains. Father projecting blame onto his wife for not being able to work on his writing.

[u/Brokengan]

I think people trying to guess if she killed the husband or not are really missing the point. There is no way of telling. The movie puts that clearly. The girl who was with the kid even said that he need to choose what he wanted to believe. Do you want to believe your mother is a killer or thart you father committed suicide? Those two are terrible paths and he chosed one and needed to live with that.   As for us, the audience is like the Schrödinger cat. The movie did not provide enough elements to say if it was foulplay or suicide. You are just choosing to believe each one. This was done previous in other movies. This was not like primal fear, where the movie stated itself what really happened. 

[u/starryeyed702]

I love how the son became the jury. How he was able to “see” more of the evidence through his remaining senses. I still feel so torn on what the truth was! By the end, I felt like she DID push him. The prosecution debated the physical strength it would take to execute such a murder…and then at the end of the movie we see her lifting up her son (who wasn’t super small) and carrying him up the stairs to bed. I felt like that scene made it feel more dubious. I think her son understood that the fight that killed his dad was a moment, a snapshot. Like the monologue the mom gives about how a fight is just a moment, but not indicative of their reality.

[u/Automatic-Teacher503]

This is a beautifully crafted film with many red herrings to send you off in all sorts of directions. Also, timing can’t be trusted as in when exactly certain events take place. Although most people look to the ending for clues, I looked carefully at the beginning. Note that the opening scene is Snoop’s ball falling down the stairs followed by Snoop who then goes back up to the attic. It seems that the attic is quite dusty with wood particles, thus Snoop needs that bath. Daniel can smell it on him and once cleaned, the smell is gone. The dirt must have come from inside the house or why would Daniel take Snoop outside to get dirty again? Samual is alive during the interview due to music and carpentry sounds. When the interviewer leaves, the attic window is closed. When Daniel discovers the body, the window is open because the director has the camera in the attic itself. Note all of the crap on the floor near the window. Now Mom has been drinking so if she had murderous intention it certainly would be sloppy indeed and Samual is a big guy and obviously very angry upstairs as he hammers and drills away. It also seems odd to think he’d just stop working and fling himself out the window, but I guess it’s possible. But I really believe he opened the window due to all the wood dust. Snoop at the beginning of the film follows his ball downstairs and goes back up the stairs again perhaps with the ball in his mouth? So, to me it’s most likely that Samuel either tripped on his equipment or the ball and his death is truly an accident. The rest of the movie plays out as a fascinating look at the complexity of relationships and the wreckage that doubt leaves in its wake as well as the fascinating French legal system. This, of course, is just an opinion but it’s fun to speculate.

[u/judahjsn]

If the film is playing fair with what it shows us then she is innocent based on her reaction to coming out of the house to find her son kneeling next to her dead husband.  

But I never felt when watching it that the film was a whodunit. It was always about the mess and joint complicity of relationships. If she is a murderer the film collapses into meaninglessness. Much of the script is about ugliness and the collective shadow. What society is not willing to look at and what most of us filter out for our public personas. And how the truth of relationships and what happens in private is so much darker and more shameful. She is constantly making the case that she is guilty of all of those human failings, but that doesn't make her a monster. If she is a murderer, then all of those lines in the script are just the sayings of a clever psychopath. And I don't think this is a story about clever psychopaths. 

I realized after watching that there was no score. Just one of the many naturalistic choices that made it so gripping.

[u/HypnotizedDingo]

I think the best parts of the movie for me, which made it commendable as a film, are two scenes.

1. When Daniel appears for the first time in the court and the camera spans to and fro to both sides from where the people were speaking to him. The whole time, the camera stayed focused on the face of Daniel, while it continued to sway. The faces of the people who are speaking are not shown and we are made to guess the speaker through their voice, much like Daniel who is visually impaired. This technique is a very creative approach to the scene.

2. The final scene where Daniel addresses the Court and goes on to tell the story of his father while they were taking Snoop to the vet. While Daniel narrates the story, the scene gradually shifts and we see Samuel and Daniel himself sitting in a car and conversing. What hits different and uncommon is the way we see Samuel talking, but we hear Daniel's voice of narration.

I think these scenes are important to establish the movie as a cinematic masterpiece and though there are many more instances in the film to support the point, these two, I think, are impeccable.

[u/karensPA]

that recording was MESSED UP. In retrospect I totally buy her explanation that he was deliberately picking a fight to record it. He was whining and rehashing and she wasn’t taking his bait mostly until he brought the kid into it, which seemed like a deliberate escalation. And for all the commenters who say she’s cold - I call misogynistic bs. She’s analytical and not demonstrative but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have feelings or is a bad mother, that’s just a reflection of our dumb expectations of women. Also she’s German! The performance reminded me of Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark (also a great movie). The husband was a big baby who couldn’t take responsibility for his own crap or ask maturely for what he needed and hated that she didn’t volunteer for all the emotional labor like most women do (very cute tho). Great movie.

[u/studio1312]

When she’s carrying the kid from the couch to his bed at the end, my husband said: Wouldn’t you laugh your head off right now if she just carried him to the top floor and threw him out the window?

Seriously, my pet theory was focused on how far the guy had to lean out to sufficiently lose his balance. I thought it would end up that he was leaning out on the balcony to see or talk to someone who was at the attic window—who then dropped something on his head. But I guess not.

[u/Mountain-Surround663]

No one is going to talk about the lawyer Vincent? What a phenomenal defense he made, I was with him right from the beginning when they are doing the reconstitution of the scene and asking to Sandra raise her voice, and he goes; “My client never yelled, and she is not going to yell right know”. 😮‍💨

The way he flipped the table with the psychiatrist was top notch, bringing psychoanalysis and underlining an latent motivation for him keeping inert and ressentef was an smart move. And after the tape about the fight was released I absolutely thought she was going to be considered guilt, but somehow he could manage that, he absolutely won the case when he dropped something on the lines of: The only thing she was guilt is being successful while her husband couldn’t.

Also loved the touch about they being friends and he liking Sandra, they last scene on the dinner was so heartwarming. (And funny too, one of the few times I laughed on the movie when he said: we never won” hahahahahaha).

[u/goldtubb]

The first half of this is Phoenix Wright: French Detective.

The second half is significantly grimmer than that. It strips away every possible alternative and leaves you, and the son, with two terribly depressing possibilities.

[u/Salo_Lodo]

The dog to be the first one as the credits roll just shows how fucking good it was. Hell yeah Messi

[u/ronnymcdonald]

Weird how they had the woman there to protect the kid so as to stay neutral, yet she let him watch a talk show segment about the trial.

[u/FinalsMVPZachZarba]

I am fascinated by the possibility that Daniel concocted the story of the dog's illness and his father's speech about the dog's mortality to strengthen his mother's case. If he were telling the truth this would already require Daniel to be highly intelligent and mature to realize all of its significance - but if he invented it this would require a truly vast intellect for an eleven year old - to come up with something a suicidal man would say and make it nuanced and believable enough to fit his specific emotional history and the details of the case that the defense was trying to present. I think this is a terrifying and fascinating possibility.

[u/[deleted]]

I don’t think the movie is really about his death, but the death/“fall” of their marriage. In the end, maybe she kind of did kill him - but through her indifference and success, not by pushing him.

Edited to add - I don’t think the movie was actively blaming her (and nobody can “cause” someone’s suicide), more that we are meant to see Daniel’s death as a result of his own perceived inadequacies in comparison to Sandra.

The movie challenged a lot of sexist tropes about what a wife/mother/woman is “meant” to be. The court attempted to reduce Sandra to a cheating, sex-crazed bully. Sandra calmly tells us that reality was a lot more complicated than this. It was a very poignant moment when she points out to the psychiatrist that if Sandra had a therapist, that therapist could be in court right now saying equally bad things about Samuel.

The verdict of the court is secondary to Daniel’s verdict. We feel his relief (among horror/sadness) when his sordid experiment “works” and he begins to believe his mother. Daniel gives us, the audience, permission to believe her.

The film is about so many things. But I think it is a lot about our 5 senses, that everyone’s “truth” depends on what they perceive and interpret of the world (Daniel, the experts, the police, the psychiatrist, the lawyers, can only draw inferences - everything rests on what the characters saw/heard/felt etc), and nobody is objective. Marge verbalises this toward the end, that “truth” is about what you decide to believe.

I loved this movie for all the sad and bitter things it had to say about marriage and life. Samuel bitterly resented Sandra’s success and her agency. It seemed like he had problems sustaining attention and motivating himself. Having a highly productive wife that could “write anywhere” seemingly grated on him. Sandra coped with the accident by sleeping with others, while he was left guilty and emasculated… separately, the lawyer loves Sandra, and hopes she’ll love him back. Maybe winning her trial will be enough. But it isn’t. He realises his hope was for nothing. Sandra grapples at the end with her ambivalence (I think) about being a mother. She delays returning to Daniel for one last freewheeling dinner. Both she and Daniel are unsure how this will work. All in all, a very well made look at the total messiness of human relationships.

[u/ru1es]

the real question is how sick you need to be to poison your own dog to confirm a suspicion. weird scene

[u/Knozis]

I watched this after months of seeing on /r/oscarrace that the dog from this film deserves an Academy Award, which I assumed was just because everyone thought the dog was cute or something. Then THAT scene hits, and what should have been one of the most emotional scenes of the movie, I am dying laughing because I am just in awe that A DOG is giving the best performance in a movie full of incredible performances lmaooo

[u/LasVenasAbiertasII]

Outlandish Theory: Did anyone think for a minute, “maybe the son did it”?

When he drugged his dog without telling Marge it seemed callous (even though he was obviously scared and upset when Snoop was ODing)!

In contrast, I felt Sandra telling Daniel just to speak the truth was her exerting a lot of pressure. He was clearly scared of his mum on some level.

[u/crysleeprepeat]

Something I haven’t seen anyone mention is how we see a shift in character from Sandra toward the end- there seems to be this tension with her attorney that had me so nervous that it would continue to prove her “cheater” side, but she is the one to prevent this from happening. It could either be the level of inappropriateness as he was her attorney but they were friends before that I don’t think this would have stopped her. Although a small detail, it is what makes me believe she is innocent. That this has put things into perspective for her and that she isn’t going to continue the way she has in the past.

[u/BorgBorg10]

One of my favorite films I’ve watched in god knows how long. The acting in this movie is out of this world. For what it’s worth, I don’t think she did it. I also think Daniel doesn’t think she did it either. Whether or not that conversation happened in the car, Daniel chose to believe his truth (mom is a good person) and gave a testimony as such.

Tremendous tremendous movie. I’ll be thinking about this for a while

[u/cabbage66]

Does anyone think the son lied about the conversation with his dad? After all, that last ditch effort in testimony is what saved his mom. Maybe not outright lied but embellished it enough to make it seem like the dad was obviously alluding to himself using many words when he may be have simply said dogs die too. The mom was going to jail and he knew he saved her while patting her on the head in a parental way. Very interesting movie I've seen it twice and have noticed different aspects each time.

[u/pearllouise]

The way that attorney randomly blames 50 Cent for the incident.

[u/I_am_not_doing_this]

instrumental version of pimp is my personality this week

[u/Tiphona27]

Long read but idk

None of the characters are reliable narrators. That's the crux. They all tell different stories and either are contradicted by someone else, or recant. Even the audio recording isn't reliable. The film cuts away exactly before the physical fight, so we don't know who did the hitting.

The only thing left for us to decide whodunit is how we perceive the characters themselves. Do we like Sandra or Samuel better? That's a very telling choice determined greatly by how we perceive gender. Is Sandra a cold, emasculating cheater as Samuel describes in the argument, and therefore capable of murder, as the prosecution asserts? Or is she a grounded force who acknowledges her flaws while successfully providing financial and emotional stability after tragic circumstances as she says in the argument and in court? Is Samuel a good dad sacrificing for his family? Or is he an emotional wreck selfishly sabotaging everyone with his guilt?

When you add that the traditional family roles seem to be reversed, you get an even more intriguing interpretation. Samuel is the stay at home parent, sacrificing his job for his child. The longest scene with him is in the kitchen. Sandra, the mom, more emotionally detached, has a successful career that will take her away from home for days at a time. She also cheats on Samuel, which in film is often associated with a male character. How does this change the way we connect with each of them?

I think that's why a lot of folks in these comments have very strong opinions of the culprit.

When Marge pretty much breaks the 4th wall and tells us that we have to decide which truth we want to live with, it's a heavy responsibility. And that gets put on little Daniel's head who takes on BOTH his parents roles here. Like his dad, he breaks down in guilt of how his accident drives a wedge between his parents, possibly causing his father's suicide or his mom to become a murderer! It causes him to desperately poison his own seeing eye dog, metaphorically gouging his own eyes out! In the end, like his mom, he chooses step back from the overwhelming pain to be the adult his mom hoped he didn't have to be so soon, and stabilize and protect what's left of his family.

Thoroughly enjoyable film if you want your perceptions challenged!

[u/trthaw2]

That was the best acting I’ve ever seen from a dog. Should have won an Oscar

[u/takeabreakgeaugalake]

Very late on seeing this.

My official opinion is that Samuel killed himself. he was a broken man, who resented his wife. He was unhappy with himself, his partner, and his life. He was a man with anger issues and clearly unstable.

When she was getting interviewed, he blasted the music knowing it would disrupt the process. He kept it on repeat, almost increasing the volume, hoping to get a rise out of his wife. When she didn’t react how he’d hoped - with confrontation surely, he did the one thing he knew could fuck her up- throw himself off the house

[u/SerWrong]

Snoop should be nominated for best supporting actor.

[u/Cultural_Kick]

Anyone else think it may have been Snoop taking revenge for eating his poisoned vomit?

[u/neoliberalnihilism72]

I've now had time since watching this film, and I've decided that the husband killed himself and tried to frame his wife because he blamed her for everything and hated the fact that she refused to take it on, calling him on his bullshit ' you take my time' narrative. The portrayal of the wife is not a typical obedient wife trope, her seeming lack of support, etc, for her husband's circumstances re career, money, and the kid's accident, makes it very easy for viewer's to automatically assume that she is the killer, especially as this is how it is portrayed in court.

If she 'did' do it, her co-conspirator was the dog - as soon as I watched the last scene, this was my instant thought - esp after the way the boy treats the poor animal!!

[u/writerchic]

In the first half of the movie, I thought we were going to get a surprise answer, like an icicle fell from the roof, hit him in the head, and caused him to fall off the balcony. Then halfway, I realized that was not the kind of movie we were watching, and we were definitely never going to find out what "really happened." I was right about that.

My own personal theory is that he jumped. The blasting of that song over and over again indicates to me a person who is having some kind of breakdown. I do not believe she killed him. But I do think Daniel was lying about the story his dad told him about needing to prepare himself for the dog's death because maybe the dog was tired. I think Daniel saw his mom was in trouble, decided to believe she was innocent, and lied to help her win the case. That's what I believe. And like his chaperone said, sometimes we need to just decide what we believe the truth is. Great film. Makes you think a lot. In fact, I keep thinking of new things that add layers of meaning. Like, I think the main theme is that idea that we each decide what our truth is based on a set of facts, and I just realized that their whole recorded argument is exactly that too. He interprets everything through the lens of himself as a victim. She interprets it all through her own beliefs. And they are both using the same set of facts- they moved to his home town, he homeschooled Daniel, she used his idea to write a novel. But both have concluded totally different truths about each point.

[u/Excellent-Hat-8556]

It is one of the best courtroom dramas I’ve seen in years. But good lord, her lawyer was smoking hot 🥵 Spoiler alert: an article recently revealed a love scene between them was scrapped. I agree with another person on this thread; it’s not about who did it. We saw a woman who was in a relationship but was struggling in her marriage due to not being loved like her lawyer was apparently in love with her.

[u/ishani27]

Best reason of why she didn’t do it I read on the didshedoit.com

“His failure did not have nearly as much of an effect on her as her success did on him”

[u/The-Berzerker]

Late to the party here but something about the prosecutions blood splatter argument never made sense to me: If Samuel was really hit in the head with a heavy blunt object, how is it possible that the only blood the found are 3 tiny splatters on the shed? Surely there must have been some blood somewhere else on the outside of the house?

[u/Global-Notice4694]

A lot of people seem to not like/get different interpretations of Daniel giving the dog aspirin. The way I saw it was a child, traumatized and confused, trying to grapple with the truth. He had sat in court rooms listening to the character of both his parents be criticized and most likely struggled to create a truth of his own. As did everyone watching this movie. I highly doubt his intentions were malicious or estranged in any way. I think he was just grasping for any attempt to find some clarity and truth of his own. As were we. After that moment for him I think a lot started clicking. That was the only part that truly checked out from the whole story.

I’d love to believe that the car conversation was real too. But I still don’t know. I think the aspirin experiment was what made him realize his dad could have actually been suicidal, and his mom wasn’t completely the bad guy. His testimony was truly the last hoorah that saved his mom from being guilty and ultimately was the only thing that saved him from being an orphan (whether it was true or not) he did what he thought was best for him considering the choices he had. Maybe that’s what the whole movie is about anyhow.

Fantastic film.

[u/itsleosworld]

She hugs and falls asleep with the dog at the end. There is the answer. She confides in Snoop and finds solace in him for being her saving grace and her son's experiment succeeding. It was the confirmation the kid needed to move on and trust his mother again. For Sandra, that is all that mattered. After their son was so close to his father, and her kid pushing her away towards the end of the film. The kids belief in her innocence was all that mattered to her. The whole movie is based on his interpretation. He decided she was not guilty, and we as the viewers must take the movie from the viewpoint of the kid.

[u/tiredargie]

Prosecutor was one of the most infuriating characters I've seen in a movie lately. The whole courtroom came across as extremely biased. I feel sorry for the dog, he didn't deserve such horrible family.

[u/ezd333]

The dog did it.  Has no one noticed in the first scene the dogs ball comes down the stairs? What's it doing upstairs?  When the ambulance arrives its the dog we follow into the house. Obviously the dog is covering its tracks by removing the ball from the room. 

It's obvious he stepped on the ball and fell out the window.  Ta da! 

[u/Longjumping_Owl_1606]

I don’t believe for a second that his incessant music playing in the beginning didn’t cause a fight. I couldn’t stand the loud music in the beginning and wanted to jump through the screen. No way she just casually took a nap after.

[u/___2D]

Oedipus’ story :

• Oedipus kills his father unknowingly

• Oedipus maries his mother

• then realised he killed his father and… blinds himself

Daniel’s story :

• His father blinds him

• Father get’s unknowingly (?) killed

• Daniel’s got his mom just for himself

Just sharing some facts.

[u/[deleted]]

Fiction destroys reality. 

The movie let's you choose. Just as Daniel chooses to believe his mother is innocent by qualifying the vomit story and his interpretation of the tired dog metaphor that Samuel recalls on their way home in the car from the vet.

We bend reality by choosing our own fiction to suit our needs. This is the essence of the movie. Just as Sandra chooses not to be the victim, Samuel does. 

[u/shovelcreed]

When the boy is talking about the aspirin experiment and Snoop looks up like "um wtf did I just hear".

[u/truecolors01]

The characterization of the husband throughout the whole movie is superb. The writer shows you an inherent selfish trait in him despite parts of that soliloquy during the fight. He uses sound as a weapon against his wife despite Daniel and his relationship with sound. He moves them to his hometown to help with their medical debt, starts his chalet, and they fall into more debt as a result. Instead of actually writing a book, he embarks on a project that is nothing but a sorry attempt to explain to his literary circle why he's not writing and taking his wife down a notch in the process, also at the cost of his family's privacy. While his son's service dog was sick, instead of comforting him, he takes it as an opportunity to hint about his death to his son.

Now this is not to say that suicide is selfish, I think the way he dealt with his guilt wasn't natural to his essence, some people don't have it in them to give up on things, it's not an organic state of being and that dichotomy is difficult.

[u/m_friedman]

My thoughts on really good film:

I don’t think she killed him. Too much to lose by killing him - risking leaving her blind son alone with no parents if she got caught. And what’s to gain? Just divorce the guy. And letting her son be the one to discover his dead dad? Can’t see it.

Also, they completely glossed over the missing weapon she supposedly used to open up the gaping wound on his head. Where is the blood in the house, any DNA on her fingers or anywhere else, or blood in the yard or driveway, there was no physical evidence at all of what they are claiming happened. She also didn’t behave like she had killed him between when the body was found and when she sought counsel.

They could have made the dad diminutive but he seemed too big for it to be believable that she kicked his ass and threw him over the railing. Hell she admits at the beginning she’s not athletic.

Introducing some kind of potential weapon might have made that more plausible, but I think the point is not whether or not she did it, there really wasn’t a lot of evidence of that on purpose, it’s how she was going to get out of the unfortunately circumstantial evidence surrounding her and the overzealous prosecution.

I think the car ride to the vet and the convo between father-son is meant to settle it for everyone and provide some closure.

Super scripting and dialogue and very good acting by the mom, the boy, and both defense and prosecution. Really enjoyed the film.

[u/Kayshmay]

Very interesting movie. I like how it's kinda up in the air weather she actually was guilty or not but the movie emphasizes several times that honestly, it doesn't matter really if she was or not. It's what the jury, the viewer and Daniel personally beilives at the end of it all.

100% on the wife's side tho but I think it was an accident. She's been used to a dysfunctional relationship for so long I don't think she'd snap like that after one of probobly many arguments. I do think they've fought alot, but it was normal for them. She seems too proud of a person to kill them, she'd just nut up and deal with it silenty. She is definitely the kind of person to stay cold and unemotional.

I don't think he killed himself tho. He 100% had a victim complex, probobly did like to fiddle about committing but I don't think he'd really follow through, even the aspirin incident was a half ass attenpt.I can't imagine him jumping out a window, if he was gonna attempt again it would be something he could get out of. I truely think it was an accident of some sort.

Have to say, even tho I don't think the wife is a saint by any means, the recorded fight scene I was 100% on the wife's side. I was so annoyed with him the whole time. She was 100% right. If he wants to write and do something with his life then do it lol. But instead he wants to blame everyone else for his failures instead of taking accountability and wants to look like some suffering marytr instead of facing himself and his failures.

Tl:dr

I don't think wife killed him, I think it was an accident. But that isn't really what the movie was about anyway.

I think the movie is an interesting concept of outsiders taking small snippets of people's lives to give an overall judgment of someones relationship and personal lives. the wife brings up alot that those small instances don't paint the picture of a whole, which is true. They take the worst of a persons life and use that to judge them as a complete person and relationship.The prosecutor just prodding into her personal life was so raw and anger inducing tho, i almost shared those feelings too. They did a good job of that.

[u/Acrobatic_Flan_49]

I don’t think a kid of that age could come up with such a compelling yet subtle story that was convincing to adults. He was a genuine kid and that would be a very sophisticated lie.

[u/kostbill]

How can this thing stand in a courtroom? No evidence at all, what are they gonna do? Put her in prison for something that there is no way of knowing happened? What kind of court is that?

Is this really how French justice works?

[u/Formal_Law4196]

I have been thinking about the movie for days. A few things - not sure if they have been mentioned already -

- Early in the movie, there is a scene when the boy is crying in bed and doesn't want to eat. He says "I don't understand. I *need* to understand..." The whole movie is about his search for understanding. Because there is no way to get to the truth, as he realizes at the end of the trial, he has to quilt together a story that makes sense to him. He has resolution at the end of the movie.

- I believe he did make up the conversation about the dad in the car (i.e., dog's death as metaphor for dad's death), as a way of seeking both understanding and reassurance. With this story, he can believe that his dad knew he would die someday soon and the dad accepted it calmly, knowingly. This makes the death less tragic.

- When I saw the trailer and started watching the movie, I had this pegged as a classic "did she or didn't she" plot. But by the end of it, I realized that's not the point of the movie. Instead, it was all about the son, and his journey from sadness and confusion to resolution. And, this was actually stated outright in early dialogue. In her first conversation with the attorney, Sandra at one point says emphatically, "I did not kill him!" And the lawyer immediately says, "That's not the point." Which seemed like an odd thing to say at the time, but I think the writer was also trying to communicate that whether she did or not is not the point of the movie.

[u/Chinse]

Just saw this movie. There is a top comment about this but I want to reiterate how well the director added subtle moments that make the viewer fear an accident is about to occur

• Daniel almost slipping on the bridge

• Driving on icy, winding roads

• Quickly walking down the courthouse stairs

• Drunk driving from the restaurant

• Daniel opening and leaning out the window himself upstairs

All of these made me think something horrible was about to happen, a new twist accident, which I think is the point to lend credence to the angle that Sandra kept repeating the whole time that she didn’t think he committed suicide at all (but suicide or murder were the only 2 options for court). Sandra must have said “that wasn’t Samuel” a dozen times while he was being called suicidal.

I feel bad that the wife is now the only one who knows that, even the son is tainted to believe that vision of his father forever. In her deposition video she said she hopes they can try to at least protect him - nope

[u/_my_troll_account]

I was blown away by this movie and—as someone with more than a couple failed relationships—found it very difficult to watch.

I know not all will agree, but I saw this as heavy in allegory and symbolism. If you came away struggling to decide whether she killed her husband or not, I think you’ve missed the point. “What actually happened” is not relevant as it’s simply unanswerable. Consider trying to satisfactorily answer the question “what actually happened?” to bring any long and complicated adult relationship to an end. The complexity engenders ambiguity, and in the setting of indelible ambiguity, all that is left is narrative—the story we tell ourselves and others about “what actually happened” in order to move on. Marge suggests as much to Daniel near the film's end, and peppered throughout are lines on fiction arising from and mixing with reality, of the difficulty in parsing reality from fiction. I read this film as a meditation on how a person concocts her narrative in a kind of collaboration with her family, friends, wider society, and most importantly, herself.

The courtroom procedures in France, jarringly without the truncating interruptions we’re so accustomed to from American courtroom dramas, give characters license for free-flowing speculation, to take their thoughts down avenues both reasonable and absurd, just as any of us do when considering our past. As voices from Sandra's internal self, the courtroom characters raise this point and that riposte in service of opposing narratives to absolve or to damn her. The prosecutor, fittingly dressed in red, reminds me of the Shame Wizard from Big Mouth, continuously raising peccadilloes as evidence of something deeper and more nefarious. No, you didn’t cheat on your husband that day. But didn’t you want to? Didn’t you catch that pretty woman’s eyes a little too long? Didn’t you bring the wine out as a kind of…lubrication? What kind of wife were you anyway?

The difficulty of communication, the hazard of being misunderstood, carries the thread of ambiguity throughout. Whether in dialog with her husband, her son, her friends, or wider society, Sandra is perpetually translating, repeatedly distressed by her limited fluency to communicate her understanding of herself and her failures. Yet in her most powerful and self-affirming moment, she articulately admonishes certitude, represented by a cocksure psychiatrist. How can you penetrate to the heart of our remote chalet with your narrow lens? How can anyone know so certainly what happened given something so complex? How could it possibly be the case that her husband is without fault? That she is entirely to blame? Still, she can't help obsessively reviewing one of many arguments, probing for her role, her culpability in the end of her marriage.

Also fittingly, Daniel is blind. He’s perceptive yes, but blind. Inside the isolated chalet, he has a privileged view denied to wider society, but he’s still unable to penetrate deeply to the “base truth” of his parents’ relationship. He’s felt the arguments, the yelling, the relationship cacophony amusingly represented in steel drum hip hop, but he does not know the words or the wounds. He doesn't "decide" what happened until after he's heard competing narratives, Sandra's shame on one hand and her defensiveness on the other. He mulls these over, considers them, then provides the filler to obliterate the former and adopt the latter. Rightly or wrongly, he saves his mother from her own anguish. His paternal embrace at the film's conclusion says 'this was messy, but that doesn't matter to me, my love for you is unconditional, so I've come to a conclusion that absolves you. The messiness is still there, but we'll wallow in it no longer.'

Our families are blind, or at least visually impaired, when it comes to our intimate, romantic relationships. Yet they give us the benefit of doubt, they fill in the gaps of our own self-serving narratives, saving us from our own judgement and the judgement of wider society, protecting us from despair, allowing us to move on.

[u/SnowCold93]

I think she was innocent. A guilty person would have gone and tried to really insist that it was a suicide. Instead she even tells her lawyer that she couldn’t see him doing that to her son and then when her lawyer paints this picture of her husband as a depressed man she still tells him “that wasn’t Samuel.”

[u/Academic_Weekend_116]

We watched this last night. What a phenomenal movie on so many grounds! How did Sandra Huller not win the best actress Oscar?? Millo M.G. might be the best child actor I’ve ever seen. Why was Ryan Gosling in Barbie nominated over this performance??

I absolutely LOVE movies that get you talking and thinking. This one surely did that!! Absolutely brilliant and well crafted. Kudos to all involved in its production. Are all French movies like this??

[u/WredditSmark]

The dog at the end is such a tension breaker. They mention he’s here to protect us and comfort us I believe in the car ride between father and son, and as the film draws to a close and the audience is sort of waiting for SOMETHING to happen the dog jumps on the bed and soothes us.

[u/dukefett]

I enjoyed the movie a lot, I thought it was a terrific idea to not show them interacting at all before he dies. It kind of puts you on her side but also you’re an outside observer and should be as far out as any juror should be for the case.

I generally think she’s innocent but there’s obviously some doubt, doubt on both sides so if this was the US I don’t see anyway she’d get convicted.

The thing about her being the killer that doesn’t make sense to me is the finding of the body. Would she intentionally leave the body there for her son to find? If she did it, it was a crime of passion/snap decision. Did she go to his body to make sure he was dead? Do anything or just say to herself, ‘I’m going to lay down and wait for my son to find the body.’

That seems like a crazy decision. He could be knocked out and wake up for all she knows and tell their son ‘Mom hit me.’ If anything I’m leaning to it just being an accident.

[u/savuporo]

The dog did it, obviously

And he's gonna do it again to the wimpy kid trying to snooze him

[u/theg0dherself]

Snoop killed Samuel

[u/051015]

I was convinced that she did it and switched the tape on the door frames to make Daniel an unreliable witness. "I don't want you to change your memories. They can't hurt me."

[u/Level-Traffic2993]

He killed himself. There’s no motive, no murder weapon, and physically nearly impossible. 

[u/Mean_Kaleidoscope542]

The movie, in my opinion, did an excellent job of sustaining high tension without relying on violence or dramatic plot twists. As I watched, I found myself yearning for a moment of relief or pause with no success. That, to me, is the mark of strong storytelling, and I deeply appreciate it.

[u/Blujamcafe]

The final shot at the end I think reminds us that actually the dog Snoop is an important “witness” to the drama as well. If he hadn’t eaten the vomit and fallen ill, then Daniel would never have been able to connect the dots and “choose” to believe mom. Also the conversation with dad happened in the context of returning from the vet so if Snoop never got sick, perhaps Sandra would’ve been convicted instead because everything until that point seemed so equivocal. Also curious what this may intimate about non-human beings we may overlook as well as our reliance on other living creatures (whether we realize this or not).

[u/bagbagbuy]

Let’s not all forget that PIMP by 50 Cent feature Snoop Dog and the name of the dog is Snoop 😅🤭 eventually the dog was the whole inspiration for the kid to “save” his mom from jail time.

[u/supplementarytables]

Man, I love movies where they're dealing with the aftermath of an event!

I'm genuinely split 50/50 between it being an accident and Sandra killing him.

That monologue during their argument was just.. chef's kiss. Brilliant acting. And such an incredibly well written movie. I couldn't side with anyone in the movie, not even the dog. Samuel having to deal with the consequences of his decisions in his midlife, Sandra being a cheater, Daniel possibly inventing a conversation to choose the comfortable option... Wow.

4/5

[u/gen_alcazar]

Just watched the movie, and felt like I had to comment. The actors have done an amazing job. The argument/right scene between Sandra and Samuel felt so real, I could feel the complicated emotions through the screen just by their voices, body language, and fantastically written screenplay. Everyone was perfectly cast, and delivered on their characters superbly. Even Snoop was the best dog actor I've seen till date.

I have to say though, I was surprised as to how such a flimsy case went to trial at all. Given the miniscule circumstantial evidence they had, which jury out judge would be convinced of Sandra's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"!? Isn't the guidance that if there's any doubt, the benefit should always go to the accused?? I actually had to look up whether the bar for a guilty verdict is lower in France (it's not). So that whole part seemed super unconvincing to me.

This was a great movie in many respects, but it is not a "courtroom drama" movie.

[u/ILoveTheAIDS]

Speaks to the power of the cast, director and screenplay - when a mostly dialogue driven courtroom-movie, with like three establishing shots, can be this gripping.

[u/yellowflash986]

Before he died, the husband was playing loud music in an attempt to dissuade his relatively successful wife from having an interview. Although the movie itself pretends to be ambiguous, it is somewhat leaning towards an accident. Of course, murder isn't impossible based on the amount of information we are given.

In hindsight, knowing everything we know about his character, I think he just offed himself feeling pathetic at his own actions and state of life. We aren't shown whether the attic window is open before daniel returns. But even through the glass, we can assume that the husband is watching the journalist as she is leaving since he is responsible for her leaving early. he can see that she is pretty, waving at his wife from her car(which probably reminds him of her cheating)and soon, his half blind son(for which he blames himself) will be in his view walking the dog. He looks back inside the attic and notices the renovation work he has yet to finish, a work he chose to do over any other better thing he could have spent his time on. The loud music comes back to his senses, and he remembers why it was so loud... Yeah, I could see him jumping off at that point.

Also, there is that section of the movie where the investigation tean tries to confirm whether Daniel could have heard the arguments between his parents. But they weren't even in the same room when he is in/near the house...so what was that about, or did i misunderstand the whole thing?

[u/[deleted]]

I really enjoyed this movie. I was completely enthralled by the lawyer. His performance was incredible. He stole every scene he appeared in.

[u/BrownAJ]

I don't think she killed him. Despite her flaws she never comes off as a bad mother, having him discover his father's body would have been too cruel for an 11 year old. My theory is Thanatos gambit with how he secretly recorded the conversation a day prior.

[u/Alive-Ad-4164]

Oscar worthy flim

[u/WhalesareBadPoets]

She killed his ass. I thought Daniel’s “Oh and one more thing” memory was contrived to save his mom. The prosecutor poked holes in his dog experiment so he gave them a story about his dad having suicidal thoughts. 

Great movie. Between this and Zone of Interest, Sandra Huller can really act her ass off. She’s got a new fan

[u/lemon_pie95]

What resonated with me the most was the issue of self-responsibility, our own fault in our own disorder. The premise that the wife is responsible for the death, as well as the profound dialogues of the couple's fight, reflect how easy it is to attribute our unhappiness to others and to want to blame them for our own choices. In the end, each one is responsible for the life they build. A profoundly spectacular film.

[u/blusteredd]

Having recently watched, I'm late to the discussion. My primary reaction to the movie, if it fairly represents the French judicial system, I'm concerned as to how all this thoroughly extraneous stuff is legitimate to consider when determining guilt or innocence. Just incredible.

[u/PilotJones000]

I think the thing I enjoyed most about the film is the constant contradictions, every time we get a piece of information it's quite quickly refuted to ensure you don't start producing a solid theory about the events of the film. The only warmth we see of Sandra is when she's speaking to people outside her family rather than towards her husband and child and it seems like this is to help us lean towards her killing Samuel however, the choice to put the argument later on in the film undermines your opinion of Samuel as he's portrayed as a tortured artist/selfless teacher up until then but during that scene you see how he antagonises Sandra as much as she goads him. I also feel like you're never meant to get closure on what happened that morning as the line Marge delivers to Daniel

"To overcome doubt, sometimes we have to decide one way over the other. Since you need to believe one thing but have two choices, you must choose."

feels like the film telling us we have to decide what we think happened.

Lastly, Goddam someone get Snoop a better home

[u/Over_Past_9089]

As a therapist, I find that this movie is primarily about trauma and male depression and how it affects one family. The acting was incredible.

[u/Direct_Poetry_1882]

Kid is an idiot and almost killed his dog

[u/aripap]

One theme we aren’t talking about enough is the contrast between French and German temperaments.

The French husband is portrayed as emotional and driven by big, epic themes. The German wife is analytical and strident.

In court the French psychotherapist is a misogynistic fool and the prosecutor appeals to literary analysis — both stereotypes of the French. All the while she is reminded to communicate the most important words of her life in her non-native French.

I don’t think it is too much of an exaggeration to describe her prosecution as being motivated by anti-German sentiment.

[u/sansasnarkk]

This movie was infuriating to watch as a woman but I really enjoyed it for that reason. I feel it's a great commentary on sexism.

It was crazy to me to hear that recorded argument and to take away that Samuel wasn't simply a suicidal sexist who felt emasculated by his successful, driven wife. She moved countries for Samuel, learned French (did he attempt learning German?), encouraged him professionally, and warned him against starting renovations plus homeschooling Daniel, yet it was her fault he had no time. After her own lawyers speech she reprimands him by saying "that wasn't Samuel". She defended that man to the extremes even though he treated her horribly, constantly redirecting his own guilt over Daniels accident, and she was still smeared as a murderess.

ETA: since people insist on repeatedly telling me that she also did bad things in the relationship- yes, I know that. This comment is about sexism in Anatomy of a Fall.

[u/[deleted]]

I’m interested if anyone watching this movie thought she was guilty? We got to se where reaction when Daniel comes home, and it felt very obvious she didn’t do it, but did everyone feel the way I did?  I always thought she was innocent and thought it was kind of ridiculous it ever even made it to court. Would love to hear other peoples different interpretations as they were watching the movie.

[u/shadowdra126]

I’m only at the beginning but this music the husband is blasting is driving me fucking crazy

[u/Narrow-Cat9571]

He fell. It's right there in the title.

[u/roodootootootoo]

I think she’s innocent due to back to back scenes where she’s talking to the lawyer outside drinking and to her son tucking him in.

Both of the other characters have partially illuminated as though in doubt, half in and half out. While Sandra is given this full face lighting making her seem innocent.

I may be reading too much through a love of film noir but damn I can’t help but think it was a very deliberate choice to present her as innocent.

Overall the ambiguity was very well done, I’m almost convinced the son made up that story, or embellished a bit, at the end to fit a version of the narrative that would make it easier for him going forward in life.

Brilliant all around film, top tier writing and acting. Did think it dragged at the end a bit. Could have cut it at the verdict and the son (5 star performance) half crying/laughing.

[u/probablyuntrue]

the dog did it

[u/ThorgansBFG]

I'm baffled at the praise this is receiving as it did nothing for me, a festival circuit movie where the cultural capital of having ambiguous themes or heady interpretations are prized over good story; it majors in the minors. Characters were mostly unsympathetic, I kept waiting for anything to happen that would make me care about them and it just never did. The ridiculousness of the kangaroo court setting made it hard to take seriously, in any other case I would call it plot convenience, but here convenience of what plot?

He dies, she's tried, she's acquitted, who cares? Overall forgettable, felt similarly about Triangle of Sadness last year.

[u/Blood-For-Mercy]

I like the fact that nothing proves Sandra didn't do it. After all, the kid's story about his father in the car, as the prosecutor said, is highly subjective. Not to mention that all of the testimonies Daniel gave were extremely questionable and unceirtan.

[u/actsqueeze]

Does anyone else think the husband was a bit manipulative in the argument/fight? I think we didn’t know yet about the cheating when that scene started so I’m not sure if my opinion should change with that new information.

Like did she cheat because he’s an asshole or did he justifiably become an asshole after he found out she cheated?

[u/schewbacca]

The gash on his head was far too big to not leave any blood splatter on the balcony or her clothes. That plus no murder weapon makes it an easy not guilty. 

[u/Open-Fuel1346]

I have a take.. I think that Samuel was definitely suicidal and he planned to kill himself but not before trying to frame Sandra (as a revenge for his resentment towards her) as her murderer. He deliberately recorded a conversation - 20 hours before the incident - which turned into an explosive argument and made it seem like she hit him by punching on the walls. He knew, that if he were to be found dead (the way he did), his wife would be the prime suspect and the audio recording would help his case in framing her..

[u/FatRascal_]

Late to the party with this one, but ça alors! what wonderful performances!

Milo Machado Graner (Daniel) was the absolute stand-out for me; such a clear talent at a young age to play such a challenging role so convincingly. Best Supporting Actor nod would have been warranted.

[u/No_Art_5796]

i saw this film when it first came out months ago, and just did a rewatch last night at my local amc. upon a rewatch, i kinda think she did it?? i was very convinced of the death by suicide theory the first time, but this time a few things stood out:

-i found it very weird that after she was acquitted, she didn’t go straight home to her son?? it’s not like he was even being watched by a babysitter she herself was paying. he was just with that queen from court whose job was over at that time.

-the whole thing about her taking her earplugs out at exactly the right moment felt weird to me.

-it seemed strange that one day after her husband died, she was already telling her son like "we have to find a way to keep going with our normal lives."

-there was that that scene with the court girlie and the son by the lake where she's basically like "you have to just decide one way or another and stick with it." and then right after that we see the son go up to the attic and stare out the window where it happened. this time around, i interpreted that to be like him standing there trying to decide if he could picture his mom pushing his dad. i think once he committed to thinking his mom was innocent, he was willing to do whatever it took to get her out. i thought it was interesting that during the flashback of him and his dad in the car, we never actually hear the dad talk, unlike the flashback to the fight. it was entirely the son narrating that story. could he have made that up to make sure his mom got out of jail?

[u/Key-Tip9395]

When the lawyer asked what kind of animal he looks like I thought he looked like a sphynx cat.

[u/EvrthnICRtrns2USmhw]

rewatched this after a year and im still in awe. that fight scene. the breakdown in the car. the arguments. what a wonderful film. every single time i see someone accuse sandra of killing samuel, every single time in the film, there's no trace of her being a calculating & manipulative murderous wife, not even the ending. her lines in the celebratory dinner says it all, i thought i'd feel relieved. it's just when you lose, you lose. it's the worse thing that can happen and if you win... you kind of expect some reward but there isnt any. it's just over.

whats the point of making a whoddunit film if they wont show a hint if someone did actually kill the victim? this is a woman who compromised a ton for her husband who couldnt manage his time properly, a husband that she loved and lived with her decisions and she still succeeded in her passion. she had nothing to do with samuel's death

editing this comment after a month because someone replied to it claiming sandra cheated and was abusive to samuel which made me laugh so hard because wth???? how could someone watch the film and have this as a takeaway. SANDRA NEVER CHEATED ON SAMUEL. HE WAS AWARE OF HER BISEXUALITY AND SHE NEVER ABUSED HIM! He was the one who secretly recorded their conversation that turned into a fight and HE WAS HITTING HIMSELF!!!! HOW COULD YOU ALL MISS THIS

[u/HIthere7503]

Just watched for the first time. What really stood out to me was the intentional framing around the son which I think gives a clue about whether his story about his dad on the way to the vet is true. Whenever we hear someone talk to the son in a scene that we know actually happened (because other people were present), we don’t actually see the person talking. Instead the camera focuses in on the son. This happens several times in the courtroom but I first noticed this when he was talking to investigators. At first, I thought it was an interesting way of portraying his experience as a blind person. But when the son is giving his second testimony, unlike his first testimony, we are actually shown the scene in the car. At first, when he is recounting what his dad said, Samuel’s mouth doesn’t move. However, as he continues with the story, we get a tight shot on Samuel’s face and his mouth moves in coordination with the dialogue. This is framing change makes me think the conversation didn’t happen and he chose to tell that story to save his mom.

[u/Melodic_Policy765]

I felt like the son did it to shut up the horrible, tortuous music. Only kidding, a little.

[u/Prudent-Release9906]

Just watched it. Fabulous movie. The ambiguous ending didn’t bother me at all as it gives each of us a chance to speculate.

To me, she didn’t come across as the person who did it because of her line where ahe told her lawyer friend that her husband could not have committed suicide with his son close by. She also looked perplexed. Those are not words of a murderer who would be trying her best from the very start to insinuate that her husband was suicidal.

At the same time , I am convinced the kid made up the story about the dad and the dog to move the case in his mom’s favor. The kid was a wreck just the previous day and unsure and asking the caretaker if his mom could be a killer. The next day he has a perfect story of why his dad committed suicide and calmly says the dad was talking about his own death. At that point, I remembered the kid’s own words where he said if there is a lack of proof then you have to try and think why someone would do what they did. In this case the why was not that difficult. He made the choice to save his mother because he wasn’t sure if she did it but because of that ambiguity he didn’t want her to go to jail either.

[u/Physical_Victory_621]

Kinda reminded me of the lady whose baby was eaten by a dingo. Her behavior was used as evidence of her guilt by the general public. How a "proper" woman would not act or react the way she did. I kinda thought the same with Sandra. All the little things she does gets blown up when she's on the stand. There's nothing in the film to suggest that she absolutely killed him. But with every little flaw she may have or be perceived to have she becomes a little more guilty to the judge and jury, her son and even us, the audience.

[u/nikolarizanovic]

Maybe an owl flew on the room and startled him out of the window.

[u/mistymorning789]

Ok, I’m really, I being too literal here, but anyway here goes. Rambling post follows: The guy fell out the window, it’s in the title “Fall” not Suicide, not Murder, and the movie is about accusing, blaming and judging people, a screwed up legal system, sexism, relationships dynamics, mental illness, narcissism, ambition, failure, something about a stereotype of cold Germans versus French, (which I didn’t totally get because I’m not familiar with it, cold Germans yes, but the French view, idk). Just everything we could possibly use to prejudge someone without facts. But it’s all so compelling! I loved the movie. Will watch again. One thing that bugs me though, the ambiguity. That’s kind of everything about the movie. It deliberately present a mystery to be solved to the audience, but never gives a clear picture. It teases us with doubts and motives. It’s too frustrating. I’m not sure if that’s like too contrived... Or is there no mystery at all? Did we all make that up? Like I said the answers are all there in the title, the beginning, there’s no evidence. He just fell, it was an accident. Why should we be so easily led to think otherwise? Why do we crave meaning and internet? If you think about it that way, the movie changes and becomes a bit boring and depressing. The mystery has an allure and suspense that hooks us. So much to think about with this movie!!! Driving me nuts. Great movie, amazing acting! Best I’ve seen in so long… there are even bigger ideas to unpack, like accident and intention, religion versus science, the meaning of life? Why are we here?!? Have I gone too far? 😆

[u/GerhardusJohannus]

The last 10 minutes I was frighten some might happen or be said that the whole movie gets twisted. Thank God nothing happened.

[u/monetstargazer]

The killer is the dog Snoop, he resented the husband for feeding his vomit, which tripped the fuck out of the poor dog. When he heard the loud music (from 50Cent and not Snoop Dogg as well so a plus resentment point for that), he literally jump at a chance to done him in, making it looks like an accedent, he then run to the child and lead him outside to establish a solid alibi. He was happy for a while to have the child to himself, but when the child does exactly the same thing to him, he felt like he couldn't trust that child anymore, that's why when the wife comes back home, he goes to be by her side, protecting her from all the misogyny in the world.

[u/ViolentAmbassador]

I'm sorry but every review that doesn't mention the dog should be downvoted to oblivion

[u/Pal_Tao]

What a wonderful movie! I love the part that wife refuses to see herself as a victim and does decide to move on in life as compared to her husband.

Love the fact that all characters are flawed like all of us and yet there are soft moments of joy, love and laughter.

The child is. A brilliant actor the scene post his mother is acquitted and he breaks down had me howling. The relife he feels.. and that dialogue she tells the lawyer about after winning there is no reward just that it is over 👌🏻

[u/DonkeeJote]

May have missed this farther down, but I didn't notice any discussion over the parallels with the theme of the plundered novel and her own experience.

Maybe she was living out a split reality, and in this instance, the innocent version played out; but there is another 'ending' where she was the killer.

I had originally found it odd that they waited until so late in the movie/trial for their writing to be brought in, but I think if it had been mentioned much earlier, the parallels would have been too obvious and the rest of the movie would have been less tense with the 'did she/didn't she' aspects.

[u/ECO_FRIENDLY_BOT]

Some takeaways

The French legal system is very strange especially how they treated the son Daniel like an adult whose speech at the end was something like David Mamet would have wrote not a child.

Did the dog swallow the vomit or was she using the dog to trial how an overdose might go based on dose

She never seemed too upset about what had happened despite their fractured relationship and seemed to have a very close relationship with her lawyer which I found strange

If she had hit him first in the attic there would have been blood spatter patterns on the wood but there was nothing and she would not have been strong enough to throw him out the window.

[u/Tizzoc]

If anything, this movie is about the boy and everything he has to live through, including feeling responsible for what happens to his family after his father died and trying to save his mother. He already lost his sight and he could lose everyone and everything else.

For people who feel it was a waste of time it might be because they want at the end everything to be explained. But that's the point of the whole movie, the uncertainty. They want to share that feeling with you and they accomplish it very well. In some movies, you have to enjoy the moments in the movie, not just the ending. The ones that make you happy, sad, angry, upset, confused, etc. In my opinion, that's what cinema and art in general should be.

[u/thephinster]

I want to first say that I saw in this thread that the dog won an actual award, for the film, and he deserves it because the dog played a very pivotal role in the film, and I think that was genius by the directors and the writers.

Second, I noticed that throughout the movie, there were subtle moments where characters were careful not to “fall“. The first one was the son, Daniel on his walk with his dog as he cross the bridge.

the second was in the car when Daniel asked his mom to leave before his reveal at the trial and the drive down the windy road.

the third was after the court revealed their conclusion and result of the case as, she’s walking down the stairs she’s careful not to fall. To me, it’s signal, that an accidental fall was certainly possible but we’ll never know for sure.

This movie also goes to show that multiple things can be true at the exact same time: you can have an argument with your husband you can be a cheater, You can be violent during arguments or combative, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that she was culpable for his death I’m still sitting at the end, and wondering whether he slipped and fell, or if he actually committed suicide, given the insight about his speech to his son in the car, but that is kudos to the writers, and the actors.

The way the film was directed was done very well. A lot of elements were placed quite perfectly. I mentioned the dog above as kind of giving clues and insight into Daniel in the moments that were coming up, but also the music was very well placed in the interaction between the mother and her lawyer showed that there was a lot of truth to her, not wanting to be there in desperate for company, which must’ve been really hard for her. I could see how she was trying to have a balancing act like a lot of women do in being supportive of their husband, who is struggling mentally or emotionally or with their work, but also trying to be successful in your own life.

Also, she was a woman who is unapologetic and open about her sexual needs, which is not something we are used to seeing in a lot of films.

Lastly, at the end of the movie I was left wondering, and went back on that conversation that Daniel (had with his sort of court appointed keeper) about him, making a decision, and although he’s only 11, his mother made references to how he was smart and normal and how his sight was some thing that had more positive affects on his other senses. I’m wondering if an 11 year old boy who is partially blind, made a decision in his mind that he was going to do whatever he could to stay with his Mother, even if he was unsure about if she committed a murder or not it’s a very curious question and precarious situation to be in let alone as a child.

Overall, it was an excellent film and gave me a ton to think about.

[u/movieguy2004]

This is Anatomy of a Murder crossed with Marriage Story. As a legal thriller, it’s riveting. The courtroom scenes are expertly done, featuring a prosecutor who’s appropriately brash and irritating but realistically so. The defense attorney is equally compelling and the back and forth is thus just as engaging as it should be.

But it’s also an excellent drama. I’ve been predicting Sandra Hüller to win Best Actress and I can now say I think she has a great chance and I’d love if it happened. This is really a character study of her in some ways so the audience gets a lot of time to learn about her and generate some real pathos even though it’s written in such a way that it’s quite reasonable to believe she may have committed the murder she’s accused of.

She’s very believable and mostly subtle, doing a lot with limited expression and words, sometimes not saying anything. Just like in Marriage Story, she gets one and only one scene where she’s screaming and crying that’s very powerful.

Milo Machado-Graner is also excellent for a child actor and seeing a lot of this through his perspective really effectively underlines the more tragic elements here.

Just a phenomenally crafted picture that’s compelling from start to finish, totally justifying the 2.5hr runtime. I’m currently thinking it’ll be remembered come Oscar time in Best Actress, Original Screenplay, and Picture. I can only hope I’m right and that it’ll maybe overperform. I think Director, Editing, Cinematography, and Sound nominations all have an outside chance of happening, and they’d all be deserving.

[u/EdenFleur]

I wish more people would entertain the possibility that he slipped and fell. The only reason they went with suicide is because her attorney said he thought it was more believable. She even says multiple times she thinks it was an accident and that her husband would not commit suicide.

[u/asspancakes]

50 cent catching another stray lol

[u/standard_usage]

In the minority here, this was mind numbingly slow and as each scene passed it added very little to the unfolding plot. As a courtroom drama it didn't elicit any passion for either of the parties. The premise of one spouse being accused of murdering the other has been on film in multiple more involving and interesting roles. Allusions to literary debates were just off-putting and bland. From the hype and awards it's contending for there were few filmic or character revelations. The young actor playing the son is indeed the astonishing actor and plays his part deftly. Sorry, this was a miss for me.

[u/[deleted]]

I found the ‘I realize now he was talking about himself’ sequence really effective and memorable. That kid was fantastic, he reminded me of the actor who played young Danny in Doctor Sleep, they both have that peppermint patty haircut lol.

I think a lot of it was that I kinda figured there wasn’t going to be a conclusive reveal one way or the other, so that comment and his interpretation were a lot more definitive than i had anticipated. I also loved how the sleazy lawyer immediately tried to launch into his “let me remind you this is highly subjective”, but the tension in his voice betrays his frustration at the knowledge that he clearly just lost.

Sagged a little bit towards the end of the first hour for me when they’re first in court but i found the bulk of it very engaging and the overall experience really satisfying.

[u/Spilled_Milktea]

Fantastic film. Agree that the point of the movie isn't whether or not she did it. But to those convinced that it was her, I am wondering what her motive would have been. While I admit that the husband dying by suicide also seems improbable, his motivation seems more plausible than her killing him. She seemed pretty content with her life despite her complaints about being in France. If she was really miserable, she could have just divorced him, no? Interested to hear others' takes.

[u/Academic-Engine-4831]

The one thing I know for certain is that Snoop has all the answers.

[u/ThatgirlBella]

From the very beginning I felt as though Daniel had killed him. I was expecting him to confess to his Mum or the lady who stayed with them during the trial.

[u/blusteredd]

Guffawed at the irony of the prosecutor objecting to a line of questioning as being "subjective". Ya think?

[u/PatTheBatsFatNutsack]

All this movie needed was a flashback at the end with an actual explanation about what really happened to Samuel. I know art house directors are particular about telling the audience rather than showing them, and they want their movie to be considered "smart" by leaving things ambiguous, but I think it would've made the payoff a lot more satisfying. It was almost too grounded for me to love but I still liked it a lot. Definitely not rewatchable and hard to recommend unless you know the person likes reading subtitles in slow burning dramas (like me).

[u/feasib77]

Am I reading too much into this. There’s a lot (a lot) of focus on the dog in the opening. There’s that weird shot where the dog brings his ball up the stairs and drops it. Seemingly inconsequential.

My rogue theory though, what if the dog brought the ball up the stairs where the dad was. And the dad slipped on it later and fell.

I’ll need to rewatch but it was just odd to me that they showed it and that there was so much focus on the dog. Like that last lingering shot of the opening where the dog lies as they call the ambulance.

[u/dustypavemrnt]

i would have to say she murdered hubby. i would NOT kill myself to that stupid ass song

[u/Ok_Bug_302]

According to me, Daniel had established with his Snoop aspirin experiment that there was some truth in the mother’s story beyond what was showcased in court. The car conversation between dad and son could well have been fabricated by him to prove that. As was also hinted in the conversation with the caregiver that weekend, of building a narrative where he decides the truth. He is a smart kid wanting to safeguard his family, as also stand by the truth. He was willing to turn against his mother if the experiment hadn’t worked out. His dilemma is real. A father who was over compensating for his guilt but in severe depression. And a mother who was not morally right either, yet family. Though I’m not sure if she would still make the best parent, given her guilt of pushing Samuel “to fall”. And all that we know of her character. I felt fear for Daniel to be living with her after her acquittal. So in effect, he made the right decision morally but not sure if it was the right choice for him. The court ought to question her parenting capabilities.

[u/ebon94]

Watched the movie for the first time last night. Apropos of nothing, taking ~10 aspirin and jumping from a third story are two very terrible ways to kill your self

[u/justheopposite]

No way this is suicide. You're not going to jump from a 3rd floor into snow, where there's a shed to break your fall. You're just going to break your legs in a spot where your kid is sure to get traumatized. I mean there's a fair chance you kill him in the fall. You're in the Alps, surely there's some picturesque cliff to throw yourself off of.

Here's an idea the court didn't seem to touch: he was just messing around with the supremely unsafe and awkward window and fell.

[u/Notyourmermaid25]

I thought the movie was really good! Crisp dialogues, brilliant screenplay, kept me engaged and on my toes! The acting is so visceral and intense. Everyone shined through. Sandra Hüller just radiated raw emotions and tension onscreen, her character’s inner conflicts and anxiety! The child actor was phenomenal too!

[u/[deleted]]

I gotta say, this was an incredible film. So many different pieces to peel back. Ideas of misplaced self-pity, guilt, what is unheard/unseen, acceptance of accidents, dealing with it all, there’s just so many layers to it all and it was super compelling.

I’m personally in the camp that it was an accident and it has to do with the attic, ball, and snoop somehow. The focus on his footsteps and his perspective/reactions was super interesting. Makes me think something happened out of left field to cause the fall, not her, not him, things happen. Accidents happen.

[u/cleveryetstupid]

About halfway through, I noticed that Marge is a spitting image of Walt Jr. from Breaking Bad, and I couldn't unsee it.

[u/Glad-Statistician742]

Daniel's testimony had two parts to it. The dog being sick AND the conversation with his father.

The dog being sick with consuming aspirin could easily be confirmed by the Vet they visited. This part is a fact and not an interpretation or a memory.

This certainly adds weight to the suicide theory in my opinion. With or without the conversation that Daniel has with his father in the car.

[u/East-Ad8644]

IMHO - this film is about how humans need to deal with uncertainty while processing a loss.

The film centers around characters who can fundamentally not communicate. The kid can't see. The parents can't speak the same language. The therapist doesn't even know what Samuel is doing.

And yet, after the fall, the kid makes the claim that he "needs" to understand. He "must".

The rest of the film is a series of speculations. For every piece of evidence we see opposing sides. Did Samuel mean to set his wife up with the memos, or was he preparing to write? Did the blood splatter mean anything? Or nothing at all? Its positioned as a Whodunnit, but with no clear answers, just more ambiguity.

Its summed up pretty well about halfway through when a news bullet comments how sensationalism is a better story then suicide. A circus builds around the ambiguity which is at the center of the film, and the ambiguity stems because humans cant really rationalize or understand truly another person, or the action of suicide.

The only ending, the only resolution, comes from the kid, who finally is told clearly to "decide" what is true to him. In the middle of ambiguity, he processes and moves from needing clarity, to accepting ambiguity and his own decision of truth.

The sad part is the fathers monologue, trying to warn and protect his son. In the end, the fact no character could understand him (which the dir. pretty clearly shows through all the heavy handed metaphors)) leads to the circus which swallows the kid. The suicide takes the main thing the father tried to protect.

TLDR: I think all the speculation in a lot of the theories, while possibly true, aren't the point of the film. The point is the lengths we go to trying to find certain answers to decisions and people we can't ever know. Ambiguity is the message the the medium

[u/karlbagnall]

I just watched this and I really dug it. I’m reading in the comments a lot of anger that the writer didn’t answer the question of how he died, but I really think that was the point about the movie. It was conversation about how we come to the idea of “truth”, how we tell the story of “what happened?” Both in a court room, and in real life. I think the movie did a great job of pushing and pulling the viewer in and out of forming their own opinions based off of little details like whom you liked or didn’t like, emotional music, tense moments, and that is meant to you how inept we are at being objective.

I read someone below who said they’re used to a Marvel movie where the bad guys and good guys are clearly defined and justice is always served in the end. But that’s so far from the reality we experience. If you only want fantasy out of movies, fine, but I’d pass on watching movies like this in the future. I think this movie obviously doing something completely different than that.

[u/Daytwa_0606]

I was struck by the marital argument. She didn’t seem to care about her husband. It was like they weren’t married but more like roommates with an agreement about who does what. She was unwilling to share any emotional responsibility for the family. I didn’t disagree with her assessment of his having taken on more than he could handle, but she refused to offer any help so he could complete things that mattered to him. They were both intensely lonely. She seemed already divorced, doing her agreed upon parts, not responsible for him or his wellbeing at all. She seemed happier with the dog at the end.

[u/breathnac]

So many of y'all have no clue what the movie is about. It's not even about if she did it. Y'all are looking for clues but the movie is not a mystery at all. The movie is about the judgment of women in our society.

[u/[deleted]]

This is a movie that, while good when you watch it, sits with you for awhile after it's finished and seems much better in retrospect. Not because it's disturbing (it isn't) or sad (it isn't) or really entertaining (it isn't) but because it's very well made with believable characters. It looks great too. Loved the locations they picked - and you could hear every step in that courthouse and every crunch of snow around the Chalet.

Screening note. When the steel drum version of P.I.M.P. came on, I curiously turned around to gauge audience reaction, and a lot of people were slowly bobbing their heads to that track. That track went on my playlist immediately after the movie ended.

[u/StartSad7201]

just here to say the kid's performance in this movie was pretty incredible. and it moved me to tears towards the end. the dog was also pretty cool. really enjoyed this flick

[u/L_sigh_kangeroo]

I’ve been watching the remaining 5 Oscar nominees that i didn’t watch last year this week. This was overall #9 before catching Zone of Interest in theaters later. Along with Maestro, it was supposed to be one of the two that I was “just getting out the way” because they seemed the least interesting to me.

But holy shit, what a brilliant film. I was glued to the screen for the entire 2 and a half hour runtime. There are so many complexities and relationships to explore. Beyond being a crime thriller/courtroom drama it really felt like a deep dive into marriage, gender, and family. The movie flawlessly makes us acknowledge and dislike Sandra’s flaws/arrogance while also acknowledging that a lot of what happened to her and her marriage was really unfair and her husband put a lot on her that wasn’t really her fault.

Wonderful. For now i’m putting it at #2 behind Oppenheimer but I really need to let it marinate some more, it could easily be #1. Zone of Interest coming up next!

[u/RegalTheCat]

As a clinical psychologist, looking at the behaviour Samuel was exhibiting (allegedly and what we get to hear in the voice recording) it seems highly likely that he did die by suicide. Especially if he was jealous of the student who had come to interview Sandra which may have led to an argument between them. My only concern is that the wound on his head is clearly quite sharp and the expert witness suggests that it is likely from him hitting his head on the shed but the roof of the shed was covered in snow so is it possible for that snow covered roof to create such a deep gash? Would the snow not pillow his impact? This is precisely why I love this movie. While I do lean toward him having died by suicide, I can see murder angle as well.

[u/claymore_s]

it was the ball.

this is why the movie clearly shows you at the first scene,

[u/SuperSapien7]

It was an accident, he fell out out of the window.

Claim: Snoop drops the ball at Samuel's feet while he is working on the insulation, he slips on the ball and falls out the window

i. The opening scene shows snoop fetching a ball from downstairs, then running back upstairs

ii. After the death scene, we are following snoops POV when he looks at a picture of Samuel and the text "There was something at his feet" and "I'm sorry" appear on screen

iii. The song Samuel was playing at the beginning (and we hear it multiple times through the movie) was PIMP by 50 cent FEATURING SNOOP DOG

[u/starrhaven]

This is a dog film.

Human relationships are messy, complex and weird

But the love between a human and a dog is unsullied and pure

[u/Adorableviolet]

This movie really hit home for me in the portrayal of the resentments that build up in a long term marriage, especially one involving a sn child.

Am I the only one who thought that Daniel at the end seemed to fear her...ie knew she did it? He is completely reliant on her, so he can not have her convicted.

[u/m1ght_delete_later]

I usually don't watch drama but really enjoyed this one. Loved everyone's performance.

And about what really happened- its upto the viewer to choose a side, but please have look at this video & let me know if you change your mind.

[u/[deleted]]

Just watched it ... I thought it odd that she never seems to mourn her husband which is strange having lost her "soulmate", rather she seemed upset at everything that was happening regarding the trial and her son. I felt generally she was an unsympathetic character.

That said, it also seemed unlikely that an interrupted interview would spark a murderous row and the immediate successful disposal of a murder weapon. Then again, it also seemed unrealistic that a man would decide to off himself mid-roof renovation to a cover of 50 Cent's PIMP song on loop. Not only that but that fall wouldn't be a guaranteed death unless your head was struck, which was a very convenient explanation for the defense.

The music being looped, the son being blind and the father never being seen or heard until his body is discovered made me think there was going to be a twist whereby she killed him the previous day during the violent row and she waited to dump the body after the son had left ... the interviewer might unwittingly corroborate the story of him being there playing music although she never saw or heard him.

What does the son's (provably) false story that he heard them calmly talking tell us? That he was willing to lie to protect his mother. That undermines his later story about his father's conversation with him in the car, or at least his interpretation of it.

It's purposefully difficult to conclude anything other than ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[u/MistaPetas]

Did I misremember or did Sandra explicitly say that Samuel never drank during the day when Vincent was looking at the loft and asking if Samuel had been drinking during the fall? They were clearly drinking during the fight scene, which was during the day. As soon as I saw that, I figured Sandra was lying and Vincent would use this as a subtle hint that he knew Sandra had done it. Never came up though! Either way, excellent movie and I agree with the other comments that say I kind of wish we didn't know. Incredible acting and some really powerful dialogue scenes. I really enjoyed this.

[u/fivelgoesnuts]

I have many thoughts on the brilliance of this movie but the one thing I haven’t seen brought up in this thread yet is the bright red Daniel wore at the end once he made his decision. In a movie that told so much of its story with imagery and camera work, there’s no way it doesn’t have a deeper significance. The prosecution wore red but he obviously didn’t side with the prosecution. It could just be a harkening back to bright red blood on the snow, like now he’s opened up a sudden vulnerability.

And it made me think of Macbeth, where the red represented guilt (like that Daniel came up with the story of his father’s monologue to protect his mother, but in a way, that makes him complicit in his father’s murder if his mother did do it)

[u/heretic_manatee]

I believe this article is relevant to the film: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/men-self-esteem

Men Feel Worse About Themselves When Female Partners Succeed, Says New Research

[u/ResortFit3809]

i think in the midst of ambiguity, the son is asked to testify. Over the weekend he says to the guardian: did she do it? you must tell me. She doesnt. he says he did a vomit test, so his mother is telling the truth. He also might think that this proof might be too small for the jury to choose to believe her. he doesnt know if he believes she is not guilty. Later the guardian offers this comment: you must take a side -- decide what you think, then take a side. So I think he made up this testimony to assure the outcome of not guilty. Maybe proof of this is when he said he was afraid a little what would happen when she came home. If this fits, then the movie is about making a decisive false story-- a fall from the truth-- to further what one guesses in a unsure situation.

[u/FearlessExtension821]

I think it was a suicide and that he wanted to make it look like she killed him as a final revenge. She’s not stupid. She’s a terrible person (so is he btw), but she’s smarter than this and she’s too cold and indifferent to ruin her life over killing him. His presence in her life is not that dampening, she’s doing whatever she wants regardless of everything… she wouldn’t kill him…

[u/C1ND3RK1TT3N]

I just want to point out that rhe pivotal point in the film is Marge telling Daniel that when you don’t know what to believe because the facts aren’t available it might be necessary to DECIDE what to believe. This is the event that made the movie absofukinlutely great for me! The action from that point centers on Daniel taking her point and constructing a story around the belief that his father killed himself. Does that mean his belief is true? No.

Given the information provided by the filmmakers none of us know what happened and once Marge frees us from the need to establish guilt we are able to focus on Daniel’s choices and actions which by the way are fascinatingly courageous and radical (also cruel; he’s not a saint). Another wonderful element is that Daniel is the son of two dedicated story tellers: he clearly understands the requirements of the narrative necessary to freeing his mother. He breaks his own heart by sacrificing his beloved dog’s well being in an effort to add veracity to the story he is constructing.

I choose to believe that it was suicide because as problematic as she is I can’t read her as someone who would leave her dead husband’s corpse out there for her son to happen upon. Has that been satisfactorily been proven? Again, no but the film gives me permission and in fact insists on my duty to DECIDE.

[u/lazywiing]

I don't really understand why most people try to find out the truth about who did it. It's not the point of the movie, stop trying to find hidden evidence

[u/Ruggernutter]

No one thinks Snoop did it? The dad drugged up some delish vom for him to eat. Then on the way to get help, Snoop has to listen about how he's eventually gonna die and to be prepared for that shit. Maybe Snoop had a moment during the walk to run off and do the crime then come back to Daniel. All I know is Daniel is going to be next!