Anatomy Of A Fall follows the story of a woman who is the prime suspect following the death of her husband while her partially blind son suddenly finds himself as the sole witness. What is the truth? The story here might seem to be an intriguing whodunnit but it is essentially a deconstruction of a traumatic relationship packaged in a gripping courtroom drama. The story does create some interesting conflicts with respect to the characters by almost putting a microscope on their relationships which is vital to the overall outcome of the case. And this is what sets Anatomy Of A Fall apart from the other whodunnits. The devil lies in the detailing, and detailing is what you get in this riveting film that is far more unassuming that you could have ever imagined. The screenplay standing at a runtime of a shade over 150 minutes does make for an intriguing which is indulgent in more ways than one. And there is a lot to chew and ponder on things that did unfold throughout its narrative, so this section will contain spoilers.

The drama opens with the introduction of the protagonist, a novelist by profession who is seen giving an interview while bonding well with the interviewer. Yet to her dismay, the interview is halted by a sudden music that is played out in the background thus forcing the interviewer to leave. Here, it is hinted early on about the strained relationship that Sandra shares with her husband Samuel while her partially blind son Daniel, often witness to this trauma, chooses to look away(no pun intended). The writers introduce the first major twist in the tale wherein Daniel, returning after a walk with his dog Snoop, finds his father laying on snow in a pool of blood outside his house. This while his mother Sandra turns out to be the only one around in her house. And thus begins the trial while framing Sandra as the lone suspect.

The proceedings are engrossing and intriguing particularly with respect to the unfolding drama which is psychological and cerebral at the same time. Much like most characters in the drama, you as a viewer aren’t aware of the situations and shifting equations between the characters that eventually lead to the death of Samuel. And what the trial does is open a can of worms with respect to the equation that Sandra shared with her late husband Samuel. The writers imply that it is indeed hard to be in the limelight with several people judging you for a traumatic relation that you may have shared with someone. And in return, sharing a traumatic relationship with an individual is much easier given that it is intimate in many ways, without people wanting to create a circus around the same by simply putting two and two together, falsely or otherwise.

The second conflict was respect to the little boy Daniel who had suddenly become witness to the strained relationship between his parents. While he was well aware of their frequent fights, one of which did result in him partially losing his eye-sight, he wasn’t aware of the intrinsic details with respect to the ‘violence’ in their relationship along with the share of flings that his parents may have had while being together. Yet, the choice lay with him on whether to trust his mother with her version or believe that his father had indeed committed suicide.

The writers do a brilliant job in presenting the different point of views while keeping the truth in the dark. For instance, Sandra’s version of her husband being suicidal tracing back to an incident wherein he had consumed loads of Aspirin could be taken as a starting point. But you tend to doubt her given that she had blatantly lied during the trial twice. There are similar doubts thrown in the narrative even with respect to Daniel, who completely changes his plea in court while presenting a different picture to the police. But despite all of it, the writers keep the viewers on tenterhooks about what the truth actually is, and that is what makes for such an interesting watch. The next paragraph is my interpretation of the ending!

The events leading to the final act are interesting with Daniel experimenting a use-case on his dog resulting in the dog falling ill, much like it had earlier on the night of Samuel trying to commit suicide, thus further solidify his claim. On being asked his version of the truth, his reply is that if the course hasn’t reached a conclusion as go how the events transpired, the question then should be why! He goes on to recall on how his father explained to him on being mentally prepared about the death of their dog while trying to prepare Daniel for his own death. And while the court does acquit Sandra of all the charges, much to her delight, her relationship with Daniel would never be the same, something that could be determined with the way they hug. Perhaps, Daniel would have known the condition of his mother early on but for the case that forced him to grow up sooner. From Sandra’s perspective, all she had was her faithful dog Snoop while being all alone by the end of the drama, probably being guilty of being a close aide for her husband who wished to(and probably did) commit suicide. Yet the feeling of the film lingering on long after it ended was always there, thus marking a phenomenal piece of screenplay writing that was an intimate deconstruction of a relationship.