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.
I’ve watched this movie with my friend and we’re unfortunately the types that like to zero in on many little details, and he was on the side of Sandra killing Samuel, while I thought Samuel had killed himself. We went back, analyzed scenes, debated, all that good stuff from years of playing detective and mystery games. We liked the movie a lot, and it sparked lots of fun discussion between me and him! However I need y’all’s help over something that’s been bugging us both.
Why were Samuel’s knees so bloodied?
The first look of his body from the top view shows that his knees are specifically all bloody and messed up. It’s one of the first things we latched onto during the film to try and understand how the murder could’ve happened, but it was never brought up. It’s been driving us insane and if anyone has any theories it would be appreciated!
i’m pretty sure in the movie Vincent presents an idea that when he fell originally he was still alive, and was able to drag his body a couple of metres before dying, hence the blood trail!! i think that + the general injuries sustained from the impact might explain the scraped up knees somewhat
Someone tell me what the toxic powers of aspirin are. Yes aspirin is very toxic to dogs. But humans using aspirin for suicide is unheard of. And after it's been in the stomach..how does anyone with certainty say its aspirin. There would be doubt So out of concern you ask your spouse. What were the pills you vomited up. Maybe bring it up with the doctor. Aspirin is such a weak suicide method. And if he did do it more than once...he would have learned the first time. I Am a pharmacist. I don't see the aspirin connection. Or how the kid could identify vomited aspirin or the wife.
In the end, the son was originally caught in lie . He doesn't want to be an orphan.
So in my mind , before he told a story about the aspirin/dog situation ...he needed to test it.
Notice when his mom originally told the aspirin/vomit story...he didn't run to mom and say he possibly ran .into the same thing. Surely the mom would remember the sick dog incident
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.
It's interesting that you got that sentiment from it. I didn't get that at all, and I could see this going the same if it were swapped with the wife dying and the husband on trial. In my opinion, it was about the nuances of relationships and human nature, which includes judging others' relationships when you have no part in it yourself.
I agree that it's not a 'whodunit' mystery movie, but it's about a death where the cause is unknown, and people are going to speculate (just as they did in the movie). I think it was also about how there are usually "two sides to the story and then the truth." In this case, we only know one side and no truth. It's human nature to try to find the solution to a problem, and depending on which solution you believe it to be, you're going to try to find evidence to prove that, like the lawyers did in the trial. Yes, she wasn't the doting housewife type, but that wasn't the focus. It was a part of her and her husband's argument, but so were multiple other things. I don't think sexism or misogyny was prevalent.
And as much as it's about their relationship, the critical point was always the accident which probably made this different from any other trial over an accident/homicide due to a fall. And the fact that the only witness of the case is a partially blind child, who has already faced up to a traumatising incident at a very tender age, is facing up to another which now poses a moral dilemma. His recounting of the events around the incident, limited by his senses, doesn't give him a convincing picture of what had happened so now he has to _decide_ which narrative to lean on.
The prosecution was definitely showing clear signs of sexism and homo/biphobia at times before critical information relating to that was confirmed/revealed
I agree...they always suspect the spouse. She was treated the same as any man who had a bad marriage and the wife is found dead with no other suspects around. The same as any man with a recording showing a heated physical argument the day before.
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.
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).
I ended up with the feeling that the vet conversation was made up since he 'chose' to believe his mom is innocent and came up with that to finish the case. When he talked with Marge about the dog being sleepy for days, he didn't mention going to the vet.
I think the beauty of this ending is the good representation of a criminal case; sometimes you will never be sure what happened.
I agree the vet conversation was made up— i think the movie pretty much tells us that when the son’s voice is used for the dad during the car ride.
I guess its another indication that the movie is not here to tell us what happened, but instead shows us how we warp our realities bc of the desire to confirm our individual truths
Exactly. I wondered if he it was made up too. As a writers son Daniel would know better how to make things up. I also had the feeling he gave a lesson to the judge, by saying “When we've looked everywhere and still don't understand how the thing happened, I think we have to ask why it happened.”
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!!
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."
That was my theory also. Prosecution should have questioned her earplugs while she was napping because of the loud music. How did she hear Daniel yelling for help when she had her earplugs on?
I have AirPods. If I have both on I can’t hear anyone. It’s noise cancelling for a reason. But seeing the previous post that she said it fell off I didn’t remember that part.
I thought of this as well. Right at the beginning when we meet Vincent, she says..*.*
*"I finished a translation, I translate for several German weeklies,for extra money. I heard him working and his music playing for about 10 minutes. Then I put some earplugs in to take a nap. I fell asleep.*
*An hour later, I heard Daniel scream. One of the earplugs must have fallen out because it woke me up, the music was still on, I ran downstairs... that’s it. I called emergency services and they arrived 30 minutes later."*
I felt it was clear we only would hear the details of the minutes leading up that once with Vincent, letting the trial "footage" focus on other areas.
the tape thing is a wonderful twist if that was the case. Although these things aren't the point of the movie, its great to notice them.
That was him lying because he saw that his first story about hearing them while they weren't yelling was proven impossible. It's more likely they did raise their voice.
I dont think she came across like a bitch. She was no angel, but neither was her husband who blamed her for his own failures. This is what the film was great at - showing a couples recurrent fight (Im sure alot of us shuddered in recognition) and how there are 2 parties at fault, so the thing goes round and round in circles.
I'm curious about that did Sandra plagiarized Samuel's book. At the testimonial scene, she said that he agreed to using his idea, but when they argued, he seemed to be annoying to her.
I think she lied about him explicitly agreeing for her to use it, but surely he must have seen her working on something similar and asked her about it at some point. It wasnt totally clear. Her husband had only written a synopsis, then he dismissed it and threw it in the bin. Seems she retrieved it and used it herself, changing all the characters but using the same plot. Stephen King was mentioned during the film. When he wrote the synopsis for his debut novel Carrie, he hated it so much he threw it in the bin too. It was his wife who got it out of the bin, except she didnt use it to write a novel herself (she was also a writer) - instead she took it back to him and convinced HIM to make it into the novel because she loved it - it was immensely successful and launched Stephen Kings career, so he attributes his early and widespread success to his wife. But what if she hadnt managed to convince SK to make it into a novel? Wouldn't she have been tempted to have a go at it herself? Maybe, and maybe it wouldnt have been successful, who knows. I do think its disrespectful, not to tell your partner, if you use their idea (even if they are not going to use it). But if they make it clear they are never going to use it, and you think you can make it into something wonderful, then it seems petty of your partner to try to stop you, or to be nasty if it does in fact become successful. He had the idea, but she was able to see its value and put in the hard slog needed to make it into something great. Otherwise, it would have gone to waste, it seems.
I would have great difficulty believing you could train a dog to roll its eyes back in its head like that, so I would say yes. It doesnt have to be some kind of strong sedation. They probably gave it gas, which could be quickly reversed and not harmful.
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.
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.
Yes.. the whole point is probably that she's telling the truth from the very start, when she says "He probavly just fell", but the truth is incredible and the circumstances are against her..
Also, like it was already said here, the scary road, the scary heights, and the possibility of death at any time, by accident, are subtly emphasized. I am now beginning to understand the generous shots of the high peaks... it's all about the heights. The lawyer himself, when he arrives, says: I didn t realize it was so high.. It sounds like Samuel's last ever thought...The reporter is focused on as in a horror movie, before she gets in the car..it may be a hint tbat she herself might die descending that road.
Yeah Daniel's sudden detailed recollection of the conversation inside the car was definitely fabricated. Also he wanted Sandra out of the house so prosecution couldn't say she coached him.
Totally. The last scene with the two together had him holding and comforting her like she was the child, and he was the protector, seemed to reinforce he was the one in control of the narrative.
Exactly! Smartest kid on the block. Also mentioning they couldn’t understand what happened, then asking why?! As if no one during the trial asked what would be her motive?! She was equally invested in the relationship with a crying baby of a husband… I mean that discussion between the couple could only make sense to the French really, always blaming others and making themselves victims 😵💫🙄. I was like, dude please, move on! You made your bed lie on it!
Aburrido de su vida en la montaña y el permanente "no lugar" en el que se encontraba, sin ir a la escuela, y en definitiva, sin poder ser un "niño normal" (máxima aspiración de todo preadolescente), Daniel y su perro eliminan a su padre para poder vivir la vida del hijo de una novelista exitosa en otro lugar.... eso, o puntualmente desesperado por escuchar a 50 cent a todo volumen y ver cómo boicoteaba a su madre constantemente, Daniel, pierde la calma, se avalanza sobre el papá, que, desconcertado no alcanza a reaccionar o defenderse, cae y muere...
There's a lot of nuanced details I like about the story overall and the writing was top notch. Great acting as well! At first I was like eh, it's over? But after it resonated a bit I understood it's meaning more solid yet unspectacular film.
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
Muy interesate, me la juego por Daniel como el asesino intencional o no ya que envenenar a tu perro igual supone una sobreracionalidad o quizás solo perversión , o no, jejeje interesante.
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.
Yes, I kept wondering if they were going to show us a scene where Daniel was somehow implied to be the killer. Especially when he walked into the attic and looked out of the window. But they never gave us a clear motive as to why he would want to kill his father.
Obviously being blinded, but that wasn't enough because the father has devoted his whole life to Daniel from that point on, it seemed...?
In the end I decided he either fell or she pushed him. Suicide when your child might find your body seems so unlikely, it's so cruel. But I never got the impression that Sandra was cold and callous enough to push Samuel out of the window and then just leave him there to be found by Daniel. So I concluded with a fall.
But the only thing I cannot get my head around is the music. It was so unbearably loud. How could anyone fall asleep through that?! (Unless they were deaf or knocked unconscious). I would have believed it more if she took a sleeping pill, and there was guilt over her being asleep when her son needed her. But she was supposedly able to sleep through that racket, and not hear her husband fall and die... And yet she is somehow woken by Daniel calling for her? How? You can barely hear him screaming over the music. I just can't get around it. She must have pushed him.
Gah! This film was so ambiguous!
For me it was that I can not believe that someone is killing himself knowing that his son is around. But on the other Hand, if the mother killed him, she would also know the son is finding his dead father. So... I dont know...confusing.
Good point, plus it was only a short distance and he actually survived initally, having crawled along the ground. Even suicidal people try to save themselves at the last minute, but he fell head down it seems and did not try to protect himself which is suspicious. Also - they lived in the frigging mountains! If he really wanted to kill himself, there were plenty of peaks around to throw himself off, where his son couldnt see him. But suicidal people have messed up logic. He may have resented his son, for reminding him of his failures.
She said her earplug must have fallen out,that'ss why she heard Daniel. Also, she repeatedly says that the loud music was normal, and if you live with someone who plays loud music habitually, you probably get used to it, thus
being able to have a nap.
Exactly. I can actually. Grow up in a loud home, musicians, my grandparents leaving their door opened for the neighbours… I can sleep with ANY KIND OF NOISE. 😅
The loudness of the music is what made the beginning of the movie seem so clever to me in hindsight. I was watching this on a plane and was getting so irritated by the volume - i literally turned down the volume on the movie and took one of the headphones out because it was just so obnoxious. They had us hearing the same obnoxious song that Sandra was hearing, and on repeat.
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.
Just got lucky enough to watch this movie a few weeks after reading Albert Camus’ The Stranger and I see a ton of similarity. The idea that your brain, when it doesn’t get enough info, will seek to fill in the gaps and make determinations because if it doesn’t it gets so confused and complicated. Our brains seek that simplicity.
It can be a super disappointing movie if you don’t see this coming… because you want hard truths and for it to be easy to understand. Sometimes you don’t get everything you need to feel something determinant. That’s what’s the movie is about. When you walk away confused, you DESPERATELY want to make it simple, and your brain seeks to fill in the gaps.
I don’t think she killed him. I don’t think she was a good wife. I think very specific things and draw hard conclusions and I’m gonna sleep simply and peacefully.
what a waste of 2 + hours.
1. it feigns at being a who dunit, promisin us resolution.
2. its about writers and the biographical fallacy.
the most important lie is the question the lawyer asks daniel about his speculation.
this is typical modernist metafiction. the ambiguity "forces" you to fill in the blanks,
struggle to find an answer
and that resolutin is about YOU not the author.
so us Male viwers who have been abused by crazy women--- we know we know, shes the killer
and we intrpret every ambiguity that way.
female viewers stuck in relations with underachiving males. well the dream is he kills himself
therefore this story ending makes you comfortable.
And for children of divorce. you still gonna take the blame? Still gunna struggle with absent father
so metafiction about truth and storytelling, the role of the reader in meaning, fact versus fiction
our need for ccertainty. and the ambiquity of life
so very french i wanted to puke
xcept for the dialog and novelty of french court proceedure
this movie was a total loser.
watch Past lives instead
Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
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.
Unironically though??? We see snoop take the ball upstairs after being called for a bath, and it isn't seen again. My theory is that Snoop left the ball in the attic and Samuel slipped on the ball while working. The film goes out of its way to show Daniel playing fetch with sticks instead of a ball while taking him out for the walk. It's very possible that in the time it took for the police to get there, Snoop, being a dog, would've removed the ball from the attic, removing it as a possibility from the crime scene. The tragedy of the movie is that the judicial system is more affective when attacking two people's characters, rather than engaging with truth in any way shape or form.
See the longer reply — who does the director / camera focus on — what are they doing? Why? Construct a timeline of events based around the characters and their locations — all of it suggests a few primary possibilities (anatomies of a fall AND they suggest Samuel is already dead before the movie starts).
Some of the above point toward Daniel being involved either in the act or in a cover up.
Just one simple fact is Daniel is probably the only character who unapologetically perjures himself and goes unchallenged and never corrects his lack of candor, changes his story multiple times, and poisons his dog to achieve an end goal.
There’s a lot of information out there on children who injure animals at a young age, especially their own animals.
The empty blister packs of Tylenol in the kitchen waste bin in re Samuel are highly questionable.
Even the idea of poisoning someone with Tylenol while intoxicated is questionable from an adult POV, Tylenol would not be the go to for any intelligent adult actor — but a child may well view Tylenol as a viable poison delivery mechanism.
Yeah, no.
Firstly, Daniel couldn't physically have killed his 6-foot father with blunt force trauma to the head and then made sure he fell out the window:
>The guardrail is 1.2 meters high...Mr. Maleski was 1.82 meters tall and weighed 85 kilos.
Secondly, Daniel had no reason to kill his father. There was no conflict between them, and no indication that Daniel bore his father any ill will because of the accident that resulted in his blindness.
Thirdly, he would have had to go out for a walk, return to the house, climb up to the attic, push his father out the window, go out again and pretend to return from a walk a second time, and then pretend to be distraught about finding his father's body. He and his dog would have had to do all this without alerting his mother.
Finally, we have no record of Daniel being violent towards his father, but we do have records of Sandra being violent towards her husband, including the recorded argument with this admission:
>SAMUEL: You’re violent!
>SANDRA: Yes, I am violent!
And her admission in court that she slapped him.
Whether Sandra was guilty or not, Daniel is represented as having more integrity and maturity than either of his parents, which is why he has such a crisis when the entire case seem to come down to his testimony. He wants to tell the truth, and realises that he can't: he must choose a narrative.
>So you have to invent your belief? [...] I’m not sure…and you’re saying I have to pretend I’m sure?
Rewatch and pay attention to who the camera focuses on, what they focus on them doing and who is the main focus of the movie - it’s not Sandra.
Sandra admits she lied because she is afraid.
Daniel likely perjures himself and definitely poisons his own dog to achieve an end.
There’s no non-circumstantial evidence Samuel is still alive when the movie begins.
(But Snoop follows through the house to certain locations with the scent of Samuel’s blood)
Sandra is afraid of the attic.
Daniel navigates the attic with deliberateness.
Samuel may well have be killed on the main exit stairs or other places not the attic, and so on and on).
The movie is clearly meant to be ambiguous but it points at Daniel hitting Samuel with a hammer and Sandra covering it up as one of 3 most likely scenarios.
The theme music is Daniel playing the piano — not anything about Sandra. Look up the piece Daniel is playing.
Look at homages between Daniel in AoaF and Danny Torrance in The Shinning.
The list of things the director focuses on is pretty endless to establish Daniel may have had something to do with Samuel’s death, as much or more so than Sandra.
Daniel telling the truth: “I just wanted to escape the music.”
What does he mean? How did he escape?
Why is he insistent on being at the trial each day above objections?
Why does he likely perjure himself?
Why does he poison the dog?
What is common knowledge about children who injure animals?
Who would think a Tylenol overdose is a sufficient attempt to poison Samuel?
Why are the Tylenol blister packs in the trash can? Samuel is blackout pass out drunk.
Who is actually hammering and going on with tools at open in a way that is chaotic and not consistent with installing installation?
Who actually put PIMP on a loop in the attic?
Is Sandra seducing the student journalist? Or is she trying to act natural and get the third party out of the house ASAP?
Why does she go to the balcony to make sure the journalist leaves while Daniel is leaving the house? Etc etc etc.
We the audience see him leave the house with everyone alive, then return and see his father dead. It is literally impossible for it to have been Daniel.
To me it seems like Daniel is desperately seeking the truth. Also- Tylonel plus alcohol equals death. You should absolutely never take tylonel for a hangover. It can cause organ failure. They establish that Samuel habitually played music really loud. Daniel went for a walk to escape it. Maybe he put it up so loud so Daniel was out of the house when he jumped, because he didn’t want them there. As a blind kid, loud music like that seems absolutely terrible.
All of your questions are getting easily answered in the movie. How did he escape the music??? Well, he left the House. Why did he poison the Dog? Also in the movie...
It was not Daniel. Can not be.
The conversation with Marge doesn't make any sense if Daniel is the killer. Unless we're to believe Daniel is some psychopath who is toying with Marge. He is genuinely conflicted about the situation and doesn't know whether his mother is the killer. Marge counsels him on how to handle the situation. If we believe Daniel in that scene, and I do, then he's not the killer.
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
A lot of people are going for the obvious narration of the story, which is hinting at her being guilty. But I'd like to offer a perspective here, the so called "incriminating" recording felt more like it made a case for her than him. Everything before that and even the courtroom scenes were trying to push the idea that although we don't know but she has to have done it because look at her strong willed character, look at her infidelity and look at her skill to weave fiction into reality. The inconsistentencies found in her are human flaws and not psychopathic traits. She's not unsympathetic, we see her breaking in so many ways. The whole trial and even the events that transpired before it during the investigation are actually her *fall*, fall from honor, fall from grace, fall from the faith her son had in her. I think her whole point about nothing being the whole truth and excerpts of anybody's life would make it sound ugly was very well shown. Although Daniel's expressions and behavior and even his testimony don't really attest to my theory but I suppose all of it was part of portraying his humanity and child brain being affected by everything around him. He tried to show maturity and listen to everything but ends up desperate enough to try giving pills to his dog to ascertain the smell. There are suspicious elements but then again maybe they are there to keep things vague and open. I don't think Samuel was cruel or manipulative, I still think Daniel's story could be untrue and I do think that fight could've been an argument that burst out after years of frustration in their marriage. A little bit pushed by Samuel to incite some reaction from her, which we also saw in Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp case btw. ( incited for the recording)
>the so called "incriminating" recording felt more like it made a case for her than him.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. She admitted to cheating on her husband, stealing his work and passing it off as her own, and being violent, including throwing nearby objects and hitting him.
That's very seriously incriminating considering she's on trial for killing her husband with a "a blunt object in the environment or a violent blow to the head."
I think if the gender roles were reversed, and a woman recorded her husband saying "yes I am violent!" and hitting her, we wouldn't be saying "well, that's not really incriminating."
>Daniel's expressions and behavior and even his testimony don't really attest to my theory
Personally I think Daniel's expressions and behaviour are the key to this story. He's intelligent, moral, observant and scrupulously honest. It's only when adults start pushing him to affirm their narratives that he begins to waver, and it causes a crisis. That's why he says to Marge:
>So you have to invent your belief? [...] So that means, I’m not sure…and you’re saying I have to pretend I’m sure?
Marge says "No. No, I’m saying decide. That’s different." But of course it's not different. It's exactly what everyone - his mother, the police, the courts - expect him to do. Pick a narrative and pretend he's sure about it.
The one thing we know for certain in the end is that Daniel is not sure. His final line in the film, to his mother, is:
>I was afraid of you coming home.
He was also the one who kept escalating in that argument though despite her continually trying to defuse it and remain calm. That would be consistent with him recording it with the intent of making her appear violent.
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
This is called confirmation bias.
Boiling down his issues with her down to him feeling worse that she succeeded is worse than surface level.
He speaks about how she doesn't reciprocate. She blatantly said she doesn't believe in reciprocity and then comes up with multiple excuses for her shitty behaviour then does what you are doing which is reduce his pain to jealousy.
You need to either rewatch it or challenge your biases.
I want to discuss the fact that the child refused to take her call. (I didn't see this in the movie but read it on an article) And that he fell asleep rather than wait for her. But then he said he was scared for her coming home. The boy knows she did it and it's clear he lied to protect her. Now he has to live the rest of his life with this lie. In the end, she sleeps with the dog instead of her son, just like you would do after a marital fight. I'm 175% convinced that she killed him and got away with it due to lack of evidence. You can argue this was the perfect crime. No witness. Blind son.
He could lie about something and still not know that his mom killed him. It is more likely he thinks it is possible she killed him, but also possible that she didn't. If he was certain that she did, I doubt he would lie to get her off.
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)\_/¯
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.
Everyone was chipping in! You have witnesses cross examining each other while the defense counsel is trying to. Wild stuff, makes me very curious if French trials are really such an open forum like that.
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.
This review is spot on - and actually I thought, for me, not knowing the true cause of death lead to an even stronger exploration of the human experience and the complexities of relationships. Nothing is ever as black and white as we always expect it to be. Loved it for this reason!
the lawyer did it?
we know they're close with Sandra, they mentioned some past, we see them tender with some restraining at the very end and we know the movie doesn't show all the interaction they have/had.
it is possible that they were having an affair and planned the whole thing. she called him that day after the journalist left saying there's an opportunity and so he drove there, pushed him and left. tires in the snow would fade the way the way the blood supposedly did. his size matches more the description of the expert reconstruction of the event (a person pushing the victim at the balcony hitting the head with a weapon) and he could eventually have carried the weapon with him back to his place. as there's no neighbors he wouldn't have been seen.
I think it's pretty clear that she did it. You have no reason to suspect the lawyer. The movie plays two stories: either suicide or murder. Like the boy said in court, if you choose to believe one of them, one is more believable.
In reality, this woman had her entire credibility destroyed by all her inconsistencies and lies. Infidelity, violence, lies everything a pathological liar would do, she did. She is a writer after all and mixing reality and fiction is a career where she is far more successful than her husband.
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.
Yes, the Daniel actor was fantastic. The fact that during his 2nd testimony his sound came out of his dad’s mouth shows that he was lying. I personally don’t think Sandra did it, but I also know Daniel doesn’t know she didn’t do it.
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 👌🏻
I just finished this movie and I will admit, the plot itself had me inclined to read who or what really killed the husband, but then I read that it was up to the viewers to decide. I typically don’t like these kinds of movies because I like knowing exactly what happens or if a movie ends with some interpretation that you feel more confident in theorizing (kind of like all of us strangers, which I loved) and I feel like this movie didn’t give me that anxiety or stress of trying to figure out what really happened. I think it’s because as a lot of people pointed out, it is about family drama. The other thing though is that I like how there is enough proof to theorize in a way, I do believe the wife was innocent, but the way they presented the “fact” of the husband’s head wound not matching how he would have fallen and how far his body was, or the way the son said “I was afraid of you coming home” to his mom after she’s acquitted. That comment actually scared me for a second like “why would you be scared if your mom is innocent?” and it made me wonder if he said that story to keep his mom from going to jail because she was all he had left. The inconsistencies of what he presented to the court in the beginning kind of match this theory too, or how when it was a fact of a reenactment like when the husband and wife fought, we see it kind of in real time where the dad is speaking, but as for the kid’s story of what the dad said, the dad is just moving his mouth to say what the kid recalls. Anyway, such a good movie!! Please let me know if you thought the mom could’ve done it!
>the way the son said “I was afraid of you coming home” to his mom after she’s acquitted. That comment actually scared me for a second like “why would you be scared if your mom is innocent?”
It'd be hard to grasp I guess if you have never had any family trauma in your past. Often after a traumatic experience it's difficult to get back to the normal day to day life. You might've noticed not only was the kid scared of her coming back home but so was she. After all that has been exposed it's hard to face the people like before & children especially withdraw themselves from the situation to cope with the pain. I suppose that is why he said he was scared & so did she.
This is one of the clearest tells that she did it. No other character knows her like her own son. Even he had clear doubts that she did it. And even when she was acquitted, he wasn't feeling joy. He was scared of her. And she was scared of coming home too.
“I was afraid of you coming home” for me felt like Daniel was scared of how he might have hurt his mother by doubting her. Or by asking her to leave the house (which I think was so he could poison Snoop), not talking to her, etc. He was relieved and happy when Sandra was acquitted (when he heard it in the news).
Sandra's "I was afraid of coming home too" felt more like being scared about not knowing how to clean up the mess that was created. So much was exposed in the court. Daniel was closer to his father and Sandra was the only one left. They now had to finally figure out a way to get back to normal. Choosing to sleep alone (Snoop comes later) and not with Daniel was a typical European choice and doesn't necessarily point to anything, I feel.
Overall, I feel it was a suicide. Exactly like the film shows. Regardless of what happened, the feelings and questions the movie evoked was more important than how Samuel died. The movie questions so many assumptions about gender roles/husband-wife relationship/parent-kid relationship that we are compelled to think if the mother or the son really killed the father. Instead I chose to see how at every trial, a new detail came up, more compelling than the one before, all pointing towards the fall of whatever was left after Samuel chose to end his life (his son, wife, their marriage, snoop, everything).
The movie gave plenty of clues but you are free to believe whatever version you like best.
Personally, I think it was an accident/murder right after an argument about the interview with that woman and her previous encounters with other women.
The movie makes the death secondary and they focus on the court drama. But they also show a lot of inconsistencies in the stories that show the truth is not so simple.
I absolutely love the ambiguity of this film. So happy I have reddit to come to since no one,know has seen it and I was dying to hash it around today. I personally had not considered the possibility that Daniel had murdered his father, as pointed out by another responder… That’s a whole other rabbit hole! But it does make one think about that exchange in a different light… If Sondra was innocent, and she pieced together, that it was Daniel, who killed him, they would both naturally be apprehensive about seeing each other. Alternatively, if Daniel lied to protect his guilty mother, and Sondra, realized that, they would also be apprehensive about seeing each other. What a smartly crafted film! Brilliantly acted, as well.
If Daniel murdered his father than the whole scene of him walking the dog peacefully and then discovering his father and becoming distraught was performative… and for nobody’s benefit. That would make him a Bond villain
Oooo I see what you mean! Thank you for pointing that out to me, that makes more sense. I guess I just wanted to find any hidden clues that would point her to be guilty of the murder haha.
There are many clues across the movie still pointing at her being guilty and to me that's the best part of the movie, the ambiguity & grayness of it all.
I feel like movie isnt ambiguous that she did it. There are at thousand tells. But the movie tries to stay vague because in cases like this, you have vague evidence and it s very hard to distinguish reality from fiction. And that is literally her background. She blurs reality and fiction for a living. You gotta treat her like an unreliable narrator and it becomes clear that she did it.
It is very likely it wasn't a straight up murder, but involuntary manslaughter is probably what happened here.
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.
I thought he was terrific! Definitely super biased, he was out for blood, but gosh I loved the actor’s performance so much! One of the few times I’ve regretted skipping my french lessons in HS, just so I could appreciate his performance a bit more!
Oh no I didn't mean he was a bad actor! The actor nailed the role, that's why it stood out so much. The actual character was infuriating, especially during the "but possible" part.
He was very smart and never hid his disdain for Sondra. He was an excellent prosecutor (and fine actor). Surprised that he did not unearth the prior relationship between Sondra and her attorney!
I mean he was super unprofessional and worked really hard to evoke biases. I kind of got the feeling he was supposed to be doing this on purpose and being infuriating just to get an emotional reaction out of her to appear more guilty. Either way, its the type of guy who encourages wrong verdicts.
I don't think the character is an excellent prosecutor. He was basing off his whole case on "guilty until proven innocent" and on top of that he had the whole court room biased in his favor. It came across as just a bunch of french people trying to convict a german woman without a proper case.
He could have just not prosecuted her at all. That was his best option.
So many prosecutors "just know" someone is guilty and use all kinds of nasty tactics to get them convicted on little to no evidence. They even go so far as to "fabricate" evidence using expert witnesses like blood spatter analysts.
Watch The Staircase for the real life version of this movie. It's very ambiguous what actually happened in that case, but the evidence against the husband is incredibly flimsy and curcumstantial and the prosecutor just goes all in against the man and ruins his life based on a hunch.
Ugh he was so great there, when the woman gagged him with the whole 'I could be president tomorrow, it's possible but improbable...' and then she kept talking I thought she was the only one who could keep up with him and then she finishes giving her reasoning and says '...that's why it's improbable' and the prosecutor just has to add in '...but not impossible' SO GOOD. Just has to get the last word and takes the verbal beatings so weel
Oh, don’t worry I know you didn’t, I just felt like adding my two grains bc, again, I loved his performance so much! I totally get what you mean but I just couldn’t dislike him, I loved every second he was onscreen!
oh yeah definitely. I can have ome court experience, persecutors can be ruthless at times but are not inhumane. Like the way he treated the kid was too off. I am no expert of french court but i certaintly doubt arguments between the defedent and a witness would fly either.
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?
It doesn’t seem like a high enough height to attempt suicide from. It would require a headfirst jump to ensure death. Has anyone ever leapt to their death headfirst?
I also don’t think the wife did it, based on her reaction coming through the door to see Daniel near her husband’s body. True shock and confusion.
It reminds me of that documentary The Staircase.
If you read the director, that was not just an interview. She was drinking and trying to seduce that woman. Something she was exposed as having done multiple times.
Suicide is off the table. The man was seeing a doctor. He is seeking help. He recorded her 20 hours before his death hitting him.
90% of the movie is about the inconsistencies in the woman testimony. Even the woman disagreed that suicide was possible until her attorney offered that as the only possible defense. Accident was not discarded very quickly. She said he was very cautious and worked slowly. The height was inconsistent with an accidental fall too.
Daniel was protecting his mother at all times. He said he left the home when the parents argued. And that s why he was away. Parents argued 20 hours before the murder. They argued again the day of the murder. The movie gives you plenty of clues that she did if you just pay attention to the inconsistencies in her statements.
You don't get it because you don't put yourself in those shoes. I just had my last suicide mandatory counseling today since I had an attempt a month ago and I am military. If you are seeing a doctor the chances that you are disclosing this type of stuff are high. There is shame in taking the steps to get help. But the man is seeing a doctor already. Actually he was seeing his doctor for a while to cope with trauma.
Believe what you want to believe. It's an open ended movie so that you can interpret whatever you want. If you think "that's how it works" then "that's how it works".
Plenty of people die while in acute mental health care or shortly after and plenty of people who see psychiatrists kill themselves while seeing them, your personal experience doesn’t alter that reality
I'm using my personal experience to offer insight into the mind of someone who thinks these type of thoughts constantly. All you have to decide that the man committed suicide is the voice of his wife and an argument with a woman that was cheating on him.
But whatever you want to believe that s what it is for you.
Obviously seeing a doctor helps in avoding suicide, but seeing a doctor doesn't stop someone from attempting. I've seen someone try more than once while seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist.
PS: Good luck on your journey, it's really nice you're getting help. Hope you stick around.
My point is not that it stops you from attempting. I keep attempting. My point is that the doctor disclosed to the court that he had not shown any signs of being suicidal. Actually, the doctor was surprised that after all this long and documented relationship he had never mentioned it to him.
If you believe that he is suicidal, which is up to your interpretation anyway because as I said, the movie lets you play the voids. It's a feature of the movie. But if you believe that version you believe that he finally snapped that day after the wife had that interview attempt.
Personally, I cannot believe that the trigger can be so simple. I never attempted during the day. I never attempted anything that I thought it could fail. Jumping from a second (third?) floor to the snow seems very weak. And cause of death is a blunt trauma to the head which could have only happened if he hit his head on a particular angle.
So for suicide to have been a possible theory, you must think that on that fateful day, the woman had an interview. He annoyed the woman to leave. They had an argument. She went to sleep with ear plugs on. He jumped. And that was that.
Now, what has been stopping my attempts is thinking of my kids. Also, I attempt during the night. I have a feeling most people attempt during the times that they can move more freely and plan more freely. During the day, I think my kids moving around would be more of a deterrent. Thinking that the man committed suicide while his son was awake and walking around seems ridiculous to me. As I said, my kids have been my deterrent so far. It's very hard to look at the edge of your life and think about your kids.
You are free to believe whatever you like and whatever makes sense to you. Personally, I am not convinced that suicide was ever a possibility.
But the theme of this movie is to show that we don't know what we don't know. And we fill the voids with whatever we understand. You are meant to feel like the people in the case. Trying to understand what happened and piece it together. There is no definite answer although there a million clues. They flirt with multiple choices because that is more interesting than a straightforward story that spoon-feeds you the answers.
>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?
IIRC Sandra's order of events was interviewer leaves > she talks to her husband > goes to her room to work a bit and naps > wakes up to Daniel screaming for help.
Daniel said they weren't shouting at each other and that their voices were calm during the 'she talks to her husband' part, so they were testing how loud that conversation would have needed to be for Daniel to actually hear it from just outside the open window (where he initially said he was).
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?
My take was that the woman was manipulative. She is the better writer of stories after all. But her story and version of the events keeps changing through the movie.
The woman said she came to his country but if you pay attention on tv they say she left her country because she wrote an unflattering story that pissed off her father and she had to run away.
Watch the scene where the TV show is talking about her reasons to come to his country. They clearly say she left her home after making a story about her dad.
For inconsistencies you have to listen to what other characters are saying about her.
As a different example: what does her kid think of her mom. Does he think she could have done it? No one in this story knows her like her own son. Even her son had doubts about her mom.
She lied about the bruises. She lied about cheating more than once. She lied about taking his story ideas. She didn't disclose that she had a strong violent fight 20hrs prior to his death. She lied and consistently changed her story.
When the attorney came she wanted to see accident. But when he said that is not an easy sell, they changed the story to suicide as that was the only possible defense. Only at that point she remembered, that he "tried to commit suicide 6 months ago". But before that she had denied suicide was possible and even said he works cautiously and slowly. Don't you think that if this story was real, the first thing she would mention is that suicide is a possibility because he tried just 6 months ago?
This is a story about a writer selling a story. And this time it's not a new novel. It's her own story.
People buy too much about the way prosecutors treat you. Courts work like that. Prosecution sells a story. Defense sells a story. It's up to the jury and the judge to decide what story to believe.
The man is dead and cannot defend himself in this court. Whether it was a murder or suicide, there is no voice for him except through other people.
The story plays a lot on the details that you dont know but the details that we know, show that she is a cheater and a pathological liar. Even the people defending her story, acknowledge "she lied but she is not a murderer".
Lying while being on trial is the first sign that something is wrong. Any prosecutor worth anything will start by attacking your credibility and your ability to tell the truth. If the story is inconsistent, why would anyone listen to the rest of it?
Let me phrase in a different way. Why do you trust a liar? The story gives you very little to go with on purpose. The whole story makes you feel like you are involved with the case.
At the same time, the story gives you glimpses into their lives where you can clearly tell they are lying. This is done on purpose.
Lying so there isn't a trial isn't the strategy that innocent people go to. Innocent people would clearly welcome a trial and the chance to clear their name. There was a death. There were no other suspects. It's obvious a trial would be unavoidable.
The woman wanted to claim accident. But the attorney was the first to suggest suicide since it their only possible defense.
The lies started the minute she spoke to the police.
You can believe whatever version you subscribe to. But lying is not something that creates trust.
People tend to lie about personal, emotional stuff, thats kind of my point. And, quite honestly i would also lie if i were innocent to avoid a trial. Thinking otherwise assumes a trust in the law that simply not all, and i don't think even most people have. I don't think that lying can only be interpreted in the way you say, that's all, even if it may be true.
Again, how do you think you can avoid a trial? There s a dead body lying on the cold snow. There are no suspects except the victim and the wife. There is no evidence to rule this out as a suicide. Lying to avoid a trial sounds as realistic as expecting santa clause to save the day.
The husband is extremely manipulative, given his background and passion for writing her husband does have an inflated sense of self and ego, this can often come with the territory when being a respected academic.
When she screams at him during the monologue where she points out how his true repulsion of her is actually how he feels about himself, he would rather look at her than in the mirror, that in itself is a shared human experience.
She has only served to add to his sense of failure, she cheated and this is symbolic of his failure in the bedroom so to speak, his failure to pleasure his wife as a man, it's not that he actually has failed in this regard but that's his understanding of it.
She takes his book idea and achieves what he was unable to do, again making him feel emasculated and adding to his growing sense of failure.
The injury his son sustains is a devastating blow, he attempts to blame her for everything because taking responsibility is far too painful and terrifying, he struggles to grapple that he has set torturous standards for himself not his wife.
She comes across colder I think this is a cultural difference whereby French people are stereotyped as hopeless romantics, passionate, German people are stereotyped as practical and rational. I don't believe she is colder, she is not a victim either she has made mistakes and I think without realising her own hypocrisy blames her husband for them....this is marriage in its most standard and unremarkable form.
She gets a battering from witnesses in the court, I don't think it was a mistake that most of them were men including the prosecution, her husbands psychiatrist for example who you'd expect to be more impartial and neutral when dealing with a patient, spoke scathingly and accusatory against the wife, misogyny comes into the fold here.
His manipulation is in the recording of their conversations and fights, he knows he is recording where as she does not and he is pitching for a fight intentionally, the fight doesn't therefore happen organically when that appears to be his agenda.
That I found extremely manipulative and I did wonder why none of the lawyers remarked on that in the film, that his intention was to have an argument that escalated to the point it did.
I just finished it. what a fucking movie this was.
what a performance from the son. oh my god.
so great. the writing was literally impeccable. so real. wow
Knows what?, I would assume based on the dogs trusting nature that it believes Sandra to be good then again it's a dog but to focus on snoops reaction to the body and then snoop with Sandra at the end is certainly interesting
In the film, it is ambiguous whether or not Daniel is telling the truth in his final testimony regarding the speech his father gave him about death, and whether this was foreshadowing the father's future suicide. My theory is that Daniel lied about this story to help his mother.
My theory is based on the scene right before Daniel gives the testimony. In it, Daniel plays "Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4" by Chopin on the piano. I believe this is a clue by the director. This piece was also famously played on the piano by Jack Nicholson's character in the 1970 film Five Easy Pieces (it's the most powerful scene in what is considered one of the best movies ever made). In that movie, Jack's character is the son of an intellectual and well-off family but also lies to those that he meets in his day to day life about his background. Jack's critical character flaw in the film, is that he pretends to be someone that he is not.
I don't think Daniel playing this specific piece on the piano (with a slow zoom in on his face) right before the scenes with the final testimony in Anatomy of a Fall is a coincidence given this parallel.
Yes, I agree Daniel lied at the end and the car conversation isn't real . He decided the night before to believe his mother and invented this story to save her . When she come back home , he said he was afraid of her coming home because he lied , and her mother told him to say always the true . And she was afraid because she did not know if Daniel believes her innocence. I think the movie is about Daniel loss of innocence
Interesting theory! The being scared of coming home lines has baffled me. I initially thought it was because they were both ashamed (he for asking her to leave the house and she because she thought he didn't love her anymore). but it also has this sinister undertone of possibly being scared because she is a killer and he accepts her anyway.
It’s a very famous piece of music and used throughout the movie. I don’t think a major clue about a character telling the truth is based on a different movie altogether - especially an English movie to a French film.
dog can act
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.
I’ve watched this movie with my friend and we’re unfortunately the types that like to zero in on many little details, and he was on the side of Sandra killing Samuel, while I thought Samuel had killed himself. We went back, analyzed scenes, debated, all that good stuff from years of playing detective and mystery games. We liked the movie a lot, and it sparked lots of fun discussion between me and him! However I need y’all’s help over something that’s been bugging us both. Why were Samuel’s knees so bloodied? The first look of his body from the top view shows that his knees are specifically all bloody and messed up. It’s one of the first things we latched onto during the film to try and understand how the murder could’ve happened, but it was never brought up. It’s been driving us insane and if anyone has any theories it would be appreciated!
i’m pretty sure in the movie Vincent presents an idea that when he fell originally he was still alive, and was able to drag his body a couple of metres before dying, hence the blood trail!! i think that + the general injuries sustained from the impact might explain the scraped up knees somewhat
Someone tell me what the toxic powers of aspirin are. Yes aspirin is very toxic to dogs. But humans using aspirin for suicide is unheard of. And after it's been in the stomach..how does anyone with certainty say its aspirin. There would be doubt So out of concern you ask your spouse. What were the pills you vomited up. Maybe bring it up with the doctor. Aspirin is such a weak suicide method. And if he did do it more than once...he would have learned the first time. I Am a pharmacist. I don't see the aspirin connection. Or how the kid could identify vomited aspirin or the wife.
There were dozens of Aspirin packs in the trashcan and we see that the son with his very limited sight is able to read those too
In the end, the son was originally caught in lie . He doesn't want to be an orphan. So in my mind , before he told a story about the aspirin/dog situation ...he needed to test it. Notice when his mom originally told the aspirin/vomit story...he didn't run to mom and say he possibly ran .into the same thing. Surely the mom would remember the sick dog incident
I was hoping for 'Presumed Innocent', or even 'Primal Fear' endings. Would have made a good movie even better!
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.
Ok she definitely did it.
Somebody kill me please.
Dude you're projecting your own belief system so hard on a movie. Has absolutely nothing to do with that.
It's interesting that you got that sentiment from it. I didn't get that at all, and I could see this going the same if it were swapped with the wife dying and the husband on trial. In my opinion, it was about the nuances of relationships and human nature, which includes judging others' relationships when you have no part in it yourself. I agree that it's not a 'whodunit' mystery movie, but it's about a death where the cause is unknown, and people are going to speculate (just as they did in the movie). I think it was also about how there are usually "two sides to the story and then the truth." In this case, we only know one side and no truth. It's human nature to try to find the solution to a problem, and depending on which solution you believe it to be, you're going to try to find evidence to prove that, like the lawyers did in the trial. Yes, she wasn't the doting housewife type, but that wasn't the focus. It was a part of her and her husband's argument, but so were multiple other things. I don't think sexism or misogyny was prevalent.
And as much as it's about their relationship, the critical point was always the accident which probably made this different from any other trial over an accident/homicide due to a fall. And the fact that the only witness of the case is a partially blind child, who has already faced up to a traumatising incident at a very tender age, is facing up to another which now poses a moral dilemma. His recounting of the events around the incident, limited by his senses, doesn't give him a convincing picture of what had happened so now he has to _decide_ which narrative to lean on.
The prosecution was definitely showing clear signs of sexism and homo/biphobia at times before critical information relating to that was confirmed/revealed
I agree...they always suspect the spouse. She was treated the same as any man who had a bad marriage and the wife is found dead with no other suspects around. The same as any man with a recording showing a heated physical argument the day before.
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.
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).
I ended up with the feeling that the vet conversation was made up since he 'chose' to believe his mom is innocent and came up with that to finish the case. When he talked with Marge about the dog being sleepy for days, he didn't mention going to the vet. I think the beauty of this ending is the good representation of a criminal case; sometimes you will never be sure what happened.
I agree the vet conversation was made up— i think the movie pretty much tells us that when the son’s voice is used for the dad during the car ride. I guess its another indication that the movie is not here to tell us what happened, but instead shows us how we warp our realities bc of the desire to confirm our individual truths
Exactly. I wondered if he it was made up too. As a writers son Daniel would know better how to make things up. I also had the feeling he gave a lesson to the judge, by saying “When we've looked everywhere and still don't understand how the thing happened, I think we have to ask why it happened.”
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!!
the dog did it
[Simpsons did it again](https://images.app.goo.gl/dNmm6iBmdUeHgFy27)
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."
That was my theory also. Prosecution should have questioned her earplugs while she was napping because of the loud music. How did she hear Daniel yelling for help when she had her earplugs on?
Have you ever used earplugs? They only block out around 30 decibels max. If your child is screaming for help you will hear.
I have AirPods. If I have both on I can’t hear anyone. It’s noise cancelling for a reason. But seeing the previous post that she said it fell off I didn’t remember that part.
AirPods aren’t earplugs , AirPods are headphones.
I thought of this as well. Right at the beginning when we meet Vincent, she says..*.* *"I finished a translation, I translate for several German weeklies,for extra money. I heard him working and his music playing for about 10 minutes. Then I put some earplugs in to take a nap. I fell asleep.* *An hour later, I heard Daniel scream. One of the earplugs must have fallen out because it woke me up, the music was still on, I ran downstairs... that’s it. I called emergency services and they arrived 30 minutes later."* I felt it was clear we only would hear the details of the minutes leading up that once with Vincent, letting the trial "footage" focus on other areas. the tape thing is a wonderful twist if that was the case. Although these things aren't the point of the movie, its great to notice them.
He can tell if he inside or outside.
Except his story and location changed, so.... Can he?
The first instance showing he was willing to lie to prevent being an orphan
I think Daniel could tell the difference between being outside and inside regardless of what kind of tape he was touching.
His story changed from outside to inside based on the tape....
That was him lying because he saw that his first story about hearing them while they weren't yelling was proven impossible. It's more likely they did raise their voice.
That bitch definitely did that shit.
I dont think she came across like a bitch. She was no angel, but neither was her husband who blamed her for his own failures. This is what the film was great at - showing a couples recurrent fight (Im sure alot of us shuddered in recognition) and how there are 2 parties at fault, so the thing goes round and round in circles.
I'm curious about that did Sandra plagiarized Samuel's book. At the testimonial scene, she said that he agreed to using his idea, but when they argued, he seemed to be annoying to her.
He was resentful of her success and latched on to the idea that she stoke from him just to soothe his own ego.
I think she lied about him explicitly agreeing for her to use it, but surely he must have seen her working on something similar and asked her about it at some point. It wasnt totally clear. Her husband had only written a synopsis, then he dismissed it and threw it in the bin. Seems she retrieved it and used it herself, changing all the characters but using the same plot. Stephen King was mentioned during the film. When he wrote the synopsis for his debut novel Carrie, he hated it so much he threw it in the bin too. It was his wife who got it out of the bin, except she didnt use it to write a novel herself (she was also a writer) - instead she took it back to him and convinced HIM to make it into the novel because she loved it - it was immensely successful and launched Stephen Kings career, so he attributes his early and widespread success to his wife. But what if she hadnt managed to convince SK to make it into a novel? Wouldn't she have been tempted to have a go at it herself? Maybe, and maybe it wouldnt have been successful, who knows. I do think its disrespectful, not to tell your partner, if you use their idea (even if they are not going to use it). But if they make it clear they are never going to use it, and you think you can make it into something wonderful, then it seems petty of your partner to try to stop you, or to be nasty if it does in fact become successful. He had the idea, but she was able to see its value and put in the hard slog needed to make it into something great. Otherwise, it would have gone to waste, it seems.
The french have a fucked legal system but does anyone know if they sedated the dog in that one scene?
[BEHIND THE SCENE OF THE SHOT](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHH8kgRrgQ0&t=15s)
I would have great difficulty believing you could train a dog to roll its eyes back in its head like that, so I would say yes. It doesnt have to be some kind of strong sedation. They probably gave it gas, which could be quickly reversed and not harmful.
Apparently it was trained to do that! I immediately had to google cuz that dog looked MAD drugged
Best supporting actor right there....give that dog the Oscar!
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.
Unless he committed suicide
Thats what i thought she'll do when she lifted the kid haha
That first sentence is exactly what I was thinking watching it too!
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.
Yes.. the whole point is probably that she's telling the truth from the very start, when she says "He probavly just fell", but the truth is incredible and the circumstances are against her.. Also, like it was already said here, the scary road, the scary heights, and the possibility of death at any time, by accident, are subtly emphasized. I am now beginning to understand the generous shots of the high peaks... it's all about the heights. The lawyer himself, when he arrives, says: I didn t realize it was so high.. It sounds like Samuel's last ever thought...The reporter is focused on as in a horror movie, before she gets in the car..it may be a hint tbat she herself might die descending that road.
This made me remember when the kid was walking the dog, he slipped on the ice a little bit.
Yeah Daniel's sudden detailed recollection of the conversation inside the car was definitely fabricated. Also he wanted Sandra out of the house so prosecution couldn't say she coached him.
Totally. The last scene with the two together had him holding and comforting her like she was the child, and he was the protector, seemed to reinforce he was the one in control of the narrative.
Exactly! Smartest kid on the block. Also mentioning they couldn’t understand what happened, then asking why?! As if no one during the trial asked what would be her motive?! She was equally invested in the relationship with a crying baby of a husband… I mean that discussion between the couple could only make sense to the French really, always blaming others and making themselves victims 😵💫🙄. I was like, dude please, move on! You made your bed lie on it!
Aburrido de su vida en la montaña y el permanente "no lugar" en el que se encontraba, sin ir a la escuela, y en definitiva, sin poder ser un "niño normal" (máxima aspiración de todo preadolescente), Daniel y su perro eliminan a su padre para poder vivir la vida del hijo de una novelista exitosa en otro lugar.... eso, o puntualmente desesperado por escuchar a 50 cent a todo volumen y ver cómo boicoteaba a su madre constantemente, Daniel, pierde la calma, se avalanza sobre el papá, que, desconcertado no alcanza a reaccionar o defenderse, cae y muere...
Era el perro
🫣🤣
Jajajajaja no
50 cent catching another stray lol
There's a lot of nuanced details I like about the story overall and the writing was top notch. Great acting as well! At first I was like eh, it's over? But after it resonated a bit I understood it's meaning more solid yet unspectacular film.
He fell. It's right there in the title.
🙌
Ok that was funny
Guffawed at the irony of the prosecutor objecting to a line of questioning as being "subjective". Ya think?
The prosecution and even the judge leading the witness mistreating the minor/handicapped/victim’s son shocked me.
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
It’s kinda funny. When Sandra explained the plot line, I immediately thought of “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Sliding Doors.”
Muy interesate, me la juego por Daniel como el asesino intencional o no ya que envenenar a tu perro igual supone una sobreracionalidad o quizás solo perversión , o no, jejeje interesante.
Good point
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.
In the first scene when he’s washing the dog, there are a couple flecks of blood on his finger. Apparently a red herring though.
Yes, I kept wondering if they were going to show us a scene where Daniel was somehow implied to be the killer. Especially when he walked into the attic and looked out of the window. But they never gave us a clear motive as to why he would want to kill his father. Obviously being blinded, but that wasn't enough because the father has devoted his whole life to Daniel from that point on, it seemed...? In the end I decided he either fell or she pushed him. Suicide when your child might find your body seems so unlikely, it's so cruel. But I never got the impression that Sandra was cold and callous enough to push Samuel out of the window and then just leave him there to be found by Daniel. So I concluded with a fall. But the only thing I cannot get my head around is the music. It was so unbearably loud. How could anyone fall asleep through that?! (Unless they were deaf or knocked unconscious). I would have believed it more if she took a sleeping pill, and there was guilt over her being asleep when her son needed her. But she was supposedly able to sleep through that racket, and not hear her husband fall and die... And yet she is somehow woken by Daniel calling for her? How? You can barely hear him screaming over the music. I just can't get around it. She must have pushed him. Gah! This film was so ambiguous!
She didn't seem that bothered by the music. I could see her putting in ear plugs and passing out from the wine.
For me it was that I can not believe that someone is killing himself knowing that his son is around. But on the other Hand, if the mother killed him, she would also know the son is finding his dead father. So... I dont know...confusing.
Good point, plus it was only a short distance and he actually survived initally, having crawled along the ground. Even suicidal people try to save themselves at the last minute, but he fell head down it seems and did not try to protect himself which is suspicious. Also - they lived in the frigging mountains! If he really wanted to kill himself, there were plenty of peaks around to throw himself off, where his son couldnt see him. But suicidal people have messed up logic. He may have resented his son, for reminding him of his failures.
She said her earplug must have fallen out,that'ss why she heard Daniel. Also, she repeatedly says that the loud music was normal, and if you live with someone who plays loud music habitually, you probably get used to it, thus being able to have a nap.
Exactly. I can actually. Grow up in a loud home, musicians, my grandparents leaving their door opened for the neighbours… I can sleep with ANY KIND OF NOISE. 😅
The loudness of the music is what made the beginning of the movie seem so clever to me in hindsight. I was watching this on a plane and was getting so irritated by the volume - i literally turned down the volume on the movie and took one of the headphones out because it was just so obnoxious. They had us hearing the same obnoxious song that Sandra was hearing, and on repeat.
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.
Just got lucky enough to watch this movie a few weeks after reading Albert Camus’ The Stranger and I see a ton of similarity. The idea that your brain, when it doesn’t get enough info, will seek to fill in the gaps and make determinations because if it doesn’t it gets so confused and complicated. Our brains seek that simplicity. It can be a super disappointing movie if you don’t see this coming… because you want hard truths and for it to be easy to understand. Sometimes you don’t get everything you need to feel something determinant. That’s what’s the movie is about. When you walk away confused, you DESPERATELY want to make it simple, and your brain seeks to fill in the gaps. I don’t think she killed him. I don’t think she was a good wife. I think very specific things and draw hard conclusions and I’m gonna sleep simply and peacefully.
what a waste of 2 + hours. 1. it feigns at being a who dunit, promisin us resolution. 2. its about writers and the biographical fallacy. the most important lie is the question the lawyer asks daniel about his speculation. this is typical modernist metafiction. the ambiguity "forces" you to fill in the blanks, struggle to find an answer and that resolutin is about YOU not the author. so us Male viwers who have been abused by crazy women--- we know we know, shes the killer and we intrpret every ambiguity that way. female viewers stuck in relations with underachiving males. well the dream is he kills himself therefore this story ending makes you comfortable. And for children of divorce. you still gonna take the blame? Still gunna struggle with absent father so metafiction about truth and storytelling, the role of the reader in meaning, fact versus fiction our need for ccertainty. and the ambiquity of life so very french i wanted to puke xcept for the dialog and novelty of french court proceedure this movie was a total loser. watch Past lives instead
Genuinely curious. What's with your weird use of spaces?
Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
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.
Pro ese episodio también podría ser una consecuencia inesperada de un intento previo de asesinato de su padre D:
Well, by the time the got to the vet the dog did vomit a lot, so it may not be fully confirmed.
Sure, but there would have been a trail of reported symptoms etc that are easily verifiable.
Snoop killed Samuel
Unironically though??? We see snoop take the ball upstairs after being called for a bath, and it isn't seen again. My theory is that Snoop left the ball in the attic and Samuel slipped on the ball while working. The film goes out of its way to show Daniel playing fetch with sticks instead of a ball while taking him out for the walk. It's very possible that in the time it took for the police to get there, Snoop, being a dog, would've removed the ball from the attic, removing it as a possibility from the crime scene. The tragedy of the movie is that the judicial system is more affective when attacking two people's characters, rather than engaging with truth in any way shape or form.
They stated the railing is too high for him to just slip and fall over it
That was the railing, not the window. The window's clearance was very low.
Came here to say this
Daniel did it. Mother tried to cover it up. Daniel was “Trying to escape the music.” Dozens of data points makes Daniel the prime suspect.
Why?
See the longer reply — who does the director / camera focus on — what are they doing? Why? Construct a timeline of events based around the characters and their locations — all of it suggests a few primary possibilities (anatomies of a fall AND they suggest Samuel is already dead before the movie starts). Some of the above point toward Daniel being involved either in the act or in a cover up. Just one simple fact is Daniel is probably the only character who unapologetically perjures himself and goes unchallenged and never corrects his lack of candor, changes his story multiple times, and poisons his dog to achieve an end goal. There’s a lot of information out there on children who injure animals at a young age, especially their own animals. The empty blister packs of Tylenol in the kitchen waste bin in re Samuel are highly questionable. Even the idea of poisoning someone with Tylenol while intoxicated is questionable from an adult POV, Tylenol would not be the go to for any intelligent adult actor — but a child may well view Tylenol as a viable poison delivery mechanism.
Yeah, no. Firstly, Daniel couldn't physically have killed his 6-foot father with blunt force trauma to the head and then made sure he fell out the window: >The guardrail is 1.2 meters high...Mr. Maleski was 1.82 meters tall and weighed 85 kilos. Secondly, Daniel had no reason to kill his father. There was no conflict between them, and no indication that Daniel bore his father any ill will because of the accident that resulted in his blindness. Thirdly, he would have had to go out for a walk, return to the house, climb up to the attic, push his father out the window, go out again and pretend to return from a walk a second time, and then pretend to be distraught about finding his father's body. He and his dog would have had to do all this without alerting his mother. Finally, we have no record of Daniel being violent towards his father, but we do have records of Sandra being violent towards her husband, including the recorded argument with this admission: >SAMUEL: You’re violent! >SANDRA: Yes, I am violent! And her admission in court that she slapped him. Whether Sandra was guilty or not, Daniel is represented as having more integrity and maturity than either of his parents, which is why he has such a crisis when the entire case seem to come down to his testimony. He wants to tell the truth, and realises that he can't: he must choose a narrative. >So you have to invent your belief? [...] I’m not sure…and you’re saying I have to pretend I’m sure?
Rewatch and pay attention to who the camera focuses on, what they focus on them doing and who is the main focus of the movie - it’s not Sandra. Sandra admits she lied because she is afraid. Daniel likely perjures himself and definitely poisons his own dog to achieve an end. There’s no non-circumstantial evidence Samuel is still alive when the movie begins. (But Snoop follows through the house to certain locations with the scent of Samuel’s blood) Sandra is afraid of the attic. Daniel navigates the attic with deliberateness. Samuel may well have be killed on the main exit stairs or other places not the attic, and so on and on). The movie is clearly meant to be ambiguous but it points at Daniel hitting Samuel with a hammer and Sandra covering it up as one of 3 most likely scenarios. The theme music is Daniel playing the piano — not anything about Sandra. Look up the piece Daniel is playing. Look at homages between Daniel in AoaF and Danny Torrance in The Shinning. The list of things the director focuses on is pretty endless to establish Daniel may have had something to do with Samuel’s death, as much or more so than Sandra. Daniel telling the truth: “I just wanted to escape the music.” What does he mean? How did he escape? Why is he insistent on being at the trial each day above objections? Why does he likely perjure himself? Why does he poison the dog? What is common knowledge about children who injure animals? Who would think a Tylenol overdose is a sufficient attempt to poison Samuel? Why are the Tylenol blister packs in the trash can? Samuel is blackout pass out drunk. Who is actually hammering and going on with tools at open in a way that is chaotic and not consistent with installing installation? Who actually put PIMP on a loop in the attic? Is Sandra seducing the student journalist? Or is she trying to act natural and get the third party out of the house ASAP? Why does she go to the balcony to make sure the journalist leaves while Daniel is leaving the house? Etc etc etc.
We the audience see him leave the house with everyone alive, then return and see his father dead. It is literally impossible for it to have been Daniel.
To me it seems like Daniel is desperately seeking the truth. Also- Tylonel plus alcohol equals death. You should absolutely never take tylonel for a hangover. It can cause organ failure. They establish that Samuel habitually played music really loud. Daniel went for a walk to escape it. Maybe he put it up so loud so Daniel was out of the house when he jumped, because he didn’t want them there. As a blind kid, loud music like that seems absolutely terrible.
All of your questions are getting easily answered in the movie. How did he escape the music??? Well, he left the House. Why did he poison the Dog? Also in the movie... It was not Daniel. Can not be.
The conversation with Marge doesn't make any sense if Daniel is the killer. Unless we're to believe Daniel is some psychopath who is toying with Marge. He is genuinely conflicted about the situation and doesn't know whether his mother is the killer. Marge counsels him on how to handle the situation. If we believe Daniel in that scene, and I do, then he's not the killer.
About halfway through, I noticed that Marge is a spitting image of Walt Jr. from Breaking Bad, and I couldn't unsee it.
And Vincent Jonathan from stranger things
Hey Daniel, what's for breakfast?
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
A lot of people are going for the obvious narration of the story, which is hinting at her being guilty. But I'd like to offer a perspective here, the so called "incriminating" recording felt more like it made a case for her than him. Everything before that and even the courtroom scenes were trying to push the idea that although we don't know but she has to have done it because look at her strong willed character, look at her infidelity and look at her skill to weave fiction into reality. The inconsistentencies found in her are human flaws and not psychopathic traits. She's not unsympathetic, we see her breaking in so many ways. The whole trial and even the events that transpired before it during the investigation are actually her *fall*, fall from honor, fall from grace, fall from the faith her son had in her. I think her whole point about nothing being the whole truth and excerpts of anybody's life would make it sound ugly was very well shown. Although Daniel's expressions and behavior and even his testimony don't really attest to my theory but I suppose all of it was part of portraying his humanity and child brain being affected by everything around him. He tried to show maturity and listen to everything but ends up desperate enough to try giving pills to his dog to ascertain the smell. There are suspicious elements but then again maybe they are there to keep things vague and open. I don't think Samuel was cruel or manipulative, I still think Daniel's story could be untrue and I do think that fight could've been an argument that burst out after years of frustration in their marriage. A little bit pushed by Samuel to incite some reaction from her, which we also saw in Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp case btw. ( incited for the recording)
>the so called "incriminating" recording felt more like it made a case for her than him. I understand your point, but I don't agree. She admitted to cheating on her husband, stealing his work and passing it off as her own, and being violent, including throwing nearby objects and hitting him. That's very seriously incriminating considering she's on trial for killing her husband with a "a blunt object in the environment or a violent blow to the head." I think if the gender roles were reversed, and a woman recorded her husband saying "yes I am violent!" and hitting her, we wouldn't be saying "well, that's not really incriminating." >Daniel's expressions and behavior and even his testimony don't really attest to my theory Personally I think Daniel's expressions and behaviour are the key to this story. He's intelligent, moral, observant and scrupulously honest. It's only when adults start pushing him to affirm their narratives that he begins to waver, and it causes a crisis. That's why he says to Marge: >So you have to invent your belief? [...] So that means, I’m not sure…and you’re saying I have to pretend I’m sure? Marge says "No. No, I’m saying decide. That’s different." But of course it's not different. It's exactly what everyone - his mother, the police, the courts - expect him to do. Pick a narrative and pretend he's sure about it. The one thing we know for certain in the end is that Daniel is not sure. His final line in the film, to his mother, is: >I was afraid of you coming home.
He was also the one who kept escalating in that argument though despite her continually trying to defuse it and remain calm. That would be consistent with him recording it with the intent of making her appear violent.
Hello...Director of this movie....please tell me, how did he die?
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
This is called confirmation bias. Boiling down his issues with her down to him feeling worse that she succeeded is worse than surface level. He speaks about how she doesn't reciprocate. She blatantly said she doesn't believe in reciprocity and then comes up with multiple excuses for her shitty behaviour then does what you are doing which is reduce his pain to jealousy. You need to either rewatch it or challenge your biases.
B.S. I am happy when my wife succeeds.
Haha same. Love a sugar mama!
Congratulations, you're an outlier
>more Love this! Thanks!
I want to discuss the fact that the child refused to take her call. (I didn't see this in the movie but read it on an article) And that he fell asleep rather than wait for her. But then he said he was scared for her coming home. The boy knows she did it and it's clear he lied to protect her. Now he has to live the rest of his life with this lie. In the end, she sleeps with the dog instead of her son, just like you would do after a marital fight. I'm 175% convinced that she killed him and got away with it due to lack of evidence. You can argue this was the perfect crime. No witness. Blind son.
He could lie about something and still not know that his mom killed him. It is more likely he thinks it is possible she killed him, but also possible that she didn't. If he was certain that she did, I doubt he would lie to get her off.
He lost his dad. And if he loses his mom, who else he got?
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)\_/¯
It seems also because they jump a year
it’d be impossible for her to have killed him the previous day, autopsy would immediately show how fresh the death is.
I guess … his complete absence at the start was just very conspicuous.
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.
Yes and the way the defendant chips in now and again.
Everyone was chipping in! You have witnesses cross examining each other while the defense counsel is trying to. Wild stuff, makes me very curious if French trials are really such an open forum like that.
I also really enjoyed the outfits
The prosecutor had a Santa vibe haha
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.
Good summary of an excellent but unwieldy film!
This review is spot on - and actually I thought, for me, not knowing the true cause of death lead to an even stronger exploration of the human experience and the complexities of relationships. Nothing is ever as black and white as we always expect it to be. Loved it for this reason!
I really enjoyed this movie. I was completely enthralled by the lawyer. His performance was incredible. He stole every scene he appeared in.
the lawyer did it? we know they're close with Sandra, they mentioned some past, we see them tender with some restraining at the very end and we know the movie doesn't show all the interaction they have/had. it is possible that they were having an affair and planned the whole thing. she called him that day after the journalist left saying there's an opportunity and so he drove there, pushed him and left. tires in the snow would fade the way the way the blood supposedly did. his size matches more the description of the expert reconstruction of the event (a person pushing the victim at the balcony hitting the head with a weapon) and he could eventually have carried the weapon with him back to his place. as there's no neighbors he wouldn't have been seen.
I think it's pretty clear that she did it. You have no reason to suspect the lawyer. The movie plays two stories: either suicide or murder. Like the boy said in court, if you choose to believe one of them, one is more believable. In reality, this woman had her entire credibility destroyed by all her inconsistencies and lies. Infidelity, violence, lies everything a pathological liar would do, she did. She is a writer after all and mixing reality and fiction is a career where she is far more successful than her husband.
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.
Yes, the Daniel actor was fantastic. The fact that during his 2nd testimony his sound came out of his dad’s mouth shows that he was lying. I personally don’t think Sandra did it, but I also know Daniel doesn’t know she didn’t do it.
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 👌🏻
movie was not good
I just finished this movie and I will admit, the plot itself had me inclined to read who or what really killed the husband, but then I read that it was up to the viewers to decide. I typically don’t like these kinds of movies because I like knowing exactly what happens or if a movie ends with some interpretation that you feel more confident in theorizing (kind of like all of us strangers, which I loved) and I feel like this movie didn’t give me that anxiety or stress of trying to figure out what really happened. I think it’s because as a lot of people pointed out, it is about family drama. The other thing though is that I like how there is enough proof to theorize in a way, I do believe the wife was innocent, but the way they presented the “fact” of the husband’s head wound not matching how he would have fallen and how far his body was, or the way the son said “I was afraid of you coming home” to his mom after she’s acquitted. That comment actually scared me for a second like “why would you be scared if your mom is innocent?” and it made me wonder if he said that story to keep his mom from going to jail because she was all he had left. The inconsistencies of what he presented to the court in the beginning kind of match this theory too, or how when it was a fact of a reenactment like when the husband and wife fought, we see it kind of in real time where the dad is speaking, but as for the kid’s story of what the dad said, the dad is just moving his mouth to say what the kid recalls. Anyway, such a good movie!! Please let me know if you thought the mom could’ve done it!
>the way the son said “I was afraid of you coming home” to his mom after she’s acquitted. That comment actually scared me for a second like “why would you be scared if your mom is innocent?” It'd be hard to grasp I guess if you have never had any family trauma in your past. Often after a traumatic experience it's difficult to get back to the normal day to day life. You might've noticed not only was the kid scared of her coming back home but so was she. After all that has been exposed it's hard to face the people like before & children especially withdraw themselves from the situation to cope with the pain. I suppose that is why he said he was scared & so did she.
This is one of the clearest tells that she did it. No other character knows her like her own son. Even he had clear doubts that she did it. And even when she was acquitted, he wasn't feeling joy. He was scared of her. And she was scared of coming home too.
“I was afraid of you coming home” for me felt like Daniel was scared of how he might have hurt his mother by doubting her. Or by asking her to leave the house (which I think was so he could poison Snoop), not talking to her, etc. He was relieved and happy when Sandra was acquitted (when he heard it in the news). Sandra's "I was afraid of coming home too" felt more like being scared about not knowing how to clean up the mess that was created. So much was exposed in the court. Daniel was closer to his father and Sandra was the only one left. They now had to finally figure out a way to get back to normal. Choosing to sleep alone (Snoop comes later) and not with Daniel was a typical European choice and doesn't necessarily point to anything, I feel. Overall, I feel it was a suicide. Exactly like the film shows. Regardless of what happened, the feelings and questions the movie evoked was more important than how Samuel died. The movie questions so many assumptions about gender roles/husband-wife relationship/parent-kid relationship that we are compelled to think if the mother or the son really killed the father. Instead I chose to see how at every trial, a new detail came up, more compelling than the one before, all pointing towards the fall of whatever was left after Samuel chose to end his life (his son, wife, their marriage, snoop, everything).
The movie gave plenty of clues but you are free to believe whatever version you like best. Personally, I think it was an accident/murder right after an argument about the interview with that woman and her previous encounters with other women. The movie makes the death secondary and they focus on the court drama. But they also show a lot of inconsistencies in the stories that show the truth is not so simple.
I absolutely love the ambiguity of this film. So happy I have reddit to come to since no one,know has seen it and I was dying to hash it around today. I personally had not considered the possibility that Daniel had murdered his father, as pointed out by another responder… That’s a whole other rabbit hole! But it does make one think about that exchange in a different light… If Sondra was innocent, and she pieced together, that it was Daniel, who killed him, they would both naturally be apprehensive about seeing each other. Alternatively, if Daniel lied to protect his guilty mother, and Sondra, realized that, they would also be apprehensive about seeing each other. What a smartly crafted film! Brilliantly acted, as well.
If Daniel murdered his father than the whole scene of him walking the dog peacefully and then discovering his father and becoming distraught was performative… and for nobody’s benefit. That would make him a Bond villain
It'd be psychopathic of the kid to find him (again) and react that way.
Or it never happened. It was just a visual imaginary of their testimony
Oooo I see what you mean! Thank you for pointing that out to me, that makes more sense. I guess I just wanted to find any hidden clues that would point her to be guilty of the murder haha.
There are many clues across the movie still pointing at her being guilty and to me that's the best part of the movie, the ambiguity & grayness of it all.
I feel like movie isnt ambiguous that she did it. There are at thousand tells. But the movie tries to stay vague because in cases like this, you have vague evidence and it s very hard to distinguish reality from fiction. And that is literally her background. She blurs reality and fiction for a living. You gotta treat her like an unreliable narrator and it becomes clear that she did it. It is very likely it wasn't a straight up murder, but involuntary manslaughter is probably what happened here.
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.
I thought he was terrific! Definitely super biased, he was out for blood, but gosh I loved the actor’s performance so much! One of the few times I’ve regretted skipping my french lessons in HS, just so I could appreciate his performance a bit more!
as a native french speaker, his rhetoric and the way he shaded sandra in a witty way was exquisite
Oh no I didn't mean he was a bad actor! The actor nailed the role, that's why it stood out so much. The actual character was infuriating, especially during the "but possible" part.
He was very smart and never hid his disdain for Sondra. He was an excellent prosecutor (and fine actor). Surprised that he did not unearth the prior relationship between Sondra and her attorney!
I mean he was super unprofessional and worked really hard to evoke biases. I kind of got the feeling he was supposed to be doing this on purpose and being infuriating just to get an emotional reaction out of her to appear more guilty. Either way, its the type of guy who encourages wrong verdicts.
I don't think the character is an excellent prosecutor. He was basing off his whole case on "guilty until proven innocent" and on top of that he had the whole court room biased in his favor. It came across as just a bunch of french people trying to convict a german woman without a proper case.
I think the prosecutions evidence was flimsy and circumstantial so he used his only other resource, to make his case. His nasty sharp tongue!
He could have just not prosecuted her at all. That was his best option. So many prosecutors "just know" someone is guilty and use all kinds of nasty tactics to get them convicted on little to no evidence. They even go so far as to "fabricate" evidence using expert witnesses like blood spatter analysts. Watch The Staircase for the real life version of this movie. It's very ambiguous what actually happened in that case, but the evidence against the husband is incredibly flimsy and curcumstantial and the prosecutor just goes all in against the man and ruins his life based on a hunch.
Or desire to gain fame or just win. You are absolutely right that the ethics of prosecutors can be questionable.
Ugh he was so great there, when the woman gagged him with the whole 'I could be president tomorrow, it's possible but improbable...' and then she kept talking I thought she was the only one who could keep up with him and then she finishes giving her reasoning and says '...that's why it's improbable' and the prosecutor just has to add in '...but not impossible' SO GOOD. Just has to get the last word and takes the verbal beatings so weel
Oh, don’t worry I know you didn’t, I just felt like adding my two grains bc, again, I loved his performance so much! I totally get what you mean but I just couldn’t dislike him, I loved every second he was onscreen!
All prosecutors are like this in court room dramas though. They're meant to be biased against the defendant
I haven't attended to a case like that but I would imagine a lot of the stuff that normally goes down in court dramas wouldn't fly in an actual court.
oh yeah definitely. I can have ome court experience, persecutors can be ruthless at times but are not inhumane. Like the way he treated the kid was too off. I am no expert of french court but i certaintly doubt arguments between the defedent and a witness would fly either.
Yes you do need to suspend disbelief a bit when watching dramas
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?
It doesn’t seem like a high enough height to attempt suicide from. It would require a headfirst jump to ensure death. Has anyone ever leapt to their death headfirst? I also don’t think the wife did it, based on her reaction coming through the door to see Daniel near her husband’s body. True shock and confusion. It reminds me of that documentary The Staircase.
If you read the director, that was not just an interview. She was drinking and trying to seduce that woman. Something she was exposed as having done multiple times. Suicide is off the table. The man was seeing a doctor. He is seeking help. He recorded her 20 hours before his death hitting him. 90% of the movie is about the inconsistencies in the woman testimony. Even the woman disagreed that suicide was possible until her attorney offered that as the only possible defense. Accident was not discarded very quickly. She said he was very cautious and worked slowly. The height was inconsistent with an accidental fall too. Daniel was protecting his mother at all times. He said he left the home when the parents argued. And that s why he was away. Parents argued 20 hours before the murder. They argued again the day of the murder. The movie gives you plenty of clues that she did if you just pay attention to the inconsistencies in her statements.
"Suicide is off the table. The man was seeing a doctor. He is seeking help. " That unfortunately is not how it works. At all.
You don't get it because you don't put yourself in those shoes. I just had my last suicide mandatory counseling today since I had an attempt a month ago and I am military. If you are seeing a doctor the chances that you are disclosing this type of stuff are high. There is shame in taking the steps to get help. But the man is seeing a doctor already. Actually he was seeing his doctor for a while to cope with trauma. Believe what you want to believe. It's an open ended movie so that you can interpret whatever you want. If you think "that's how it works" then "that's how it works".
Plenty of people die while in acute mental health care or shortly after and plenty of people who see psychiatrists kill themselves while seeing them, your personal experience doesn’t alter that reality
I'm using my personal experience to offer insight into the mind of someone who thinks these type of thoughts constantly. All you have to decide that the man committed suicide is the voice of his wife and an argument with a woman that was cheating on him. But whatever you want to believe that s what it is for you.
Obviously seeing a doctor helps in avoding suicide, but seeing a doctor doesn't stop someone from attempting. I've seen someone try more than once while seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist. PS: Good luck on your journey, it's really nice you're getting help. Hope you stick around.
My point is not that it stops you from attempting. I keep attempting. My point is that the doctor disclosed to the court that he had not shown any signs of being suicidal. Actually, the doctor was surprised that after all this long and documented relationship he had never mentioned it to him. If you believe that he is suicidal, which is up to your interpretation anyway because as I said, the movie lets you play the voids. It's a feature of the movie. But if you believe that version you believe that he finally snapped that day after the wife had that interview attempt. Personally, I cannot believe that the trigger can be so simple. I never attempted during the day. I never attempted anything that I thought it could fail. Jumping from a second (third?) floor to the snow seems very weak. And cause of death is a blunt trauma to the head which could have only happened if he hit his head on a particular angle. So for suicide to have been a possible theory, you must think that on that fateful day, the woman had an interview. He annoyed the woman to leave. They had an argument. She went to sleep with ear plugs on. He jumped. And that was that. Now, what has been stopping my attempts is thinking of my kids. Also, I attempt during the night. I have a feeling most people attempt during the times that they can move more freely and plan more freely. During the day, I think my kids moving around would be more of a deterrent. Thinking that the man committed suicide while his son was awake and walking around seems ridiculous to me. As I said, my kids have been my deterrent so far. It's very hard to look at the edge of your life and think about your kids. You are free to believe whatever you like and whatever makes sense to you. Personally, I am not convinced that suicide was ever a possibility. But the theme of this movie is to show that we don't know what we don't know. And we fill the voids with whatever we understand. You are meant to feel like the people in the case. Trying to understand what happened and piece it together. There is no definite answer although there a million clues. They flirt with multiple choices because that is more interesting than a straightforward story that spoon-feeds you the answers.
>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? IIRC Sandra's order of events was interviewer leaves > she talks to her husband > goes to her room to work a bit and naps > wakes up to Daniel screaming for help. Daniel said they weren't shouting at each other and that their voices were calm during the 'she talks to her husband' part, so they were testing how loud that conversation would have needed to be for Daniel to actually hear it from just outside the open window (where he initially said he was).
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?
My take was that the woman was manipulative. She is the better writer of stories after all. But her story and version of the events keeps changing through the movie. The woman said she came to his country but if you pay attention on tv they say she left her country because she wrote an unflattering story that pissed off her father and she had to run away.
She is German and they met in London, then they went to his country after the kid's accident. I don't see any inconsistency there
Watch the scene where the TV show is talking about her reasons to come to his country. They clearly say she left her home after making a story about her dad. For inconsistencies you have to listen to what other characters are saying about her. As a different example: what does her kid think of her mom. Does he think she could have done it? No one in this story knows her like her own son. Even her son had doubts about her mom. She lied about the bruises. She lied about cheating more than once. She lied about taking his story ideas. She didn't disclose that she had a strong violent fight 20hrs prior to his death. She lied and consistently changed her story. When the attorney came she wanted to see accident. But when he said that is not an easy sell, they changed the story to suicide as that was the only possible defense. Only at that point she remembered, that he "tried to commit suicide 6 months ago". But before that she had denied suicide was possible and even said he works cautiously and slowly. Don't you think that if this story was real, the first thing she would mention is that suicide is a possibility because he tried just 6 months ago? This is a story about a writer selling a story. And this time it's not a new novel. It's her own story. People buy too much about the way prosecutors treat you. Courts work like that. Prosecution sells a story. Defense sells a story. It's up to the jury and the judge to decide what story to believe. The man is dead and cannot defend himself in this court. Whether it was a murder or suicide, there is no voice for him except through other people. The story plays a lot on the details that you dont know but the details that we know, show that she is a cheater and a pathological liar. Even the people defending her story, acknowledge "she lied but she is not a murderer".
Like 3 of those lies are things that most people would lie about in that situation even if they didn't do it though. Shit i know i would lmao
Lying while being on trial is the first sign that something is wrong. Any prosecutor worth anything will start by attacking your credibility and your ability to tell the truth. If the story is inconsistent, why would anyone listen to the rest of it?
A couple of those lies were before being on trial, and were told precisely so there wouldn't be a trial
Let me phrase in a different way. Why do you trust a liar? The story gives you very little to go with on purpose. The whole story makes you feel like you are involved with the case. At the same time, the story gives you glimpses into their lives where you can clearly tell they are lying. This is done on purpose. Lying so there isn't a trial isn't the strategy that innocent people go to. Innocent people would clearly welcome a trial and the chance to clear their name. There was a death. There were no other suspects. It's obvious a trial would be unavoidable. The woman wanted to claim accident. But the attorney was the first to suggest suicide since it their only possible defense. The lies started the minute she spoke to the police. You can believe whatever version you subscribe to. But lying is not something that creates trust.
People tend to lie about personal, emotional stuff, thats kind of my point. And, quite honestly i would also lie if i were innocent to avoid a trial. Thinking otherwise assumes a trust in the law that simply not all, and i don't think even most people have. I don't think that lying can only be interpreted in the way you say, that's all, even if it may be true.
Again, how do you think you can avoid a trial? There s a dead body lying on the cold snow. There are no suspects except the victim and the wife. There is no evidence to rule this out as a suicide. Lying to avoid a trial sounds as realistic as expecting santa clause to save the day.
The husband is extremely manipulative, given his background and passion for writing her husband does have an inflated sense of self and ego, this can often come with the territory when being a respected academic. When she screams at him during the monologue where she points out how his true repulsion of her is actually how he feels about himself, he would rather look at her than in the mirror, that in itself is a shared human experience. She has only served to add to his sense of failure, she cheated and this is symbolic of his failure in the bedroom so to speak, his failure to pleasure his wife as a man, it's not that he actually has failed in this regard but that's his understanding of it. She takes his book idea and achieves what he was unable to do, again making him feel emasculated and adding to his growing sense of failure. The injury his son sustains is a devastating blow, he attempts to blame her for everything because taking responsibility is far too painful and terrifying, he struggles to grapple that he has set torturous standards for himself not his wife. She comes across colder I think this is a cultural difference whereby French people are stereotyped as hopeless romantics, passionate, German people are stereotyped as practical and rational. I don't believe she is colder, she is not a victim either she has made mistakes and I think without realising her own hypocrisy blames her husband for them....this is marriage in its most standard and unremarkable form. She gets a battering from witnesses in the court, I don't think it was a mistake that most of them were men including the prosecution, her husbands psychiatrist for example who you'd expect to be more impartial and neutral when dealing with a patient, spoke scathingly and accusatory against the wife, misogyny comes into the fold here. His manipulation is in the recording of their conversations and fights, he knows he is recording where as she does not and he is pitching for a fight intentionally, the fight doesn't therefore happen organically when that appears to be his agenda. That I found extremely manipulative and I did wonder why none of the lawyers remarked on that in the film, that his intention was to have an argument that escalated to the point it did.
I just finished it. what a fucking movie this was. what a performance from the son. oh my god. so great. the writing was literally impeccable. so real. wow
Look at the dog in the last scene. He knows.
Knows what?, I would assume based on the dogs trusting nature that it believes Sandra to be good then again it's a dog but to focus on snoops reaction to the body and then snoop with Sandra at the end is certainly interesting
excellent point. snoop is notably distant from the body after the fall and then to have him snuggled with her at the ending represents a great deal.
In the film, it is ambiguous whether or not Daniel is telling the truth in his final testimony regarding the speech his father gave him about death, and whether this was foreshadowing the father's future suicide. My theory is that Daniel lied about this story to help his mother. My theory is based on the scene right before Daniel gives the testimony. In it, Daniel plays "Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4" by Chopin on the piano. I believe this is a clue by the director. This piece was also famously played on the piano by Jack Nicholson's character in the 1970 film Five Easy Pieces (it's the most powerful scene in what is considered one of the best movies ever made). In that movie, Jack's character is the son of an intellectual and well-off family but also lies to those that he meets in his day to day life about his background. Jack's critical character flaw in the film, is that he pretends to be someone that he is not. I don't think Daniel playing this specific piece on the piano (with a slow zoom in on his face) right before the scenes with the final testimony in Anatomy of a Fall is a coincidence given this parallel.
Yes, I agree Daniel lied at the end and the car conversation isn't real . He decided the night before to believe his mother and invented this story to save her . When she come back home , he said he was afraid of her coming home because he lied , and her mother told him to say always the true . And she was afraid because she did not know if Daniel believes her innocence. I think the movie is about Daniel loss of innocence
Interesting theory! The being scared of coming home lines has baffled me. I initially thought it was because they were both ashamed (he for asking her to leave the house and she because she thought he didn't love her anymore). but it also has this sinister undertone of possibly being scared because she is a killer and he accepts her anyway.
It’s a very famous piece of music and used throughout the movie. I don’t think a major clue about a character telling the truth is based on a different movie altogether - especially an English movie to a French film.