Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
This article was originally published on March 9, 2024.
At the 2024 Oscars,Anatomy of a Fallwon the award for Best Original Screenplay.
On March 22, 2024 it began streaming onHulu.
Spoilers ahead for the plot and ending ofAnatomy of a Fall.
[Steel drum cover of P.I.M.P blasting] HELLO, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUTANATOMY OF A FALL!
The surface question of the movie is just how Samuel fell to his death: Was he pushed?
Was it all a horrible accident?
As an American watching the trial scenes inAnatomyunfold, I found the trial proceedings fascinating and bizarre.
InAnatomy, on the other hand, judgesandlawyers wear goofy graduation gowns, plus frilly little collars.
I kept wondering:Wait, is that allowed?
She could have had a translator for the whole thing.
There wouldnt be an expectation that if thats not your native tongue, you would have to bumble along.
Its an absolute fair trial right that youd be able to do this in your own language.
But also the translator in court can be a really strange barrier.
But in trial, itsreallytedious.
Everything takes twice as long.
You lose the flow.
So a lawyer wont like it, because they will have to keep pausing when they cross-examine you.
And for you to tell your story, it interrupts the flow if someone keeps stopping to translate.
You always risk saying things not the right way.
I was surprised to see a judge so involved in all this pre-trial stuff.
Thats the iconic representation of French justice, rather like the jury in the American criminal justice system.
So because this was potentially a homicide, ithasto go to thejuge dinstructionfor the pre-trial investigation.
That judge will delegate the majority of the investigation to the police.
Its completely different to America or Britain.
Thejuge dinstructionwill decide whether to pursue these or not and has to give reasons if they decide not to.
The court relies heavily on the dossier of evidence provided by the judge.
But its an interesting model.
In North America, you, as the accused, cant contribute to the investigation.
Its only at trial that the defense gets a chance to chip in and steer things.
Thats especially true of the defense lawyer who only represents the interests of the accused.
Is that a common practice?
At the pre-trial hearing, the court decides to let Sandra out on bail.
Were told in the movie that thats unusual in these cases.
So they let Sandra out on bail because they dont think shes a flight risk.
Theres a certain kind of trust in her.
Shes been very clearly asserting her innocence.
In a murder case, quite often, someoneisremanded in custody, but not always.
Baseline question but: Do the accused have the presumption of innocence in the French justice system?
Almost everyone at the trial seemed intent on proving Sandras guilt.Yes, absolutely they do.
So its very different.
I feel like that brings us to this bigger existential question of: which system is more just?
Which is more likely to produce a fair outcome?
Of course in the U.S. there are hardly any trials.
The system is completely dominated by plea-bargaining.
And in England and Wales, guilty pleas make up the majority; very few go to trial.
What we see inAnatomy of a Fallis very much that rarefied ideal of criminal justice.
And that all sounds really lovely!
Whereas the French system is about the truth.
But thats not how the French system works in practice.
In practice, theres actually very little difference between the two systems.
The big centerpiece of the movie is this dramatic recording that was taken without Sandras knowledge or consent.
Watching that I thought, wait, is France a single-party consent state?
Is this recording even admissible?
InAnatomy of a Fall, its like, oh, we have this tape.
Just press play!Absolutely.
The idea being, its not going to a jury, its going to a judge.
And the judge can determine what weight to apply to that evidence.
The physical structure of the courtroom feels very gladiatorial because its partly in the round.
Is that just what court looks like in France?
In France, the accused will be separated off and everything goes on around her.
The judges will be raised, and thats quite symbolic about their position.
That architecture of the courtroom is really important, where they sit and what they wear.
Yes, tell me more about their robes.The robes just go over their attire.
Coming into court in flip-flops or something.
My stereotype of the French is that theyre really stylish!
But theyre not necessarily stylish in court.
Lawyers dont play such a massive role in the French criminal justice system at all.
Lawyers are super-important in North America.
In the French system much, much less so.
The judge and advocate general are much more important.
And the defense lawyer is sort of the poor relation.
Its not like the American system where one person is being questioned at a time.
In France, can everybody just talk to everybody else at any time?Not quite.
In the French trial, the accused gets to contribute to her own trial a lot more.
And its also a principle that the accused has to have the last word at the trial as well.
Its not exactly a free for all.
I feel like it would be so stressful as the accused to never be able to just exhale.
The only way it will happen is through her lawyer.
If shed been a man, it may have been different.
But as a woman?
Well, look, she wrote about a murder in fiction.
She must be a murderer.I guess it just shows the range of almost anything going in as evidence.
I was pretty uncomfortable with it.
That felt very much like dramatic license.
What did you make of Daniels testimony?
So spoiler alert Sandra gets acquitted.
Did that seem like a realistic outcome from the trial you saw?
I thought it was quite nice that it kept that bit of dramatic tension.
In terms of the verdict, I was ready for it to go either way.
I came away thinking, no, she didnt do it.
And I started out thinking that, too.
Did that seem a realistic thing given the trial wed seen?
I felt like the outcome was a fine balance, it wasnt a slam dunk either way.
Thats what trials are like.
You often genuinely dont know quite which way its going to go.
Would the other side say its some conflict of interest and he couldnt represent her personally?
But would you say that you couldnt represent a brother or a cousin?
But dramatically, I thought it was kind of an interesting thing in the trial.
Because from her point of view, is that actually the best person to represent you?
Someone who has a personal investment?
Or do you think youd prefer to be tried under a different justice system?Good question!
You are always at a disadvantage being investigated/tried in a language that is not your mother tongue.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
