Hammerle on… “Anatomy of a Fall” and “Society of the Snow”

“Anatomy of a Fall”

Let me start by saying that Sandra Hüller is in the extraordinary position of starring in two films nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. Here she plays a wife accused of killing her husband and in “The Zone of Interest” she plays the wife of the Auschwitz commandant.

While I said in an earlier review that I firmly disliked “Zone” she saves “Anatomy” with a firm, dominating performance. Her nomination for a lead actress Oscar reflects that reality.

Here, she lives with a distracted husband and young, emotionally damaged son in a chalet in France. Asleep in one room, while her son walked their dog, her husband was found dead in the front yard.

The movie leaves a trial jury and the viewer trying to decide if he committed suicide or was pushed to his death from a third story window by his wife. Obviously, she was indicted for murder and the bulk of the film covers the trial proceedings.

And that was the movie’s central problem. Despite wonderful performances by Swann Arlaud as her defense lawyer and Antoine Reinartz as the relentless prosecutor, as a defense lawyer with over 50 years of trial experience I was left shouting “objection” repeatedly!

While I’m not going to give away the plot where Ms. Hüller could have either been convicted or acquitted, the French court system as displayed by director Justine Triet tragically substitutes opinion and conjecture for actual facts. This would have never been permitted in an American courtroom.

So be prepared whether or not you are cursed with trial experience like mine. Though the film has received great praise I kept wondering if most of the voters were non-lawyers.

“Society of the Snow”

First of all, remember that “Society” is in Spanish with subtitles. Directed by J.A. Bayona, it tells a tragic story of the Uruguayan plane that crashed in the Andes Mountains on Oct. 13, 1972. Carrying 45 people that included a rugby team trying to reach Chile, most of the passengers died as the plane crashed and split in half.

Given that rescue planes couldn’t find them, the survivors faced starvation if they didn’t freeze to death. On top of that, the plane’s remains that they used was soon buried in an avalanche. Some couldn’t be found and suffocated.

Though the film had many wonderful performances, I will only focus on Roberto (Matías Recalt) and Nando (Agustín Pardella), two young boys who risk death trying to climb the mountains to reach Chile for help. Despite knowing that they might die on their journey, these boys were surrounded by loved ones, many of whom died in their arms.

However, what dominated this heartbreaking film is the fact all the survivors had to choose starvation or to eat their dead friends. Most of them wrestled with starvation or cannibalism. Yet to paraphrase what one dying friend said, “Please feel free to eat me when I die. I welcome it.”

With the efforts of Roberto and Nando, two helicopters arrived 10 weeks after the crash and 16 survived. The movie ends in a magnificent scene where they were reunited with crying relatives and friends.

This is one of those unique movies that keeps the viewer both enthused and depressed. There are some great scenes in the Andes and the plane crash will leave many of you with one hand over your eyes.

But the moral of this film involves friends eating dead friends to survive. Before condemning it, think what you would want a loved one to do in those horrible circumstances.•

__________

Robert Hammerle specializes in criminal law as of counsel with Hackman Hulett LLP. When he is not in the courtroom or the office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouth
bobs.com. Opinions expressed are those of the author.