Anatomy of a Fall is an award-winning 2023 legal drama. The film introduces us in the United States to France’s inquisitorial system of justice, which has some important distinctions from the adversarial system we use here. The similarities, though, are also instructive. Adversarial or inquisitorial, the need remains to first appreciate and then overcome the challenges in persuading the judge and jury to believe your story.

A small family – Sandra, Samuel, and their son, Daniel – lives in an isolated chalet in the mountains in France. Samuel is found dead in the snow after apparently having fallen from a second-story window. But was it an accident? Murder? Suicide?

Conveniently, a friend, Vincent, is an experienced defense attorney. He arrives and gets to work understanding the problem and analyzing and investigating Sandra’s situation.

Vincent then sits down with Sandra, lays out the prosecution’s case, and points out a couple of problems. He explains that the fall is going to be hard to defend, which explains why there is an investigation into a “suspicious death.” Sandra is the prime suspect, he says, because she was the only person there and was his wife.

With level certainty, Sandra says, “I didn’t kill him.” 

Vincent answers, “That’s not the point.”

Sandra says she thinks he fell accidentally. 

Vincent says, “No one will believe that. I don’t believe that.”

This film isn’t a who-done-it. That isn’t its point.

Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial System of Justice

Early in the movie, an investigating judge is mentioned. That is our clue that France uses an inquisitorial system of justice rather than an adversarial, as we do here in the United States.

I think watching this movie is worthwhile because of the opportunity to compare the two systems. In comparing them, you might better understand your role as a litigant in an adversarial system.

An “adversary system is one in which disputes are resolved by having the parties present their conflicting views of fact and law before an impartial and relatively passive judge and/or jury, who decides which side wins what.” Monroe H. Freedman, Professionalism In The American Adversary System, 41 Emory L.J. 467 (1992).

In contrast, in an inquisitorial system, judges and magistrates take active roles in investigating facts and questioning witnesses at trial. Judges also determine which witnesses will be called and in what order.

Rights of the Parties

Our adversarial system is also concerned with the rights of parties, especially those who are accused of crimes. Prosecuting authorities must clear the highest burden of proof for each element of the crime, and criminal defendants enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination.

In Anatomy of a Fall, you might be surprised by some of the depictions.

There’s a reenactment of Sandra’s description of a conversation she’d had with Samuel, during which music was playing, shortly before his fall. The goal of the reenactment is to determine whether Sandra’s account is plausible. Sandra is asked to speak louder, to reach a “credible volume” relative to the music that was played. Sandra protests, and her attorney joins, saying she wasn’t speaking louder at the time and that by speaking louder, she would sound angry when she was not. But the prosecutor plowed on, ignoring their concerns and statements as if they did not matter.

The scene helps show the heavy involvement of the defense and prosecution together, which absolutely differs from our adversarial system in which it is the prosecution’s burden to prove all elements of each offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant has no legal duty to assist.

“A trial is not about the truth.”

At around 42 minutes into the film, a recording surfaces that Samuel made of an argument he and Sandra had the day before he died. Vincent is angry that Sandra has not told him about the argument.

Sandra explains: “That recording is not reality. It is a part of it, maybe. If you have an extreme moment in life, an emotional peak, and you focus on it, of course it crushes everything. It may seem like irrefutable proof but actually warps everything. It’s not reality. It’s our voices, that’s true, but it’s not who we are.”

Vincent: “I don’t give a fuck about reality, okay? You need to start seeing yourself the way others are going to perceive you. A trial is not about ‘The Truth,’ it’s about –”

He is interrupted and does not complete his thought. So what is a trial about if it’s not about finding the truth? Is it enough that he said the trial is not about the truth? If it’s not about the truth, does it even matter what it is about?

Sandra is under increasing stress, and we start seeing some cracks. We get some glimpses into who Sandra really is underneath her first impression facade.

We also see another element – seeds of doubt planted in Daniel’s mind by the court-appointed supervisor – appointed to monitor interactions between Sandra and Daniel because Sandra was freed from jail while she awaited trial. This is another invasion or imposition of the court into the lives of Sandra and Daniel, which has no parallel in the U.S. system.

Then, we see Vincent and Sandra preparing for trial. Sandra wants to hold some details back during her testimony to protect Samuel’s memory and to protect her son from needless pain.

Vincent said she needs to be prepared to tell everything in French, which is not her native language. She struggles with it. So, the testimony to exonerate herself will have to be delivered in a language in which she is not fluent. The analogy to pro se litigants functioning in a system not created for them and using unfamiliar language is a strong one.

Later, we see the trial and some differences in how witnesses are questioned. At one point, the prosecutor questions a witness and then turns and questions Sandra about the point being made. The right to refuse to self-incriminate seems absent, and the defendant appears to be under oath and subject to questioning at all times, continuously throughout the trial, even while another witness is testifying on the stand.

The questioning is also heavily argumentative. Of course, this may be for dramatic purposes because we see the same melodramatic scenes in American courtroom dramas, which would not be permitted in actual courtrooms. So whether these scenes reflect reality in France is unknown – I’ve never been to a courtroom in France.

The bench is physically much broader in this courtroom than in American courtrooms. The judge sits in the middle and is flanked by the jurors, who sit at the same height as the judge so they have the same vantage point. The witnesses and attorneys address the judge and jurors at the same time.

What the movie displays well are the stark differences between what we’re shown to be the characters’ lived experiences and the machinations of the courts. Frequently, pro se litigants are surprised and dismayed when they learn that they cannot simply walk into a courtroom, tell their story to the judge, and walk out with a favorable judgment in their hands. 

It’s a hard lesson, realizing that their case has to follow established procedural tracks and their stories must be delivered wrapped in “elements” and adhering to evidentiary rules. It can get harder when they hear the other party’s sometimes diametrically opposed version of the same event and observe that version be credited by the judge. 

I believe this movie is worth your time not only because it’s a quality film but also because of how well it depicts the work that goes into shaping the context and narratives necessary to persuade the judge and jury. 

I streamed Anatomy of a Fall on Kanopy this summer. It’s also currently streaming on Hulu.