After Jane Campion and Julia Ducorneau, Justine Triet (1978) last May became the third woman to win the Palme d’Or at the Cannes festival. She achieved it with Anatomy of a Fall, an intense judicial drama about a German writer (exceptional Sandra Hüller) accused of the death of her husband, who broke his neck after falling from the attic of her chalet in the French Alps. Suicide, murder or accidental fall? The only witnesses are her vision-impaired son and her dog.
The film, which premieres this Wednesday in Spain, closely follows a judicial process that breaks down in detail the couple’s complex relationship through testimonies who know the woman, from those who believe they know her through the words of the deceased or through conversations. that the deceased recorded secretly from his wife. Triet’s camera invites the viewer to be another member of the jury who must elucidate the innocence or guilt of the protagonist based on a series of moral judgments about her person and reveals the difficulty of really knowing what was happening in that relationship. because there are different points of view and the story, often built on prejudices, ends up masking the truth.
He has said that Anatomy of a Fall is his most personal film. How did the story come about?
I think I really started thinking about the film when I decided to sink into the vertigo of what a couple means and, above all, this woman, her mind. To delve into the couple’s story I had the need to get into a genre film. I love trial movies.
The film openly exposes the intimacy of a couple. How do you view the fact that many people now shamelessly display their private lives on social media?
I belong to that generation that did not have Facebook before turning 25 and I believe that most of my training, my education, has been without social networks and even without a mobile phone. I am from the generation that wants to protect itself. I don’t have the codes of young people, who know very well how to protect themselves. It’s something that scares me and that we have to get used to. On the other hand, justice has also evolved and now videos, photographs are used… if before only the word dominated, now it is the world of the image and it is something that I wanted to reflect in the film.
In this part of exposing the intimacy of a couple there is a very clear judgment towards the woman. How do people’s views change when they talk about a strong and successful woman like Sandra?
What really threatens people is that this woman seems free and that she perfectly assumes the life she has chosen. She is totally independent of the judgment of others. She is not a good victim and by not being a good victim she becomes a kind of threat to society. She is a threat to the moral outlook, it is something that I have always been passionate about and that is evolving because I do believe that society is evolving. For example, in Clouzot’s The Truth, Brigitte Bardot was very mistreated by men, who saw her as a kind of monster because she felt free. It was the sixties and she chose not to be in a relationship. And in Anatomy of a Fall Sandra is a writer and dominates the story. She knows several languages, maybe she can fool us and that’s what bothers her. She is not a perfect victim, she does not cry or be sad enough at the loss of her husband. She also calmly assumes her bisexuality. All of that seems exciting to me. And there is the idea of ??reciprocity in the couple. What I give? What will you give me? What do I owe you? You owe me? It is very complicated to live together and find a balance. But I think that young people today do worry about how to live together without suffering and without going through this scheme in which we women have lived for so many years, taking care of the house and working. In the film I reverse the roles. But I’m not saying that women should throw out men, far from it! We are not going to make the same mistakes that they have made.
The husband’s psychologist says in the trial that with time one sees clearly what is real and what is not…
It is very interesting and one of the most traumatizing things for human beings. When you run into an ex from ten years ago, he may not feel the same way you do. For you it may be an extraordinary moment when remembering a love, but not for him. I think he naively thought that the truth was told in the courtroom. It took me years to understand that it wasn’t. To begin with, lawyers separate the truth because what matters is that the client wins. They build a story and the prosecutor does the same. We have two parallel stories and in the center a truth that they do not touch. There is a moment when the truth escapes and we try to know it. In the judgment of the film, it is the sound element that acts as a real element, it is a piece of his life and you hold on to it. It’s a fight that we hear but don’t see who hits who. The film is obsessed with the truth and wants to catch it, but it does not follow the usual logic of judicial films. It is much more complex.
How do you value having won the Palme d’Or?
It has been the most exciting moment of my life. I will not experience that again, it is clear. It was a double joy because I knew they would give me a prize but I didn’t think about the Palma. After Jane Campion, Julia and with Jane Fonda presenting the award, the fourth J was for me (laughs).
Is it easier to start new projects after this important award?
I think so, but at the moment I don’t have any projects in mind. What changes is that before they only knew me in France and now they know who I am in other countries. That excites me. Cannes can be a very aggressive place, but it also opens up contacts and you can travel with the film.
Were you surprised that France chose Slow Fire instead of your film for the Oscars?
Completely. It has been a disappointment because after my film has won the Palme d’Or and achieved more than a million viewers, why is my own country doing this? But hey, I know it’s not the first time something like this happens.
