How Snoop Killed Samuel - Anatomy Of A Fall Analysis

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Some more "evidence" to consider: Justine Triet has said that throughout the trial Sandra speaks French when she is in control and knows what she wants to say but switches to English when she gets emotional or impulsive. I'd say she switches to English when she gets confused but those are my words, regardless the switching of languages is a technique Triet has admitted to using to signify something. When Vincent first arrives at the house he goes up to the attic with Sandra to investigate the fall. He asks if there is any reason why Samuel would lean out the window. Sandra says no, and that when Samuel was playing his music he shut himself off from the rest of the world so he never called for her or Daniel. Vincent: Anyway with the... the height of the... le rebord de la fenêtre Sandra: Windowsill So Vincent gets confused and has to switch to French when he's saying the height of the windowsill makes it impossible to believe in an accidental fall. He can't remember the English word for windowsill. I can't think any other time in the script when Vincent's English failed him, but it fails him right there when he's dismissing potential for an accident fall. So is that a coincidence? Why was this scripted? 🕵 Thanks to everyone who has watched and commented!

[@nineteenfortyeight]

Not sure, because that's pretty standard in conversations involving multiple languages and varying abilities.

[@boyanaplamenova8325]

I was wondering the same thing! I don't believe the writers would do it accidentally. The only reason I can think of is that this is the moment Vincent decided for himself that Sandra's husband didn't jump, and perhaps wondered for a second if she didn't actually push him, making Vincent fumble his words. But that's just a wild guess.

[@boyanaplamenova8325]

@@nineteenfortyeight didn't fall accidentally*

[@RedsoxNets5]

@@nineteenfortyeightCD’s point though is that the writers only had Vincent slip up like this one time. What was the point? They could’ve had him slip up more, or not at all, but they consciously had him forget an English term exactly once.

[@emilik2121]

The husband was killed by Sandra 's lover, who came to interview her.The only one who knows the truth is the dog.

[@atro-city]

Whatever anyone's theory might be, I think we can all agree this was the best dog acting ever.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yeah Messi and his trainer were awesome!

[@RubenSilva-tk4yb]

Don't forget the dog from "The Artist".

[@sekta666]

hands down

[@VulKus117]

I think Messi was great in this, but my favourite dog performance has to Jed the wolfdog in Carpenter’s The Thing.

[@eeqlzmctwo]

1000%

[@bipolarewok]

I also believe it was snoop but unlike you I think it was a contract kill. If you look closely in the background you can see snoop food goes from regular to premium after the hit

[@TheCinemaDetective]

And who hired the hit? :)

[@PoloCapalot-jy2oj]

@@TheCinemaDetective Maybe the wife. That's why the ending it's her and Snoop

[@monlesstupar8076]

😂❤😂

[@MuMu-fu7qe]

❤

[@Bnpearce76]

😂😂

[@annjay2581]

I thought this was gonna be a joke video, but then you actually started making sense 😭

[@TheCinemaDetective]

🤣 thanks for watching )

[@31webseries]

Same! He convinced me. The dog did it.

[@listpost]

Snoop has beaten 2 murder cases now

[@zoesalamahill]

Anatomy of a FALL. Not Anatomy of a Jump, or anatomy of a Push, Anatomy of a Fall. When someone is pushed out of a window, we say they were pushed; not that they fell. If they committed suicide, we say they jumped not fell. We use the term "fall" for accidents. I think the director was hiding the truth in plain sight on purpose to prove a point. She could have titled this anything else, but she chose to emphasize how the story is about people "dissecting" a "fall"; and "fall" is a term used when describing an accident. We were immediately given two purposeful, binary choices: Samuel's death as a suicide or murder; when accidents are the leading cause of "falling". We and the characters are assigning fault to something that was an accident; that's why none of the intentional theories perfectly fit!

[@andreeat2142]

And we have the accident that happened to the child where again someone felt guilty

[@chrisacebu]

"Fall" is actually strategically used because it also refers to the fall of their marriage. 😊

[@kenkekenZZZZ13]

This is brilliant, I hope you're proud of this

[@speachless88]

This explains all the mystery. it explains the ball bouncing in the beginning, the dog looking defeated, the dog's view, the mom lying because she knew she looked guilty, the son covering it up, and the final shot with her laying near the dog. I think this theory covers every possible truth, lie, and possible option and is the most possible considering the Suicide and murder have holes.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

It's a theory... I don't think it explains the movie very well or the reason for the ambiguity. My other Anatomy Of A Fall video is a better attempt at that. Thanks for watching!

[@percyweasley9301]

​@@TheCinemaDetective😂😂

[@listpost]

Also, he couldn't sleep at the end ...he felt guilty AF lol

[@PedroFerrr]

THANK YOU!!! I've been waiting for weeks for someone to agree with me! I remember being puzzled by that bouncing ball at the beginning and the continuous focus on the dog, until I thought it could have been an accident provoked by Snoop leaving the ball near Samuel! Also notice just how quickly they dismiss the possibility of an accidental death, leading us to suspect murder or suicide...

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes and notice Vincent doesn't know the word for windowsill and has to switch to French indicating confusion! Triet has admitted she deliberately choose when Sandra had to switch from French to English to indicate her emotional state. Maybe Vincent's switch back to his native language is indicating something too... But I can see you don't need further convincing! Thanks for watching!

[@icyjaam]

@@TheCinemaDetective can you explain about Vincent's language swings, im not sure if I understood.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

@@icyjaam Firstly, the director Justine Triet has discussed in interviews the meaning behind when Sandra needs to switch from French to English. In the court she can't remember the French word for loudspeaker. There is a reason this was scripted, it was a trick Triet used to signify Sandra's emotional state. When Sandra and Vincent are in the attic Vincent is trying to figure out why Samuel fell. He dismisses the potential for an accidental fall because he thinks the windowsill is too high. But at this moment his English fails him. He can't remember the English word for windowsill. I believe it's the only moment in the film that Vincent's English failed him. And I wonder why was it scripted at this moment? Was Triet trying to signify confusion in Vincent? Sandra's French failing her meant something, so maybe Vincent's English failing him meant something too i.e. maybe he was wrong to dismiss the accidental fall theory because of the height of the windowsill.

[@claudiaramirezsobrado9465]

My grandma said : the dog knows something

[@pamelabassi]

this makes a lot of sense! I think that also the reluctance of her about the suicidal theory and saying that she thinks it was an accident but it’s just so hard to prove to a jury makes perfect sense! the jury is not about truth, is about the most believable story, it’s amazing if the truth isn’t any of the two stories present at the jury

[@TheCinemaDetective]

As Vincent says... I don't give a f*ck about what is reality. OK. You need to start seeing yourself the way others are going to perceive you. The trial is not about the truth. Also Justine Triet said in an interview that the court is a kind of delirium. It's supposed to be a place where the truth is revealed but it's where fiction is created. So it fits with the more general themes of the movie if neither of the two offered explanations were the truth. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@valentinaadle270]

I totally agree with you. She never seems sure about a suicide. Also when Vincent says in court that Samuel's editor didn't replying his email was a hard hit to his self-steem so it was logical for him to commit suicide, Sandra told him "That was not Samuel." I didn't understand why she said that then but now makes totally sense.

[@sodaberlin1591]

For me.. this is almost definitely the answer. Why? Because it would be the most elegant & fitting one for the purpose of the story. For people there is nothing such innocent like a dog. The story deals (among other things) with the inability of human beings to accept accidents, horrible coincidences and injustices in life...... like what happened with Daniel and also what happened to the marriage. For the purpose of the story neither of them can be guilty, so neither did she kill him nor did he commit suicide. Besides.... why would the director put Snoops footsteps in the key moments. And the music before Samuel died... music from 50 Cents and Snoop Dogg.... come ooooooon. So... just my opinion 😅... and thanks for the great video!!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yeah it fits my idea of the main message of the movie, that human psychology makes our search for truth complicated and error prone, that we are all full of biases that make getting to the truth difficult, and we jump to erroneous conclusions all too fast. We see this in the characters and how the trial has very little actual evidence and is mainly amateur psychology and speculation. If the truth was one of the two main theories it does a disservice to that general theme of the film. As you say it's much more elegant if neither of the main theories are true. I love how she uses our own compulsion to figure out what really happened in the story to illustrate the general message of the movie. Here we all are, amateur detectives, happy to make our minds up on the most flimsy of evidence. Triet has described the court as a kind of delirium, and the court of public opinion, the film's audience, are little better. It's genius! Thanks for watching!

[@LindaHutchings]

OMG there's even dog in the name of the key song 😳🐕

[@carlamendoza8]

The Snoop Dogg connection is nuts!!! 🤯

[@ramgopal2520]

Well actually the director wanted to use the song Jolene and she didn't get the rights and so 50 Cents was used..

[@Thepateisgreat]

The song playing was originally going to be “Jolene” by Dolly Parton. But they were unable to get permission to use it, so at the last minute they had to change a lot of things in the script when they decided to go with the 50 cent’s song. To me though, the song they used was perfect. I’m still wondering why they wanted Jolene originally and how that might have changed the movie.

[@maltesharalikatti2818]

This movie unnerved me like anything. The lack of background music, the realistic performance & ofcourse the Dog was the cherry on the cake. It's uneasy calmness & the lack of attention to its presence in the house by the investigating authorities makes it really disturbing.

[@laurenburtsell1859]

I was hoping that at the very end, it would show exactly what happened that day. Your theory really does make sense!

[@dietdrpepper15]

Snoop, in the attic with a tennis ball.

[@HuplesCat]

Best comment 😂

[@L30B055]

Cluedo! 😁

[@Stefarooh]

This was an incredible film, that scene in the middle where you get the flashback to the marital fight, while the court hears the recorded version is just incredible. An acting masterclass that should be studied by fellow actors who serious about getting into this business.

[@brandonhamaguchi]

I can't stop feeling the rap themed stuff of this movie with the 50 Cent song and snoop the dog 😅 in the last scene on the bed she should start rapping Only God can judge me by 2pac 😂

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Snoop Dogg the rapper was also accused of murder :) Thanks for watching!

[@makererogers]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@boyanaplamenova8325]

i love how the comment section is filling with more and more unhinged theories. for me, it was the journalist because she fell in love with sandra. she pretended to leave, sneaked back in, murdered the husband, and took her weapon with her. ps. genius video again!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Daniel did it as revenge for the accident and because Samuel had hurt his mom the previous day :p

[@boyanaplamenova8325]

@@TheCinemaDetective i think this theory deserves its own video now 😃

[@TheCinemaDetective]

🤣@@boyanaplamenova8325

[@arjunkumar962]

​@@TheCinemaDetectivethem what about wifes writing in which she wrote husbands murder n pervious thing were same as writings n mans psychologists doctor statement who proves that man has not sucidal tendency???

[@fermoes]

One of the smartest perspectives ive seen on the internet! great analysis

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Oh stop )) My head will explode ) Thank you )

[@ArashFarzaneh]

This is brilliant! Thank you so much for clarifying it for me as I was tormented and traumatized for various days! I re-watched the film and yes, it all fits perfectly together. Messi's acting is absolutely amazing and he should be allowed to be at the Oscars despite being the cause of this accident!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes but feeling like something makes sense and has been clarified doesn't make it true. Your torment and trauma and your strong desire to find a story you could believe in was the subject that Justine Triet wanted to explore. I think AOAF was about the lengths we'll go to find a narrative that eases our mental discomfort. Check out my other Anatomy of a Fall video "You can't handle the truth" to explore that idea and how it was represented in the film. The real mystery to be solved is not "how did Samuel die" but how our own psychology can leave us blind to the objective truth. Thanks for watching and you're right Messi was fantastic!

[@ajordan1976]

I read he did win an award at Cannes. 🖤

[@c.a.savage5689]

Very good. Best explanation I've heard so far.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I tried hard not to get involved in speculation but it's impossible not too! :) Thanks for watching another video!

[@joeb5765]

This is an interesting theory, but Samuel was alive when Snoop and Daniel went out for a walk and dead when they came back. You can see this at 5 mins 55 seconds into the film. Daniel and Snoop walk past the spot where the body eventually lays as they leave for their walk, the journalist Zoe walks past the same spot to get into her car and Sandra actually looks down from the ledge and waves goodbye to Zoe from the ledge that Samuel falls from. Justine Trieste has said in an interview - "If you want to know whether or not Sandra is guilty, look at the dog. The dog has instincts.". I think this basically means that at the end, when Snoop snuggles up to Sandra on the couch, he is telling us she is not guilty. Nevertheless, I think the ambiguity is the point of the film.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes you're right but my assumption is just that the ball lies on the floor at Samuel's feet for some time before he stands on it. Daniel was out walking for about a hour, but I guess it would need to happen pretty soon after they left because the song was still playing on repeat when Samuel was discovered. Yeah that Justine Triet quote doesn't look good for the "Sandra did it" theory. Also, I never believed that she would make Sandra a murderer when she is trying to tell a feminist story with a reversal of stereotypical roles and where in a way Sandra was on trial for being more successful that Samuel. Thanks for watching!

[@joeb5765]

@TheCinemaDetective If you watch the part where the ball falls down the stairs (about 1 min 30 seconds into the film) you can hear that Snoop is playing fetch with Daniel. Snoop picks the ball up in his mouth, we hear Daniel say 'Snoop?!' from upstairs and then Snoop goes back upstairs to give the ball back to Daniel. I.e. it is Daniel who is playing fetch with Snoop. In my opinion. Having said that one could also argue that Daniel is shouting Snoop up for his bath. But I see your point. Samuel could have slipped on the tennis ball. Nevertheless, even if this was the case Snoop would not know that Samuel had slipped on the tennis ball and that as a result Snoop had some part in his death. So I don't think you could accuse Snoop of looking withdrawn or 'guilty'. I think the main communication we get from Snoop is the very last moment when he cuddles up to Sandra. His instincts tell him (and us) that she is not a killer.

[@tuckerplum8085]

No one is saying Snoop had intention of causing the fall. Merely that Snoop dropped the ball by the window, and that resulted in a hazard. No suicide. No murder. A third possibility that no one considers, which is that a ball landed by the window and, later, Samuel stepped on it and lost his balance and fell. Daniel calling to Snoop might have nothing to do with the ball. Daniel might be calling to Snoop for the bath. It could be that no one is playing fetch. Snoop might have dropped the ball down the stairs himself. We do not know who dropped the ball. We do not know why Daniel is calling to Snoop. Fetch? Bath? We only know the ball fell down the stairs. Snoop's name was called. The ball was carried back upstairs. The point is that might have all been an accident.@@joeb5765

[@joeb5765]

@@tuckerplum8085 Yes I agree with you, that's pretty much what I have written in my comment. Although I did edit it so perhaps you saw the earlier version?

[@TheCinemaDetective]

@@joeb5765 At some point Justine Triet worked with Messi the dog and his trainer to get him to pose in a certain way after Samuel was discovered. It could be that he was supposed to look sad or it could be she wanted him looking like that for the reasons I explained. My mentioning Snoop's body language is more about questioning the intentions of the director than how I think a real dog would behave in the situation. Let's be clear, I don't think Snoop killed Samuel. I don't think he witnessed anything or has anything to feel guilty about, but I do think the idea that he dropped a ball at Samuel's feet and that's how Samuel fell through the window is more believable than murder or suicide. I actually think the strongest implication for Snoops involvement is when the newsreporter learns of the trial result we are listening to Snoop. For me that's a clear editing decision and the question is why?

[@Tomy_Yon]

Oooooh, so it's even another version of the story. Nobody would suspect the dog. I think I have to re-watch it with this interpretation in mind. 😊

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Come back and let us know what you think after a rewatch ) Thanks for commenting and subscribing!

[@Tomy_Yon]

@TheCinemaDetective Ooooooh, I can't un-think it... The four-legged culprit is not even on the movie poster! Well played, Justine Triet, very, very well played... And the movie was already a heartbreaking roller-coaster. 💔

[@DIGITALBREAD_]

No way man, you’ve acc cracked this film in my opinion. I know there’s not really supposed to be an answer but wow all of this went right over my head and all of it adds up perfectly. Great video man!

[@ciri51]

Also note the sound of melted snow dripping along with Snoops footsteps in the scene right before the verdict is announced.

[@SmallWRLDsmallerman]

I saw the trailer and said it was the dog. I watched the movie and said it was the dog. It was the ball.

[@Jo-be1ws]

I think that the choice of a red leash is not insignificant either. Thank you for this good analysis.

[@miakatherine9028]

When I first watched this movie, I noticed Snoop walked straight past Samuels body after a quick sniff and didn't investigate further which seemed a bit apathetic to me but I soon realised I was being ridiculous. haha. Now watching this video, I feel validated.

[@rithikraj9664]

This is the best possible explanation. Why would he choose the attic as the suicide spot? He couldn’t have planned to hit his head to that corner. It is rather unlikely to die from the jump

[@laurag5214]

I like this theory, but hard to believe slipping on the ball he'd end up out the window. Samuel was insulating the roof, he probably saw something odd and leaned out the window to take a look from another perspective. Maybe that's where Snoop's ball comes in too?

[@alexkiddonen]

Snoop was the real P.I.M.P.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I think Samuel thought Sandra was the P.I.M.P that's why he was playing that track ) Thanks for commenting!

I too believe it was a weird accident, but I hadn´t considered Snoop to be the catalyzer.

[@fhyeesandra]

OH MY GOD?? this make sense a lot, you're brilliant!

[@fhyeesandra]

Snoop probably feel guilty as heck knowing he accidentally involve in the crime scene and the end scene is him kinda apologising to sandra :'(

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Well I don't think Snoop would have any idea but maybe the director was trying to say something )) Thanks for watching!

[@RichardGutierrezRG]

If true, it really gives the viewer the answer from the very beginning, a great silent reveal, like so many movies do, or a "AhHA, What" moment. A canine Keyser Soze if you will. A suicide from that height would be just another trip to the hospital as he would have to not only jump but be sure he would crack his head so he would die on impact, and/or bleed and freeze to death... Its fascinating how every finger gets pointed, every argument or assumption comes into play. His proclivity to play music loud becomes a slight to his relationship. Her success is a motive. His talk with his son is remembered as the father saying he'll die soon, instead of a life lesson on having a pet. Yes, it would be terribly scary to be alone with your spouse, a roommate, a friend...and have something accidental happen and then having the anatomy of the situation dissected and analyzed to this level. Great job!

[@richacarle]

Love this theory. I had a feeling when it ended that it’s was something to do with the dog. And this has just confirmed it. Maybe all the little hints were subconsciously going in my head. Really enjoyed this film but felt like I did want some sort of resolution at the end and a definitive answer as to what happened but now after watching this video I feel satisfied. Thank you. 🙏

[@TheCinemaDetective]

In the same way Daniel wanted resolution, and the jury, and the court of public opinion too. Our strong desire to complete the story, along with our existing biases, can often lead us to the wrong conclusions. I think that was the main point of the movie. That the subjective feeling of truth is not the same as the objective truth. Justine Triet brilliantly uses our own response to the ambiguous ending to make her point, because now we have people certain that Sandra did it, that Samuel jumped, that it was the ball, plus some more wild theories, and there isn't enough genuine evidence to prove any of them. We're too ready to believe in dubious evidence if it supports our interest in resolving a mystery. We find it very hard to live with doubt... so you know... maybe it wasn't Snoop, maybe some of the things I picked out as evidence for this theory were just coincidences ;) Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!

[@lizaminiholmes]

Such an interesting theory and well-done analysis! Although, as much as I'd like this as the explanation, it strikes me as Snoop is the silent witness, the "eyes" of the family. Everyone is blinded by something, be it physical (Daniel ), ego-based ( Samuel) or emotional-based (Sandra). Only Snoop has true primitive objective clarity, thus knowing instinctively the truth about what happened.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes this is the best alternative explanation for the heavy focus on Snoop.

[@lizaminiholmes]

@@TheCinemaDetective Thank you! 🙂

[@sweeneagle16]

I like this theory. The triangle shape of the ceiling and window would have him crouching a bit in the corner. If he’s leaning out the window smoking and the ball is dropped behind him, he could easily slip, lose his balance and fall out butt first. The window and ceiling are smooth so there’s nothing to grab. He’d just go. Then flip backward head first. Nice catch

[@confacekillah]

If this is true it makes a lot of the sense. I’d interpret the point of the movie as trying to show that we as people with all our biases and beliefs argue about everything when in reality nobody actually knows what they think they do and in the end, none of us are totally right. The old saying is there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth

[@film_magician]

I would almost buy this, except there's no way Snoop knew that Samuel slipped on his ball and fell out. That isn't a look of guilt, but it is a look of sadness and morose.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Sure he wouldn't know but I was more questioning why the director worked with Messi and the trainer to strike that pose and hold the shot for 23 seconds as we discover "he's not breathing". These editing decisions usually have reasons. You could be right... maybe she REALLY wanted us to know that Snoop was sad, but that would seem like a strange emphasis to me. Likewise, when the verdict was announced and the audio of the news reporter cuts and we instead hear Snoop padding about and drinking water maybe Triet just wanted us to know in this pivotal moment that Snoop was thirsty )) Anyway you don't need to buy it if you don't want. It's not provable and just speculation and the main point I wanted to make was that an accidental fall was possible.

[@MuMu-fu7qe]

Because he's sad waiting for the ball to thrown back 😂

[@leonho1450]

Long shot but fun theory. For me the lawyer did it because he wanted to be with Sandra. He knew she would call him for help.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Ah now that's a fun theory too!

[@ingaulena]

This is a good analyses and a valid perspective. I was leaning towards accidental death one way or another, too. Did not believe Sandra could kill or Samuel give up in simple jump suicide. Your key take aways makes so much sense from cinematography point of view. I saw the movie once and were focused on the mystery what the Daniel was processing.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes the director wanted us all to be confused and in the shoes of Daniel. Triet is delighted when she hears viewers are undecided or reaching different conclusions, but it wasn't just to torture us, she wants to shine a light on human psychology. When we have a mystery and we cannot figure out the truth from the facts we resort to imaginative, creative, speculation and storytelling, because ours minds hate to in this place of doubt. This rush to find an answer, and how we might twist things to create a coherent narrative might give us something that feels like truth but isn't objectively true. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@Reverse_Cat_Cowgirl]

I think by the time a court case is ready, it's less about what happened and more about the debate you have been presented with (guilty or not guilty). However, I do think detectives feel inclined to search for answers that will be held easily in court rather than truly examine all possibilities like they are actually supposed to. It kind of feels like putting the cart before the horse...

[@edelbutler8027]

Thanks for this - I have a all obsessed border collie, I will be looking at him differently from now on...

[@TheCinemaDetective]

lol just do what he says and you'll be ok ) Did you ever see The Banshees Of Inisherin? There's a border collie in that too ) If I ever get a dog I think I'd like a border collie, so intelligent )

[@patsal1948]

As good as the movie was, I was annoyed at how an accident was so easily dismissed. Accidents during construction or remodeling are so common, I’m not sure they would have really considered anything else unless there was a witness that reported seeing them fighting just beforehand.

[@dead0show]

I find it funny how a movie that is almost entirely a trial where many people jump to conclusions has everyone jumping to conclusions about it. This movie might just be a criticism of cinema itself. Many people in the film world, especially critics who have never set foot on a film set, love making interpretations out of thin air. When people don't understand a movie, they assume that there is something genius about it that needs to be explained and interpreted, especially if the film has won the Palme d'Or and been nominated for Oscars like "Anatomy of a Fall." To be able to correctly criticize a movie, you have to take into consideration the big picture, which should include the process of filmmaking (and if you don't know anything about it, just be quiet). We shouldn't be making interpretations; we should only discuss what's in the movie-the facts. This is funny as well because it was mentioned in the movie itself. During the trial, when the prosecuting lawyer interpreted the book the wife wrote, as a confession or lack thereof, it was noted that only the facts should matter. The same goes for criticizing the movie. We simply don't have the facts that could explain how the husband died. However, we have the following facts from the movie: 1. The defense lawyer told the wife when she said she didn't kill her husband that it wasn't the point; it didn't matter. Only the narrative matters. 2. It was mentioned that the wife, as a writer, likes to mislead the readers. 3. The little kid has strong hearing. Taking these points into account, we can say the following: The dog in the movie is just to mislead the audience, and how the husband died doesn't matter. It's the narrative that matters-how people pick and choose the things that they like to build a narrative in their heads that they can relate to. Both the prosecution and the defense weren't telling the truth; they were all building a story to win. The kid contributed to this by providing his own narrative. Because he has strong hearing, he could hear every detail going on in that house. It was also shown that he's creative, imaginative, and manipulative (getting his mom to leave the house so he can feed the dog medicine). So, he made up a story that is convenient for him as well to convince the court that his mom is innocent.

[@dannyk140]

At first I was mad at this title because I read it before I finished the movie. I was looking how they faked the dogs overdose and this video pops up.

[@creoflux]

Very interesting hypothesis!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Thank you!

[@mitschnel607]

I think the window is way too high for him to trip over it

[@mulmareun]

Please do more movies with ambiguous endings your mind is brilliant. Subbed 🎥👏

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Thanks!

[@aisha2370]

How about "Doubt" please. Was the priest guilty? Hoffman/Streep 2008 THANKS 🙂

[@shimmer8289]

Loved the movie but I suspected Daniel because he poisoned his own dog. And his exposure to all the tensions could have affected his personality.

[@SladeL]

Yes, something doesn't sit right with me with the vomit from Samuel supposedly, Snoop eating it and being sick for days, as Daniel says. Perhaps that time it was Daniel too poisoning Snoop. Does a dog get sick for days for eating vomit with meds in it? Sounds not realistic. Sorry to be graphic, but yeah. Why would a child test his own dog with so many pills? Id never ever do that. Though this doesnt explain how Daniel killed his dad, after all Daniel was out for a walk with Snoop. Watched it an hour ago, excellent French movie and still processing.

[@shimmer8289]

@SladeL agree he totally had an alibi. It's just vile to test his theory by poisoning his own dog. It was super creepy. I've done some research on you tube the consensus was tge reason snoop was featured so heavily , ie intense close ups, the clicking of his nails in beginning and at end was that the father was playing ball with snoop. Just before he was called to go for a walk snoop dropped the ball in front of the window. It is surmised that Daniel tripped on the ball and went out the open window to his death.

[@SladeL]

@@shimmer8289 the ball left behind by Snoop makes sense, and so it was an accident or maybe not, depending on Daniel's intentions. That there is something very wrong with Daniel is clear. That Snoop was featured to heavily is indeed the ball. I also wondered about the scene where Daniel is throwing sticks with Snoop. Though he may be partially blind, why is he throwing sticks while Snoop has one in its mouth. You'd think Snoop would bring the stick back to Daniel, right? Why isn't Snoop doing that? Thanks for your comment.

[@MrKillachristopher2]

If you go back and watch the movie again, you never heard the ball bounced until it reached the stairs, the ball rolled from the top and bounced on the first step, it's pretty simple Samuel wasn't happy with his life, so he took his life and this court proceedings was just to show, how they'll twist things to make someone innocent looks guilty. And it focused too much on the dog, in movies like these the most obvious thing is never the answer.

[@Ash.Crow.Goddess]

The 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg connection is strong. Because the instrumental that Samuel plays is P.I.M.P. He got too big for his britches. Samuel never wrote that book. But Snoop became one famous Dogg after he beat that murder rap. Foshizzal.

[@akr.6550]

I believe snoop was a metaphor for samuel. At the end, sandra is holding him as if holding her husband. Also, the scene where is Snoop staring at Samuel's photo. Samuel and snoop overdose together. I believe in some way, snoop is supposed to represent Samuel even in the afterlife.

[@christine6059]

Brilliant analysis! Thank you

[@TheCinemaDetective]

My pleasure!

[@Mechantrechyrmang]

I agree with your explanation and analysis, had Snoop got no involvement then its pointless for the first scene of him fetching the ball. We see Sandra walking cautiously in the unfinished Attic floor so it's possible that Samuel must have accidentally step on the ball. And lastly when Sandra insist to Vincent that she's didn't commit the crime we can see her saying that's it's really not her.

[@pdzombie1906]

I always thought it was an accident, nothing in the movie made me believe it was either a murder or a suicide. This is why, I think, the movie fails as a legal drama...

[@TheCinemaDetective]

It is a legal drama... but I think the best way to view the film is as an exploration of the human psychology of the subjective experience of truth and understanding. How in the absence of facts, even in the courts and especially the French system, we might strive to reach a feeling of truth by speculation, by twisting memories, by employing amateur psychology and so on. This rush to the feeling of truth might make us blind to the objective truth. The meaning of the film is revealed not only on the screen but in our own responses and compulsion to find a believable version of events when the facts alone don't give enough information. Most courts around the world only have "guilty" or "not guilty" verdicts. Which I think reflects an overconfidence in a courts ability to get to the truth. In Scotland we also have a third "not proven" verdict which I think might have been a more suitable verdict in the case of Sandra. Thanks for commenting!

[@pdzombie1906]

@@TheCinemaDetective Well, if you put it like that it sounds smarter than "Wife gets blamed of dog's murder of husband"

[@harveydanger5272]

You nailed it, brother. You're the only one yet (the ONLY one, anywhere), in all the oceans of ink and digital ink spilled over the obviously flawed either-or "binary" interpretation of who's responsible, to figure it out. It was Snoop. Nicely done, brutha. Very nicely done indeed.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I did see one comment on reddit AFTER I made the video blaming Snoop and the ball. But it was just a brief comment and didn't mention the unfinished flooring, and the sound of Snoop when the verdict was announced etc Thanks!

[@harveydanger5272]

@@TheCinemaDetective Yours is an excellent and in-depth analysis. The unfinished flooring is one aspect of a bigger metaphor -- the story's central metaphor: an unfinished home -- a home in the making -- a home they're trying to build, a life, family (which often includes dogs), careers, and all the complexities, intricacies, and vicissitudes that go along with building this sort of life. The who-did-it mystery extends the central metaphor when the home and life they're trying to build hits hardship, beginning with Daniel's accident -- after which, their home-life crumbles more and more. And who's to blame? The writers are obviously too sophisticated to resolve such complexity by a facile murder-or-suicide-or-accident solution. And you're absolutely right: there's FAR too much focus on Snoop -- and Daniel -- to be unintentional. The sophistication of the story is the total giveaway to all this. Such sophistication -- both stylistic sophistication and sophistication of storytelling -- and such careful attention to detail would never in such instances leave any aspect accidental. Nothing in this movie is accidental. Also, as anyone who's ever tried her or his hand at writing mystery-stories knows, you never make the solution facile or obvious but keep the audience guessing right up to the very end -- or even after -- and you infuse it as much as humanly possible with a twist of monumental proportions. Of course not every writer is able to pull this off, but this story from the beginning displayed a depth and mastery which made it clear to me from almost right off that the ending and solution would equal the entire story. Which it does.

[@AM-sw9di]

It's weird how they dismiss the murder weapon so easily, if she had murdered him they didn't care to look for a weapon even if it could be disposed of easily. Made no sense as I'm sure they could have found it if there was one. So the ball completely disappearing after the dad dying is interesting. No one would suspect that the ball was the 'murder weapon'.

[@jacksonn5240]

I found that strange too!

[@elgaith7626]

"Made no sense as I'm sure they could have found it if there was one." No. She wasn't arrested, and not indicted for days/weeks afterwards. She could have buried a weapon, or tossed it in a lake in the middle of the night, or put it in a trash bin of someone in a nearby town when the kid went to school. What are they going to do, search every trash can in a 50-mile radius, and every dump every trash can winds up in? And drain every lake? And dig up every part of the mountain to check if there's a hammer buried somewhere? I regret to inform you that your job application for detective is denied.

[@cheri7054]

In the end the dog shows unconditional love even to a killer. Dogs love you unconditionally.

[@markaitkenguitar]

I had a lingering feeling. After this explanation, I consider the case closed.

[@danzigvssartre]

I’m sorry, but this theory has me picturing Daniel falling out the window like he’s Inspector Clouseau. I guess he is French though?

[@mulmareun]

You just did God's work. I'm finally at peace 🙏🏻

[@TheCinemaDetective]

lol enjoy your peace of mind... but just because a story might sound plausible doesn't make it true :)

[@rica3947]

very interesting theory, and one that at least doesn't seem less likely than either murder or suicide - thank you for sharing!

[@YugoHayashi]

That was brilliant!!!! Thank you so much!

[@ashmeadowphoenix]

I think there's three other interesting parts to this theory. One is when the prosecutor talks about the weapon he believes Sandra must have used, he mentions that it can easily be disposed of...and we never see that ball again. Second, when we're talking about the way people narrate to themselves, the first time I saw the ball fall down the steps, knowing the title of the movie, I thought "oh someone's going to trip on that ball" but the fall doesn't happen on the steps so I forgot about it lol. Third is Sandra's annoyance and frustration that trials only give you parts of a whole and that the rest is people filling in gaps from incomplete information or distilled information, and the fact that we see Snoop go upstairs with the ball, and meet Daniel for his bath without it. It's a gap that the movie never fills, and no one ever cares to fill because they simply don't know the whole of this family. We never directly see Snoop and Samuel together (alive) even though we see the rest of the family with him (and we hear the theory that Snoop ate Samuel's vomit). The only time we see them together is when Samuel is dead and Snoop originally finds him. So one might believe that this is a gap that is actually very important.

[@7mvg354]

The centre of this movie is Paradigm that if someone dies and doesn't have enough proof(mystery), it's either a suicide or murder. In this case it was just a fall and the mother was just worried how much people will judge upon her for his death? And she doesn't want people to believe that her husband suicides( because it will also make bad impression on her). She can't tell the truth because of the fear that her son will judge her. She can't tell the truth to the lawyer because of the fear that he will judge her bad figure in their relationship.

[@niaselah3348]

It's a good theory and more importantly a good message to reflect on regardless if it was what happened or not Only Snoop could have been playing alone. Many dogs have the habit of throwing the ball down the stairs and pick it up. I think the emphasis on Snoop's perspective is bc he is Daniel's eyes and bc D is blind, Snoop is the only visual witness in general of the things D wasn't aware of and also it could be said he saw things neither Sandra and Samuel did about the other and the complexity of their situation

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes this works too and is a good alternative theory for why Snoop features so heavily. I think the main point of the movie is that we are all 'blind' to the truth because if the way our minds work. Triet mentioned in an interview that "Snoop has a gaze" in this movie. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!

[@dominicbiondi4097]

this...actually makes sense. Well done.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I'm not sure how much I really believe it... What I can say is Sandra murdering Samuel and leaving his body there for Daniel to discover doesn't fit because she does seem to care about Daniel. Likewise, Samuel deliberately jumping has the same problem. If he was suicidal he'd go off and do it somewhere quiet where Daniel wouldn't be the one to find him. Both those theories require us to believe they don't care about Daniel very much and I don't see any evidence of that. So for me some form of accidental fall is the most plausible whether it's the ball or some other reason that we can't imagine. Thanks for your comment!

[@nineteenfortyeight]

Makes perfect sense. Why isn't everyone talking about this? You don't jump or push someone off three stories in hopes of d3ath, it had to be an accident.

[@MrErik052005]

To add to this theory, the main actress never knew if her character was guilty. But she was instructed to play the character as if she was innocent.

[@camilagomez2631]

Thanks for this analysis. I just watched the movie, and despite the end, I kinda needed an explanation of the death. It makes no sense the suicide, I mean, why suddenly samuel would like to end his life, and why so close to his beloved child. To me it always looked like an accident, and this is a great connection of events.

[@veevee1209]

Very good job. Hats off to you.

[@bev9708]

Wow, outstanding theory!! Bravo!!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Thanks for watching!

[@MariaRivera-g2q]

I agree with the plot of Snoop leaving the ball and causing the accident fall. I observed Sara holding the beam as if she was scared of hights when she was showing the lawyer the attic where Samuel was working. She is innocent.

[@ryancole5965]

For me, the film starts on Snoop and ends with Snoop because not only is he the eyes for Daniel, but he is actually the eyes for the audience. If you notice when Snoop goes down to get his ball, he doesn't immediately run back. He stops to check on Sandra to make sure she is okay, then goes back upstairs. Snoop is constantly checking on Sandra, but when the body is found Snoop kind of sniffs around him and stands away, this tells me that Snoop and the father weren't that close. Daniel figures out the med situation by putting Snoop in harms way (sort of putting us the audience as the guinea pig to test his theory). I believe this little experiment is meant to be the turning point not only for Daniel, but for us the audience as well since remember Snoop is our eyes as well. The final scene of the film, remember up until then we've never seen Snoop embrace anyone except Daniel, but Snoop ends up cuddling with Sandra. This to me shows she was innocent cause dogs can sense out ppl.

[@Elliot226]

I like this theory the most. I just finished watching the movie and the whole time basically dismissed the 2 main ideas and was trying to figure out other options. I came up with during the fight maybe Sandra convinced him to jump, but didn't physically touch him. Then when the aspirin thing came up with Snoop, I thought for a little bit Daniel was secretly psycho and when he came back to the house he somehow did it. Another thought I had was that girl right at the beginning did it because she was that upset about him ruining the interview, and I did think her and Sandra had some tension/spark going on so maybe they'd been together and she did it to get him out of the way (which I felt further convinced of during the trial and she kept calling her by her first name). I think your theory has the most supportive evidence to it, and for a story like this I definitely think the writers and director know the real answer even if they let us speculate about it

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Justine Triet definitely thinks she knows the answer. She joked she might reveal it after 10 years. Thanks for watching!

[@pingkeupingu]

Nice theory. Anybody read "Dumb Witness" by Agatha Christie too? because that's where my mind goes to when i realised (and wonder) why Snoop is in the frame so often, and that first scene with the stairs it's just so similar! Out all night and no key!

[@eirikmatias]

IF she did kill him, why did she wait around inside the house for her son to discover the body? She has nothing to gain from it, and she seems to care enough about her son to want to spare him that trauma...

[@ArcherFish]

interesting. I think the snoop sounds and focus is more because he's a seeing eye dog. representing seeing things that we cannot. but I love the theory. such a good movie. should have been best picture.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Yes I agree with you, I said in my other AOAF video that we are blind, that we rush to conclusions because our brains find it hard to live with doubt and uncertainty. We have a compulsion to create a believable story so the objective truth becomes secondary to a feeling of truth. But what is it that Snoop sees that we cannot? One of the two offered explanations being true would almost undermine the central theme of the film, as you put it, that there are things we cannot see. A third option that we don't see, as possibly represented by Snoop, would make sense. And that third option is an accidental fall whether or not it was slipping on the ball or some other scenario that we can't imagine due to our cognitive "blindness".

[@ArcherFish]

great points. love the perspective. @@TheCinemaDetective

[@TheFifileigh]

the dog didnt do it on purpose. it was an accident.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

He didn't do it at all... he just might have left a hazard lying around but dogs will be dogs. It was Samuel's responsibility to watch his feet and that window shouldn't open in that style.

[@VolliVolliVolli]

Really like your way of breaking down these movies. Do you have a letterboxd account by chance? Think many people would like to see what you deem as an masterpiece when being really good at breaking down movies. Excited for future uploads!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I have a letterboxd account but I only rated like 3 or 4 movies. I find rating movies difficult. I didn't rate AOAF that highly on first watch. I watched it late at night, I was tired, I wanted it to finish faster. The ambiguous ending annoyed me a bit, I wanted answers and I didn't really understand the film. So my initial rating would have been like 6.5 out of 10. Then I watched again, thought about it, understood the meaning behind the film, and my rating would have been 7.5 Then I figured out the Snoop theory and it's probably at least 8 now. From the movie I covered I loved The Holdovers the most. Thanks for commenting!

[@MuMu-fu7qe]

Best analysis. Best dog performance ever.

[@silentrocco]

Although this is a fun take, people still theorizing about who‘s fault this death is, basically didn‘t understand the movie.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

My other Anatomy of a Fall video was the attempt to explain the movies themes and what I thought Justine Triet was really trying to say. Yeah this was more a bit of fun, partly inspired by a commenter who argued strongly that Snoop pushed Samuel out the window ) That said though the ambiguity had a purpose and wasn't a mere puzzle there is still a puzzle and I think a plausible theory for an accidental death enhances Triet's broader points as I understand them. Thanks for watching!

[@johnrusso2661]

Sorry, you don't really undestand cinema or stories. If people still theorizing is basically what the writer intended to do. There are many ways to enjoy a movie.

[@dangnguyen1132]

Yet the purpose of this film is making you thinking whether he killed her husband or not and things had gotten too far even the dog is suspicious Justine Tret is so talented

[@kerenverna]

I found it unbelievable. They never allow minors to talk about death in a trial. It suffers from the same thing as many current films where adults lose face in front of teenagers or children. In the end, the whole trial was for nothing, the only thing that mattered was what a child said. I found it very bad. And about the end, mother and son are monsters. The boy for experimenting with his dog, doing the same thing that the mother did. The mother tried several times, for me, to kill the father. The dog and the father are the two victims of the story. The son pretends to be blind, but he is not, he has a visual impairment, since he was able to read the letters on a medicine box. The issue of pretending to be blind was perhaps another ruse by the mother and son to destroy the father with guilt. Two monsters.

[@tanaygandhi2]

Damm! This was really good.

[@SladeL]

What I find an interesting detail is that Samuel when angry hit his own head. This was in the audio recording at the trial and no one asked about this. After all, he had a head would from the fall, or did he? I dont know what it could mean, b/c no weapon was found if he did it himself. I think you finding these details of snoop are brilliant, it could have been the ball. :)

[@posteador]

Yes, I alway thought about the accident option, accidents in construction are super common everywhere... but I never considered the "ball and dog" scenario. 😁

[@swanne.9]

Was trying to figure out why was the Snoop's sound so present. Great theory

[@marialovesmarklee]

I'm so impressed .this theory might really be possible. Bcoz for me the other two theories are not logical. Both the mother and son claim that he would never take his own life . Moreover if she really did hate him and wanted to kill him she would push more towards the suicide story inorder to save herself.but she repeatedly says that her husband would never take his own life.So I felt like an accident may be the cause of it. But I never in a million years would have guessed that snoop had anything to do with it

[@a_d_a_m]

it seems clear to me samuel offed himself, and it felt that way to me because of the way the director chose to show the actual scene of samuel saying those things to the son in such detail. to me the scene shows the son recalling a real event. Yes the director did show imagery of the alternative scenarios as well, but they were always quick vague flashes. When it was samuel talking to his son in the car, to me that was meant to be interpreted as a real thing that happened. it’s shown in as much detail and dialogue as all the other “real” events of the movie. I think if the director wanted it to be seen as the son making it up, it would have been another vague flash, or no image at all, just the son talking in court. I think the director was pretty deliberate in giving us a big clue there, personally.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Just remember Daniel was blind, so those pained expressions on Samuel's face were imaginations not recollection

[@dylancurry5298]

I actually fully disagree with this. I think the fact that we are “seeing” what happened when Daniel is blind is already an indicator that it’s not real, as well as (perhaps more importantly) the fact that when Samuel is “speaking”, we only hear Daniel’s voice through him speaking to the court. No other flashback or memory is presented this way, and why would Daniel remember this conversation in such perfect detail from so long ago? To the degree that his cadence when speaking to the court perfectly matches the cadence and pace at which Samuel spoke to him? When so much of the movie is based on the fallibility of memory (including Daniel’s own)? I think this was a deliberate lie Daniel made up in a last ditch attempt to save his mother after realizing that the court was leaning towards a murder verdict. Doesn’t mean Daniel is guilty of anything necessarily, just that he didn’t want to lose his mother after already losing his father, no matter what the truth about her was

[@TheCinemaDetective]

@@dylancurry5298 Director Justine Triet's partner and co-writer of Anatomy Of A Fall Arthur Harari said in an interview that it was shot that way to introduce doubt about whether what Daniel was saying was true.

[@sadoklajmi]

this gave me chills...

[@gabrielledeneault3003]

How funny, I told that theory to my friend the moment we saw the first scene.

[@nodnomalp]

Love this - keep it coming!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

I'll try! :)

[@VersedNJ]

As a Border Collie owner, Snoop did it by accident or choice. Too bad Snoop couldn't blame it on the cat.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

You'd better keep on the right side of your Collie ) Or sleep with one eye open ))

[@aryasdiaries3736]

Not possible coz he played the music so loud and that time both the dog and the kid went outside for a walk. If he had fallen that time then the dog would have barked. And one more thing when the kid and the dog went outside he said both of his parents were talking so this couldn't be possible.Scoop represents the husband. He lived for his family and mostly for his child sacrificing his own life like that of Scoop. A dog will not be selfish as a man, if the dog saw him falling it would have barked to get some help or it may have sensed something something.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

The fall happened after Daniel and Snoop went walking. That's what I said in the video. The ball just needs to lie on the floor for a little time until he stands on it.

[@aryasdiaries3736]

@@TheCinemaDetective oohhh, i see.

[@CloudMountainJuror]

I unironically love this theory, and might just believe it.

[@Longleke.]

We all love Snoop and hate Samuel. So if Snoop did do it… 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@VulKus117]

I don’t hate Samuel. He made mistakes and definitely acted like an arse at times, but so did Sandra. He was clearly not well and whatever therapy he’d gotten wasn’t doing the trick, and the unhealthy dynamic he had with his wife wasn’t helping. It’s still sad that he (almost certainly) chose to take his own life.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Oh that's confidence ) What makes you so "almost" certain that he jumped?

[@VulKus117]

@@TheCinemaDetective The blood-spatter analyst’s testimony and Daniel’s experiment with Snoop were the most convincing pieces of evidence for me. Daniel could have been lying about the story with his father in the car, even though I doubt it, but we saw for ourselves that he really did give Snoop aspirin. I also find it extremely unlikely that Sandra had the strength or motive to kill him. I don’t think she’d have wanted to leave Daniel without his father knowing that they were close, and despite all the fights and mutual abuse they still had feelings for each other - love is complicated. Samuel’s wound would have to have been inflicted with a damned hard blow (and Sandra didn’t exactly strike me as Sarah Connor) with an object that was never found (the Prosecution’s argument that they are ‘easily disposed of’ is pretty weak without offering any hypothesis as to how this could’ve happened). We also have convincing evidence of Samuel’s mental instability and pain below the surface, and an understandable motive for suicide. Ironically, the Prosecution’s argument that one wouldn’t kill themselves after such a passionate plea works against him in my opinion - if Samuel still didn’t get what he wanted after trying so hard, this could easily give way to despair and resigning to never getting it, and thus impulsively deciding he didn’t want to live anymore.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

"The blood-splatter analyst's testimony" - there was an opposing blood splatter analyst testimony that canceled it out. There's no reason to believe one expert was more correct than the other. Also the blood-splatter analyst testimony that you believe is also consistent with an accidental fall. "Daniel's experiment with Snoop" - When Vincent asked Sandra if Samuel was a suicide risk she said no, then later she remembered seeing white spots in vomit (like you'd forget your husband's suicide attempt), when it came to the trial the white spots had turned into aspirin and she claimed she found aspirin packaging in the trash. It seemed to me that Sandra invented this theory in the first place, so all Daniel really proved was that if you give a dog aspirin you'll make it unwell. "Sandra's strength or motivation to kill" - I agree, but Sandra's innocence doesn't provide any evidence that Samuel jumped. "Convincing evidence of Samuel's mental instability" - From where? He had a fight with his wife and wasn't happy with his perceived lack of balance in their relationship or his writing career. That's all we know. His therapist didn't view him as a suicide risk. His wife didn't think he was suicidal even though it suited her to use that defence. I'll grant you he wasn't happy with how is life is going but so are many unhappy people in this world and they don't jump out of windows. He could just leave his wife if he wanted but presumably he stayed because of Daniel and why would he want Daniel to discover his body? Also, if you want to unalive yourself surely you'd jump from a higher height than that! I wouldn't rule suicide out, it's possible, but I think "almost certainly" is quite a stretch :)

[@Longleke.]

Wow y’all are really going in on this huh? I’m glad y’all got so much out of the film! For me personally I thought it was just fine and covered much of the same thematic ground as May December, but not as efficiently or stylishly. I thought this video blaming Snoop was just gonna be a meme, not serious. Anyways, I know an unknowable answer when I see one so I won’t waste too much time pondering the film. My gut says that Samuel killed himself so that’s canon for me.

[@HuplesCat]

It’s a great film. I did suspect snoop. He takes his ball upstairs and it’s not seen again

[@LoganPrescott]

great analysis!

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Thanks Logan!

[@TheGoodContent37]

And yet this means nothing with the ultimate message which is: No one knows for sure what happened and everyone had to especulate with the available evidence. And I have another take on the movie: Is not about who is to blame, who is guilty, is about how to diminish the amount of evil or suffering. If the mother did it due to whichever reasons she would have ended in jail and fractured and already fractured family creating more suffering. The loss of a father then the loss of a mother and what leaded to that? Missunderstandings among 2 humans that got together and found themselves drenched in regret trying to stay afloat however they could. I think the true message is that it doesn't matter what happened, it matter what you do to make it less worst after it happened. Everyone is to blame so no one is to blame. No one knows all the truth of the universe, no one will ever be able to know, we are blind just as Daniel. So if no one knows the entirety of truth no one can be sure of anything. No one can know which butterfly's wings provoqued the tornado. So, if we are all blind in this existence we shouldn't place so much value on evidence or the truth, we should better place value on how to reduce the amount of suffering. Just my opinion.

[@Ali-gb7mf]

Great movie and fantastic performance from a dog.

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Fantastic performances all round but yeah Messi stole the show!

[@Findyourcall]

Mind blowing theory! Perfect logic behind it

[@TheCinemaDetective]

Logic can only take us so far. I think the theory is coherent but not proven. We'd really need more facts to get to the truth. A good story doesn't always equal truth, which was sort of the subject of my other AOAF video ) Thanks for watching!

[@Findyourcall]

@@TheCinemaDetective Anatomy of fall is not that kind of film which needs to be solved and it may be rewatched with pleasure, unlike some other films loosing its charm after you know the clue. And still it's very comforting to have a theory to complete the story!)