A remote chalet in the foothills outside Grenoble opens the story. Novelist Sandra Voyter sits in her living room attempting an interview with a young student, Zoé Solidor, but the session falters when her husband, Samuel Maleski, a university lecturer working in the attic, blasts a rap track so loudly that Sandra asks the visitor to leave and postpones the conversation. Their eleven-year-old son, Daniel, who is visually impaired, goes out for a walk with his guide dog Snoop while the frustrated adults remain in the house. When Daniel and Snoop return, they find Samuel collapsed on the ground outside beneath the attic window; he has fallen from the upper level and lies motionless while the music continues to pound from the attic. Sandra screams, calls for help, and emergency services arrive. The local police and medical examiner record that Samuel has suffered fatal injuries from a fall; his body shows a severe head wound in addition to the trauma of impact.

Vincent Renzi, an old friend of Sandra and a lawyer, comes to the chalet the same day. Sandra tells him she had been asleep, wearing earplugs, and only woke when Daniel shouted. Vincent examines the scene and proposes that Samuel could have fallen from the attic window and struck the roof of the shed before tumbling to the ground below, a trajectory that could explain the pattern of injuries. He notices a fresh bruise on Sandra's arm; she explains that she struck a kitchen countertop in the chaos, but Vincent warns that such a mark could be interpreted as evidence of a struggle. Sandra also mentions a prior incident: six months earlier Samuel had attempted to overdose on aspirin after stopping his antidepressants. Sandra and Vincent discuss the possibility of suicide, accident, or something more sinister, but investigators begin a formal inquiry.

Detectives find blood spatter on the shed's roof and discover that Samuel sustained a head wound before his body hit the ground, a fact that increases scrutiny. They also locate an audio recording Samuel made the day before his death in which he and Sandra argue heatedly. In that recording Samuel accuses Sandra of plagiarizing, of betraying him through an extramarital relationship, and of exerting control over their life together; his voice grows harsh and bitter. The recording then contains noises of glass shattering and sounds of violent contact and groans. Sandra concedes she had thrown a glass during the quarrel but insists that the other noises are her husband striking himself in an effort to stage abuse. Police interview Daniel about what he witnessed before his walk; his initial statements contain inconsistencies about whether he heard a fight and what he saw, and the variance in his recollection raises further questions for investigators. The combination of the head wound, the blood pattern, Daniel's conflicting accounts, and the recorded argument prompts prosecutors to indict Sandra on homicide charges. She posts bail and returns to a rented room, while Daniel remains living at the chalet.

One year passes and the case reaches trial. Courtroom proceedings begin under the supervision of Judge Janvier. The prosecution presents a theory that Sandra, motivated by resentment and jealousy, struck Samuel with a blunt instrument and pushed him from a second-floor balcony; they emphasize the bruise on Sandra's arm, the audio's violent sounds, and the blood on the shed as supporting that sequence. They also introduce Sandra's personal history: testimony establishes that Daniel lost much of his sight when he was struck by a motorcycle as a child, an accident for which Sandra blames Samuel's negligence. Prosecutors argue this longstanding bitterness provides motive, coupled with an alleged affair Sandra had with another woman a year before Samuel's death; they suggest Samuel's loud music was an act of jealous provocation on the day he died.

Sandra's defense counters by reconstructing the fall from the attic window and reiterating Vincent's earlier point that Samuel may have fallen accidentally or taken his own life. They point to Samuel's prior overdose attempt and to the pattern of injuries consistent with a fall striking intermediate structures. The defense also challenges the audio recording's interpretation, arguing that sounds of violence could result from self-inflicted blows and from Sandra's own defensive reactions. During testimony, Vincent and other defense witnesses emphasize that the recording captures only a single episode from a fraught marriage and should not determine criminal guilt.

The court hears from Samuel's psychiatrist, Dr. Jammal, who discusses Samuel's mental health, the overdose episode, and the medications he prescribed. Dr. Jammal testifies that Samuel blamed him for the prescription regimen and for contributing to Daniel's accident's aftermath. Sandra confronts the psychiatrist in the courtroom, openly expressing the resentment she has long held toward her husband for the child's injury and for the way Samuel's behavior changed following the accident. She explains, under oath, how Daniel's accident and its consequences altered family dynamics and Samuel's creativity as a writer. The prosecution uses this exchange to portray a marriage steeped in recrimination and to argue that Sandra's resentment could have escalated to violence.

At trial the audio tape is played for the jury in full. Samuel's voice can be heard leveling accusations of plagiarism and infidelity, claiming that Sandra has taken control of his life and that their marriage has long since lost warmth. Sandra's reactions on the tape are audible: she yells, she smashes a glass, and afterward there are sounds of force and of pain. The prosecution frames the recording as direct evidence of Sandra's violent capacity. Sandra testifies that she struck Samuel only once in a defensive or reactive manner and that the other noises are Samuel's deliberate self-harm to fabricate evidence against her. She explains the bruise on her arm as the result of being grabbed by Samuel; alternatively she says she hit the countertop while under stress. The defense stresses the recorded argument's ambiguity and warns against extrapolating a single confrontation into a murder conviction.

Prosecutors also bring Sandra's literary work into the courtroom. They read passages from a recent novel in which a character briefly entertains the idea of killing her husband after an escalating domestic conflict. The prosecution suggests Sandra draws heavily from her life when she writes, implying the book reveals premeditation or at least a dangerous mental cultivation of violent thought. Sandra rebuts this by asserting that fiction does not equal action and that authors often borrow from pain without committing crimes.

As proceedings move forward with witness after witness, the court schedules Daniel's testimony for the following Monday. The judge issues strict instructions to the household and appoints Marge Berger as a court monitor to ensure Daniel is not influenced or coached before he speaks. Daniel, distraught and struggling to organize his memories, asks that his mother leave the family home for the coming weekend; he wants solitude with Marge and Snoop to prepare. Sandra leaves as requested, and Marge stays with Daniel in the chalet.

During that weekend Daniel reveals to Marge details that link to Samuel's previous overdose. He recounts that when Samuel had attempted suicide months earlier, Snoop became ill soon after; Daniel believes the dog may have ingested some of Samuel's vomit and consequently vomited and exhibited symptoms he later recognizes. In a desperate attempt to test his memory and to understand whether poisoning or ingestion could explain the dog's symptoms, Daniel deliberately gives Snoop a large dose of aspirin, mimicking the earlier overdose substance. The dog becomes sick; Marge helps induce vomiting to clear Snoop's stomach and cares for him until he stabilizes. Daniel cries as he explains that he only realized the connection between Samuel's past overdose and Snoop's sickness after seeing the dog fall ill. This act, which he conducts without telling anyone in advance, crystallizes a plausible chain: Samuel's earlier overdose could have produced vomit containing aspirin that Snoop later ate, making Daniel suspect Samuel was suicidal in the past.

On the witness stand, Daniel testifies under the judge's safeguards while Marge monitors the process. He describes his father as volatile and recites a memory he carries vividly: a trip to the veterinarian with Samuel and Snoop during which Samuel spoke about preparing for the death of loved ones, telling Daniel that those he loves will die and that one must learn to carry on. Daniel interprets that conversation, in retrospect, as Samuel voicing suicidal thinking rather than merely teaching a lesson about mortality. He also addresses his earlier inconsistent statements to investigators, explaining the confusion he felt in the immediate aftermath of discovery. Daniel tells the court that he cannot reconcile the idea that his mother killed his father; the scenario of suicide, he says, fits the fragments of what he knows and feels in a way murder does not. He explicitly declines to assert that Sandra killed Samuel and instead says he believes his father may have taken his own life.

The prosecution attempts to undermine Daniel's credibility by pointing to his earlier mixed accounts and by highlighting his experiment with Snoop, which they label reckless and manipulative. Defense lawyers, conversely, place weight on Daniel's direct recollection of Samuel's overdose and the vet-conversation memory. Witnesses return to the stand to parse forensic details: pathologists testify about the head wound that occurred before Samuel's body hit the ground, and engineers and reconstruction experts discuss trajectories, the possible points of impact, and whether a blow prior to falling could have caused the injuries observed. Forensic testimony about the blood spatter on the shed is debated: the prosecution argues it is consistent with a violent blow and a subsequent fall, while the defense maintains that blood could have resulted from an earlier head injury sustained when Samuel hit the shed's roof during an accidental falling sequence.

After Daniel's testimony, the court deliberates on closing arguments. The prosecution presses the notion that Sandra's history of resentment, the recorded argument's violent sounds, the bruise on her arm, the physical evidence on the shed, and the apparent parallels between her fiction and the circumstances of Samuel's death combine to form a convincing narrative of homicide. The defense insists the evidence is circumstantial and that alternative explanations--suicide, an accidental fall, and Samuel's own self-inflicted injuries--remain plausible and unproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury returns a verdict of not guilty. The courtroom reacts with the contained noises of a trial's conclusion. Sandra receives the news while seated behind her attorneys; she allows herself a small nod but shows no immediate euphoria. Later, she shares a quiet celebratory dinner with Vincent, who admits he thought she would appear more relieved. Sandra says she knows relief will take time to arrive, that the aftermath will not resolve quickly.

Sandra returns to the chalet that night. Daniel confesses he was afraid of her reentering their home, and she admits she felt fear as well. They embrace in the living room, both raw from months of public scrutiny and private grief. Before going to bed Sandra pauses at a framed photograph of herself and Samuel placed on a shelf; she studies the image, fingers lingering on the frame, and then turns off the light. Snoop jumps up on the couch, curls against Sandra, and she closes her eyes. The film's last moments show Sandra asleep, Snoop pressed beside her, and the photograph of Samuel visible in the lamplight. Although the cause of Samuel's death remains contested in court narrative and public perception, no legal finding declares Sandra guilty; she walks free, returns to her son, and the household resumes its quiet rhythms with the photograph and the dog as constant witnesses to what has happened.

At the end of Anatomy of a Fall (2023), Sandra is acquitted of murdering her husband Samuel after a tense trial, largely due to her son Daniel's testimony that supports the possibility of Samuel's suicide. Sandra returns home to Daniel, but their relationship is strained and distant, reflecting the emotional toll of the ordeal.

Expanded narrative of the ending, scene by scene:

The film's climax unfolds in the courtroom where Sandra stands accused of pushing her husband Samuel to his death from their isolated home. The prosecution presents a case built on circumstantial evidence and the couple's volatile relationship, including a secret recording of a heated argument between Sandra and Samuel. This recording reveals mutual resentment but does not conclusively prove murder.

As the trial progresses, the defense struggles to provide hard evidence to counter the prosecution's narrative. The tension heightens when the judge announces a weekend recess before Daniel, their 11-year-old visually impaired son, is to give his testimony. Daniel is visibly upset by the trial's revelations and the strain on his family.

During the weekend break, Daniel confides in his court-appointed guardian, Marge, expressing a desire for distance from his mother. He recalls that Samuel had previously attempted suicide, and this memory triggers an experiment: Daniel gives their dog Snoop some aspirin, replicating the symptoms the dog showed when it fell ill around the time of Samuel's earlier suicide attempt. The dog's reaction convinces Daniel that Samuel's suicide attempt was real and that the dog's illness was caused by ingesting Samuel's vomit containing the pills.

Returning to court, Daniel explains his experiment and shares a conversation he had with his father that suggests Samuel was contemplating suicide. This testimony introduces reasonable doubt about Sandra's guilt.

The jury ultimately acquits Sandra, but the film closes on a bittersweet note. Sandra returns home to Daniel, but their reunion is marked by emotional distance. Daniel's idealized image of his parents is shattered, and although he does not believe his mother is a murderer, he cannot be certain of the full truth. The film ends emphasizing the complexity of human relationships and the difficulty of truly knowing another person.

In terms of character fates:

• Sandra is legally cleared but emotionally burdened, returning to a fractured family life.
• Daniel survives the ordeal but is emotionally changed, struggling with his perceptions of both parents.
• Samuel is dead, with the exact circumstances of his fall left ambiguous, though suicide is strongly suggested.

This ending highlights the film's themes of ambiguity, the limits of knowledge, and the painful complexity of family dynamics.

There is no post-credit scene in Anatomy of a Fall (2023). The film's narrative concludes with a series of emotionally charged, character-driven moments that linger in ambiguity, but the story definitively ends before the credits roll. The final scenes focus on Sandra's release from the courthouse after being declared innocent, her muted reaction to the verdict, and a quiet, intimate moment with her dog, Snoop, which underscores her isolation and unresolved grief. The credits begin without any additional narrative content, visual stinger, or epilogue--nothing is shown after the credits start. The film's deliberate ambiguity and emotional resonance are contained entirely within the main body of the story, and viewers are not given any further clues, revelations, or scenes once the credits appear.

The audio recordings reveal a heated argument where Samuel accuses Sandra of cheating, plagiarism, and controlling him. The argument escalates into physical violence, but it is unclear who hit whom first. Sandra admits to slapping Samuel and throwing a glass at a wall, while claiming Samuel hit himself. This recording is used by the prosecution to suggest Sandra's guilt.

Daniel, the visually impaired son, testifies that he believes his father killed himself. He recounts a visit to the vet where his father made a confession that now reads as suicidal. His testimony is pivotal in Sandra's acquittal, as it supports the theory that Samuel's death was a suicide rather than a homicide.

The prosecution argues that Sandra's novels reflect her personal life and conflicts, using a minor character in her most recent novel who contemplates similar actions as a parallel to Sandra's alleged crime. They claim she wrote her life into her stories, implying premeditation. Sandra and her defense team protest this interpretation, stating the novel's character does not represent her.

Snoop, Daniel's guide dog, is involved in a critical scene where Daniel tests a theory about his father's death by giving Snoop a dangerous dose of aspirin, which nearly causes the dog to die but ultimately survives. This act is part of Daniel's process of understanding and coping with the events surrounding his father's death and his mother's trial.

Daniel lost his eyesight after being hit by a bike when Samuel, his father, was late to pick him up from school and had to call a babysitter who arrived late. Samuel feels guilty for this accident, which is a source of tension in the family and contributes to the complex dynamics explored during the trial.

Anatomy of a Fall (2023) is not considered family friendly and is best suited for mature audiences. The film is rated R in the United States for some language, sexual references, and violent images. In New Zealand, it is rated M for offensive language, suicide references, and content that may disturb. Below is a detailed, non-spoiler summary of potentially objectionable or upsetting scenes and aspects, organized to help parents and sensitive viewers make informed decisions.

Potentially Objectionable or Upsetting Content

Opening Scene – Discovery of a Body The film opens with the discovery of a man's body lying outside a window, surrounded by a substantial pool of blood. The scene is visually intense, with visible bloodstains on the snow and a close-up of the head injury. The camera does not linger gratuitously, but the image is stark and could be disturbing, especially for younger viewers or those sensitive to graphic content.

Courtroom Reenactments and Autopsy During the trial, there are clinical reenactments using a dummy to simulate how the body might have fallen. These scenes are not gory but are presented with a detached, forensic tone that some may find unsettling. There is also a brief scene showing a male corpse during an autopsy, with partial rear nudity and some pubic hair visible.

Emotionally Intense Arguments A pivotal scene involves an audio recording of a heated, emotionally raw argument between a married couple. The argument includes the sounds of breaking glass, physical hitting, and verbal aggression. The tension is palpable, and the implication of intimate partner violence, though not explicitly shown, is clear and could be distressing for viewers sensitive to domestic conflict.

Themes of Suicide and Mental Health References to suicide and mental wellbeing are woven throughout the narrative. The circumstances of the death are ambiguous, and characters repeatedly discuss whether it was suicide or something else. These discussions, along with the visual reenactments, could be upsetting for those who have experienced loss or struggle with mental health issues.

Childhood Trauma There is a reference to a child being hit by a motorbike, including a description of the injuries sustained. While not shown on screen, the emotional impact of this event is explored in detail and may be distressing for parents or those sensitive to child endangerment.

Animal Distress In one scene, a dog is fed aspirin, which causes it to struggle to breathe and vomit. The animal's distress is brief but could upset animal lovers or younger viewers.

Language The film contains moderate profanity, including strong language such as "fuck," "shit," "bitch," and "asshole," used in both English and subtitled dialogue.

Sexual References There are occasional verbal references to sexual activity, but no explicit scenes. The references are mild and contextual, relating to the characters' relationships.

Emotional Tone and Character Dynamics

The film's emotional landscape is complex and often intense. Characters grapple with guilt, suspicion, grief, and the strain of a marriage under scrutiny. The protagonist, Sandra, is internally conflicted, her motivations and emotions carefully guarded, which adds to the film's tension. Her son, Daniel, who is visually impaired, faces a moral dilemma as the key witness, and his emotional journey is central to the story. The film does not shy away from exploring the psychological toll of the events on all involved, making it emotionally heavy at times.

Conclusion

Anatomy of a Fall is a critically acclaimed drama that delves deeply into family trauma, legal scrutiny, and emotional vulnerability. Its mature themes, intense scenes, and frank discussions of suicide, mental health, and domestic conflict make it unsuitable for children and potentially upsetting for sensitive viewers. Parents and those affected by similar issues should exercise caution.