Anatomy of a Fall Explained (for dummies)
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 01. 2024
- Let's talk about Anatomy of a Fall; consider this an explanation of who or what really killed Samuel: was it Sandra (played by Sandra Huller) or something more sinister: like maybe a mid-life crisis?
Let's talk about Anatomy of a Fall; consider this an explanation of how Sandra (played by Sandra Huller) is framed as guilty throughout the movie - the writing techniques that made this so efficient -
Edited with Gling AI: bit.ly/46bGeYv
Anatomy of a fall explained
A Cards and Reels Production
Created by Oseremen “Josemaria” Ojesebholo and Ehidiamhen “John-Paul” Ojesebholo - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The dog’s ball did it. Samuel was playing ball with snoop through the open boards in the attic (scene: ball bouncing down the stairs). Snoop brought the ball back and Daniel called him for a bath. Later Samuel slipped and fell out the window. He wasn’t suicidal, Sandra wasn’t homicidal. It was a pure accident.
yesss this is also my theory or what I choose to believe to make it make sense and everyone be innocent 🙂
@@charlenep34 😊
She had no motive to kill him.
She hd no motive to live with him either
@@ixa.m9915 Divorce
She wanted to move away from this life and wanted to fuck someone else. She doesn't care about anyone but herself come on.
Thank you for this video. I was looking for an analysis from a more psychological perspective on Samuel's feeling of being small, and being imposed on. I thought your comment about the blame-game, where Sandra couldn't have done nothing more without seeming like she was mothering him into self fulfillment and success, was on point. I think men yet don't realize that women are not responsible for saving or changing anybody. And when this mothering place is rejected, they part to the blame-game, as if this "selfless generosity" should guarantee men some kind of reward... If this was a true dynamic of generosity, it is obvious he wouldn't have engulfed himself in self-blame and failure. He maybe would have been able to talk and ask her for more help, or even suggest what to change in order for him do have more time to write, but he chose to complety blame her for his own misery, while being immersed in a never-elaborated grief and blame regarding his sons's accident... I wonder if there is a concept or a name for this kind of narrative/behavior, where someone truly believes the other is imposing everything merely because they are not capable of dealing with their own choices. On the other hand, I was left wondering how much do we influence our partners? Or let be influenced? How easy is it to just go alngo rather than make your own choices? I believe the fear she talked about is just this, fear of taking the driver's seat and dealing with the consequences of our choices - and he certainly couldn't deal with the consequence of not picking his son up...
Finally, maybe there are just many people who are incapable of dealing with their own incapabilities, and it's easier to point the finger than to look at it, acknowledge it and work on it. Our incapabilities do not define who we are, and we can all improve, learn and grow.
What you were looking for is a victim complex which he definitely has. But she's also selfish and dismissive of it.
Awesome video. Following the channel now ❤❤keep up the good work!
Thank you, I certainly will
Exactly
Breaking bad couple dynamic, alternate outcome
She didn’t kill him, but she’s still a horrible person. If you know your husband is on antidepressants, and you cheated on him multiple times, and your successful book was based on his 27 page outline, and he tried to kill himself….why would you say such horrible things to him the day before he died?
She did not physically push him over the window’s ledge. However, she knew he was close to the edge figuratively, and she figuratively pushed him.
How hard would it have been to say “I’ll take over some responsibilities, so you can finish the renovations and write?”
Nah man.
She heard her son yelling and calling her when he found his father dead!
Q: How can she sleep 💤 with music on full loud, yet, wakes from her son shouting and yelling?
A: She is a compulsive liar from start, stealing from his book, cheating, her bruises on the arm..what a narcissist.
The son lied at the end to save his mother. Heck, he even tried to kill the dog. Like mother like son.
I do not know if she did or not but if she did good for her, you are CLEARLY a man if you think he is the victim. This guy has a habit of blasting music so loud it shakes the house and everyone is cool with it, he is responsabile for the accident and he decided to homeschool his son (not because he is noble but because he feels guilty), he decided to move back in the place he was born in a country were she doesn't speak the language and choose and isoleted place too.
They have economical problems and yet insted of making the decisision of putting his son back in school he just complains that he has never time to write like it's her fault.
He is the one refusing to have intimacy after an incident he is responsabile for and even if she "robbed" his book he had abbandoned it @@t.k.1319
watch their discussion scene again if you still think that. She never pushed him to the edge, he did it himself and was blaming her
@st1xq Yes, in this argue the right was on her side. He was miserable, but because of his own decisions. He also allowed Sandra to write a book based on his idea, but after the success of the book, he changed his mind, he was jealous and mad at himself that he couldn't make anything good of this idea and she could. So he decided to go back to the writing... but he couldn't make anything good, even his agent wasn't really impressed.
She did it and the kid lied to protect his mom.
Yes
Only murder can create the three streaks of blood stain
I disagree. Based on the only piece of indisputable true evidence displayed in the trial. The argument recorded without her knowledge. He is clearly wounded, and filled with guilt by the incident with their son. Meanwhile she shows no emotion or sympathy for this huge trauma. She amplifies her merits just to self impose and win the argument in a dishonest manner. She claims that he is insane, another low shot, also known as gaslighting. She is cynical about stealing his book premise, minimizing the obvious moral issue implied. Even Living in France is used as weapon, as if she had no choice. A clear demonstration of her discard of logic in favor of psychological manipulation. Then she blames him for her sexual frustration. Making fair to assume that she never was in this relationship because of love, but as way to gain from his creativity. Finally he says, without reason to be lying, she's a monster in the eyes of their son. The final scene of her hugging the dog instead of Daniel symbolizes perfectly the truth she managed to hide in court.