Anatomy of a Fall, the 2023 Oscar recipient for best original screenplay and directed by French national Justine Triet, reconstructs a fatal fall to examine the disintegration of the romantic relationship between the film’s leading couple, Sandra Voyter and Samuel Maleski.
Contrary to popular belief, breakups comparable to those depicted in the film are not uncommon. The rate of disastrous marriages experienced a substantial increase at the conclusion of the 20th century, as indicated by global data.
The idiom “half of all marriages terminate in divorce” was originated by the fact that as many as fifty percent of marriages in certain Western nations do not last beyond twenty-five years.
Triet asserts that “it is strange that a relationship can function.” “The film aims to delve deeply into the horrific nature of the majority.”
It is imperative to acknowledge that divorce statistics do not account for the number of unhappy relationships. Some enduring marriages in the twenty-first century that appear to be more loving and robust than their predecessors, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority may be miserable. It would seem that this dichotomy—extensive failure or remarkable success—encapsulates the current state of matrimony in Western societies. The “all or nothing” union is the term used to describe such a union.
Enhancing the passage of relationship energy
Scientific research has demonstrated that romantic relationships are prone to ebb and flow, leading to a general decrease in satisfaction levels as time progresses. This decline is averted by successful couples, who establish a level of satisfaction that can persist indefinitely. In contrast, a significant number of individuals experience a gradual decline to the point where the possibility of terminating the relationship is imminent.
Relationship psychology demonstrates that affection is insufficient to sustain a couple’s union; effort is required. This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, which posits that a confined system, including a marriage, degenerates in the absence of energy, according to relationship scientist John Gottman. As he puts it, “your marriage will deteriorate over time even if you refrain from committing any errors but do nothing to ameliorate the situation.”
As a result, the “all or nothing” theory requires a significant investment of both time and effort to achieve success in a relationship. Samuel and Sandra in Triet’s film are destined to disappointment, while couples who exhibit this commitment will experience immense satisfaction. and encounter disappointment and dissatisfaction in their romantic partnership.
Comparing a decline to success, a separation to a fall. The latter is regulated by appropriate levels of additional exertion. An effort gap exists, necessitating that both partners surpass their preferable level of performance, with the more efficient partner exerting a greater amount of effort.
Nevertheless, how do certain couples manage to endure this decline and preserve their happiness? Every couple commences as romantic partners who aspire to eternal bliss together, similar to Samuel and Sandra. In the opinion of some, they constitute the “Adam and Eve” relationship—the biblical archetype of a long-lasting, harmonious union—provided that they are compatible and prepared to collaborate.
Analysis of the Relationship Between “Adam and Eve”
The “all or nothing” theory is validated by examining this relationship model in conjunction with dynamic systems.
A dynamic system is a mathematical instrument that is used to understand the evolution of a variable over a specific period of time. In romantic relationships, the “feeling” of affection that a couple experiences is crucial. Because effort is necessary to sustain the relationship, it becomes a dynamic system that is regulated by effort. In an effort to guarantee its eternality, effort regulates “feeling.”
Our research has established that a successful relationship requires an effort level that exceeds the preferred level of the partners, and that this effort disparity is difficult to sustain over time, as a result of the application of this effort control theory.
The anatomical term for a collapse
Sandra Voyter asserts in Triet’s film that there are periods of chaos in a relationship, during which one may engage in conflict alone, with their partner, or against their spouse.
Samuel and Sandra’s dynamic is characterized by traits that are common to all romantic partnerships. Initially, the sensation is exceedingly intense; it is universally acknowledged that it will never diminish. Both parties are prepared to contribute to the relationship’s satisfaction through their own endeavors, and they are cognizant that an external event or shock will inevitably disrupt this state.
Generally, homogamous couples, which are composed of individuals from comparable socioeconomic, cultural, or religious backgrounds, demonstrate a higher degree of stability. In contrast, a significant number of couples opt to be heterogamous, which indicates that they differ in one or more of the aforementioned aspects.
At its most basic level, heterogamy can be defined as an incongruity or imbalance in the extent to which one partner effectively converts exertion into affective states or pleasure, transcending an individual’s situation. This discrepancy may lead to asymmetrical levels of effort being invested in the relationship’s success, which are already higher than the desired level of effort for both parties.
This phenomenon is also apparent in the dynamic between Samuel and Sandra. In a particular scene of the film, Samuel emphasizes this disparity, to which Sandra responds by expressing her disappointment with the idea of a couple exerting equal effort.
Who is the most significant contributor?
We are capable of simulating the progression of happiness within a partnership by employing our most recent computational models to assess the dynamics of unbalanced effort levels in couples, which incorporate both predictable and uncertain environmental conditions. Sandra is correct; our simulations indicate that not all partners are required to employ the same level of effort.
Sandra and Samuel’s critique of one another’s efforts or lack thereof to preserve the relationship in a single scene of the film exemplifies the negative couple dynamics that were prevalent during the era: each character has a beef to pick. Furthermore, the film implies that Samuel has or is currently exerting a larger effort in their relationship than Sandra. Our analysis has unexpectedly revealed that the partner with superior emotional intelligence must make a greater effort to sustain the relationship. The film implies that this individual is Samuel.
A controlled relationship in the aftermath of a jolt or impact: effort trajectories (pink and green curves) to recover from the impact and halt the descent of the “feeling” (blue curve). The recovery period is characterized by a relatively greater increase in the exertion of the most efficient (pink curve). The ratio may decrease due to the combination of diminished “feeling” (blue curve) and the toll taken by additional effort over time, particularly for the most effective companion.
Image obtained from Fig. 5 in J. Herrera y J.-M. Rey (2021), Plos One 16(12): e0260529.
The success of a partnership is significantly influenced by external occurrences.
Our analysis also indicates that in order for the couple to endure a stressful episode, both partners must elevate their effort levels. Nevertheless, the effort level of the more efficient companion must be elevated. Sandra and Samuel’s relationship is significantly impacted by a series of tragic events in the film, which have a lasting and significant impact on the narrative trajectory. This is the reason why Samuel experiences significantly more tension than Sandra.
Math predicts a conclusion that aligns with the film’s narrative: the relationship disintegrates as a result of the most emotionally capable partner’s constant overexertion, which is exacerbated by a protracted period of crisis. This also results in Samuel’s downfall in the film. Nevertheless, the actual result is frequently considerably more intricate and unpredictable.
