The Piano Teacher

So tell me -- what did I miss?

Linking with the ILE's Hepburn obsession,Katherine H. performed as Clara Schumann in 'Song of Love' which is about the triangle between yes,Brahms, and the two Schumanns. Paul Heinreid is Schumann,but no clue on Brahms. It seems PH enjoyed to be the great man but neglected husband in this kind of menage a trois...

I've been thinking about this film quite a bit for the last two days, trying to make sense of it, because I don't like it when things are both acclaimed and pointless. So here are some thoughts.

**SPOILERS**

First a question: Why hasn't anybody caught her doing this crazy stuff yet? She still has her job and a good social standing. She seems to do a lot of weird stuff in public. Just luck?

To me, the main theme seems to be about power. I think Erika was initially attracted to Walter, and she didn't like the effect of this on her. Therefore, she voted against him in the audition to push him away. Later on, she notices Walter sitting with her female student at the piano. She puts broken glass in her student's coat pocket, and then when the student cuts her hand, Erika tells Walter to go to her aid, possibly trying to pawn him off on the student. Then Walter meets Erika in the bathroom for a tryst, and Erika shows that she has the upper hand by withholding action until Walter reads Erika's to-be-written letter.

Another power thing - she sees one of her young male students at a porn magazine stand, and she later reprimands him for that. I don't see this a a self-loathing thing within Erika (speaking out against porn while viewing it herself), but she is using it to demonstrate a sort of strange victory over him by bring up the shame within him. Also, when she is waiting at porn booth, she is clearly and consciously making the other waiting men uncomfortable.

Erika's female student: she seems to be the opposite of Erika. The student is often crying, and Erika is cold and emotionless. Maybe, in some way, Erika is jealous of the student's ability to be freely emotional, instead of having things expressed in privately masochistic ways. When Erika's mother tells her that her father died, there is no reaction. So little time is spent on that scene, and that makes me think that the director *didn't* want to you dwell on the idea that maybe Erika's father is responsible for her messed up sexual behavior. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Erika's *mother*, on the other hand. Sleeping in the same bed with her middle-aged daughter certainly must have had a profound effect on Erika's sexuality. I'm not sure what to make of the scene where Erika frantically kisses her mother in bed, but the scene where the mother is locked in her bedroom was probably choreographed to torture her.

Okay, before that uncomfortable scene is the disturbing letter, which is a list of icky things that Erika wants Walter to do to her. I think Erika is more concerned with the act of Walter reading the letter than with the actual S&M acts themselves. I think Erika would consider it a triumph if Walter couldn't cut it (no pun intended) and was intimidated by the whole thing, refusing to go through with it. When Erika mutilates herself in the tub scene, she is possibly demonstrating her fortitude and absolute control over herself.

So, when Walter actually *does* go through with the acts in the letter, Erika has met her match. She's paralyzed, emotionless, and surrendering, unlike in the previous bathroom tryst scene where she's in control.

Then there's the last scene. Erika is to play in a recital, and she brings a knife in her handbag. She runs into Walter, who is clearly unfazed. Erika feels defeated, stabs herself, and walks out of the concert hall. NOW, someone will certainly notice that, right, considering she would have missed the concert? So then the film ends, because I would guess that Erika's secret life and mental illness may not be so secret after that.

Two scenes I haven't discussed:
* Drive-in. I'm not sure this really adds anything to the movie, other than to say, "Hey, this gal's really messed up!"
* Hockey rink. Maybe this scene demonstrates Erika's eroding defenses against Walter and also possibly sexual immaturity (by gagging and vomiting).

So. This is one screwed up movie. But now, I don't think it's just a sequence of disturbing scenes (well, someone explain the drive-in scene to me). Some scenes perhaps didn't need to be so graphic (the porn booth, the tub scene), but I think the film makes some sort of sense. I feel horrible now, though.

''Drive-in. I'm not sure this really adds anything to the movie, other than to say, "Hey, this gal's really messed up!"''

both scenes are there to say: that hey! she needs help.

erika is repressed. she cannot make love so i thought by going to drive ins and watching porn would at least satisfy a need to see these acts (one on the remote and the other first hand).

I watched this movie six months ago so I'm not sure I can't remember everything with the level of detail required to discuss this with you.

alex is wrong BTW. any movie that leaves asking questions and proviking v v long posts on interweb messaghe boards is worth it.

''Plus, "Have you read Adorno?" is now my dream chat up line.''

never thought of this is as a chat up line but I might try this on the pub tonight.

''As for the Adorno side of things - wasn't Adorno some hot-shot musician as well?''

yes, and a composer but not a v good one i believe (haven't heard anything tho').

haneke films expect so much of you

Cf. student films on racism: two black men in an alley, a white women walks past, the student film splits either way depending on how 'good' the little blighters are: 1) it concentrates on the panorama of the scene and the woman's fidgeting, worried eyes: ergo woman implicated as the racist: you are let off; 2) concentrates on the woman and her trenchcoat in the wind: you become anxious NOT because of the worry in her eyes but yr own preconceptions (obv assuming you DO get anxious) ergo YOU are implicated. fuck you!

There's also much more to Funny Games than the (ho-hum) 'implication of spectator in on-screen violence' - or rather, I thought it was REALLY exciting/scary, worked as a THRILLER, and that all the meta/extratextual whatsits pretty much looked after themselves...

Martin - I feel much the same way about Breaking The Waves and Cutter's Way and perhaps, but in a lesser serious way, Justin's Like I Love You. They should all be seen/listened to.

They showed this recently on Channel 4.

One of the most amazing things about this film is Isabelle Huppert's movement. The way she runs down the stairs in the scene where she sabotages the young girl's pocket, all her fast movements are almost 'boyish'. There's a swagger, a quickness of muscle that just doesn't fit with the idea of this woman being a sheltered tender piano genius. It's a beautiful contradiction, her demeanour not matching up with the technologies of conditioning her body has been through. A terrific terrific film.

Now, though, looking back on things, I am still stunned by the acting and the way the visuals have stuck with my mind, many months after watching them. Not an 'upper' and there are some major flaws, but it is oddly compelling.

My initial reaction, though, is that it's not a great film. There's something self-satisfied about its severity, bordering on smugness. It congratulates itself for being a movie willing to show you what it shows, and the audience is expected to congratulate it (and Huppert in particular) in turn. I can understand the attraction of the role to a performer like Huppert, because she's a serious actress and it was a serious challenge. But that's the thing -- I can understand the motivations of the people who wanted to make the movie, but I have a hard time thinking of a motivation for wanting to see it.

it doesn't really work, though, as a story about a piano teacher. the open cliffhanger of 'what happens?' is underwhelming, if such a thing is possible.

Ugh, strike 2 for Haneke after Funny Games. I didn't even know he directed this film.

I'll be chewing this one over for a couple of days.

it's a bullshit movie with a great performance. (oh i already said that on this thread. well, it's still true.)

''As for the Adorno side of things - wasn't Adorno some hot-shot musician as well?''

yes, and a composer but not a v good one i believe (haven't heard anything tho').

I have heard a string quartet of his since, my recollection of it was as a very 1910s-20s sorta work in the way the strings would move.

H's performance, undoubtedly great as it is, is kinda used to talk down the all-round excellence of this film. As a character and the way it is drawn, the teacher is totally unreal, so its remarkable how she makes as convincing as it is, and how I even sympathize and feel for her at the end when she is merely a spoiled child (as Daria puts it). May have a lot of bullshit in it but I like his bullshit.

John Waters needs to remake it.

It desperately needs improvement by someone, anyone