Amour (by Michael Haneke)

Peckinpah's? Saw it once probably 20 years ago. Problematic, disturbing, worth discussing.

Yeah. Its been 4-5 since I've seen it.

Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs": C or D? (SPOILERS!!)

V interestng dicussion w/a few echoes here - who is the enemy within and out there, who is nice or nasty.

Just picked up the new Sight&Sound, and our old pal Mark Cousins has a good piece on the use of space and the idea of 'territory' in Amour (he draws a a useful comparison w/ Polanski's use of interior space in Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant - both Haneke and Polanski are meticulous planners and anti-improvisation, of course.) Cousins also writes:

"The wife is assertive but, as her body dies, the husband becomes sovereign. And what do we in the film world call sovereignty? We call it authorship. The man in Amour is the author of his wife's dying, and many of the events that lead up to (or down to) it too. In a way, he's the filmmaker, shuffling around, creating rules and controlling events in a studio space."

chasing pigeons

thought this was fantastic

I'm sure anyone who has gone through something similar with a parent will find this very accurate. Two things in particular with my own mom: the not-eating, and the continual, unspecified discomfort/pain. I didn't find anything in here that was the least bit cruel or exploitive; it seemed like a very compassionate film to me.

Having said that, and fully understanding why it's something that will greatly affect many people who see it, I felt a little on the outside the whole way through. I've been posting about Six Feet Under elsewhere, and there's been stuff in that that has moved me a lot more. I also thought about Frederick Wiseman's Near Death and Alan King's Dying at Grace--they might have got in the way a bit.

The two leads deserve any and all awards they might get.

My parents had the same names as these two characters, my mom died last summer, and I was unmoved. Fuck this cynical movie.

Don't know what you're complaining about exactly. How is it cynical? The best Haneke movie I've seen. The oppressiveness he mitigates with the force and intelligence of Jean-Louis Trintingant, who deserves a nomination more than Riva. The second time the damn pigeon appeared I thought Haneke had lost his mind, and he's not up to the ambiguity of the ending (expecting ambiguity from Haneke is like expecting pratfalls from Bergman), but these are flyspecks on a good movie.

Endemic to Haneke's dry, ratchet-turning movies is the anticipation of an Inevitable Awful Event—let us call it the "IAE"—an event in which the incipient horror of the human condition pops out from behind the veneer of civilization, an event that the veteran Haneke viewer understands, upon going in, is part of the contract. The IAE breaks the brittle surface of Haneke's style, and the bracing plunge after the crack of the ice delivers a harsh lesson

this could not be more off the money re Amour. The Incipient Horror of the Human Condition is made most clear early in the film when Riva refuses to join Trintingnant for a nightcap.

otm, i actually kinda loved this (and am on record as not being down with haneke's usual thing)

er, alfred otm, that is

Yeah I adored this. It was impossible for me to not feel the echoes of watching my mom and grandmother pass away, but I didn't feel the supposed cruelty of it at all. It just felt honest, and very much a love story.

I want my promotional pillowcase

http://24.media.tumblr.com/d1b436768788c7c7c1caae1843d3a56c/tumblr_mfq4x533vX1rwpn15o2_250.jpghttp://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-19676472.jpg?size=67&uid=f1700ea4-9ff7-4d39-8d19-67de5a7e2c2b

These two actors aren't so bad

I'm just gonna look at old photos of trintignant and riva all night I think.

saw this twice in the theater within a few days. having seen quite a few of hanneke's previous films and hated no small percentage of them, i spent much of the first viewing standoffishly expecting sadism and dreading some gut-punching IAE (is he gonna squash the pigeon or what?). kind of wrecked the film for me. second time around, i was much less defensive, and it seemed more tender than cruel, though definitely both. would up loving it. easily my favorite MH film.

hanneke

Hors Satan => film of 2013!!! YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:23 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM!

When Hors Saran came out on DVD here, I was shocked to see it described as starring "the late" David Dewaele. Shocking.

http://24fpsverite.com/news/david-dewaele-un-seignor-miserable/

Didn't know that either Alba, thank you for posting that. It's an incredible performance - so much sadness in his eyes.

Just read a passage in Proust that strongly reminded me of a scene in Amour - I wonder if Haneke was consciously referencing it (Proust is describing the last days of his dying grandmother, Madame Amedee, and the ministrations of their servant Francoise):

"By dint of repeatedly asking her whether she would like her hair done, Francoise ended up persuading herself that the request had come from my grandmother. She armed herself with brushes, combs, eau de Cologne, a wrapper. "It can't hurt Madame Amedee," she said, "if I just comb her hair; nobody's ever too weak to be combed." In other words, one is never too weak for another person to be able, for her own satisfaction, to comb one's hair. But when I came into the room I saw between the cruel hands of Francoise, as blissfully happy as though she were in the act of restoring my grandmother to health, beneath aged straggling tresses which scarcely had the strength to withstand the contact of the comb, a head which, incapable of maintaining the position into which it had been forced, was rolling about in a ceaseless whirl in which sheer debility alternated with spasms of pain."

That's brilliant!

Happy End is coming out more widely next week:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/happy-end-welcome-departure-michael-haneke?utm_content=buffer8b299&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I caught the preview screening and I half-agree with the review, in the sense that this is like a bunch of outtakes from various Haneke films that gradially come together. Much of the concept is a re-hash of Hidden (and that all goes way back to Benny's video), with continuity from Amour (The Trintignant-Huppert father-daughter r/ship). This is a bit like Elle at times in its set-up (you could argue that film is what Haneke would make if he had the balls for low-grade eurotrash and fun), but what Verhoven wouldn't do is the Georges-Eve relationship. The scene where they talk in the room after breakfast is one of the strongest scenes you'll see all year, and sorta catches you by surprise a bit (I watched A Nos Amours recently and its reminiscent of Pialat-Sandrine late-night conversation in its no-bullshit approach...saying what has to be said between two people, as hard as that might be).

Its a minor thing but I found myself laughing really hard with this film at times. Think that's a first. I don't know whether he'll make another film again (he is 75) so this might be a good way to go. Hope I'm wrong and there's more.

he seems pretty robust for a man in his 70s. I'm sure he's got a few more to go. looking forward to seeing this. if there's anyone ready to LOL at a Haneke film it's me. I love him.

& i think we can safely disregard about 90% of ILX stupidity re any Haneke film.

...which can be summed up in a good Glasgow saying: "You're not often right but you're wrong again"

I like that saying. it me rly.

i liked this a lot and thought it was lol funny as well. it's kind of strange the way H has trained you to watch his previous films so that you for e.g. scan static wide shots for clues and although it is, in a sense, a bit of a rework of previous tropes it's not that kind of film at all. there's no pattern. it's quite free and loosely structured. maybe more could or should have been done with the wedding dinner scene, like a performance artist acting like a gorilla, for example /jk

Maybe in the next one.

the seat behind me after Happy End (for real)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4okt44j6ffwv5jz/IMG_0218.jpg??raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4okt44j6ffwv5jz/IMG_0218.jpg?raw=1

still can't understand the laziness about starting a new thread for a new film by a worthless auteur

you think they deserve a new thread per film but are worthless?

No need to start a thread for every single new film. You've seen the stories about bitcoin, every new transaction kills trees.

Happy End specifically references Amour at one point, so it makes sense to revive this thread.

it's quite free and loosely structured

Yes, I really liked this aspect; Haneke brilliant as ever at suggesting other stories behind the stories, things unsaid, secrets kept from the audience and perhaps even from the auteur.

Yeah mentioned the continuities above but since Morbs hates Amour...I think where I disagreed with the S&S rev is that Amour is probably my favorite of his films from the last decade, and it's a pretty unique depiction of a certain phase in a relationship. Something I will return to again whenever I get to a re-watch.

i wasn't quite sure what happened with Pierrot at the dinner - does his mother break his finger or what? i was also confused by Pierrot's karaoke performance - what happens at the end of that?

This film was very funny. I think the sight of isabelle huppert in anything now automatically makes me ready to laugh. Her main thing seems to be often that she is too busy to be in whatever film she is supposed to be acting in. Often it feels like she is just trying to finish the conversation the other actor is trying to have with her so she can get her coat and leave. I saw her acting in a terrible play once and she was not nearly so funny as she is in this. She's gotten much better as well. I rewatched La Ceremonie not too long ago and keeps jumping about the place making funny faces.

There's shot near the beginning where IH is driving along the security fences in Calais on the mobile phone, along a very modern motorway that made me think of this line from an interview with Deleuze where he says "Control is not discipline. You do not confine people with a highway. But by making highways, you multiply the means of control. I am not saying this is the only aim of highways, but people can travel infinitely and ‘freely’ without being confined while being perfectly controlled. That is our future." I kept thinking about this all the way through the film, the distinction between these different regimes of power, discibline for refugees control for the vapid bourgeoisie. The security cameras which are watching the site (during the collapse) and the CCTV along the fences become are mirrored by the highways, mobile phones, email and social media. I think this was a major theme of the film, the industriousness of the middle classes in making their own prisons. Like John Lewis.

I could have done without the karaoke scene. That was pretty tiresome.

I kept thinking of Muriel by Alain Resnais which has many similarities but is more interesting and much funnier.

This is probably the best "new release" I saw this year.

i wasn't quite sure what happened with Pierrot at the dinner - does his mother break his finger or what? i was also confused by Pierrot's karaoke performance - what happens at the end of that?

Unexpected!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/31/michael-haneke-kelvins-book-10-part-english-language-tv-series

noted

Recommend me some Michael Haneke

Sorry, didn't see that one. Could be his World on a Wire!

psyche

Hmm. This Guardian Film article ranks Amour as Haneke's best movie.

Michael Haneke films – ranked!

I've only seen four of his films, and not the best-known ones; but 71 Fragments... is very good and even has some propulsion to it.

You knew that Haneke's career wasn't going to take off in the US when he refused the obvious subtitle for his remake of Funny Games: Sadistic Boogaloo.

I think the sight of isabelle huppert in anything now automatically makes me ready to laugh. Her main thing seems to be often that she is too busy to be in whatever film she is supposed to be acting in.