'Amour' (Michael Haneke, 2012)

[NoirJo]

A towering achievement. Haneke's austere and detailed direction creates a claustrophobic and painfully realistic experience for the viewers. It's an ode to love, death, affection and acceptance.

Michael Haneke is one of the few auteurs who've never disappointed me. After excelling with 'Hidden' (2005) and 'The White Ribbon' (2009), he creates another masterpiece that is both humane and slyly political. It's not just a film about the difficulties and pain of aging. It's not just about love's essence and the limits one can reach for his beloved people. It's also about accepting death as something natural and inevitable. It's about the social reaction to aging, it's about old people's loneliness and the way they're cut off and not understood by their own children. I could go on and on mentioning all the themes Haneke's brilliant film covers. It's such a multi-dimensional, multi-layered achievement, it's a true masterpiece.

Jean-Louis Trintignant is absolutely sublime. This is one of the greatest acting achievements in his career. It's a deeply esoteric performance and a beautifully touching one. Trintignant has always been a brilliantly expressive actor and he's once again excellent here. He plays a troubled and tortured man, a husband who has to face his most terrible fears. Emmanuelle Riva goes even further with her performance. It's not only a devastatingly emotional performance, portraying a gentle and lovely woman whose life is shaken after the first stroke. Her facial expressions are amazingly deep and nuanced, it's one of the most accurate and detailed performances I've seen. This woman accepts death and is grateful for the life she's lived. But once pain becomes unbearable, she wants to escape from this torture. And she becomes suicidal. But it's also a physically demanding performance and she excels. An utterly brave performance, especially for a woman of her age. Facing mortality in a completely direct and raw way.

The screenplay is extremely complex and rich and Haneke's attention to details makes this such an unforgettable experience. The poetic/symbolic/ambiguous scenes (opening scene, the nightmare, the pidgeon, the final scenes) are beautiful touches that made me admire Haneke's intelligence even more. Oh, mind you, this is not an easy film to watch.

I'd also love to mention the beautiful cinematography. Long takes, static and monochromatic shots, beautiful winter light through the windows, all creating a thick and claustrophobic atmosphere. The art direction is also exceptional. I knew the house like the back of my hand. Brilliantly detailed production design and utterly wonderful.

I'd love to talk in-depth about the film, but I'm afraid there will be way too many spoilers.

10 out of 10.


I just found a video (it's in French and German) and it features several scenes from the film. Do not watch it, if you haven't seen the film. Seriously, don't.

[James]

Agreed whole heartedly! This was a really incredible piece of film-making. I must confess this is my first Haneke, but I have now taken some of his other movies out from the library (yay, unemployment).

[Aurelius]

Agreed whole heartedly! This was a really incredible piece of film-making. I must confess this is my first Haneke, but I have now taken some of his other movies out from the library (yay, unemployment).

To be fair, I think this is quite different from much of his other output, which is usually much colder than this (not a bad thing in my book, just a warning).

But yeah, this is superb filmmaking.

[James]

To be fair, I think this is quite different from much of his other output, which is usually much colder than this (not a bad thing in my book, just a warning).

But yeah, this is superb filmmaking.

I had heard this. But thanks for the heads up.

[Cricket]

I liked Amour, with qualifications, when I saw it last month, but I find I like it less the more I think about it. I still love the performances. Trintignant and Riva give depth and gravity to roles that aren't particularly well-defined. But there was a whiff of calculation in Haneke's direction that didn't sit right with me at the time, and that still bothers me. I know that many people have gotten a lot out of the film, and have been very moved by it, so I'm clearly in the minority here. But, to me, it's a film that's devoid of practically any subtext or formal interest.

Slant has a really well-articulated review that I sympathize with (though I think I like the film better than the writer did). I also like it more than Michael Sicinski, who is very hard on it, but I believe he has a point here:

No, a good deal of what Haneke has going for him is sheer ugliness. Amour (which I saw presented in 4K DCP) is the flattest, most anti-aesthetic film this director has ever produced. Aside from a few exteriors and a concert scene, it takes place almost exclusively in the couple’s Paris apartment, which is shot by Woody Allen d.p. Darius Khondji as a drab smudge of mustards and umbers, shelves and paneling. Light and shadow have no impact in this film. Visual information is purely functional. And this seems to be part and parcel of Haneke’s crushing seriousness. Aesthetic concerns, he seems to say, would be a bourgeois indulgence, while we, the master class, are charged with gazing into the Face of Death. (“Mama!”)

In a way, I think Haneke's approach might be a little too straightforward and too literal. If an unobtrusive, minimalist filmmaker like Frederick Wiseman were treating this material, it might be enough to simply point and shoot, and let the subtext take care of itself. But Haneke isn't that kind of director. He's always an imposing presence in his films. It's significant to me that my favorite moment in Amour, formally speaking, is arguably its most abstract sequence: that beautiful, oddly disquieting "slideshow" of artworks. It's enigmatic and ambiguous (what does it mean? are those paintings in the apartment?), but I feel like that short sequence is more suggestive and evocative than anything else in the film -- far more impacting than the alarming but thematically and tonally dubious nightmare sequence. (I'm not sure about the pigeon stuff either.)

I don't know, I think I prefer enfant-terrible Haneke to elder-statesman Haneke. I love Code Unknown and The Piano Teacher, films that were wildly divisive. But I'm cooler on his more recent, uniformly-praised efforts (Cache, The White Ribbon, which I kind of hated, Amour). Go figure!

[Dooby]

I liked Amour, with qualifications, when I saw it last month, but I find I like it less the more I think about it. I still love the performances. Trintignant and Riva give depth and gravity to roles that aren't particularly well-defined. But there was a whiff of calculation in Haneke's direction that didn't sit right with me at the time, and that still bothers me. I know that many people have gotten a lot out of the film, and have been very moved by it, so I'm clearly in the minority here. But, to me, it's a film that's devoid of practically any subtext or formal interest.

Slant has a really well-articulated review that I sympathize with (though I think I like the film better than the writer did). I also like it more than Michael Sicinski, who is very hard on it, but I believe he has a point here:



In a way, I think Haneke's approach might be a little too straightforward and too literal. If an unobtrusive, minimalist filmmaker like Frederick Wiseman were treating this material, it might be enough to simply point and shoot, and let the subtext take care of itself. But Haneke isn't that kind of director. He's always an imposing presence in his films. It's significant to me that my favorite moment in Amour, formally speaking, is arguably its most abstract sequence: that beautiful, oddly disquieting "slideshow" of artworks. It's enigmatic and ambiguous (what does it mean? are those paintings in the apartment?), but I feel like that short sequence is more suggestive and evocative than anything else in the film -- far more impacting than the alarming but thematically and tonally dubious nightmare sequence. (I'm not sure about the pigeon stuff either.)

I don't know, I think I prefer enfant-terrible Haneke to elder-statesman Haneke. I love Code Unknown and The Piano Teacher, films that were wildly divisive. But I'm cooler on his more recent, uniformly-praised efforts (Cache, The White Ribbon, which I kind of hated, Amour). Go figure!

Nice write up. I had a number of similar issues.

[danielvin]

I really liked it, but didn't love it and it didn't strike me emotionly as a few other Haneke movies (Seventh Continent, Caché, The White Ribbon, The Piano Teacher and Funny games left a much bigger impression to me).
I guess I love him more when his is at his radical nichilistic edge.
It's still a masterfully done film (as any Haneke movie really , minus Benny's video which has a few flaws) with two (plus Huppert who is always great) AMAZING performances.

It's my sixth favorite Haneke movie and I still gave it A- and is in my top-3 of the year.
That automatically means, that for me, just looking at my vote history, I have to consider the austrian auteur as the best filmmaker alive.

[Cricket]

Thanks, Dooby!

danielvin, have you seen Code Unknown? That's my favorite Haneke film. I saw it again a while ago, and I'm even more convinced it's a masterwork. The Time of the Wolf is also a pretty interesting film that nobody really talks about. I'm quite ambivalent about Funny Games, but the USA version is, if nothing else, kind of a fascinating experiment.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier about Amour is the last scene, which I didn't really like. Leaving aside however one feels about the film's occasional forays into fantasy (which I had a few reservations with), I sort of think it would have been better to end with Trintignant walking out the door with Riva. I get what Haneke what trying to do by concluding the film Huppert (for one thing, the circularity of opening and closing the film with "intruders" in that space, as it were), but I'm not sure it had the desired effect. It's probably because I also found the Huppert character pretty sketchily defined. Leaving the film, I wasn't entirely sure if she was reflecting on her parent's absence or appraising the value of the apartment, LOL.

[walkabout]

I liked Amour, with qualifications, when I saw it last month, but I find I like it less the more I think about it. I still love the performances. Trintignant and Riva give depth and gravity to roles that aren't particularly well-defined. But there was a whiff of calculation in Haneke's direction that didn't sit right with me at the time, and that still bothers me. I know that many people have gotten a lot out of the film, and have been very moved by it, so I'm clearly in the minority here. But, to me, it's a film that's devoid of practically any subtext or formal interest.

We're in the minority, but you're not alone in this. I also found Haneke's direction extremely calculated and therefore not moving or emotional at all.
That's why I don't see how Amour is considered more accessible than The White Ribbon, for example.
This may be a personal thing, since I've been working on a similar script myself (about the similar situtation my father is in) for over a year now, but I thought Haneke's extremely refined (to the point of becoming just a membrane, as another Turkish film critic have put it) direction makes it much more hard to get in.

[NoirJo]

I never considered 'Amour' to be an emotional experience, but an austere, authentic and painful depiction of reality. In fact, the restrained emotions and the subtlety both Riva and Trintignant brought to their characters, along with the non-manipulative direction made it such a special film, in my opinion.

[danielvin]

Thanks, Dooby!

danielvin, have you seen Code Unknown?

Yes, and I liked it, but it's just my seventh favorite Haneke movie (I gave it a B+ lol). 8th I would put "71 Fragmente..."(B), and 9th Benny's video (B-). I haven't seen Time of the wolf and the castle though.
Pretty amazing votes his movies have gotten from me lol.

[sid]

I thought this was brilliant -- and the two lead performances will be impossible to shake all through the year. Cache is infinitely more complex, but this is a close second for me among Haneke's filmography (I suspect I overrated The White Ribbon a bit, because I dislike more of it with time). Also, I couldn't see a single pair of dry eyes in the theater, which I suspect bodes well for its Oscar chances? My favorite film of the year, so far, though I will be watching Holy Motors tomorrow!

[Atonenent.]

It'll probably take a few days for me to fully find an opinion about this, but in short; it's a great directorial achievement, the performances are absolutely stunning and it's stunningly complex. Several scenes I resonated with deeply and brough tears in my eyes, but in general, I'm now sure I'm just not a big Haneke fan. I liked The White Ribbon with reservations, but I disliked Cache and this one, while I rate it highly and find it a sublime film, there's something off-putting to me. But I can't really find a proper criticism. But maybe it was just too difficult a watch and I'll warm up to it in time. A.

[Dent]

Forgot to mention this, but I saw this on Election Day and was quite taken with it. It's a terrific achievement from Haneke, Trintignant and Riva. I agree with Cricket - the quick montage of artwork was a really striking moment.

[Anthony_X]

Now that everybody that wants can see it this thread must be revamped...

I felt so uncomfortable watching this, in a good way. I could feel everything that both Trintignant and Riva felt. It was almost voyeuristic for me watching two performances that good... I felt I was watching the last moments of a real couple. I am just lost for words.

I don't know if I will be able to go through this experience again. Not sure I want to look the eyes of death again.

[Cryteno]

Do not hate me this is a good movie but slightly overrated. And i don't understand the love for Riva's performance. It is a good performance,though. If somebody will get award recognition, it should be Trintignant .

[guany]

I saw this two nights ago, and I cannot stop thinking about it and especially Riva's performance. It's definitely one of the very best films of the year and I look forward (well, not really but you know what I mean) to seeing it again.

[foremanuel]

Oh God, this was so difficult to watch. I don't even know where to start. All I can say right know is that I loved it. It's not an easy experience, especially if you been near an old relative close to death. It hit me really hard, from a personal and artistic point of view. I think Haneke took the right approach while working with such a complex subject. The film is very naturalistic and depends completely on the relationship and chemistry of Georges and Anne. I loved the little details in their conversations and interactions. Personally, I understood a lot of things with their anecdotes. Like the way Georges still have stories to tell her about his childhood. Or the way Anne reminds him that he can be a monster. From this point, the whole process of dying gets so honest and raw. The state of mind starts to descend and to grieve. I think visually, Haneke doesn't depend a lot on different imagery but I totally support this decision. I think the movie is build completely on the performances of Trintignant and Riva, which in my opinion, are absolutely amazing. Both have such transformations, and not only because of Riva's obvious change, like I said before, it's their mental state that sells the ideas of love and sacrifice. And of course with Haneke, love is not the idealistic feeling from cinema, it's more about the everyday love, about our actions and how can they appear wrong or cruel, but they have a deeper meaning.

[Melllvar]

How is it so many of you guys have seen this already? I'd love to see this but probably won't get a chance to see it in the theater due to the lack of art movies that show at cinemas near my college.

[shooter_mcgavin]

I never considered 'Amour' to be an emotional experience, but an austere, authentic and painful depiction of reality. In fact, the restrained emotions and the subtlety both Riva and Trintignant brought to their characters, along with the non-manipulative direction made it such a special film, in my opinion.

I thought its right on both accounts. One thing it is witnessing a man taking care of his ailing wife so love is expressed in such dire terms. Which means the movie does not mince words or sugar coat it's depiction of their love rather through simple gestures and actions. But love is a basic emotion and if you can see it channel on the screen effectively, yet subtlety, it's our natural reaction to get emotional. I think it's the simple things like helping her get off her wheel chair for the first time, the struggle both have to share together.

I liked the film a lot. I give it a B+, it's not my #1 foreign language film this year. But it's a strong year for that category.

How is it so many of you guys have seen this already? I'd love to see this but probably won't get a chance to see it in the theater due to the lack of art movies that show at cinemas near my college.

I got lucky personally. This movie was shown in a local film so chances are I have seen the movie in it's only screening in the country for all eternity