'Amour' (Michael Haneke, 2012)

[Blue Zeppelin]

Oh I didn't like this. At all.

I thought this was hollow, bland, empty, calculated, I found there no traces of humanity or love, no emotion whatsoever. The only thing I really wanted was for these characters to go away and the movie to come to an end. It was painful. The subject is obviously hard and all, universal and it affects us all one way or the other, but the problem was that I could not relate to these characters at all (and I saw my mom getting sicker and sicker for two years before she died when I was 11, so it's not like I can't relate to things like that on a personal level). Their isolation is so baffling. It all starts with them getting home and seeing someone tried to breaking in and their reaction is "yeah, let's go to bed". It felt very detached. In a way my reaction to the couple was the same: "okay, go away, bye". I can't say more about anything else because I was too distracted feeling nothing for these characters. I felt they (film, characters, Haneke) didn't want me there and I reacted the same way, I didn't want to be there, I didn't want to watch this journey.

The acting though is obviously very good.

[McTeague]

Down with this trash!

[Blue Zeppelin]

[CINNAMON]

I deliberately stayed away from this film for awhile because my family just went through a similar situation. I was afraid to watch it, especially after reading some of the comments here. Quite simply, I think this was a beautiful love story, overflowing with humanity and not a bit nihilistic. Although the approach is clinical (as I think it should be), I was quite moved by the depiction of the presence of love when all hope is gone. A beautiful and courageous film about so much more than death and suffering. Where others found nihilism, I found deep thoughtfulness and delicacy in the film's examination of acceptance of the inevitable and the power of love. I know it sounds like a cliche but so be it. Powerful stuff.

[Thomas]

I honestly have no idea where McTeague is coming from with this film.

During most of the film, Haneke's camera registers, it does not present.
It does not comment, nor does it lesson.
Only in the end, a certain amount of poetic freedom hits Haneke, and I've honestly never seen him warmer than this.
The film should probably be called "Amour" rather than Amour. This is one love story. There are many out there.

I simply cannot for the life of me see where the nihilism remarks are coming from.

Sure, Anne and Georges and Eva are flawed people.
Most people are flawed.
Like McTeague, I would hope for another relationship with my kids when I get old, but this is not a story about me, this is a story about Anne and Georges most of all.
Also, I have my opinions on euthanasia, but much like Vera Drake wasn't actually a manifest for abortion, this is not a poster for mercy killings or whatever you would want to call them. The death of Anne is a detail in a very simply and in many ways dramatic yet common tale about two people in love who follows each other to the very end.

So refreshing to see a film maker actually grasp that "love" is a verb, it is not an emotion of a certain niceness, or words of a certain beauty.
Love can be crude when life requires it. And it is love when we see Georges care for his Anne.

I need to sleep on this, obviously (I just finished the screening), but the scene with Anne's first stroke is one of the most moving things I've seen in quite a while. And yet very simple. I really appreciate the simplicity of this, and Haneke's rigid scheme serves the story well. From the opening of the couple out in the open, to ending with the construction of a tomb encapsuling an entire marriage.

Should I mention one sour grape, then it surprisingly is the performance of L'Huppert, which is calculated as I've never seen her. Career worst performance (LOL).

But the rest, as heavy, sad, at times infuriating it is - is brilliant. I am surprised AMPAS fell for it but down with it, naturally.

****/*****. Caché remains Haneke's finest film, but this is an illustrious addition to an esteemed career.

[Thomas]

Also, can I just say again that this is a film about euthanasia in the same way that Caché was about suicide or Anna Karenina about trains.

[Thomas]

ALSO re: rich white people: Haneke must have been inspired by this real life story.

But yes. There should be a moratorium on films about wealthy peeps.

[Aurelius]

Thomas, you are my cherie amour .

[affy18]

I honestly have no idea where McTeague is coming from with this film.

During most of the film, Haneke's camera registers, it does not present.
It does not comment, nor does it lesson.
Only in the end, a certain amount of poetic freedom hits Haneke, and I've honestly never seen him warmer than this.
The film should probably be called "Amour" rather than Amour. This is one love story. There are many out there.

I simply cannot for the life of me see where the nihilism remarks are coming from.

Sure, Anne and Georges and Eva are flawed people.
Most people are flawed.
Like McTeague, I would hope for another relationship with my kids when I get old, but this is not a story about me, this is a story about Anne and Georges most of all.
Also, I have my opinions on euthanasia, but much like Vera Drake wasn't actually a manifest for abortion, this is not a poster for mercy killings or whatever you would want to call them. The death of Anne is a detail in a very simply and in many ways dramatic yet common tale about two people in love who follows each other to the very end.

So refreshing to see a film maker actually grasp that "love" is a verb, it is not an emotion of a certain niceness, or words of a certain beauty.
Love can be crude when life requires it. And it is love when we see Georges care for his Anne.

I need to sleep on this, obviously (I just finished the screening), but the scene with Anne's first stroke is one of the most moving things I've seen in quite a while. And yet very simple. I really appreciate the simplicity of this, and Haneke's rigid scheme serves the story well. From the opening of the couple out in the open, to ending with the construction of a tomb encapsuling an entire marriage.

Should I mention one sour grape, then it surprisingly is the performance of L'Huppert, which is calculated as I've never seen her. Career worst performance (LOL).

But the rest, as heavy, sad, at times infuriating it is - is brilliant. I am surprised AMPAS fell for it but down with it, naturally.

****/*****. Caché remains Haneke's finest film, but this is an illustrious addition to an esteemed career.

I'm glad you liked it, Tomo. I was eagerly awaiting to read your reaction to it.

I'm with you in that while I understand McT's concerns regarding humanity I don't agree in his conception of the characters in the film. Like you and I pointed out, they're simply flawed people who yet deal with emotions and life the best way they're equipped with. I don't even think Huppert's character is terrible. She's just not equipped to handle suffering, death and due to her alienation turned a bit obtuse to what her parents are going through.

As for the nihilism claims, it depends on one's own views of under which principles should life be lived. And it's precisely how you point out that - and the film manages to make the viewer think of this - if love is always life affirming under certain assumptions about life itself. I just can't bring myself to think that Georges act is one of cruelty and inhumanity, which I think it's at the crux of the film and challenges our own notions of compassion and yes, love.

[Thomas]

I'm glad you liked it, Tomo. I was eagerly awaiting to read your reaction to it.

I'm with you in that while I understand McT's concerns regarding humanity I don't agree in his conception of the characters in the film. Like you and I pointed out, they're simply flawed people who yet deal with emotions and life the best way they're equipped with. I don't even think Huppert's character is terrible. She's just not equipped to handle suffering, death and due to her alienation turned a bit obtuse to what her parents are going through.

As for the nihilism claims, it depends on one's own views of under which principles should life be lived. And it's precisely how you point out that - and the film manages to make the viewer think of this - if love is always life affirming under certain assumptions about life itself. I just can't bring myself to think that Georges act is one of cruelty and inhumanity, which I think it's at the crux of the film and challenges our own notions of compassion and yes, love.

If it is an action of cruelty, it is that much longed for surprising event that somebody were looking for.
If it is an action of love, it is a thoughtprovoking climax to all the care he has provided her with, or an image of his powerlessness in the face of disease, or both. That is the whole discussion and why the film is called "Amour" - because it is not simply a film about euthanasia.

Huppert's character is absolutely not despicable, and the argument with her father is understandable. I just did not like Huppert's performance, but maybe the role was a bit thankless, I don't know.

When it comes to nihilism, I am surprised to hear it, because to me this is not a sermon at all. I think it is a strange judgement to pass for this film that it is an example of nihilism. I am not clever enough to see that at all. Approaching with such a sentiment makes me think that people read far greater in to this tiny chamber piece than what is possible. It is a tiny story, but quite and recognizable human in its accessibility. Which is why it does as you say challenge our notions of love and compassion.

In a time when Justin Bieber and Silver Linings Playbook gets to tell people what love is REALLY like, this is a rich and provocative piece that I welcome.
I do not think it is a masterpiece as it at moments is (to me at least) a bit too tiny, but clearly one of the five best films of 2012.

[McTeague]

Oh, again? Let me bet: this thread won't be closed like the Les Mis one is.

[makemeameteor]

Oh, again? Let me bet: this thread won't be closed like the Les Mis one is.

I just reopened it. Not sure why it was closed -- probably a mistake.

[McTeague]

I just reopened it. Not sure why it was closed -- probably a mistake.

[Thomas]

Because of LOVE.

: pillow :