Amour: Brace Yourselves, It’s a Haneke

Amour is the latest film from acclaimed Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke.  Just saying his name amongst film critic/scholar circles will inspire glazed eyes of appreciation and a sigh of "if only all our directors were as good as him.”  Personally, I'm glad all our director's aren't like him.  When someone mentions Micheal Haneke, I usually respond with a shrug and an "I just don't get him.”  And I say that with the full knowledge that it makes me sound like an immature filmgoer who would rather watch Transformers than Breaking the Waves.  Not true.  I feel I'm a pretty seasoned filmgoer with damn good taste, but I still find Haneke's style absolutely insufferable—just because a shot can last 5 minutes without any camera moves or there can be a lack of visual movement within that shot, doesn't mean that it should.  

Having now gone on a slight Haneke rant, let me say that Amour is indeed his best film so far, which is something that you've probably already read and heard often in the past few months.  It currently stands at 91% on Rotten Tomatoes after riding a wave of film festival acclaim and reaching the top of many Best of 2012 lists.  So the biggest question is… does the film actually live up to those expectations?  And, my friends, I can honestly say—no, it doesn't.  Amour's final act is both horrifying and beautiful, and Haneke finally gives the audience a break and cuts his shots occasionally, and even (gasp!) uses close up's.  But the first half of the film is maddening in its staid, stoic, and just plain lifeless approach.  

Amour features the two best performances of the year in Emmannuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant, both now in their 80's.  To say that they each deserve the Oscar is an understatement—their work easily surpasses any other portrayal in 2012 for sheer power, emotional weight, and the stunning ability to make you completely forget you're watching two actors, and not real people.  The story is a simple one—a long-married husband and wife must struggle to stay in love (and alive) as one of them goes through a brutal series of strokes, crippling her body and her mind.  If you don't think that the cold, clinical sights of two elderly people taking care of each other in horrible sickness sounds like a fun time at the movies….by all means, avoid Amour.

Of course, "fun time" isn't exactly what Haneke is going for, and he never has—I've now seen six of his films; Piano Teacher, Funny Games (both versions), Cache, The White Ribbon (my favourite of his), and now Amour, and I can honestly say that there may be no other film director alive who is so pessimistic, cynical, and obtuse.  His style mostly consists of about 10 shots per film, often without any camera movements at all, while his characters talk in cryptic whispers.  His endings, too, so rarely provide any kind of closure that it really makes you think he's messing with us on purpose.  Amour may be his most optimistic film in that, yes, it truly is all about love, and there are some moments of truth and positivity.  But then, saying this is Haneke's most accessible film isn't really saying much—it's still the bleakest and most depressing movie of 2012.  

Perhaps my biggest problem with Amour is simply that I've already seen this movie, and I've seen it done better, with Sarah Polley's beautiful 2005 film Away From Her.  That's not to say that the films are the exact same, but rarely did a minute go by in Amour that I wasn't reminded of Polley's superior effort.  Both stories are similar in that the wife of a very old couple becomes mentally and physically sick, and the husband tries his best to take care of her.  But Polley found more beauty in their love, and she filmed her screenplay with what I like to call "respect for the audience."  Just because you're making a movie based on very dark subject matter doesn't mean your camera, editing, and music can't involve the audience just as much as the dialogue and acting.  

Haneke, for me, was his own worst enemy with this movie—he made it so obtuse, so clinical, so difficult to like, that all you can do is admire it from a distance.  It's become a bit of a fad in independent cinema to stray as far away as possible from the conventional Hollywood styles of emotional button-pushing, but the thing is….that isn't necessarily something you should always try and avoid.  Is The Shawshank Redemption any less moving because it uses orchestral music and heart-tugging dialogue and beautiful, sweeping camera movements?  No.  And I'm not saying Amour should've been shot and scored like Shawshank; I'm simply saying that for once, Haneke didn't seem to despise his characters, and because of that, he should've despised his audience a little less as well.

But then, it's certainly not popular to criticize Haneke, and the film is receiving critical praise scarcely seen.  I can fully admit that, yes, I might be simply too dense to understand his appeal and why his films are so often called masterpieces.  Amour is not a film I would ever tell someone not to see—it's brutal at times, yes, but there are so many good aspects to it (especially the stunning performances). This movie is very much worth seeing once, just don't ask me to ever watch it again.