It is awards season now and like probably most of the film lovers I'm trying to watch all of the serious contenders. The latest I've watched is Amour" ("Love"), new work from acclaimed German director Michael Haneke. The film already won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, swept the European Film Awards, and won most of the year's Best Foreign Language Film awards including a Golden Globe, as well as got nominated for five Oscars and a lot more. All of that gave me more than enough reason to view it, and the film itself gave me more than enough reason to review it.
After dealing with causes in "Das weiße Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte" ("The White Ribbon"), his previous work, in "Amour" Haneke deals with consequences. The causes and consequences are of different things, true, but that is not so important. It is the shift of focus from one to another which is interesting. While Haneke was always the one to ask questions, this time it feels more like he's making a statement. To be clear, his treatment of the subject matter is for the most part equally restrained here as is in his other recent works. He stays an objective observer of the elderly couple dealing with death, not once trying to sentimentalize the situation or lead the viewer towards some specific point of view. Yet the feeling I got is that the whole story is a message how things should be, a message that says the way Georges care for Anne and subjects his life to her is the right thing to do.
It could very well be so because of Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant, actors playing the couple. Their performances are so sincere and natural that they without any trouble carry entire film on their own. There are just a few more roles in the film, none of them with serious screen time, though it's worth to mention standardly good Isabelle Huppert and it's nice to see William Shimell in his only second starring role. But Riva and Trintignant are those who deserve our admiration. It's fascinating to watch them depict what could very easily happen to themselves soon, especially considering that some of the things Haneke puts them through are very tough and deeply disturbing.
Although it may seem so, "Amour" isn't all dying and depression. The beginning of the film serves as an explanation of what's to come. It shows a beautiful relationship full of understanding and compassion between two old people still in love, something we're not so used to see. It is exactly that love and devotion which give Georges the strength to care for Anne and do all that must be done. It is love without any romanticizing. Its purest form. With all the hard work, tough decisions and incomprehension bound to appear between even closest of lovers, but also tenderness, faith and smiles existent only in those who completely embraced one another.
Regardless of my praise on objectiveness and naturalness of Haneke's depiction I should bring to attention that it is after all just one of the choices of artistic expression and as such ultimately involves some degree of deception and playing with the viewer. He does it using long, static shots which give us time to feel the full impact of that which transpires. The ordinariness of the shots, which are not composed just to make a beautiful sight, also forces you to think while watching the movie, inviting you to recognize their meaning, which serves as a witness to a great cinematography by Darius Khondji and his excellent understanding with Haneke.
While there are probably a lot of people who won't like the film and will blame it for being too arty, my guess is there are also a lot of those who will praise it without fully understanding it. "Amour" is a depressing drama only at first sight. When you take a second look at it, you realize it's a tribute to a great and long life filled with love every step of the way. The way death comes in it surely isn't the one anyone would like for themselves, but what is more important, a beautiful death or a beautiful life?
No comments:
Post a Comment