By N
I went alone to watch this movie and in front of me sat two girls, who clearly didn’t know what the movie was about. They probably thought that a movie in French with a title such as ‘Amour’ could only be a good old chick flick à la française. Well, judging from the noise they were making during the movie and their decomposed faces at the end, I guessed they were a bit disappointed.
So many things have been said about ‘Amour’ but one cannot deny the impressive piece of work that is this movie. The whole story is based in only one place: their flat. We are part of those walls and we see time passing and life ending through well filmed moments of long pauses, music playing, storytelling and supper. One might think that Haneke is here imprisoning us but I felt that worked very well in his ‘mise en scene’. All these elements are brilliantly placed into scenes and are not over or badly used. You intrude into this old couple’s intimacy, like a voyeur, and see what is happening in the flat – sometimes you even feel uncomfortable and tense with what you’re watching but it’s never too much or vulgar. All throughout the movie, people pass judgement (the protagonist’s daughter, the concierge, the nurse) on how Georges takes decisions to face his wife’s suffering. The more the movie progresses, the more you realise that he loves her but not to the point of giving her what she wants. He tries hard to reduce the humiliation and pain, and finally he has this impulse of blind love which helps him to stop her agony. Haneke shows us love with different faces: Georges who all throughout the movie wants her to get better, to fight and refuses to let her go because he loves her and Anne who’s trying hard at first to be joyful, to do her exercises, to eat for him (because she loves him) even if that is not what she wants.
One of the best things about this movie is undeniably the cast: Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant, are breathtaking in their precision. Isabelle Huppert plays their daughter and sees what happens from outside as she visits her parents only once in a while. She is beautiful, as always. The movie deserves all the awards for that trio.
As you may have guessed already: yes, I definitely recommend this movie.
cucurbitacee 
By all means, the cast is excellent. Emmanuelle Riva, JL Trintignant and Isabelle Huppert are perfect and this is probably one of their best performances. It’s a pleasure to see them on the screen, despite the very unpleasant scenes we see.
Amour is a good movie, for sure. I heard only one criticism, accusing Haneke of doing what he always does, i.e., trapping the viewer. He does do that, but if you don’t like that, just avoid his movies. He traps you perfectly, in the apartment, by shooting all scenes as close-ups on Trintignant.
But then, the problem is he traps you too much. Or rather, he really wants you to understand you are trapped. Super trapped, you see. So, for instance, at some point a pigeon enters the house (I don’t know in which Parisian neighborhood he lives, but I would like to see a Parisian pigeon entering an apartment) and Trintignant sends him out, because, you know, NOBODY IS WELCOME. Ok… so then, do you feel TRAPPED? in case you don’t feel trapped enough, let’s spend five minutes on a slideshow of the paintings the couple owns so that you understand WE WILL NOT GO TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD (no kidding).
I could also give you some priceless dialogues such as “C’est beau! / Quoi? / La vie!” but I’ll refrain from doing it.
Watch it, of course, it’s a good movie. It’s just not his best.
I didn’t think that he tried too much because you never feel bored being trapped. Or at least, I didn’t. And I think the jury or the Palme d’Or and the Golden Globe didn’t either.
I have to admit that the scene with the paintings is difficult to defend but the two scenes with the pigeon were quite beautiful and unusual. Also, it happened at a particular time in the movie: we all think that he lost his mind and that he wants to catch the pigeon to kill it. But it’s not what happened.
As for the dialogue, you’ve probably chosen the worst sentence of the entire movie. The people who reads this blog should know that the rest of it is actually funny and powerful; for example, when they talk about their friend’s funeral: ‘Qu’est-ce que tu dirais toi si personne ne venait a ton enterrement? / probablement rien’ … or the fight he has with his daughter who want to have a ‘serious talk’ on what to do about the situation, the scene where he tries to feed her, the scene when they do her speech exercises – I could easily continue like that for a while but I might end up describing 99% of the movie.
Yes, I didn’t comment either on her pupil’s over affected sensitivity, or on the subtle choice of the nurse’s nationality, the concierge’s national traits…
As for the Palme’s jury of that year, I think Jean-Paul Gaultier, Diane Kruger, Alexander Payne and Ewan McGregor’s aesthetics judgements are indeed to be trusted in all contexts… Btw, the committee preparing the Olympic ceremony also thought it was appropriate to use pigeons.
I don’t know what the Golden Globes are.
I am just criticizing this movie because Haneke is capable of perfection, and it’s a shame that nobody tells him: you could have done better. But mainly, because I like fighting with N.
Yet, this movie is really good, and certainly one of the best of 2012.
Vous chipotez, la! The movie is definitely beautiful. An exception in Haneke’s filmography 😉
C’est vrai que c’est du chipotage tout ca – so I am not going to tell M that it’s quite funny how she omitted to mention Andrea Arnold and Nanni Moretti from the Palme’s jury 2012. No.
I am glad we all agree on fact that it is a beautiful movie.
Asisouuuuuu, you are kidding me, is the White Ribbon NOT a fantastic movie?
It was! It was! Actually that is the other exception! There are only two 😉
Let’s try to go on: La Pianiste?
Hated that movie!!