Only during TIFF could I start my Sunday morning with such a beautiful bummer. When I say “start my Sunday”, that is to say that I was settling in for an early dose of Haneke at 9am. Yes, like you, I’m usually still asleep at such an hour.

AMOUR is both stunning and heartbreaking, and any notions to the contrary are immediately dispelled in the film’s opening scene. The story is that of an elderly couple named George and Anne (Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva). After a brief glimpse of what their loving marriage has been, we are witness to Anne having a cataclysmic episode. It’s a sign of things to come, and George is thrust into the role of caregiver, and made to witness the woman he loves rapidly deteriorate.

The film is achingly beautiful, and tremendously sad. It’s almost entirely a two-person show, though we do get the occasional appearance from a supporting character (mostly Isabelle Huppert as the couple’s only daughter Eva). It underlines some of the things we never think about when we choose the people we want to spend our lives with – such as what we will be asked to do, and we we hope they will do for us when our own bodies begin to betray us.

That devotion is what’s echoed in the film’s title (“Love” for those who don’t speak French). It’s the deepest sort of love there is – one where heavy promises are made and kept. One where an emotional burden begins to press down on both people. In such situations, only true love allows one to carry on.

Like many of Haneke’s films, things are kept at a bit of a distance – which is good, given where one would probably stand if they were in the room with these characters. The story is dotted with occasional moments of warmth, each of which go a long way in carrying us through this rough ride. But don’t go in hoping for many of them – this film is shocking and heavy, and nothing good is coming your way.

Looking back, I’m glad that this film came as late in my week as it did. It allowed me to revel in the September sunshine relatively unimpeded, have some laughs and brace myself. Had I come to it earlier, it might have taken me a day or so to get my bearings, and as it stands I think the only thing keeping me going on this final day is the fact that I followed this tale of woe with a plucky animated number.

AMOUR is painfully lovely, not for the easily affected, and one of the best films I’ve seen all year.

9 Replies to “AMOUR Plays TIFF 2012”

  2. I was running late and missed the first 10 minutes. Despite missing a key scene, it still hit me just has hard. Devastating is the word that describes this film to me.

    1. Oh man – if you missed the opening ten minutes, something tells me it hit you even harder. Have you ever caught up and actually watched the scenes you missed?

    2. Not yet – Andy filled me in but I haven’t had the chance to see it again. I still remember how I felt after and I’m not exactly keen to sit through it again any time soon…

  3. I simply didn’t feel the long-lasting scars from this film. I felt a bit battered coming out, but by the next day all I could think about was what Haneke was trying to do and not about the characters or the story. Trintignant and Riva are fantastic – I especially loved Riva’s first ride in her electric wheelchair – but aside from that it was a repetition of more and more awful tasks Trintignant had to do. I didn’t get much emotion from it – neither sadness nor shock. And remember, I really like Haneke (Cache, Code Unknown, White Ribbon).

    I still say that the depiction of the elderly couple in Sion Sono’s “The Land Of Hope” was far more affecting and gave a much truer picture of what life-long love really means. But I’m a Sono fanboy, so what do I know…

    2. I totally get everything Haneke was doing and I think it all came together exactly like he wanted – but, for me, it seemed to maintain that coldness he has in his other films. While that worked really well in those other cases, I didn’t find that he left me much to hang onto with these characters – especially when Riva’s loses her voice so early on.

      It’s not that I didn’t feel bad for them or not care about them, but Haneke seemed to loom over it all. It’s like he was at the back of the theatre saying “OK, now here’s another bad situation he has to cope with…almost bad as another one that’s coming up…”. Each succeeding situation didn’t add much to the characters – we already see that he’s committed to her and will ride this out to the bitter end. And all Haneke does is show us the bitter end.

      I suppose that sounds like I hated it – I didn’t. But I didn’t much like it either. I really wish you had seen “Land Of Hope” to see a far better example of the love between two long time partners (in a similar caretaker/patient situation). But I suppose that wasn’t necessarily what Haneke was trying to show (despite the title of the film) – he wanted to beat you up with his film and make you think about how awful it will be when you and your loved ones approach death.

Comments are closed.