Michael Haneke is one of the finest auteurs operating in Europe today. With the voyeuristic Hidden and the Palme D’Or-winning The White Ribbon, he already has a couple of masterpieces under his belt. Well, he was back on the Croisette and scooping the aforementioned prize for a second time this summer and folks in the UK can now see what all the fuss is about. And Amour is more than worth the fuss. A sublime piece of cinema, it may not be apt for date night, or a light-hearted Wednesday evening, but is truly astonishing and thought-provoking stuff.
Anyone half familiar with Haneke’s oeuvre will be aware that despite it’s title, Amour is unlikely to be the easiest of watches. Renowned for putting audiences through the emotional wringer on a regular basis, the Austrian director has possibly made his most difficult film yet. At the same time, however, he has also suggested a humanity and warmth that his austere and icy style do not always convey.
Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) are a cultured, and relatively well-off, octogenarian couple. In an opening scene we see them enjoying a piano recital; the kind of life to which they have become accustomed. Age soon shows itself to devastating effect though, when Anne suffers a stroke, paralysing her right side and confining them to their apartment. What follows is an unflinching account of her deterioration and Georges unfailing commitment to caring for her.
The walls begin to close in as the director’s trademark static camera shifts around their home allowing his actors to take centre stage. There is no place for flashy pans and cuts, the people on screen are the vital component and these are two stunning performances ably supported by Isabelle Huppert as their daughter. No punches are pulled in the representation of old-age, losing the ability to function, or the strains that a solid relationship comes under in such a situation.
This is a fantastically original work; after all, how often do we see old age portrayed on the big screen especially so candidly? Whilst some people have claimed it is depressing, it would seem more appropriate to call it grueling. Never easy to watch, it is certainly a tremendously sad film and will doubtless haunt many of those who choose to see it. Unlike some other of his films, there seems to be no lecture here from Haneke; he is presenting us with a relevant situation and showing all of its complexities.
After the credits roll, it continues to turn over in the mind and we’re brought back to wonder what exactly the meaning is of that title. The love between two people; that is tested and stretched? Whether or not it is still even able to exist come the final moments? It’s definitely not fun, and won’t be comforting to anyone, but it’s a stone-wall masterpiece that deserves to be seen - even if it’s hard to imagine suggesting a cinema trip to do so.