Amour : Post deleted

You guys are going have to tell me why certain people 'get' this film and others (like Chargy) who don't. The comments were eloquent but surprising to me. It is apparently not a matter of intelligence per se since the post is written well. With all the lack of understanding of the film, Haneke surely must be a patient man. I don't know. Can some be too intelligent for 'Amour'???? Or are we all programmed in some way to understand specific films regardless about the fact of not knowing specific film theories? At bottom, viewing a film should be simply a natural act like reading words on a page. With film, it's eyes, ears and the mind preferably in a dark room. That's it.

Your post makes a lot of assumptions about the shared experience of the film and the intentions of the director. You omit who you are almost completely but for some of the assumptions you make.

Let's look at what you wrote:

---

I don't think I've seen an emptier film. Very devoid of empathy, thought, feeling, and idea.

---

How is the film empty of ideas or feelings? You have admitted to feelings in response to watching the film - 'an exhausting and uncomfortable film for me' - so how can the film be empty of feelings when youn have them in response? Perhaps the issue is that you expect to have different feeings in relation to the subject matter. Fine. But that's about you and not the film. As to the suggestion that the film has no ideas - well that's a silly and unintelligent comment to make.

---

one of the most personal and human moments of life

---

A person deteriorating from a chronic illness is not felt as a 'personal and human moment' by everyone. Some want to push the possibility of such an end for any and all humans aside. It's an assumption of yours as to how this situation should be ideally. The film illustrates the life and humanity of Georges and Anne, as well as their relationship, in lots of little ways. Their characters are neither hollow or flat. It's quite clear from the posts on this board that many resonate with them. That you find them so is a comment about you. What they are is slightly hidden from the viewer, as people in reality are from each other. This is not the same as 'flat.'

---

Why bring a creation into the world without giving it life?

---

Another assumption based on a philosophy you have adopted and not shared in your post. A creation by its very definition is given life else it could not be created.

---

I don't watch films to be entertained I watch films to experience and connect to ideas, characters, events, etc. and there wasn't much here.

---

There was plenty, as the posts on the board attest. This film and perhaps Haneke is not for you, that's the issue.

---

So little was on display, anxiety, depression, sadness, grief, were all strictly and very carefully avoided, only thing that was explored was frustration, but not too often.

---

Methinks you don't relate to people very well that you fail to recognise the varied feelings of the characters or your own response to them.

---

Why depict a horrifying situation yet keep us detached from the horror?

---

What is 'horrifying' about something you previously referred to as 'personal and human'?

---

I guess absence is something to experience

---

Absence is an experience as is nothingness. Not that this is what the film confronts many with. Again this is about you.

---

why in the face of one the the single most important human experience?

---

How is Anne's dying and death 'the single most important human experience'? Methinks you reach too often for superlatives to describe something that is common and normal.

---

The film seems more concerned with the technical details of dying from illness then the actual experience itself.

---

I didn't realise that Michael had directed a forensic examination of death and deterioration on the human body.

---

through the eyes of a machine or psychopath, pure detachment from humanity.

---

Here you have projected your eyes. They belong to you. You see the film with 'pure detachment'. It's a comment about you.

---

It almost feels cheap and exploitative, the whole thing seems to exist so the director can narcissistically prove a point about art or cinema.

---

I think you are narcissistic. Rather than join a discussion on the board with a like mind, e.g. jacintocupboard, you choose to post your own thread about the film and director when really it's all about you.

---

that restraint that was intended to make it feel real and raw, actually worked against it

---

Did Haneke intend to be restrained and for such restraint to 'feel real and raw'? I'd like a reference to this admittance from him. In the absence of such it is merely another remark about you and who you are and what you expect.

---

Keep silent unless what you are going to say is more important than silence.

---

I was surprised that the film wasn't MORE oppressive and bleak. It seems like the most positive Haneke film I have seen.

The White Ribbon was hideously claustrophobic and unsettling.
Hidden was the same.

By comparison there seemed to me to be a great deal of warmth and compassion at the heart of Amour.

I personally consider The White Ribbon Haneke's best film. It is his only film that contains truly human, deeply sympathetic characters.

It is his only film that contains truly human, deeply sympathetic characters.

May I ask how did you feel about those in 'Amour' then? They have to be 'truly human' too, no?

I'd say so, but I found that most of my sympathy for them came from my understanding, as a viewer, that the process of aging and dying is an inevitable, fundamental part of the human condition; whereas the film remains detached and highly clinical, so I found it hard to really warm up to the characters as people. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am used to this from Mr. Haneke. Which is what made the warmth and empathy in the portrayal of the young teacher in The White Ribbon all the more startling. Especially in such a stark, unsparing film.

Have you seen The Piano Teacher? If so then how was Erika not human or a deeply sympathetic character? As to the teacher in The White Ribbon: Yes he was a warmer, more readily sympathetic character than many with which Haneke's films confront us, but he was a fool as well.

---

I'm not trying to break your heart,
I'm just trying hard not to fall apart

---

Okay, wow. I realize I was making an absolute statement, but it was still just my opinion. You can continue to provide example after example of empathetic characters in Haneke's other films, but the fact remains that The White Ribbon was the only one I was able to connect with in this way. As I said before, I'm not criticizing Haneke - I'm just pointing out why The White Ribbon has my highest rating.

You know the teacher in the White Ribbon at least to me came off very demonstrative. In a way, his behavior appeared to be out in the open, you see? You could generally see what he was up to on the surface. I'm thinking that the description of 'clinical' attributed to Haneke's treatment of the couple is more a process of characterization. The couple we see are in a common but yet 'extraordinary' situation. Why 'extraordinary'? Beacuse I believe it is their own exclusive experiental trial as they deal with the vicissitudes of aging. To me they show great nobility in the situation rather than say a descent into OVERT lamentation. They really are like two icebergs adrift in a frozen sea. What we see is nothing compared to the absolute emotional and psychological tumult going on within themselves internally. Haneke I thought was brilliant there as he paints the picture of the couple. I think he truly understands where the couple resides behavorially.