«
»

Amour trailer

This entry was posted on May 20, 2012 at 8:05 AM and is filed under the ugly. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

18 Responses to “Amour trailer”

  1. Satyam Says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    Bliss:

    ‘Amour’ is getting Awesome reviews from cannes, some calling it one of the Best

    Like

    Reply
  2. Bliss Says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM

    Cannes 2012: Amour – review
    Michael Haneke’s new film, a study of the effects of ageing and dementia on a blissful married couple, is intelligent film-making of the highest order

    ***** ( 5 Star)

    Michael Haneke’s new film in the Cannes competition is everything that could have been expected from him and more: a moving, terrifying and uncompromising drama of extraordinary intimacy and intelligence. Amour asks the question of what will, in Larkin’s words, survive of us – and what the word means as we approach the end of our lives. Haneke begins the movie with a flash-forward sequence which impresses on our minds and retinas a devastating memento mori motif, governing how we react to everything that succeeds it.

    Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva give breathtaking performances as Georges and Anne, retired music teachers in their 80s, living in a handsomely furnished, book-lined Paris apartment with a baby grand piano. They are happy, affectionate, loving; active and content. We see them attending the performance by one of Anne’s former pupils, and are delighted with his success. But one day, Anne suffers the first of a series of strokes which paralyse one arm, making playing the piano impossible, accompanied by progressive dementia. Trintignant’s face is etched not merely with the cares of age but dismay and fear: the person whom he loved and loves is beginning to vanish before his eyes. As Anne’s life ebbs away, so does her identity: is their love itself beginning to be dismantled? The movie reminded me of Proust’s remark about the end of life being a mystery akin to actors laying down a role played for so long that it had become part of who they are.

    For Full ===>

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/20/amour-haneke-film-review

    Like

    Reply
  4. GF Says:
    May 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

    Really looking forward to this.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Satyam Says:
    May 26, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    May 25, 2012
    Looking Directly at Life’s Decline
    By DENNIS LIM

    CANNES, France — The Austrian director Michael Haneke has made an art of exploiting audience discomfort. In a sense his new film, “Amour,” continues in that vein by staring down the least palatable of subjects: aging, sickness and death. But the universal specter of mortality has brought with it a tenderness seldom seen in Mr. Haneke’s cool, analytical cinema, and the film remains the closest thing to a consensus favorite among critics at the Cannes Film Festival here.

    As the festival enters its final weekend, “Amour” also looks like a strong contender for a top prize at the awards ceremony on Sunday. (Mr. Haneke’s previous film, “The White Ribbon,” took the Palme d’Or in 2009.)

    There has also been effusive praise for the lead actors, Jean-Louis Trintignant (“A Man and a Woman,” “The Conformist”) and Emmanuelle Riva (“Hiroshima Mon Amour”), who play octogenarians, Georges and his wife, Anne, who has had a stroke.

    Speaking mostly in German through an interpreter, Mr. Haneke, 70, discussed “Amour” (which Sony Pictures Classics will release later this year) in an interview at the Majestic Hotel this week. Edited excerpts follow:

    Q. You’ve said you drew on personal experience in making “Amour.” Were you also compelled to tackle the subject of aging because it’s something we seldom see depicted with candor and directness in movies?

    A. My impression is that it’s something that is dealt with, though more as a political theme — there have been several films and TV movies about the fate of the elderly. I didn’t do this because I thought it was an important theme, although of course it is. I make my films because I’m affected by a situation, by something that makes me want to reflect on it, that lends itself to an artistic reflection. I always aim to look directly at what I’m dealing with. I think it’s a task of dramatic art to confront us with things that in the entertainment industry are usually swept under the rug.

    Q. Did you write these parts with these actors — titans of French cinema — in mind?

    A. I wrote the script for Jean-Louis Trintignant. I’ve always admired and wanted to work with him; it was just a question of finding the right role. It was a sine qua non that he would be involved. Without him I wouldn’t have made the film. He radiated the warmth that I needed for the film.

    As a young man, I’d been captivated by Emmanuelle Riva in “Hiroshima Mon Amour” but after that I lost her from view. When it came time to cast the female lead we did auditions, invited all the French actresses in this age group. From the very beginning Emmanuelle Riva was my favorite, not only because she’s a great actress but because she forms a very attractive and believable couple with Jean-Louis Trintignant.

    Q. At the news conference Jean-Louis Trintignant referred to you as a demanding director — he even joked about you directing a pigeon in one scene — but Isabelle Huppert, a regular collaborator of yours, said she did not find working with you at all difficult. Would you say you ask a lot of your actors?

    A. Because I’m the author of my screenplays I know what I’m looking for. It’s true that I can be stubborn in demanding that I get what I want, but it’s also a question of working with patience and love. I love actors, both my parents were actors, and the work with actors is the most enjoyable part of making a film. It’s important that they feel protected and are confident they won’t be betrayed. When you create that atmosphere of trust, it’s in the bag — the actors will do everything to satisfy you.

    You can be very dictatorial in dealing with actors, but they are going to feel that, and the way they act will show it as well. Or you can lead them to share your opinion, until what they do comes from their own conviction. It’s a question of being determined and being convincing. I’m not someone who enjoys long talks, long rehearsals. I’m very technical: I tell my actors, you come in, you sit down, you pick up a coffee, you look here, you say the line. We try it with the cameras rolling, and if it doesn’t work, we adjust it until it does. It’s very simple.

    Q. Why did you set the film almost entirely within the couple’s apartment?

    A. When you choose to deal with a theme as serious as this, you have to find a formal approach that’s suited to it. With the elderly and the sick, their lives shrink to the four walls they live within. It seemed to me dramatically appropriate to turn back to the classical unities of time, place and action. It’s difficult to make a feature film involving two people and a single set and to hold an audience’s attention. But I enjoyed the challenge, and if it worked, so much the better.

    Q. The apartment, which you built in a studio, becomes a character in itself — it says a great deal about the couple’s life together. What were some of your considerations in imagining and designing this space?

    A. The apartment was modeled on my parents’ apartment, but because we had to transpose this Viennese apartment to Paris, we made some adjustments: They had Biedermeier furniture, and we had to substitute French-style furniture.

    To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to insist that what motivated me to make this film didn’t concern my parents — it was someone else I was close to. I used their apartment because it’s always very useful when you’re writing a script to have in mind a precise geography; it gives you certain ideas. For instance, in this case, the distance from the kitchen to the bedroom gave me ideas about what the actors should do, what might take place.

    Q. Are you at all surprised by the warm reception to “Amour”? With some of your earlier films, audiences have tended to react to difficult subject matter more ——

    A. —— aggressively? [smiling] I hope that each new film shows a new side of me. The audience responds to this film differently because we know this is something we’ve confronted in our lives or something we know is going to confront us. It’s really about the theme. I don’t think I’m growing wiser or quieter with age.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Saurabh Says:
    May 28, 2012 at 7:29 AM

    Satyam, results of Cannes 2012- http://collider.com/cannes-2012-winners-amour/169297/

    Cannes 2012 Winners: Michael Haneke Wins His Second Palme d’Or for AMOUR

    Another Cannes, another win for Michael Haneke. Haneke won the Grand Jury Prize in for The Piano Teacher in 2001, Best Director for Caché in 2005, and the festival’s top honor, the Palme d’Or, for The White Ribbon in 2009. With no brass ring left, Haneke settled for another Palme D’Or at this year’s fest for his typically harrowing tale of elderly marriage, Amour (aka Love). Haneke is now the eighth director to win Best Film twice*, joining the likes of Francis Ford Coppola and the Daredenne brothers.

    Beyond the Hills was the only film to win multiple awards, earning both Best Screenplay (by writer/director Cristian Mungiu) and a tie for Best Actress between co-stars Cosmina Stratan and Cristina Flutur. The only winner I can guarantee we Americans will be able to see anytime soon is Beasts of the Southern Wild, which is set for release on June 27 after writer/director Benh Zeitlin won the Caméra d’or (Best First Feature). The jury also awarded Reality, The Angels’ Share, Post Tenebras Lux, and The Hunt. Hit the jump for the full list of award winners.

    Palme d’Or
    AMOUR (LOVE)
    Directed by Michael Haneke

    Grand Prix
    REALITY
    Directed by Matteo Garrone

    Award for Best Director
    Carlos Reygadas
    POST TENEBRAS LUX

    Award for Best Screenplay
    Cristian Mungiu
    DUPÃ DEALURI (BEYOND THE HILLS)

    Award for Best Actress
    Cristina Flutur and Cosmina Stratan
    DUPÃ DEALURI (BEYOND THE HILLS)

    Award for Best Actor
    Mads Mikkelsen
    JAGTEN (THE HUNT)

    Jury Prize
    THE ANGELS’ SHARE
    Directed by Ken Loach

    Caméra d’Or
    BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
    Directed by Benh ZEITLIN

    Like

    Reply
  7. GF Says:
    January 17, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    Finally caught this, and liked it immensely. Probably my favorite film of the year, even if it was not quite as resonant in its effects on me as some of Haneke’s previous efforts. This is a film that might not appeal to those who are great fans of Haneke’s previous work. Not because it is a departure from his interests (despite its movie of the week and Million-Dollar-Baby-like gestures, it really isn’t) but because the air of unease that we so identify with his work and that feels so pervasive elsewhere in his movies, most recently in his masterpieces Cache and The White Ribbon, is not as apparent here, or only intermittently so. This is partly because unlike those two works, there aren’t overt historical realities working as subtext here, (which is not to say it is politically empty; it is not) but also because there isn’t much of an outside world here to engage with. This is a film that’s almost entirely confined to a single space, a chamber drama that uses space to communicate Haneke’s thematic objectives with this film, which connect to themes he’s explored in the past. In many ways this film reminded me most of Cache and especially Funny Games. Amour, like those two films, is populated by unwanted, unannounced guests and mysterious, intangible and physically dangerous intrusions into a private space. It is the exploration of these ideas, and how they relate to the self-evident conflict that exists in the natural human instinct to keep mortality–nature itself–at bay, that make Amour most interesting not only as a standalone work but as an extension of Haneke’s oeuvre.

    In this sense I feel like much of the American mainstream press, at least based on the reviews I’ve come across, are praising Haneke for the wrong reasons here…

    Like

    Reply
    • GF Says:
      January 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM

      This piece touches on some of the points I’m talking about in terms of Haneke’s interest in intrusion/invasion here, and also makes the shrewd point that the main couple here are named George and Anne, the same as several of Haneke’s previous married-couple-protagonists in many of his previous movies, including Cache and Funny Games.

      http://movieline.com/2012/12/12/review-amour-2/

      Like

      Reply
    • Satyam Says:
      February 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

      This has finally made it to my end though for one reason or another I haven’t been able to get to it yet. Hope to as soon as possible. One of the things that interests me here is the choice of these very iconic French stars. This could be another death of cinema tale!

      Hanecke in a brief interview in the Times today suggests his favorite stars were always Brando and Trintignant. When asked why he responds this way:

      “They don’t externalize or project everything. They keep a mystery within themselves, and that, I think is the sign of a truly great actor.”

      I completely endorse Hanecke’s definition! No Indian star-actor however can quite afford this luxury. The one making this choice must in a sense do ‘double duty’. In other words preserve that mystery while seeming totally obvious. A nearly impossible task. If one opts for the former one might be criticized for not being expressive enough or even not acting at all! And going down the completely ‘obvious’ path never hurt any actor in India at any level! Those who are lionized at any end of the commercial/art spectrum are mostly members of that ‘obvious’ breed. It is not just ‘critics’ and audiences but even in a lot of instances supposedly discerning directors who fall into this trap.

      Like

      Reply
    • Satyam Says:
      February 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      Finally caught up with this a few days ago (should have seen it after Die Hard to recover from this extraordinary exercise in badness!) and your comment reads even better now.

      the rest here.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.