The fact that Amour is an instant classic in the art-house world is perhaps one of the most bewildering phenomena to present itself to me lately. It's difficult for me to even begin to criticize it.
Firstly, some will say that this film is a "mightily expressive homage to love", which shows "the feeling's overpowering force and heartfelt nature". This boggles me. It's simply baffling that this is an opinion people come away with after having viewed Amour. The focus of the movie is to present a couple's relationship in its twilight years, however it does nothing to round out this relationship. The viewers of this movie witness a mechanical, formal, and unnaturally polite relationship between two old people. We are never presented with images of their past nor any obvious sense of devotion they feel towards each other. In fact, we never understand very much about them beyond the fact that the wife is dying and the husband is burdened with taking care of her. The plot starts off shallow and deepens only marginally.
The fact that the couple's relationship is not well presented undermines every other aspect of the movie. I found it impossible to feel any deep connection or pity for these people who were strangers to each other as well as myself. The only emotion present for the duration of the movie is concern. This becomes unbearable to watch after the first half-hour.
Some will say that the director has a "visionary directorial hand". This was not apparent to me. This movie has no vision and presents nothing that cannot be found outside of a rest-home. Is it "visionary" to show an old woman urinating in her bed? Or slowly becoming senile? Or receiving assistance to go to the washroom? It takes no insight or "vision" to show these things and I cannot imagine why such displays enthral viewers. A truly good film-maker would have insinuated the trials of old age, and the oncoming of death, without needing to display them explicitly. A good film-maker would create emotions that hit home without the tactics that Haneke employed.
The old man eventually makes a point that these characteristics of old age are the things no one wishes to see. Why would the director ignore advice given in his own movie's script? Did he think he could create something "profound" and "artistic" by simply going against the norms? Did he think he could create a masterpiece by presenting unconventional, uncomfortable scenes which do nothing but cause the audience to feel queasy, or inclined to look away? Such empty shock-value will never be a benefit to a movie. It is not a tool which a good director implements. Do the people who endorse this movie also stand behind movies containing graphic violence? Or extreme sexual scenes? Do other critically-acclaimed movies rely so heavily on shock to produce emotion?
The plot of Amour is simple and could be fully explained within a paragraph of writing. The director inflates this plot to the point that it runs for over 2 hours. This is accomplished by inserting countless long- lasting shots of dull scenes. I watched a man cut the head off of every flower in a bouquet for 3 minutes when I had gotten the gist of it after 2 seconds. I gazed at an open window for 2. I watched a woman turning her head to resist being given drinking-water for 3. Again I ask, is such a reliance on filler-content the sign of a good film-maker?
Overall it strikes me as profoundly odd that a director can create a movie lacking any and all instances of character-development, drama or intrigue; a well-developed thesis; and only containing bountiful amounts of shocking imagery (scenes that any person avoids witnessing in their day-to-day life) and drawn-out, still camera shots, and become critically acclaimed. It is simply baffling. Haneke is really on to something.
This movie is meant for the type who likes to go to a theatre, watch a piece that is intensely "artsy", and then give a standing-ovation afterwards without thinking beyond the "artsiness" of the movie, and without considering the fact that it may be deeply flawed in any (or perhaps even every) aspect of film-making.
Firstly, some will say that this film is a "mightily expressive homage to love", which shows "the feeling's overpowering force and heartfelt nature". This boggles me. It's simply baffling that this is an opinion people come away with after having viewed Amour. The focus of the movie is to present a couple's relationship in its twilight years, however it does nothing to round out this relationship. The viewers of this movie witness a mechanical, formal, and unnaturally polite relationship between two old people. We are never presented with images of their past nor any obvious sense of devotion they feel towards each other. In fact, we never understand very much about them beyond the fact that the wife is dying and the husband is burdened with taking care of her. The plot starts off shallow and deepens only marginally.
The fact that the couple's relationship is not well presented undermines every other aspect of the movie. I found it impossible to feel any deep connection or pity for these people who were strangers to each other as well as myself. The only emotion present for the duration of the movie is concern. This becomes unbearable to watch after the first half-hour.
Some will say that the director has a "visionary directorial hand". This was not apparent to me. This movie has no vision and presents nothing that cannot be found outside of a rest-home. Is it "visionary" to show an old woman urinating in her bed? Or slowly becoming senile? Or receiving assistance to go to the washroom? It takes no insight or "vision" to show these things and I cannot imagine why such displays enthral viewers. A truly good film-maker would have insinuated the trials of old age, and the oncoming of death, without needing to display them explicitly. A good film-maker would create emotions that hit home without the tactics that Haneke employed.
The old man eventually makes a point that these characteristics of old age are the things no one wishes to see. Why would the director ignore advice given in his own movie's script? Did he think he could create something "profound" and "artistic" by simply going against the norms? Did he think he could create a masterpiece by presenting unconventional, uncomfortable scenes which do nothing but cause the audience to feel queasy, or inclined to look away? Such empty shock-value will never be a benefit to a movie. It is not a tool which a good director implements. Do the people who endorse this movie also stand behind movies containing graphic violence? Or extreme sexual scenes? Do other critically-acclaimed movies rely so heavily on shock to produce emotion?
The plot of Amour is simple and could be fully explained within a paragraph of writing. The director inflates this plot to the point that it runs for over 2 hours. This is accomplished by inserting countless long- lasting shots of dull scenes. I watched a man cut the head off of every flower in a bouquet for 3 minutes when I had gotten the gist of it after 2 seconds. I gazed at an open window for 2. I watched a woman turning her head to resist being given drinking-water for 3. Again I ask, is such a reliance on filler-content the sign of a good film-maker?
Overall it strikes me as profoundly odd that a director can create a movie lacking any and all instances of character-development, drama or intrigue; a well-developed thesis; and only containing bountiful amounts of shocking imagery (scenes that any person avoids witnessing in their day-to-day life) and drawn-out, still camera shots, and become critically acclaimed. It is simply baffling. Haneke is really on to something.
This movie is meant for the type who likes to go to a theatre, watch a piece that is intensely "artsy", and then give a standing-ovation afterwards without thinking beyond the "artsiness" of the movie, and without considering the fact that it may be deeply flawed in any (or perhaps even every) aspect of film-making.