MovieChat Forums > Amour (2012) Discussion > What a pretentious, judgemental tripe th...

What a pretentious, judgemental tripe this is


Haneke is a pretentious, hollow, arty of a wanker. This movie does more damage than good.

So am I supposed to think that when death comes we should all shut down and run away from the world because of our physical and mental demise?

I work near and around death and most of my patients face up to it with dignity and embrace it exactly because, in the movies’ words, la vie est beau. Killing the loved one to spare her pain and humiliation is an abhorrent action to me. This movie is trying to tell us that when we die the outside world loses its meaning. Well it doesn’t Mr. Haneke. This movie tries to make me view death as an enemy that shrinks people to shameful and proud creatures bent on avoiding human contacts at all costs because illness, in all of its forms, poses a threat to human dignity and sympathy. The scene which shows the woman’s reaction to her former pupil well-meaning card made me sick to my stomach. Love is not only supposed to give meaning to life and death but it is supposed to make us endure our final moments, both for patients and carers, not being ashamed of our suffering. Death is not a burglar that comes into our home and breaks our lock. Death is part of our home.

Haneke wanted to become a priest at one stage. He should have. Comparisons with Bergman are ridiculous. Bergman was interested in showing human foibles starkly, in their most genuine form, whereas Haneke’s characters become so fortified in their pride that one might wonder whether pride is replaced with shame and conceitedness. Haneke here’s message to you: stop condemning your characters so severely, life is beautiful because there is death in it and not in spite of it.

reply

"What a pretentious, judgemental trite this is"

That's about the same thing I thought about your post. Great minds think alike!

reply

yes! lol
Spain

reply

Indeed so! "Death is not a burglar that comes into our home and breaks our lock" - poppycock.

reply

So am I supposed to think that when death comes we should all shut down and run away from the world because of our physical and mental demise?
If that's what you want but don't attribute such a judgement to the film.
What a pretentious, judgemental trite this is
I'm not sure I would understand this even written in grammatical form.
To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

[deleted]

I think Haneke presents the events in the film from a neutral and observational position. At least as much as is possible. He will have his feelings and judgements about the characters and their actions and I'm sure some of that seeps into the film but if, or where, it does his judgements are most subtle.

The OP seems to have reacted to the euthanasia and judged the film in the light of that. Their interpretation of the film describes a different one to the Amour by Haneke that I watched.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for posting the quote and link with the BBC interview, which I will read a little later. Haneke is an interesting interviewee from what I've seen and heard of him before.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

[deleted]

Just read the BBC and Guardian articles that you linked to in your posts. The Guardian one made me titter. What would it have been like to be at that Q/A when Haneke was asked about making a film on Hitler and then gave the replies he did! :D

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

I pretty much agree, not a good film, though the actress was amazing

reply

Indeed! As much as I find this movie irritating, she was superb. Totally deserves the academy award

reply

I think you got the wrong message from the movie. The subject is not death, is actually the opposite, and the characters know it very well and stated it very clearly in the film.
When Anne tells Georges “This is only getting worse and I don´t want us to go through it” (or something in that line) she knows the worst is upon them and yes she is terrified by it, but she´s not talking about death (that would be very welcomed as you have said), she´s talking about being alive without being able to live.
The movie doesn´t try to portray death as an enemy, it actually portrays it as a liberating medium. In any case, you might say that about illness and aging, but then again, that’s life. As a matter of fact, the movie (or the director) doesn´t try to manipulate the viewer in any way, given its lack of drama and emotion. We’re being presented with a life matter and how this couple dealt with it, that’s it, nothing more or less.
What outcome were you expecting from this story? Anne being unable to move or communicate with other people, while her health continues to deteriorate for about 1, 2 maybe 3 years and still keeping a positive attitude towards life? Or maybe you were expecting her to recover from her strokes? Neither option is plausible in our realm, so don’t you think that maybe it’s that particular life matter the one you despite and not the movie per se? Being honest, I can tell you I do and I don´t blame the movie for it, that would be like hating the messenger for delivering bad news.

reply

you make a keen insight into why people love or hate Haneke films- he brings us movies in a stark and honest way that completely casts aside the romantic notions and ideals we carry about reality as we would like to picture it according to the ideals we carry. We all assume a very deontological perspective and apply it to every situation, and when we see a situation for what it really is, we deplore people acting honestly. So, like you so wisely said- we kill the messenger.

reply

trite is an adjective. you probably mean tripe.

reply

I suspect you're right. Even as 'what a pretentious, judgemental tripe this is', it doesn't make much sense.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

I have to say Mr.Haneke is a very astute movie maker. Very unique in how he presents human issues within relationships. His view is a bit different here in that it focuses on a married couple who love each other deeply. He doesn't focus on pathologies in a relationship but rather gets us a little closer to what it means to love someone.

reply

I think he knows and exploits his audience as skillfully as Michael Bay. All that pop philosophy that surrounds what he does, it is every bit as unintelligent. But hey, it's an old German doing this with French actors so it must be a special kind of film governed by different viewing rules and immune to the criticism that would be obvious if this film came out of the USA.

Big fat no on that.

reply

Actually, Haneke is a piece of *beep* from Austria, not Germany. Other than that, I agree with your post.

----

The darker the shadow, the more radiant the light it beams.

reply

In my defence, he was born in Munich.

reply

Okay, alright, Austrian or German, I think we can both agree he's a pompous jerk. >_<

----

The darker the shadow, the more radiant the light it beams.

reply

[deleted]

I take the words of a pompous jerk with a grain of salt.

----

The darker the shadow, the more radiant the light it beams.

reply

[deleted]

No matter what you have to say, I still take his words with a grain of salt. From 3 or 4 movies of his I've seen, I can conclude he is nothing more than a Kieslowski wannabe.

----

The darker the shadow, the more radiant the light it beams.

reply

[deleted]

Suit yourself. :)

P.S: Regardless of what u said, I still take his words with a grain of salt of course.

----

The darker the shadow, the more radiant the light it beams.

reply

Aside from that, it was an overly long, humorless, bitter, boring snoozefest with subtitles. Dreadful.

reply

Aside from that, it was an overly long, humorless, bitter, boring snoozefest with subtitles. Dreadful.


Subtitles? Speak for yourself instead of making this some generally meaningful statement. You need subtitles only if you don't know French. Your loss, not everybody's. This forum is in English but not exclusively for anglophones, so try to say things that have more universal significance. It's like a deaf person saying "Hey! This movie sucks! And it's got sound too! Which nobody can hear!"

That being said, this is among the most poignant, painfully realistic and tragically human movies ever made on the exceedingly non-commercial topic of the ugliness of getting old and sick. One must be an insensitive blockhead not to be deeply moved by this courageous movie played by extraordinarily talented and true-to-life actors such as Trintignant, Riva and Huppert. Manipulative? Exploitative? I can understand someone very young labeling this movie with such terms. But, if you have ever seen one of your parents end up being as diminished as a human being as Anne was in the movie, inasmuch if you have known him/her as a bright, vivacious, intellectually and spiritually alert person as Anne appeared to have been, you would undoubtedly understand the terrible dilemma the husband was caught in. Is the solution shown the only brave thing to do? Probably not, but I could certainly relate to his despair, which was unfathomable for his daughter but which I could see myself so very well.

Euthanasia is not something to condone or condemn with a single, sweeping, all-encompassing statement or sentence. Personally, I would not hesitate asking for a merciful end to my last days was I to find myself in the predicament Anne found herself. Unable to communicate, yet I do believe she was lucid and aware of her situation, which was causing indescribable suffering to her and her husband. In my country, we now have a law that allows euthanasia (under another moniker, yet being all the same) under certain very specific conditions. That option was not available to Trintignant's character in Amour, hence the tragic end.

Hanneke's movie is anything but a pretentious moralizing speech against the natural aspect of death. It's an actual masterpiece. One of the most difficult movies to watch, only because it rings so true to the reality of death. It's neither a tale trying to deter us from facing the difficulties of getting old. I see it as a more specific story about a certain type of death that is just as absurd as prolonging life against any reasonable motive with artificial life-preserving systems for persons whose all attributes that make them human (as in "setting them apart from a sponge") have essentially vanished, i.e. in a vegetative state. With palliative care, persons with almost any deadly illness, except dementia, can die with a certain "quality of life" till the very end. There is no justifiable reason for euthanasia ( or "merciful termination of life" if one wants to be hypocritical about it) in such cases as in most situations. However, with the growing incidence of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia nowadays, there is an increasing number of cases where the question of the prolongation of the existence of beloved ones becomes painfully relevant. Within the parameters of well-written laws that ought to prevent euthanasia when dubious motives lie behind its request, it should be possible to allow "merciful termination of life" to avoid further suffering for family and/or other persons in charge of their well-being and safety. I have lost my mother a few years ago. She was suffering from Lewy bodies dementia, an especially severe and rapidly progressing form of dementia with Parkinson's symptoms on top of it. I have been confronted with something akin to the same dilemma as Georges was in the movie. And I understood him perfectly well.

So beware of judging Georges' acts too harshly. Of course it's only a movie, but such movies are so realistic that our attitudes and ideas are put to an actual reality check upon their viewing.

If you haven't watched Amour yet, please don't pay too much attention to all the hate or disdain that's present throughout this forum. It's an extraordinary film and you will remember it with vivid memories, and I think maybe until you are yourself confronted with a similar situation...



Is it safe? What is safe? Is it safe? Yes, very safe? Is it safe? No, not at all! Is it safe? Aaahh!

reply

I haven't as yet seen the film so would normally find it hard to comment on your post. However, your post doesn't discuss the film but instead gives your view on euthanasia and so I am able to respond to that.

"So am I supposed to think that when death comes we should all shut down and run away from the world because of our physical and mental demise?"

You are not supposed to think anything - we all have different views.

"I work near and around death and most of my patients face up to it with dignity and embrace it exactly because, in the movies’ words, la vie est beau."

Your patients would appear not to have a choice - if they did they may take an alternative option.


"Killing the loved one to spare her pain and humiliation is an abhorrent action to me."

To you yes - to many others no.

"This movie is trying to tell us that when we die the outside world loses its meaning."

To the person who is dead, it clearly does as they no longer live in the world.

"This movie tries to make me view death as an enemy that shrinks people to shameful and proud creatures bent on avoiding human contacts at all costs because illness, in all of its forms, poses a threat to human dignity and sympathy."


Death poses no threat to human dignity and sympathy - dying is what poses the threat.

"life is beautiful because there is death in it and not in spite of it."

I beg to differ.




reply

Did I just see Michael Haneke and Michael bay in the same sentence? Shame on you

reply

No. Shame on you for thinking I would fall for special pleading.

reply

I have just seen the film, and have also been involved with the slow and unpleasant decline of several relatives. I fully support your remarks, and utterly reject the anti-euthanasia rant by "friends....". I find that person's post to be smug, sanctimonious and very judgmental. I fervently hope that if I suffer a slow ending, nobody with those views is anywhere near me during the process. My reaction to such an encounter would probably be along the lines of that depicted in "The Singing Detective" (I think that was it), when a hospital ward is visited by a relentlessly cheerful choir, and one of the patients tells them where to go (or rather, tries to stammer his way through the relevant phrase).

The film? - superb.

reply

Anne doesn't actually have a terminal illness. I am amazed at how many people who have seen this movie come away with this utterly false impression.

When Anne first raises the prospect of suicide, having possibly attempted to throw herself from the window, she is in full possession of her faculties, is able to communicate freely, able to enjoy music and books and so on. She is mobile with the assistance of a wheelchair.

And if you look at Anne's face immediately before Georges kills her, she is happy.

Why are viewers reducing Riva's wonderful performance to a single emotional dimension?

reply

I wasn't taking her to be terminally ill at all. And it is clear that she wanted her life to end at a time when she was still capable of of rational thought. My post referred to "decline", not inevitable imminent death.

reply

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not synonyms. If you give a person an extra dose of heroin because they are depressed and want to end it all, that isn't euthanasia.

What happens in Amour is murder, not euthanasia. That people are fudging a few steps to be able to call it euthanasia: 'she wanted to die'; 'she was terminally ill'; is clear from posts on this board, even tho I accept you did not actually say that.

Ftr I am pro euthanasia rights. My point is that we see nothing on screen to indicate Anne is a legitimate candidate for it or even consented to it.

reply

That's why the smothering scene actually comes as a big shock - nothing in the prior scenes suggested implicit or explicit consent - the earlier expressed wish to die did not result in any "plan".

My objections to that earlier poster were based on that person's attempt to dress up suffering and the absolute refusal to countenance any form of assisted suicide.

reply

Fair comment. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

reply

Well Said!! I love how the OP says the Haneke is smug and sanctimonious- but dear God- can anybody be more sanctimonious, oppressive and tyrannical than to force another to stay alive either for their own selfish needs OR in order to reinforce their own moral principles?!! I could go on about this, but frankly I'm just too disgusted. Those who believe others should be eradicated of their will to choose in order to fulfill the beliefs of others are so cruel. What this husband did (and a more loving creature I could not even conceive), was exactly what the theme of this movie was about- love. Love is caring so much about the other that you let them fulfill themselves at the sacrifice of possession. Most of us will never be able to realize that. Love, to the ordinary person, is symbiotic. To truly love, you must let the other will themselves as an entirely independent person. He had true love to fulfill her request because she could not carry her autonomous wish out on her own, and someone who would have loved less would have acted according to their beliefs instead of their loved one's. This film was not about the ethics of euthanasia. It was about love, the rare, painful love- the only kind of love that is worth living, and dying for. This, like all of Haneke's films, was just a haunting and absolutely magnificent masterpiece. I think I went through about 10 tissues at least in the theater btw!!

reply

Does this make him pretentious because you disagree?

His wife asked him to kill her after her second stroke, remember? She asked him about the funeral he went to and cut him off misway through his explaination asking him if she could die. The film, in my opinion, shows him keeping her alive for the reasons you stated, even though she had decided she wanted to die.

What do you think of free will if one is physically unable to act on it?

I'm not sure Haneke is encouraging murder or euthansia, but expressing what happens when both parties agree to give up. One slowly afterthe other. She gave up first, he gave her what she asked for.



This is just my interpretation, and I'm aware that my response expresses a different point of view (and even immoral, according to you). I would hope you do not think of me as pretentious simply for disagreeing..

reply