Cannes Film Festival: A Cool, Analytical Filmmaker Gets a Warm ...

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 here.

As the Cannes Film 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?), as the octogenarians Georges and Anne, who has suffered a stroke.

Speaking mostly in German through a translator, Mr. Haneke 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 ?? icons 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 press 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 does 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.

A.

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.

A.

What about your collaboration with your cinematographer Darius Khondji? Can you say a bit about the challenges of shooting on a single set?

A.

It was all about lighting, always about finding the appropriate light for a realistic portrayal. In this film the audience can tell the passing of time in two ways: through differences in clothing and through the light, the views we see through the windows. The light changes from winter to summer and back to winter again. I asked Darius to create lighting that would be as realistic as possible. The camera in my view should always be in the service of the film and never attract attention to itself.

Q.

I?ve read that you?re an admirer of Maurice Pialat?s ?Mouth Agape,? one of the great films about sickness and death. Was that in any way an inspiration?

A.

I always try to avoid thinking of other works that have dealt with the same subject, just as when I?m staging operas, I do my utmost to avoid good productions of the same opera. It hinders you, it stops you in your tracks. The Pialat film perhaps I had in the back of my mind, but I wasn?t thinking of it consciously.

A.

The characters in ?Amour? are named Georges and Anne, and you?ve used variations on these names ? Georg and Anna ? through your entire career.

A.

It?s because I have no fantasy. I don?t think that in cinema a name has to speak; in literature it?s another thing ? if you read Thomas Mann you read the name and you know the person. For my first TV film 40 years ago, I was looking for simple names, easy to remember, and that?s where they come from. I use the names repeatedly because it?s not worth the effort to come up with names. There?s no more significance to it ? I don?t even know anyone named Georges.

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.

hornets prince johan friso windows 8 logo anguilla gone with the wind michael jordan checkers