September 2013 By Philip Berk
Michael Haneke may be one of the world’s greatest living directors, stubbornly refusing to explain his movies, but he’s not beneath campaigning for award recognition.
Although he needn’t have bothered. Amour was universally acclaimed the best film of 2012.
At his Hollywood Foreign press conference he’s enigmatic, answering questions selectively and hiding behind a translator even though he doesn’t really need one.
But don’t ask him questions like, Do you believe in euthanasia?
“I don’t like to answer questions like that. I make my films as offerings. I offer them to the audience and make them in such a way that the audience is confronted with themes and has to deal with them, find their own answers to the questions that I’m raising. I don’t think that it helps the film if I provide the answers.”
He is however willing to talk about the genesis of the project.
“Like so many of us I have experienced in my close family a situation that was similar to what you see in the film. It wasn’t identical. In this case, it was a close relative of mine who I loved very deeply and who was suffering incredibly and who I couldn’t help. That was the starting point for me to think about the issues in the film and to develop the script. But the story as told on screen has nothing to do with my personal story.”
Once you have the idea where do you begin? What is your writing process?
“When you’re dealing with a theme that’s as serious as this, it’s very difficult to find an approach that’s appropriate for the theme. It’s all the more difficult when you’re writing a script for two actors that takes place in a single location. The question then was, what would be appropriate for that theme? So I thought that it would be interesting to go back to the three classical unities of time, place and action, and with that approach the film could be worthy of its subject.”
How crucial in the development of the script was selecting Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant to play the leads?
“I wrote the script with Jean-Louis Trintignant in mind, and if he hadn’t agreed to shoot the film, I wouldn’t have made it. It was different with Emmanuelle. Of course, I’d seen her fifty years ago in Hiroshima Mon Amour and had loved her in that role, but since then I’d lost her from view; so when looking to cast that part, I simply did an open casting in Paris and met all the French actresses in that age group. Immediately the first time I met her it was clear that by far she was the best person for the part.”
Was it easy to get Trintignant to accept the role?
“I don’t mind pointing out that this is the first time Jean-Louis Trintignant had worked in fourteen years. but it wasn’t difficult to convince him for the part. My producer Michael Katz and (French producer) Margaret Menegoz had known him for many years and told him that I was in the process of writing a script for him. Once I was finished, I showed him The White Ribbon (his earlier film) and he was so taken with that that he immediately said yes.”
The apartment is so crucial to the telling of the story. Was it a set or an actual apartment?
“Since I was choosing to shoot the film in a single location, it would be very useful for me from the very beginning to have in mind the apartment where I was going to film. I wanted one that I knew very well, and for that reason I decided to use as the model, my parents’ apartment in Vienna. So I chose that. And even though my father was a composer and my stepfather was a composer and conductor, and it’s my parents’ apartment, it’s not my parents’ story.”
You’ve worked in France before. Is French a second language for you?
“It’s not so unusual for me to work in French. This is the fourth film that I’ve shot in French – my French is far better than my English. It’s not so difficult, but it is more work for me. It requires much more attention than when I’m shooting in German. When I shot, for example, The White Ribbon in German, I didn’t have to pay as much attention. You pick up on things far more easily, whereas when I’m shooting in French it requires more attention on my part, concentration.”
Why France rather than Austria?
“There are several reasons for my choosing to work in France. First of all, there are any number of great French actors in that country. They’re very fortunate in that respect. The second reason is I can find financing for the film in France; financing is easier to find there than in Austria. In this case, the film is a co-production between three countries: France, Austria. and Germany. Today it’s impossible to secure financing for a film in a single country; so I’m in the fortunate position as an Austrian because of the support and recognition that I’ve obtained in France to get this type of co-financing. Look at the numbers of films produced in each of these countries to understand why it’s easier to shoot in France. I think that in Austria the national production is about fifteen features per year, whereas in France I think it’s 250; so you can imagine how much easier it is to raise financing in France than in Austria.”
When we interviewed you for The White Ribbon, you described your process as story -boarding the entire script. This film takes place in one location. Did that change anything?
“I always work the same way. I write a storyboard, a very precise storyboard, and I stick to it.”
The doves in the movie, what is their symbolic meaning?
“This is another question of interpretation, the sort of question that I don’t want to answer. Then, again, the doves are an offering; something that I propose to the audience. It’s up to the audience to decide what the doves symbolize. It would be counter-productive for the film if I were to specify what the real meaning is.”
Why the title Amour?
“Again, this is another question of interpretation, the kind of questions I don’t want to answer because it would take that work away from the audience, but I will point out that the title isn’t mine. I didn’t come up with it. It was Jean-Louis Trintignant who suggested it. We were having lunch, and I had a long list of titles that we were considering, none of which I was very happy with, and he said simply, ‘Well, the film is about love. Why don’t you call it love?’ and I said, ‘Fantastic,’ and that was that. However, as to the meaning of the title, again it’s a question of interpretation that I don’t like to answer.”
Which among the great directors are ones you’ve admired
“There are any number of great directors who I admire. In the past I’ve repeatedly referenced Bresson, Tarkovsky, Cassavetes, too many to name. There are any number of great masters you admire and hope to learn from. Hitchcock as well, for example, is someone I like, but I can’t say that there’s a specific director who has influenced me or I’ve taken as a master. It’s the same with writers. There are lots of books that you read, films that you see that influence you, that you take with you, experiences that crystallize with you, but then you produce your own personal point of view. It’s very difficult for me as a film-maker to judge or define those who’ve influenced me.”
What type of director are you, gentle and kind or demanding and intractable?
“I think you’d have to ask others. Personally I think I’m far warmer, far more caring to actors. because I love the profession. I know how difficult a job it is, and I come from a family of actors; so I know what is involved. As to my colleagues and technical crews, perhaps I am not as patient. I have to impose what I want, work to get what I want. With fifty people that often requires more coercion.”