The Piano Teacher - my review

I'm on some kind of a roll with reviews of films. I saw The PIano Teacher by Michael Haneke yesterday and felt compelled to get my thoughts down straight away. I'll try and write a different kind of blog soon, but for now here is my review of a very dark but compelling film. You can see my comments here on Imdb.com too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254686/usercomments-224

I'm not sure I should really attempt a review of this because I doubt very much that I can sum it up or even begin to describe the power of this film. One thing to say is that it is extremely challenging viewing and if you are unsure of watching this make sure you know what you are in for first. Not that anything could prepare you for this film, but be aware that it is a dark and often disturbing look into some of the most troublesome aspects of human behaviour.

I can't say that this is an enjoyable film - that surely isn't the right word. However, this is filmmaking at its very best, coupled with a central performance from Isabelle Huppert that genuinely deserves the high praise it has received. I was only introduced to Michael Haneke very recently, and this is only the 2nd of his films that I have seen, but he is clearly an incredibly gifted director and writer who makes films almost unlike any others I have seen.

Films of sustained intensity and anxiety are quite rare, and there are very few films I have seen that are able to achieve the intense and foreboding atmosphere that Haneke, and also Isabelle Huppert, craft here. What is unique is that Haneke doesn't rely on a chilling musical score to build tension, nor is the film cast in dark and brooding light that suggests to us what the underlying nature of the story is. Haneke builds the tension with supreme subtlety and ingenious craft. The only music that is used comes from the piano playing of the characters themselves; the beautiful and artistic music is juxtaposed with the dark and secretive thoughts of Erika.

We gradually delve into the troubled mind of the otherwise austere piano teacher, Erika, and get glimpses of a side of her which initially seems almost out of place. Her acts are played out to a backdrop of a sad and lonely existence, one in which she is still controlled by a domineering and rather embittered mother. The mother, played excellently by Annie Girardot, perhaps gives us a tiny insight into why Erika feels trapped and repressed.

Huppert is astounding and the subtle nuances of her performance are indicative of an actress at the very top of her game. Huppert conveys so much fear, sadness, lust, anger and even love through a veneer of temperance. She constantly reminds us that these feelings are largely repressed and yet we can see them bubbling under the surface. Huppert betrays these underlying dark emotions often with as little as a slight shift in her facial expression – make no mistake this is acting of the highest calibre; subtle, understated and yet utterly powerful and compelling.

The actions of Erika are often quite alarming and certainly not appealing, and yet it is the hallmark of excellence, in both Haneke's script and Huppert's performance, that we can still sympathise with this woman. Even, if it is only a fleeting glimpse of sympathy or understanding – it is still there. That is how I felt, and that is another reason why the film is so challenging. Should I feel sympathy? Should I feel anger? Should I feel disgust? Haneke doesn't insist that we feel one way or another, he lets the power of the story carry itself and the viewer is left to sift through this thickened sea of conflicting emotion.

As I said at the start, I don't think I can do this film justice on paper – it has to be seen; and if you do choose to see it you will get something much more – you will feel your way through it. As I watched this film I felt an array of different emotions; I was gripped, tense, anxious, saddened, disgusted and much more. By the end I had a barrage of unanswered questions and I wasn't even sure how to feel about what I'd seen. That is the beauty, and I do mean beauty, of this incredibly thought-provoking and dark film. If after reading this you think you can stomach the content then I would encourage you to watch it for a very unique film experience. It is a breathtaking film but one that might well leave you with an uncomfortable feeling deep in the recesses of your subconscious. 9/10.

The Fighter - my review

Well, University life has been very busy so I haven't posted much. I've just written a review of The Fighter which I posted to Imdb.com, I've been meaning to do it for months. Here it is in full, or you can see it on Imdb.com here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0964517/usercomments-280

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had high hopes for The Fighter, not only due to the praise which was lavished on it, but also because I loved 'I heart Huckabees'. I know that was a film which polarised opinion, but I thought it was inventive, intelligent, funny and excellently written. I was therefore expecting The Fighter to provide something new. Perhaps expecting David O'Russell to take the boxing movie genre in a completely new direction was asking too much, but I did expect to find unique elements for a film of this kind.

What I saw was a film full of cliché and caricature. I didn't find it very compelling or exciting; instead I found it to be flat and frequently annoying. It was like O'Russell found a book of 'fighting movie clichés' and made sure he included them all. We get the traditional training montage played out to cheesy rock music - something that has been seen, and parodied, many times before. What about the other boxing cliché classic of several fights shown as a highlights package to chart the protagonist's rise up the ranks? Oh yes, O'Russell includes that as well. I actually couldn't believe my eyes that this was felt to be the best way to tell the story. Surely they could have come up with something more original!

I understand that it's the characters being portrayed that are annoying; however, some of them are like cartoon caricatures and infuriating to watch. The gaggle of aggressive sisters were the worst by far. They were not funny or interesting, they had no emotion, no depth and nothing for me to connect with. Amy Adams played Charlene very well, but again I found her to be an aggressive stereotype and I couldn't connect with her character. The scenes with the sisters, Alice and Charlene arguing were cringe-worthy. I can watch old re-runs of the Jerry Springer show if I'm into that kind of 'banter' but it brought nothing of worth to the film.

That brings me on to Melissa Leo as Alice Ward. She landed an Oscar and received much praise for her performance. I have to say that this was a solid, and certainly strong performance, but I don't think it comes close to being worthy of an Oscar. It was one dimensional and abrasive and never gave us a chance to see the woman behind the stern exterior. She stomps around moodily, cigarette in hand, dishing out barrages of f- bombs, and not much more. I couldn't find any depth, or motives, she seems like a cartoonish comedy character and not something to be taken seriously. Maybe we can blame the screenplay – but I think her performance really lacks something, which I look for in really great acting.

So then, what about Dicky and Micky surely they are the heart of the film and the ones who matter. I like Mark Wahlberg a lot and I don't think this his performance as Micky Ward is a bad one, but it rumbles along but never soars. I think it's more of a problem with the screenplay than the acting. I just didn't care about Micky enough to get into the film. After all, he is what this story is about and it is a failing of the film that you never get to see anything that lies behind the mask of bravado worn by this 'tough man'. What drives Micky on? What does he care about? We get glimpses perhaps, but never enough to flesh out the character so we can truly empathise with him. Having said that, the film hooked me in just enough during the last 20 minutes to root for Micky in his big fight, but prior to that I didn't become engaged with what was going on.

Christian Bale also took home an Oscar for his performance as Dicky, and whilst it was good I felt it was lacking heart. Yet again, this is partly to do with the screenplay. The drug addict and unreliable brother who comes good in the end is perhaps another cliché, but one that can be used effectively if it's done well. I though Bale was good, don't get me wrong, but I was left feeling that there was no emotional depth to the character that would give the audience something to care about. Having said that, there is a short scene at the end of the film where Bale showed true emotional depth and it was certainly pitch-perfect acting. But, 10 seconds of engaging and heartfelt acting doesn't warrant an Oscar. Maybe I'm being harsh on Bale but after what I had read about this film I was expecting a lot more. For example, I think he is much better in The Machinist (and I'm not referring to the weight loss method acting, I'm referring to the heart of the performance).

It may seem like I've totally slated the film but I'm not saying that it's awful. I just think it falls well short of the hype that surrounded it during awards season. I can't see how it deserved nominations for best film or best director. Overall it's OK, I think it's worth watching but it's not something I would choose to see again. It had a few decent moments, but overall there is no meaning. Essentially it contains a lot of angry people shouting at each other for long periods, interspersed with average boxing scenes. It's hard to care about the characters and I think it pushes away any real connection a viewer can have with the story. The last 20 minutes were a bit better but that wasn't enough to redeem it in my eyes. I think it could have been so much better, and in the end I was very disappointed. Obviously enough people loved the film, so I guess it's still worth giving it a go, but as far as I'm concerned it's average and not an award-winning film. 5/10