MCN Blogs

By DP30 david@thehotbuttonl.com

DP/30: Amour, writer/director Michael Haneke (LA 2012)

Please see “DP/30 @ Cannes 2012: Amour, writer/director Michael Haneke” for more conversation specific to this movie.

This Interview interpreted by Robert Grey.

7 Responses to “DP/30: Amour, writer/director Michael Haneke (LA 2012)”

  1. Kevin says:

    Maybe next time you could treat Micheal with a little more respect, and ask him some decent questions?

  2. David Poland says:

    Perhaps you will give me a list…

  3. shank says:

    Watching this interview is so awkward..Bad silly questions..totally wasted the great man’s time

  4. scooterzz says:

    finally got around to watching this and must call bullshit on those first two comments…where exactly is the ‘disrespect’ and what questions would you two geniuses asked the ‘great man’? (really?…’great man’?…jeeze, fanboys can sometimes be such boors)…

  5. David Poland says:

    This attitude came up on the first Haneke interview too. Not sure what they want. Don’t much care. Haneke seemed engaged. That’s what I am after.

    It’s funny. I was quite intimidated the first time around with MH and with Olivier Assayas, The Dardennes, and a few others. Each time, it’s turned out that the director was far more down to earth and less up his/their own ass than I feared. So I remember pretty much every one of those with great pleasure.

    I had a pretty specific conversation about Amour with Haneke in Cannes and I’m not sure there was a ton more to say about that film. He is not terribly interested in self-dissection. So I did in this one what I do with many extremely talented people… I had a conversation as I might over dinner. I’m not saying it’s always great. But I don’t run into many people who are anxious to run as soon as the shoot is over. And MH and I did 10 minutes – that I wish I had on tape – on today’s indie film scene. He was not insulted or unhappy with the conversation. And that’s really my first goal. Then I pray that it is interesting for the viewers.

  6. Niall Maher says:

    David,

    What you do – I love.
    Your interviews give an insight into both the creative and the fiscal aspects of the film making process.Fantastic.

    Now David – the rub – PLEASE PLEASE have a bit of a chat with your camera crew.

    It’s below par, the constant re-framing suggest people justifying their existence.

    One good Mid – and THAT is a good interview.

    Sorry to leave a negative comment.

  7. Matt says:

    Thank you Niall, exactly what I was thinking:

    Great job David, but the camera is irritatingly distracting.

    Simplify please. One MID all the way.

Leave a Reply

DP/30

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I was 15 when I first watched Sally Hardesty escape into the back of a pickup truck, covered in blood and cackling like a goddamn witch. All of her friends were dead. She had been kidnapped, tortured and even forced to feed her own blood to her cannibalistic captors’ impossibly shriveled patriarch. Being new to the horror genre, I was sure she was going to die. It had been a few months since I survived a violent sexual assault, where I subsequently ran from my assailant, tripped, fell and fought like hell. I crawled home with bloody knees, makeup-stained cheeks and a new void in both my mind and heart. My sense of safety, my ability to trust others, my willingness to form new relationships and my love of spending time with people I cared about were all taken from me. It wasn’t until I found the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre that something clicked. It was Sally’s strength, and her resilience. It was watching her survive blows to the head from a hammer. It was watching her break free from her bonds and burst through a glass window. It was watching her get back up after she’d been stabbed. It was watching her crawl into the back of a truck, laughing as it drove away from Leatherface. She was the last one to confront the killer, and live. I remember sitting in front of the TV and thinking, There I am. That’s me.”
~ Lauren Milici On “The Final Girl”

“‘Thriller’ enforced its own reality principle; it was there, part of the every commute, a serenade to every errand, a referent to every purchase, a fact of every life. You didn’t have to like it, you only had to acknowledge it. By July 6, 1984, when the Jacksons played the first show of their ‘Victory’ tour, in Kansas City, Missouri, Jacksonism had produced a system of commodification so complete that whatever and whoever was admitted to it instantly became a new commodity. People were no longer comsuming commodities as such things are conventionally understood (records, videos, posters, books, magazines, key rings, earrings necklaces pins buttons wigs voice-altering devices Pepsis t-shirts underwear hats scarves gloves jackets – and why were there no jeans called Bille Jeans?); they were consuming their own gestures of consumption. That is, they were consuming not a Tayloristic Michael Jackson, or any licensed facsimile, but themselves. Riding a Mobius strip of pure capitalism, that was the transubstantiation.”
~ Greil Marcus On Michael Jackson