PDA

View Full Version : HAPPY END (Michael Haneke 2017)



Chris Knipp
12-26-2017, 08:21 PM
MICHAEL HANEKE: HAPPY END (2017)

http://www.chrisknipp.com/links/oimm4.jpg

It isn't

Writing from Cannes for the Voice (https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/05/25/canness-beguilements/) Bilge Ebiri said about Happy End that with it "Haneke has delivered the Haneke film that Haneke-haters see in their heads when they think of a Haneke film: a series of disjointed, narratively oblique episodes showing people being inhumane to each other." That is exactly what I have just seen, seven months later, at Film Forum. Much of our viewing time is devoted to trying to figure out how events fit together, though most of them concern members of the same family. The rest goes to wondering why any of this is supposed to matter. It has smart phones, cyber hacking, social media and drunken karaoke mixed with hip hop, but these updated forms of invaded privacy aren't as good as the old ones in Haneke's earlier, edgier movies.

It seems rather a shame that Jean-Louis Trintignant, who is 87, was lured out of retirement again for this depressing, uninvolving effort after winning a much-deserved Best Actor César four years ago for Haneke's heartbreaking and significant movie about old age, death, and love, Amour, which also won the Best Foreign Oscar. For that matter it's a shame Haneke, after making Amour, donned his director's cap again to make this. He hasn't made many films since Code Unknown in 2000 and most of them have been important. This just isn't. It's a rare misstep. And he's taken not only Trintignant but Isabelle Huppert, Mathieu Kassovitz, Toby Jones, and some other fine actors along with him into the quagmire. This has been called a "quasi-sequel to Amour," which explains the temptation, but Amour needed no sequel.

The subject is a tough one to care about anyway: the bad morale of the rich. Their lack of sympathy for the less fortunate is rather crudely underlined by having their posh residence at Calais, site of the largest refugee camp in France. (The family has exquisitely polite relations with their North African household servants but refers to one of them as their "slave.") The main subjects are part of a family that owns and runs a construction business. Later it emerges that some years before Georges Laurent (Trintignant), head of the company, turned it over to his son to care for his wife, who was suffering from a painful illness, which he ended mercifully: he is thus almost the same character, and to prove it has the same first name, as in Amour. He seems not to have recovered mentally from that depressing experience. Now that he is old, though in good health, he just wants to die and keeps trying. But what about the other family members, what's their problem?

The business has an accident at a dig site. Typically we see it from a distance, apparently a large amount of dirt falling down off of something. Questions of responsibility for injuries are the main concern thereafter. Anne Laurent (Huppert) seems to do the main work of running the firm, another bustling supercompetent role like the one she played in Elle. Her brother Thomas (Mathieu Kassovitz) seems involved too, but peripherally. An annoyance is Anne's grown son Pierre (Franz Rogowski), who has a bad attitude, and seems to have been responsible for the dig site accident through his negligence. She wants to think he will take over management of the business, but he says he won't and can't. She sees him when he's just gotten beat up by someone, perhaps in the interests of the company, but he seems hopeless and depressed. So is the mother of Thomas' teenage daughter, Eve (Fantine Harduin), who as we're told a dozen times, is 13. We don't see her. She has taken an overdose of different kinds of pills and is in the hospital. Later, Eve takes an overdose. Earlier, Thomas says she should take two Halcyons and he's going to do the same, because it's bedtime. Like many of today's bourgeois families, they're over-medicated.

If she survives, Eve might have a future as a hacker. At least she hacks into her father's accounts and spies on his cyber-sex with a third woman. Thomas isn't with Eve's mother anymore, but with Anaïs (Laura Verlinden). Eve is afraid of going into foster care because she knows her father doesn't love anyone, not her mother, not Anaïs, nor his cyber-girlfriend. He's also incapable of admitting this to the bluntly spoken Eve. But why would he tell his daughter something that should be reserved for a shrink?

Meanwhile a character who seems peripheral, an English businessman officially called Lawrence Bradshaw (Toby Jones) may be more important than we think, because he is lined up to marry Anne. But there is no love lost between them, and we see Bradshaw speaking only on the phone to someone about business, and he doesn't speak French. The film's truly important, if slow-growing, liaison is between Eve and George, the eldest and youngest in the cast. We already know she has tried to kill herself; in conversation with Georges she reveals that she tried to poison a classmate at school whom she didn't like. Or, not really; she just fed her pills given to calm her, but in growing doses, so she eventually keeled over. This will lead to a complicity between Eve and Georges in the final scene.

There's been a scene of a grand gathering, with many guests and a wild cello performance, in celebraton of George's birthday, he having survived one of several suicide attempts. The film ends with an even grander scene, for Anne's marriage to Bradshaw, with many people at multiple tables in a huge room surrounded by windows, very brightly lit, with all the family (and Bradshaw) at one table. This is supposed to be a shocker, an embarrassment: Pierre, the ne'er-do-well son, brings in a dozen or so scruffy looking African refugees. Several family members try to expel Pierre, but they wind up feeling obligated, belatedly, to offer the refugees places at the meal. Meanwhile Eve pushes George's wheelchair outside; he's injured from deliberately driving his car into a tree. This final sequence is first embarrassing, then creepy, then, somehow lame. (If you like the last shot, then the film works for you.) To say this is not Haneke's best is an understatement. It is the worse for containing elements of some of his best films, including Code Unknown as well as Amour.

Happy End, 107 mins., debuted at Cannes May 2017, showing in about two dozen subsequent international festivals. It opened in US theaters starting 22 Dec. Watched at Film Forum 26 Dec. Metacritic rating 74%.

oscar jubis
01-13-2018, 04:04 PM
Bilge Ebiri said about Happy End that with it "Haneke has delivered the Haneke film that Haneke-haters see in their heads when they think of a Haneke film: a series of disjointed, narratively oblique episodes showing people being inhumane to each other." That is exactly what I have just seen, seven months later, at Film Forum. (CK)

Haneke announced his structural narrative approach in the title of his 1984 film 71 Fragments for a Chronology of Chance. The fragments are most certainly not disjointed, here or elsewhere; there are dramatic and conceptual threads that link the fragments in ways that coalesce upon reflection and retrospective consideration. The plot develops into a sad and rather compelling self-implosion or self-hatred, in a way that provides a contrast to the mercy killing at the end of Amour.

This has been called a "quasi-sequel to Amour," which explains the temptation, but Amour needed no sequel.The subject is a tough one to care about anyway: the bad morale of the rich. (CK)

I don't know who said it is a "quasi-sequel" and I don't know that is an important question to understand the film.
I think this film needs to be given more respect and consideration. It's probably not as good as the 3 masterpieces of his that won awards at Cannes, but this film seems to me upon first viewing to be worth attention and respect rather than simplistic dismissals. The morale of the rich is always interesting and a subject to care about because the rich have all the power and what they are (im)morally motivated to do has grave consequences.

Chris Knipp
01-13-2018, 09:42 PM
Everyone has said Happy End is a semi-sequel to Amour, and not knowing who says it is not a way to distance you from this aspect, signalled by the fact that Trintignant and Huppert reprise their roles in the previous film. It's not a question, it's an important conceptual aspect. You can't sidestep this one.

That the fragments coalesce upon reflection doesn't save them from being disjointed and the unfolding uninvolving.

You're missing the point, which is that a miss is as good as a mile. A pretty good film by a great director is equivalent to a horrible film by a mediocre director. This is a pretty good film, but it's horrible coming from Haneke, and it also is tantamount to self parody. Coming as well as a semi sequel to a devastating and superb film that needed no sequel it's unfortunate in every way.

I may not have phrased the point ideally in calling the theme "the bad morale of the rich." My point is that it's hard to care about the sufferings of the rich. Let's also not say the rich "have all the power," because ultimately they don't, but they have the power to make it look that way.

oscar jubis
01-14-2018, 11:20 AM
Everyone has said Happy End is a semi-sequel to Amour, and not knowing who says it is not a way to distance you from this aspect, signalled by the fact that Trintignant and Huppert reprise their roles in the previous film. It's not a question, it's an important conceptual aspect. You can't sidestep this one.

Everyone (should know?) knows that Haneke always names his protagonists Georges and Anne, not matter who is the actor to signify that his characters are meant to stand-in or to be representative of members of a certain class. The Georges and Annes embody bourgeois archetypes.
The Georges in Amour was a retired piano teacher who lived modestly not the same Georges played by Trintignant here.

Post data.
I think of Haneke in the same breath as Fassbinder because they were experts at diagnosing and revealing with compelling force certain modern, social diseases and do not see the need or benefit of imagining a scenario where some kind of cure restores hope. The film does have substantial support from critics, but it's not a pleasant film to watch. I see evidence here of Haneke in full command. Perhaps the value of the achievement is low; perhaps this film reiterates redundantly what (his) previous films already said, but it achieves its aims.

Chris Knipp
01-14-2018, 03:26 PM
I was unaware of Haneke's constant use of Georges and Anne as character names, foolish me. Nonetheless this Georges clearly has had the same experience with a wife dying of a terrible disease as the one in Amour - and as I've said, many writers have pointed to the continuation from the previous film into this one. The financial situation obviously is different, the new one that alienates us more and is less convincing, but the previous one someone underdeveloped. In claiming this new one has substantial support from critics and shows evidence of Haneke in full command goes against the facts, again. It's done okay, but it's ranked by many critics as well below par for this great director. Why not acknowledge that?

I feel like a betrayed lover. But a few of Haneke's films are horrible or over the top, notably The Seventh Continent and Funny Games, and his torturous, pointless remake of the latter in English. Fingers crossed that this is not a sign of permanent decline.