'Why destroy what could bring us together'
The Piano Tracher 8.8
The titular character (played by Isabelle Huppert) refers to Erika, a woman who lives 2 lives. She is a very serious, high class piano teacher in a stuffy music conservatory. And a sexual voyeur/explorer whose need for human contact is very different to the norm. One day she has a new student, who seems to unlock new desires in her, or at least bring them to the surface.
I won't summarise the plot in any detail, and will try to keep important details unwritten, but in terms of the story of exploring extreme sexuality there is a bit of Blue Velvet and Cronenberg's Crash here. Although I am a huge David Lynch fan I never totally understood the hype around Blue Velvet, which is sometimes cited as his best film. Piano teacher addresses some similar themes, admittedly in a wholly different way (blue velvet enters this world through a rabbit hole of a mystery and this shows it happening simultaneously with normal life)
The story itself has lots of intersteing detail to think about, which is important as it helps the experience stick in your head for days after. For instance why does she sleep with mum when she has her own room?
It didnt take me long to know I was on to a winner. After 20 minutes we see a student crying, it's only on screen for seconds and the student at the time isn't important, but I really felt for her. Thats when I realised the film had me totally invested and focused already. A minute or 2 later, we see three people playing instruments and I recognised the first 4 cello notes of Schubert's Piano Trio, or as I know it - Barry Lyndon music, which only elevated my investment. I've always loved scenes of live music, especially live singing in films - I will do a list of my all time best scenes of such in the future.
This is directed by Michael Haneke. He is one of those directors that, when reviewing one of his films, it is impossible not to discuss him at length (perhaps like a Tarantino or Kubrick) His style is the opposite of flashy. Even if the event on screen is of huge importance he just simply shows us, which if anything helps make things more shocking. It is stoicly shocking like many of his, for instance the moment with the tissue in the porn booth, or the moment with the razor blade in the bathroom. In many lesser modern films things could be done with jarring music or fast zoom to cheaply prompt the audience - 'react to this!', which sadly doesn't encourage the audience to become reactive in their own way. He often uses steady camera to give us an uneasy voyeuristic feeling, which is also a theme in this and his other films.
When the teacher and student finally get intimate, it is not for pleasure.. she seems to be testing or using him to explore her own limits and unusual fantasies. Is she now studying him? Is she a sadist? Interestingly, mostly she doesn't want to be touched by him, even hugged. Their strange toing and froing relationship is the throughline of the film. There is a standout scene which acts as a climax and simultaneously a release; She details her sexual fantasy in a letter, which he reads, some of which outlook to her, and it is extreme. She then has to look him in the eye and her expression is very interesting. She is the much older and more established person but at this moment I felt for her 'ego', as she had admitted something very hard for her to do, yet also she isn't admitting that she is in the wrong - like a child who knows they are in serious trouble but hoping against hope that they may still get away with it if it isn't noticed. Later in the scene she finally opens up to him, and, like a child admitting a deep personal secret to a parent, desperately wants him to accept her as she is but can't expect him to. It is a great scene, again directed almost with indifference- mostly focusing on them in medium close up. I felt for her fully and truly.
Of course as a viewer I have an urge to find a meaning to this scene, and the entire film, even if Haneke isn't necessarily sort to plant meanings for the audience to find - i think he may be the type to spark a debate, and then leave the room. But perhaps on some level the film is saying that people can be slaves to their desires, whether they are 'normal' or not. I suppose that's fairly obvious.
Towards the end I was struck by the power that romance can have in films in any form, when handled correctly, sometimes when least expected, not just romantic films themselves. Extreme films like Monster, Wild at heart, Badlands and True romance capture the power of love just as well as those like Brief encounter, Romeo and Juliet and Pretty woman. In fact it was very tense at the end, and her last act that we see, was predictable for the few seconds that preceeded it, making it hit even harder. For the only time in the film, her facial expression was uncontrolled, and that look has stayed with me since.
Huppert's performance, which won her best actress at Cannes, is a masterclass of subtlety. It's hard to explain but it seems her character is purposefully hard to read but somehow her performance isn't- this is quite an achievement. She looks to the side without moving her head. Her eyes can look like she is smiling when she isn't. Minute movements around the eyes show feelings that, as humans, we are all programmed to read.
I do love most of the work of Haneke, he is perhaps the best euro director I am aware of. His Hidden and White Ribbon were my favourite foreign language films for a long time, and are still up there, along with La Haine and perhaps Apocalypto. This may not be quite on the same level but it is still exceptionally powerful and a film of great quality and control.
I have found this one quite hard to summarise and I'm not totally happy with this review, I feel I have missed out bits and articulated my thoughts poorly. Partly because, and this is not a criticism in the slightest, this kind of film hits you at gut level, without giving you things to analyse technically. I am very intrigued to rewatch it in the near future and see how it hits me then. Simply put - Huppert's performance, and the film itself, have to be seen to be believed.
Comments