Displaying items by tag: Sandra Huller

SISI & I

Germany, 2023, 132 minutes, Colour.

Sandra Huller, Suzanne Wolff, Georg Friedrich, Marcus Schleinzer, Anthony Calf, Tom Rhys Harries, Sybille Canonica, Stefan Kurt, Angela Winkler, Annette Badland

Directed by Frauke Finsterwalder

Sisi is the well-known and affectionate nickname for the Empress Elizabeth of Austria, Countess from Bavaria, married to the Emperor, Franz Joseph, Empress for four decades, whose son, Rudolf, was part of the murder-suicide pact at Mayerling.

Famous in her day, she has been the subject of theatrical dramas, television series and, from silent times not so long after her death, the focus of many films. In the mid-1950s, she was famous as being portrayed, young, by Romy Schneider in a trilogy of films. In more recent times, she was played by Vicki Krieps in Corsage. And, now, she is played by German actress, Suzanne Wolff.

However, the central character here is the Countess Irma, a Hungarian unmarried member of royalty, pressured by her dominating mother, auditioned as a companion for the Empress. In fact, Countess Irma was companion for the last four years of Elizabeth’s life, 1894-1898 when the Empress was assassinated by an anarchist.

The screenplay is a dramatisation, taking many cues from Elizabeth’s life, personality, manners, but treating them fictitiously, often with tongue-in-cheek. And this is compounded by the musical score, the range of 20^th and 21^st-century songs and their lyrics, something of a juxtaposition between what we hear and what we see.

Susanne Wolff’s haughtily regal as the Empress. But, this is Sandra Huller’s film, coming at the time of her great success with The Zone of Interest and Oscar nomination for Anatomy of a Fall. The film has a very strong supporting cast and some character actors for the episodes in Britain.

The setting is Corfu, the Empress separated from the Emperor, residing there, a houseful only of women, several fussing around her, and references throughout to her diet regime, considerations of health and weight, exercise, making demands on Irma. There is a visit from her effete cousin, Victor, a visit from her husband, discussions about the relationship, sexual issues, his sexual attack on her and the repercussions.

Malta stands in for Corfu and other locations, a visit to England and a meeting with Queen Victoria, the culmination in Switzerland. There is great attention to sets and decor, costumes.

Interesting in itself but also interesting when seen alongside the other versions of the Empress Elizabeth.

1. The title, the focus on the Empress, her nickname, popularity, affection? The Countess Irma, her background, Hungary, pressurised, auditioned, her companionship, her love for Elizabeth?
2. Audience knowledge of the Empress Elizabeth, from theatre, television, films? The image built up over the decades about her? Her actual life, from Bavaria, young, the pressure from her mother, marriage when young, mother when young, relationship with the Emperor, moving away, living in isolation, travelling, favouring Hungary? Her assassination?
3. Irma, with her severe mother, the audition, her not marrying, being accepted as companion, her age, manner, manner of dress, the travel, difficult, hungry, needing a wash, but the immediate demands made on her for exercise, weights, diet, keeping her hungry? The reaction of the young attendants around the Empress, confidential, giggling? Irma and the immersion in this world?
4. Costumes, décor, 19^th-century elegance, pomp, aristocrats, self-absorbed, attitude towards servants, households? Class and snobbery? The musical score, the contemporary songs and lyrics, counterbalance to the 19^th century opticals?
5. The court, Corfu, the beauty, the coast, the hiking? The count and his attendance? Elizabeth disdain? The young women and their fussing and giggling? Irma finding her place, summoned into action, to hike, dressing, her own dresses burnt, the Empress dictating her lifestyle?
6. The visit of Victor, his manner, theatrical, gay sensibility, flirtatious? His later return and care for Elizabeth, the final make up, urging her to come alive again?
7. The visit of the Emperor, their separation, his attitude, his requests, sexual relationship, his demanding she go to Switzerland, his aggressive sexual attack, his departure, the consequences for her?
8. The issues of exercise, fanaticism, weight, height, strict corsets, particularities of diet? The demands on Irma? The later sequences, Elizabeth persuaded to eat, her enjoyment of what she had given up for years, the effect?
9. The four years for Irma, love for Elizabeth, intimacy, Elizabeth’s reactions? Keeping her distance while asking Irma to express her love and devotion?
10. The visit to England, the country estate, the nobleman and his welcome, Smythe, the stables and horses, looking down on Elizabeth, the rivalry in the race, the growing intimacy, her wilfulness, deciding to leave, abandoning him? Irma and her observing the relationship, disapproval?
11. Going to Switzerland, the more relaxed way of life, Elizabeth and the prospect of life and death, Irma and the knife, the embrace, the attack of the anarchist, Elizabeth wounded, dying? Irma in attendance?
12. A particular portrait of the Empress Elizabeth?

THE ZONE OF INTEREST

UK/Poland/US, 2023, 107 minutes, Colour.

Christian Friedel, Sandra Huller.

Directed by Jonathan Glazer.

Discomfit. For this reviewer, the word quickly came to mind for the experience of watching this film. More than just merely uncomfortable.

Steven Spielberg has noted that he considers this film the best on the Holocaust since Schindler’s List. But, it must be stressed, it is completely different from Schindler’s List but is also a harrowing experience. One inside the camps, the other outside.

British writer-director, Jonathan Glazer (Sexy Beast, Birth), writing his screenplay in German, draws on the novel by Martin Amis. The film begins beguilingly, a wonderful summer picnic by the river, parents, children, playful, audiences invited to share the joy. Then the family goes home, a fine house, comfortable, an  extended garden, flowers and vegetables, swimming pool. that a German family might desire.

But this is in the 1940s,, the house is in Auschwitz, adjacent to the camp. The head of the household is Hoss, the commander of the camp. And this is where the experience of The Zone of Interest is the opposite of Schindler’s List. The garden wall of the Hoss house is also the wall of the camp. But, we never go inside the camp (until some final low key looking sequences where ordinary women cleaners enter the camp to sweep and mop). We notice the wall, the guard tower with the guard rising above it, the chimneys and the increasing smoke billowing. We, the audience, know what that means. The Hoss family tend not to notice anything about the camp, make some complaints about the annoyance of the smoke.

And that is the discomforting aspect of the film. On the one hand, we are looking at family life, the ordinariness of it, the wife (the excellent Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall), high demands and expectations for a comfortable life, showing the extensive garden to her mother, plans for the future. At this stage, many in the audiences will reminded of Hannah Arendt’s comment about the banality of evil. It is there in the contrast between the commonplace and intimations of overwhelming evil before our eyes in this film.

Our level of discomfit will depend on our awareness, memories, films and documentaries, the visuals of the Holocaust, the trains to the camps, the prisoners, the Star of David labels, the workforce, the huts, the opens, the gas… For older audiences with memories, this will be very strong. For younger audiences, there may not be this awareness, the film is a challenge.

Jonathan Glazer relies on our supplying the atmosphere of discomfit.

The Commandant, Hoss, seems an ordinary type at first (except for an extreme Nazi haircut) but he is shown discussing with some visitors a new plan for the camp, greater efficiency for heating and cooling the ovens, then at a meeting with a final solution agenda, his being transferred to Berlin (and his wife not willing to sacrifice the house in a move), his logistics for the daily trains to bring Jewish prisoners from Hungary, a scene at a Nazi banquet where he roams up and down, contemplating concentration Issues, speculating how those inside might be most effectively gassed.

Nominee for Academy Awards International Best Film, winner at the Festival of Cannes, highly recommended no matter how much the discomfit.

1. Based on the novel by Martin Amis? Expanded by the imagination of the writer-director? The 21^st-century, audience knowledge of Auschwitz, of the concentration camps, of the atrocities, the Holocaust and the Jews? For older audiences? Younger audiences and familiarity/non-familiarity?
2. The impact for the audience, the focus on the Hoss family, their lifestyle? Very ordinary at home? The initial indications of the concentration camp, the wall, the tower and guard, the sounds, shots, cries, the increasing billowing smoke, flames? They’re not making much impact on the family?
3. Discomfit for the audience, watching the family and its detail, the indications of the violence and brutality in the camp, detail after detail of the family life and their disregard for the camp? The gradual introduction of scenes within the camp, of the commandants of the camps, their meeting, and the social gathering in Berlin?
4. The British perspective on the issues? German language? German cast?
5. The idyllic introduction to the family, summer, the water, swimming, the picnic, playful? The return home? Life at home, husband and wife, the range of children under age, the servants in the house, the treatment of the servants?
6. The portrait of the commander, age, appearance, the haircut, uniform, but mainly seeing him at home, his white suit, at the table, putting the children to bed, the devoted father? Husband? But the later encounter with the servant and his going through the tunnel to wash?
7. The wife, age, Germanic in her commands, the fur coat and its origins, her looking in the mirror, her meeting with the other mothers, their discussions, especially of confiscated Jewish clothes, disappointment at missing out on desired curtains at auctions…? The arrival of her mother, the complete tour of the house and its comfort, the bedroom, the tour of the garden, the flowers, the vegetables, the vastness, the swimming pool? The mother and her joy and success for her daughter? Her later being disturbed by the sounds of the camp, the smoke, her disappearance in the night? Her daughters being slightly upset?
8. The issue of the transfer, the impact on Hoss, not telling his wife immediately, the sequence of his telling her, her reaction, not wanting to leave the house, the investment in it, absence from her husband? His dictating the letters, her suggesting the appeal to Boorman, to Hitler? His transfer, going to the meetings, organising the table and the delegates from the various concentration camps, his agenda? Business, no emotion? No inherent sense of morality?
9. The Hungarian issue, the number of Jews, the government, the logistics for the transfer, 12,000 per day, the trains, the number of passengers, arrival of the camps, selection for work, the gas chambers?
10. The visit of the technician, explanation of the improvements for the ovens and circulation, heat and cold, called objectivity in presenting these death centres? Hoss and his later congratulating them on their ingenuity?
11. Hoss and his phone calls to his wife, the middle of the night in her seeming disregard, the prospect of his return?
12. The banquet and ball in Berlin, his observations, speculation about the possibilities of gassing so many people in this kind of room? His wandering the corridors, being sick? And the insertion of the memories from Auschwitz, the ordinary women cleaners, coming into the camp, vacuuming, sweeping, cleaning the windows with the display of shoes, crutches, and the photos along the corridors honouring those who work there?
13. The cumulative discomfit watching the film, remembering Hannah Arendt in the banality of evil as the family lived their ordinary life, taking Auschwitz for granted, the Nazi loyalties, uniforms, the troops assembling and wishing happy birthday to the commander, the young son and his Hitler youth uniform, the bone in the river and the family having to wash themselves clean?
14. A chilling reminder of the Holocaust, the extermination of the Jews, Aryan ideology, the concentration camps and the terror, and the fears loyalties of the German people to Hitler and the Reich, its philosophy, its extermination?

ANATOMY OF A FALL

France, 2023, 151 minutes, Colour.

Sandra Huller, Swann Artaud, Milo Machado Graner, Antoine Reinartz, Samuel Theis, Jehnny Beth, Camille Rutherford, Anne Rotger.

Directed by Justine Triet.

An intriguing film which holds audience attention for 2 ½ hours. It won the Ground Prix at Cannes, 2023 and received five Oscar nominations, including Best Film, Screenplay, Actress.

In 1959, there was a fine American film, Anatomy of a Murder, with James Stewart and George C.Scott. At the core was a murder. But, the film was significant in the anatomy of the murder taking place in police investigations but, especially in the courtroom proceedings.

And, it is the same here, effectively so.

We are tantalised immediately. A journalist comes to interview a noted writer, living with her husband and son in a chalet in the Alps outside Grenoble. They strain to hear each other, as we strain to hear them, because above them, the husband is playing 50 Cent’s music on a loop, loudly, gratingly so, and on and on. Their son takes the dog for a walk. The visitor leaves. And, when the boy arrives back from his walk, he discovers his father dead in the snow outside the chalet.

The possibilities for the husband’s death are threefold. His wife killed him; an intruder killed him; he killed himself. The audience will begin to formulate their own theories, listening to extensive interviews and discussions between the wife and her lawyer, interviews with the boy, elaborate reconstructions of the scene, especially to test whether conversations could be heard over the loud music by the boy outside the chalet. The screenplay offers no easy solutions.

Then a year passes, the court case begins, the wife accused.

The court sequences, many and some quite long, are very well written, the wife present all the time, able to intervene. She is Originally from Germany, meeting her husband in England, using English for communication, passable French, but her being required to give her testimony in French. Her legal team, especially a friend from the past, intervene on her behalf. However, it is the young prosecutor, brimming with self-confidence, those who would not like him dismissing him as smug who commands court and our attention. He is more than incisive, cross-examining the witnesses, minutely probing every word they use, finding incriminating implications, creating them. The witnesses include the initial journalist, an expert with technological demonstration about the nature of the fall blood spattering, the doctor who prescribed medication for the dead man, a technician for recordings that the husband had made in the weeks before his death.

And, throughout the court case, there is the very detailed anatomy of a marriage, the exposure of great detail, intimate detail, conflict, support, resentments, and complications about the son’s accident when he was small.

Ultimately, there is a significant focus on the son, aged 11, and his testimony in the case.

The wife is played by German actress, Sandra Huller, best known for her presence in the very popular German film, Toni Erdmann. She gives an impressive performance here and was also the star of another winner at Cannes, 2023, The Zone of interest.

One of the best of courtroom dramas.

1. The status of the film? Awards nominations?
2. The title, the reference to Samuel and his literal fall to death? The revelation of his character, his personal fall from confidence to suicide?
3. The chalet in the Alps, the beauty of the surroundings, snow, mountains, the interiors of the chalet? The contrast with Grenoble, the court sequences? The countryside, the diners? The musical score?
4. The importance of music throughout the film, the loud music at the beginning,.50 Cents (and accusations of misogyny)? Daniel and his piano pieces, playing with his mother, loud music?
5. The opening, Sandra, the interview with Zoe, the loud music on audience response to it, interrupting the conversation, the interview being taped, discussions about writing, Sandra asking her visitor questions? Breaking off of the interview? Daniel, with the dog, going for the walk? His return, finding the body of his father, Sandra’s reaction, the doctor, the police?
6. Sandra alone with her husband in the house, her version of what happened, talking, the music, translating, the earplugs, sleeping? The plausibility of the suspicions? The possibility of suicide?
7. The writing of the film and its development, the audience participating in the interrogations, observing, identifying, distancing, Jury attitudes?
8. Vincent, his arrival, sympathetic, lawyer, knowing Sandra from the past, the conversations, the audience listening, her explanation of what happened, its plausibility? Vincent and his comments on what she should say, what she should not say, words and phrases that could be interpreted negatively? Incriminating?
9. Daniel, his age, the story of the accident, his father not picking him up, ringing the babysitter, his being hit by the cyclist, destroying his optic nerve, long time in hospital, his father taking the blame, Sandra and her blaming Samuel, the repercussions for Daniel, in the aftermath of the accident, his site, relationship with his parents, the piano, his fondness for the dog?
10. The year passing after the opening interrogations? The court case, Sandra in the dock? The layout of the French court, Sandra’s presence, the judges presiding, the two lawyers on each side, the witnesses at the stand in the centre? The jury? The camera sometimes roving over the jury and the crowd?
11. Audience response to the detail of the court sequences, attitude towards the prosecutor, his self-assurance, quibbling on words, interpreting words all the time, making them incriminating, suggestions, probing? The response of Vincent, counterbalancing, intervening, his assisting counsel and her interventions? The attitude of the presiding judge, seemingly to favour the prosecutor? Her interventions?
12. The revelation of the life of Sandra, Samuel, their marriage, the details, the psychological repercussions, the revelation of such details? Sandra in the court? Listening, her interventions, to speak in French, appealing to speak in English? Her demeanour throughout the trial, giving no indication that she had killed her husband?
13. The range of witnesses, Daniel and his presence observing, the previous record of his memories, his inconsistencies, not seeing well, feeling the bits of material to guide his journey throughout the house and outside, the elaborate testing of whether he could hear an argument between husband and wife with the music blaring? His testimony in the court, treatment by the lawyers? The judge summoning him, his appeal that he had already been hurt and therefore he should stay in the court in order to understand? Her granting this?
14. The journalist, the playing of the interview, the words, the music, the prosecutor and his insinuations, Sandra bisexual, the discussion of seduction and her manner, definitions of seduction, precision, the prosecutor and his conclusions, smug and self-satisfied?
15. The medical experts, for and against Sandra, the fall, the body weight, somebody lifting the body, the fall, the blood spattering, the scientific explanation in diagrams and details? What was possible?
16. The situation of Samuel, psychological states, the prescriptions, of the reasons, his wanting to get off the medication, the psychologist and his interpretation, in favour of Samuel, highly critical of Sandra, his conclusions? Sandra and her indication of Samuel’s vomiting, the remnants of the pills? This evidence dismissed because of its being her word? Her confronting of this man, his partial knowledge of the situation?
17. The introduction of the tape, the playing of the tape, the flashbacks, the audience seeing and hearing whereas the court and jury hearing only? Audience response to Sandra on the evidence of the flashbacks, her generally being calm, rational, her explanations, Samuel, erratic, his decisions, the aftermath of the accident, forcing them all to go to the chalet, his lecturing, his home tutoring Daniel, yet his wanting time, giving up on his writing, allowing Sandra to use a key idea, her reading his work, encouraging him? The exasperation, his accusations about her affair, the anger, the violence? And this only a day before he died? The interpretation that Sandra would kill him? The interpretation that he was at his wits and, would take his life? The money difficulties? Sandra success with her novels, jealousies and resentments?
18. Sandra, exposed to hearing all this detail, her explanations of the relationship with her husband, her interpretation of the recording, credible?
19. Daniel, his decision to testify again, the importance of the young woman assigned to guard him, prevent discussions about the case, her relationship with him? His asking her opinion, her refusing? Urging him to decide? Wanting his mother away for the weekend? The dog, the pills, helping the dog, the hot water, vomiting? His memories of the dog vomiting before, that it it had lapped up his father’s vomit?
20. In the court, his explanation of the situation, the prosecutor saying it was only his testimony and ideas, but Daniel’s speech, becoming the focus of the case, remembering his father driving him, no music, the dog and the vet, his father preparing him that the dog would die – and Daniel realising that he was speaking about himself and his death?
21. The audience learning of the acquittal not in the court, the journalist, speaking to camera, hearing the news, seeing the people coming out of the court, the interviews with Sandra?
22. Daniel, his going home, being with his guard? Sandra, the phone call, asking about whether she could come home that night, her joy when he said yes, the dinner with Vincent and the emotions at the end of the dinner?
23. Her return home, the embrace with Daniel, and the meaning of her going to lie down, and the dog coming, the dog who provided the situation for her acquittal?
24. A satisfying analysis of the situation, in court, out-of-court, the minute detail to be analysed for making a judgement?