On November 21, 1811, Heinrich von Kleist took his own life moments after shooting a woman named Henriette Vogel. A notable writer of the Romantic tradition in his native Germany and abroad, Kleist is said to have been planning the consensual act for quite some time. The fulfillment of a suicide pact may sound like an unlikely premise for a romantic comedy, but filmmaker Jessica Hausner is no stranger to upturning expectations. Her last movie, the resplendent religious drama Lourdes, was both funny and tragic in its exploration of a supposed miracle; Amour fou, her dramatization of Kleist and Vogel's relationship, likewise vacillates from one tone to another, appearing to settle on one end of the spectrum before shifting back to the other.Adding to the strangeness of this real-life tale is the fact that Henriette wasn't even Heinrich's first choice for suicidal partner. He courts a few other women en route to the soft "yes" he eventually receives, all of whom are puzzled by his bizarre request. Henriette is clearly different from his other prospects, however. We learn early on that she's enamored with his poem about a woman who suffers a most tragic fate at the hands of the man she thought loved her. Despite her repeated insistence that she would never want to experience such an ordeal, the tale sticks with her—there's a vicarious thrill to its morbidity. Something similar occurs while watching Amour fou, its contemplative musings and understated beauty contributing to an oddly immersive rhythm that, once established, is easy to get lost in.Hausner guides the action along gently but confidently; there's rarely any doubt that she knows exactly what she's doing and that it's in our best interest to follow along carefully. Her film counts on the audience being as impressionable as Henriette and proves just as persuasive as Heinrich. The Austrian writer-director sets up scenes in a seemingly unassuming manner, drawing our attention to the smallest ostentatious detail: where one character stands in relation to another, or how two of them might dance during one of their many musical fetes.Heinrich is sometimes spoken of in hushed tones during these elite soirees, and at one point it's questioned whether his melancholia may be a symptom of his gall. That everyone in Amour fou is beholden to the old-world explanations and pseudosciences of the day is no surprise, but Hausner doesn't mind contrasting their outdated ideas with their supposed sophistication. Like much else in the film, it's lightly ridiculous and presented so straightforwardly that you can't help but laugh.Though initially dismissive of her suitor's offer, Henriette's demeanor shifts considerably when she's struck by a mystery ailment with no apparent physical cause. Doctors' explanations are less psychosomatic than spiritual, which the patient is forced to accept. Her diagnosis shifts back and forth throughout—one physician declares her terminally ill with either a tumor or an ulcer, while another agrees with the original, more spiritual explanation—and, this being 1811 and all, the matter is certainly up for debate. Regardless, thinking she's going to die causes Henriette to reconsider Heinrich's macabre proposal, but still he's unsatisfied. He wants her to depart this mortal coil with him because she'd rather die with him than live alone, not because she's afraid of the end that awaits her.Amour fou translates to "mad love," though not from German. Hausner's appropriation of the title made famous by French auteur Jacques Rivette's 1969 film is apropos of the oddball story, as well as the only plausible explanation for such a highly improbable act. We never see any sort of physical intimacy between Henriette (who's married with children) and Heinrich, nor does Hausner explicitly imply any. But matters of the heart are rarely as they appear, and neither is Amour fou.Follow Michael on Twitter.
Advertisement