This film is certainly more condensed, but we start with your character in the past, when her children are still young, and from the title alone, there is a looming awareness of the future.Is it easier to approach a character when so much of her trajectory is laid out in the script?Do you seek out these types of roles or do they tend to find you? Mia loosely based the film on her parents, who were philosophy professors.
Your character is often on the move, running to help her mother, or, in that first scene, pacing around her classroom as she teaches. That’s really Mia’s immense talent for direction, but staging as well.It all feels very fluid, like you’re just moving and the camera is always ready to follow you. The camera is constantly in movement and its constantly in movement following the character, circling around the character.As Nathalie adapts to the dissolution of her marriage and her two children moving out—and on—she begins to take solace in the company of her handsome ex-student and protégé, Fabien (’s Roman Kolinka).But when she joins him at his farmhouse in the hills for a visit, heady conversations reveal not only the extent to which their ideals have diverged, but also that Nathalie’s personal philosophies may have shifted over the course of her life.What makes the character really rich here, beyond the time that you mention, is the multiple faces to the character.
The time isn’t too extended—there’s a little bit in the beginning and a small bit at the end.
She doesn’t cry either, nor does she smash any porcelain against the wall.
She simply looks up at him and asks: “Why did you tell me that?
FILM COMMENT sat down with the physically diminutive but enviably poised Huppert shortly after the Berlin premiere of .
The passage of time is a very important element in Mia Hansen-Løve’s work—her last film covered 20 years or so.
Maybe because she’s a philosophy teacher, she’s able to find these answers, which makes her so strong—even if she is fragile at the same time.