Defending Michael Haneke

johnny_ultimate

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0359734/

Seems the just released remake of Funny Games is getting a lot of flac from critics. Strange, as I thought the original was an excellent experiment when I watched it a while ago. Critics will give out about the likes of Hostel or Saw glorifying 'torture pornz' but when a director tries to address the issue with a more pyschological take on audience's perception of cinema violence, they dismiss at as an 'academic exercise'. There's no pleasing some people.

Shame about it though is that this was going to be a wider audience's first taste of Haneke, after he had been confined to the dreaded realm of 'subtitles' for years hence (and I think the shot-for-shot Funny Games remake is a fairly redundant exercise, but just goes to show how reluctant some people are to accept subtitles). Now, the man is getting a lot of bad press which will turn people away from his work.

Just finished watching the Piano Teacher which is another superb film from the man. A film which is controversial for sure, but breaks taboos in aid of a disturbing story of sexual oppression. It is an excellent, deep and intelligent watch. Same can be said of Hour of the Wolf, and the wonderful Caché / Hidden (one of the best films of recent years). Of all the director's working today, Haneke is one with a truly unique style, and who makes movies far more intelligent then the norm (and admirably refuses to be tied down to generic conventions - see the beautifully ambigious ending to 'thriller' Caché). Sure, his films always shock as well, but the violence is always warranted by the narrative, and the story is never dictated by senseless, pointless violence unlike the excessiveness of Eli Roth and his cronies.

Any more fans of Haneke? Truly one of the most exciting director's out there. Funny Games is well worth a watch as an introduction to him, and is nowhere near as bad as the critics seem to be suggesting. Just unfortunate that his name may be tarnished by all the negative sentiment floating around

Driver 8

I really liked Cache, but to be honest, I didn't think much of either version of Funny Games.

Essentially, two hours of being lectured on the questionable morality of film violence is a tricky idea to pull of in general, but to do it the way Funny Games does, attempting at every turn to make the audience feel just as uncomfortable as possible, and the very smug breaking of the fourth wall, it all felt intensely patronising, and by two thirds into the film, I didn't feel guilty, or uncomfortable, I didn't even feel any empathy for the empty, one dimensional characters (I know the killers are intentionally drawn this way). I honestly just felt bored. Yes, it is an academic exercise, and no, I wouldn't rather watch Saw or Hostel. The horror movies of the 1970s had something to say about violence in society, and didn't need to resort to the sort of empty tricks that Funny Games employs.

He's clearly a talented film-maker, but this film, in both its incarnations, is a hollow, pretentious exercise in chin-stroking. Just my two cents.

doonothing

Driver 8 wrote: »

I really liked Cache, but to be honest, I didn't think much of either version of Funny Games.

Essentially, two hours of being lectured on the questionable morality of film violence is a tricky idea to pull of in general, but to do it the way Funny Games does, attempting at every turn to make the audience feel just as uncomfortable as possible, and the very smug breaking of the fourth wall, it all felt intensely patronising, and by two thirds into the film, I didn't feel guilty, or uncomfortable, I didn't even feel any empathy for the empty, one dimensional characters (I know the killers are intentionally drawn this way). I honestly just felt bored. Yes, it is an academic exercise, and no, I wouldn't rather watch Saw or Hostel. The horror movies of the 1970s had something to say about violence in society, and didn't need to resort to the sort of empty tricks that Funny Games employs.

He's clearly a talented film-maker, but this film, in both its incarnations, is a hollow, pretentious exercise in chin-stroking. Just my two cents.

You said it all so much better than I could have! Except that I wasn't mad on Caché either, surveillance is an interest topic (sort of felt like a less obvious fourth wall exploration), but the film just didn't hit the mark for me.

The fourth wall breaking of Funny Games was cringe-worthy, and I don't feel the three minor incidents of it were necessary for the moral of the story. On the contrary, they just broke the diagesis for me and took me further away from caring about the characters and events.

Aside from that, I enjoyed the film. Kinda. Disappointed though..

johnny_ultimate

While I do like Funny Games, it is probably the weakest of his that I have seen. I think a lot of it is whether or not you are willing to accept the techniques used by Haneke. I do think it is a film that you cannot particularly judge by standard film critique. I think it consistently tries to distance you from the events, and it is something which some will accept and some reject.

doonothing wrote: »

The fourth wall breaking of Funny Games was cringe-worthy, and I don't feel the three minor incidents of it were necessary for the moral of the story. On the contrary, they just broke the diagesis for me and took me further away from caring about the characters and events.

Again, I think the idea of Funny Games is that the diegesis is broken. It is a film which constantly reminds you that you are watching a film. It isn't meant to be an exciting narrative, its meant to be a commentary. I can see where Driver 8 is coming from calling it more academic then anything. It is kind of like reading a paper on cinema violence, and I think one critic called it a 'thesis'. As a film, I kind of feel it is one in which you have to acknowledge that it is more a theoretical exercise than a piece of mindless fluff. I can totally see both of your arguements though - it is an extremely manipulative film, and some of the artistic decisions are better than others (although at this point I think the 'rewind' moment has been overhyped by the press), and I do agree that it could come off as patronising.

I think it would be interesting though to see an unsuspecting audience watching it. I think the advertising campaign for it is extremely manipulative. It suggests that it is a typical thriller, but it is probably the most art-house film to go on release in a while (even more so than There Will be Blood or No Country even).

Driver 8

It did also raise the question for me of whether Michael Pitt can do anything other than pretentious, smug art-house movies? I should view him as a human red flag from now on.

Great movie for fans of European death metal all the same

johnny_ultimate

Driver 8 wrote: »

It did also raise the question for me of whether Michael Pitt can do anything other than pretentious, smug art-house movies? I should view him as a human red flag from now on.

Great movie for fans of European death metal all the same

He was in The Village...


Oh. *smugness comes flooding back*

doonothing

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Again, I think the idea of Funny Games is that the diegesis is broken. It is a film which constantly reminds you that you are watching a film. It isn't meant to be an exciting narrative, its meant to be a commentary. I can see where Driver 8 is coming from calling it more academic then anything. It is kind of like reading a paper on cinema violence, and I think one critic called it a 'thesis'. As a film, I kind of feel it is one in which you have to acknowledge that it is more a theoretical exercise than a piece of mindless fluff. I can totally see both of your arguements though - it is an extremely manipulative film, and some of the artistic decisions are better than others (although at this point I think the 'rewind' moment has been overhyped by the press), and I do agree that it could come off as patronising.

Oh, I know, I get you completely, I just felt it didn't "work" for a lack of a better term. It didn't quite remind me that I was watching a film, so much as it blatantly sat me down and told me. The theoretical exercise aspect moments were too rare and felt like they were almost tacked on, and too overpowering when they did come to have an effect other than annoyance...

I guess, I appreciated the effort, and it was certainly refreshing, but it wasn't successful, in my opinion...

Decuc500

After watching a couple of his films and seeing the way he treats animals I won't be watching any of his films again. He's butchered a horse, a pig and a chicken onscreen. Anyone who resorts to killing animals for his 'art' doesn't get my respect.

Also, I go to the cinema to escape from reality for a few hours, not to have some pretentious filmmaker lecture to me on how I'm somehow complicit in what's going on in the film and tell me how I shouldn't be enjoying violent American movies.

Himself and Lars Von Trier...please, just go away...

senordingdong

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0359734/
Sure, his films always shock as well, but the violence is always warranted by the narrative, and the story is never dictated by senseless, pointless violence unlike the excessiveness of Eli Roth and his cronies.

I disagree.
Roth and his cronies have given explanations to the goings on in their movies.
And after looking up Hanakaes, it seems he has the exact same point of view on the matter and had almost the same points to convey when making his movie.

I've seen Funny Games and I just felt that the two stories of generic movie operating within standard guidelines, and his whole..attempt to break convention just didn't work, becasue, ultimatly, he didn't create a new approach to the genre.

johnny_ultimate

senordingdong wrote: »

I disagree.
Roth and his cronies have given explanations to the goings on in their movies.
And after looking up Hanakaes, it seems he has the exact same point of view on the matter and had almost the same points to convey when making his movie.

I've seen Funny Games and I just felt that the two stories of generic movie operating within standard guidelines, and his whole..attempt to break convention just didn't work, becasue, ultimatly, he didn't create a new approach to the genre.

I don't know. I think Hostel, Saw et al. create themes just as an excuse to get to the gory stuff. I liked the first two films in each series, but then I just think they tried to offend.

Take Hostel 2 and Caché.

There's a scene in Hostel 2 where a women take a shower of blood while cutting her victim with a whip knife. This was just offensive, clearly there to shock. It added absolutely nothing to the film, and I felt it was just Roth trying to offend. In Caché, there is a sequence where a central character commits suicide graphically. Now this is far more expertly handled. The goal isn't to offend. It is meant to shock, but does so in a far more realistic and disturbing way than the excesses of Hostel. The suicide is central to the narrative - the culmination of the main character's psychological torment, and a sad end to the Manu's difficult life. I don't think any film has really shown the disturbing nature of violence in such an effective manner. In Hostel 2, said sequence has no deeper resonance. It could be argued the final de-manhooding of the torturer is a feminist commentary. But I for one always feel in Hostel or Saw the pseudo-feminism or anti-consumerism (a stronger subtext in Hostel 1, admittedly) or whatever is simply an excuse for more bloodletting. In Haneke's film, the bloodshed is always far more relevant to the plot

senordingdong

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In Haneke's film, the bloodshed is always far more relevant to the plot [/spoiler]

I think the violence in Saw and Hostel (Saw to a lesser extent) is just as relevant to the plot.

I'm not as familiar with Haneke's work but I don't think he has proven himself to be above the generic criticism of these types of movies.

Karl Hungus

Whatever about defending Michael Haneke, I feel like I do have to agree with senordingdong and defend Eli Roth. The scene in Hostel II that you've mentioned Johnny, I found to be fantastic in the sense that it truly made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, something I think most films rarely accomplish.

I think there's a lot of prudish backlash against films that feature a lot of violence, and that a lot of the criticism of Haneke is almost the same that Roth and cronies (:D) face. One major criticism I've seen addressed at Funny Games is that the director uses the very same kind of sadistic violence that he seems to be commenting on, and it just seems to me that some people are taking issue with that violence, regardless of the context.

I think that in some way, some of the films that are sensationally and regretfully dubbed 'Torture porn' are making some valid commentary. Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects for example, I had viewed as a rather interesting and subversive excersize, playing on what the audience want, for example

the fact that the film follows the sadistic family, setting them up to be loathed by the audience and wanting them to meet their end at the hands of the Sheriff, only to turn the tables and having them tortured in a way that personally, I felt I didn't want to see happen. The film plays on the audience's empathy quite successfully.

You could actually argue that Zombie accomplished the same thing that Haneke set out to do with Funny Games, albeit in a more subtle way. Ok, perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but I do find quite a lot of artistic merit in some films that are dismissed as 'torture porn' by the mainstream.

So yes, I'd jump to Haneke's defense, as much as I'd defend Roth and the cronies.

johnny_ultimate

You see, I would have defended the 'torture pornographers' up until I saw Hostel 2 and Saw 4. I think the first installments of each were good (if very flawed) films. They actually had something to say beneath the violence. But the last two films in those franchises really left a bitter taste in my mouth. Saw in particular Im finding almost impossible to defend now - it has changed from a unique thriller with interesting moral questions to an annual (or now bi-annual) pantomine of absurd proportions. The violence has absolutely no goal but to shock, but it is actually laughable how OTT they have gone with no justification. Check out the autopsy scene at the beginning of Saw 4 - pointlessly graphic.

Eli Roth is more sensible, but again Hostel II just seemed ridiculous to me. I see where you are both coming from, and there is an obvious narrative pretext to some of the violence, but I would argue that other moments just descend into pantomines that are attempting to offend. I do agree with you Karl that the whip scene is shocking in its excessiveness, but the way it was filmed was weirdly pornagraphic - expletive-laden interviews with Eli Roth always suggest that he seems to get a weird kick out of the violence, which makes me question his motives. The Caché sequence, however, was far less excessive and shocked me far, far more than the Hostel II moment. If you haven't seen it, seriously check it out. No sequence has ever left me so stunned and disturbed. You'll know what I'm talking about the second you see it - took me a good few minutes to recover. I think Haneke's films show realistic violence that has far deeper resonance than the absurdity of Saw, Hostel etc... (OH and I haven't seen the Devil Rejects so can't read your spoiler as it is stilll on my to watch list - hopefully will get there eventually!)

On a Haneke related on-topic note though, I really think it would be interesting if he had of updated his earlier Benny's Video instead of Funny Games. I think Benny's could be ripe for re-interpretation in the youtube age (although unforunately I have only seen the first half of the original), and wouldn't be a wasted opportunity like the Funny Games remake (he could have at least changed it a little)

Karl Hungus

Well, in the case of Saw, it just became an increasingly pointless franchise, the only pretext for those sequels was money, and equally so the terrible cash-ins such as Captivity or Turistas. Certainly pointless excersizes (and absolutely terrible films to boot), but not for the reasons you state; the gore content wasn't what made Captivity one of the worst films of last year.

Hostel II is one I'll probably defend to the death, while it's not a particularly amazing film, it stood out from other horror sequels in the sense that it actually brought something new to the table; it expanded greatly on ideas and themes set out in the first film, rather than being a mere re-hash, and had an excellent sense of continuity. For example

the fact that the Elite Hunting company had stepped up their security since the events in the first.

There was a great atmosphere as well, reminding almost of the original The Wicker Man in parts.

Now, I've yet to see Caché (I do have it on DVD here though), so I can't comment on how disturbing the scene you're refering to is, but I don't think it would really matter if it is more or less so than the scene in Hostel II, I'd imagine they're vastly different films. I'd say without doubt that Inland Empire or Mulholland Drive disturbed me far more deeply than either Hostel film did, but the comparison isn't really there. Although I will give great thanks to Mr. Lynch for getting Eli Roth his break with Cabin Fever.

faceman

I didnt like hostel II. I felt it was a victim of its own success in that throughout watching it i was watching the hollywood beautiful people in nicely set up torture scenes. While im not trying to say the torture/gore scenes were poor, it didnt give me the same level of uncomfortableness that say for example, Funny games does. (even tho funny games had known actors which i felt was one of its downsides)

In saying that funny games isnt a great film nor is the original but it does succeed in making you feel uncomfortable at times and miserable by the time the film is over. The morality lecture of the film though was for the most part irrelevent and frankly, boring, it did in my opinion test our level of tolerance for on screen over gratuity violence/torture etc etc.