Michael Haneke

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Michael Haneke

#1 Post by DarkImbecile » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:26 pm

Michael Haneke (1942 - )

Image

"And if there was one title that could be applied to all my films, it would be 'Civil War' - not civil war in the way we know it, but the daily war that goes on between us all."

Filmography

Features
The Seventh Continent (1989)
Benny's Video (1992)
71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994)
Funny Games (1997)
Code Unknown (2000)
The Piano Teacher (2001)
Time of the Wolf (2003)
Caché (2005)
Funny Games [English remake] (2007)
The White Ribbon (2009)
Amour (2012)
Happy End (2017)

Television
...Und was kommt danach? [After Liverpool] (1974)
Drei Wege zum See [Three Paths to the Lake] (1976)
Sperrmüll [Household Rubbish] (1976)
Lemminge, Teil 1: Arkadien [Lemmings, Part 1: Arcadia] (1979)
Lemminge, Teil 2: Verletzungen [Lemmings, Part 2: Injuries] (1979)
Variation (1983)
Wer war Edgar Allan? [Who Was Edgar Allan?] (1984)
Fräulein (1985)
Nachruf fur einen Mörder [Obituary for a Murderer] (1991)
Die Rebellion (1992)
Das Schloß [The Castle] (1997)

Shorts
"Michael Haneke/Vienne" [Lumiere and Company segment] (1995)

Web Resources
Interviews
2008, with Nick Dawson, Filmmaker
2009, with Alexander Horwath, Film Comment
2012, with Dave Calhoun, Time Out
2014, with Luisa Zielinski, The Paris Review
2017, with David Jenkins, Little White Lies
2017, with Nicolas Rapold, Film Comment
2017, with Vikram Murthi, RogerEbert.com

Forum Discussion
Haneke on DVD
780 Code Unknown
894 The Piano Teacher
Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)
Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)
The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)
Amour (Michael Haneke, 2012)

rs98762001
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#2 Post by rs98762001 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:27 pm

puxzkkx wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:26 pm
Nothing wrote:
puxzkkx wrote:the writing in this film isn't bad at all.
The problem is, though, you like Cache :)
I like Cache for the masterful direction and the innovative use of camera... the dialogue isn't anything to shout about but I don't think it is bad, either.
I like Cache for everything. It's fucking brilliant.

User avatar
nsps
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#3 Post by nsps » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:23 am

rs98762001 wrote:I like Cache for everything. It's fucking brilliant.
This is fact.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#4 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:53 pm

Mr Finch wrote:In the past, it's been more admiration than outright love for the Haneke films I liked and The White Ribbon is no exception: objectively it is a damn fine film, less obviously flawed than my personal 2009 fave The Hurt Locker, and it is more compassionate than previous Hanekes but at the end my overriding impression is still that his films are relentlessly, oppressively bleak. There is and always ought to be a place for the kind of work of art that Haneke produces, but am I alone in finding his output, while often undeniably excellent, also somewhat offputtingly joyless? It is telling that many of my favourite scenes in this film displayed a hitherto (as far as I am aware) unseen compassion and even tenderness which helps to offset the cruelty and corruption suggested elsewhere: the romance between the teacher and Eva is very touching and there is a lovely, affectionate and affecting moment when riding out into the countryside, where she rests her head against his shoulder. Even more moving are two scenes between the pastor and one of his young sons, and it involves a sick bird that the boy brings home one day. I won't say anything further but it makes me think that the couple and the boy act like the moral conscience of this film, the single ray of light in a Stygian darkness. The implication seemed to be: many of these children will grow up to trigger the second world war and the Holocaust two decades from now but some of these villagers have not forgotten what it means to be human.
I'm going to have to wait for the DVD of The White Ribbon but from your comments Mr Finch I remember finding some of the final scenes of Time of the Wolf began to show some of that compassion, along with the boy seeming to take the weight of being the moral conscience of the film onto his shoulders. That seemed to be the first glimmers of hope that had been displayed in any of his films up to that point (or at least the first glimmers that were not immediately crushed), and I suppose it was inevitable that this retrospectively easy to swallow ending would become a basis for, and complicated in, what sounds like an ironic "could they grow up to be the Nazi generation?" setting for this film.

User avatar
Finch
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#5 Post by Finch » Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:21 am

Is The White Ribbon not showing in your area, Colin?

I should seek out Time of The Wolf. I'd only seen the original Funny Games, The Piano Teacher and Cache prior to Ribbon but Time of the Wolf has an intriguing premise.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14115
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#6 Post by knives » Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:36 pm

I've found Code Unknown to be his most warm film. Specifically the scenes with Binoche have a rare, for Haneke, humanity to them. Overall actually I'd say it's a positive, in a Haneke way, film.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5304
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#7 Post by Gregory » Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:12 pm

With the possible exception of Funny Games, I find all of Haneke's films immensely compassionate. It's not at all inconsistent with their harshness. Often when I think of the issue of the lack of "likeable" characters, which is a stumbling block for many audiences, I recall part of an interview with Haneke saying he likes all of his characters, apparently aware of how surprising this sounds. He goes onto explain that his "like" for the characters involves a kind of compassion that's different from easy self-identification with a nice character.

The view I've encountered that Haneke is indifferent to (or even relishes) his characters' suffering or entrapment reminds me of how I've heard similar views about Fritz Lang, which I think are just as wrong-headed in his case.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#8 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:09 pm

I guess the element I identified in Time of the Wolf as being a little more compassionate was that there is sense of a character not being brutally punished for having an individual reaction to their environment and circumstances. Before that characters are wrongfully attacked, terrorised, misinterpreted, ignored, wrongfully accused and punished for lack of conformity. Even in Code Unknown, which I like very much, the characters end up separate and isolated from each other, unable to communicate.

Time of the Wolf, while it features many characters suffering similar kinds of fates - like the older boy, brutalised by the rest of the community for being an 'outsider' or the slightly-Funny Games inflected shotgun murder at the opening that propels the remains of the family from their safehouse - eventually reaches a point where a character does something self-directed in response to the world around them rather than letting themselves be buffeted around by others (even if it is informed by a child's belief in stories). The telling aspect of this is that the character is not immediately punished for their actions and even has the intent behind them understood and sympathised with, which I cannot really think of having occured in Haneke's films before that point.

Nothing
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#9 Post by Nothing » Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:45 pm

Le Temps du Loup is a deeply unnecessary and arrogant piece of work. Haneke has proudly professed not to have been inspired by, or to consider significant in any way, the genre titles that his film so readily recalls - his argument being that such films are nothing more than morally degenerate consumer products, not to be taken seriously. And, yet, there is not a single idea or image in Le Temps du Loup that has not been better explored by George Romero, or indeed Lucio Fulci and many others.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5304
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#10 Post by Gregory » Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:02 pm

Nothing wrote:Le Temps du Loup is a deeply unnecessary and arrogant piece of work. Haneke has proudly professed not to have been inspired by, or to consider significant in any way, the genre titles that his film so readily recalls - his argument being that such films are nothing more than morally degenerate consumer products, not to be taken seriously. And, yet, there is not a single idea or image in Le Temps du Loup that has not been better explored by George Romero, or indeed Lucio Fulci and many others.
Please explain exactly what you mean by "genre titles" (including Romero's work) and cite where Haneke has specifically dismissed them, as you claim he has.

Nothing
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#11 Post by Nothing » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:13 am

I believe the post-apocalyptic sci-fi-horror sub-genre is well established (as Philip French writes in his review of Le Temps du Loup: "the post-apocalyptic movie has become a worldwide sci-fi genre, ranging in Australia alone from the pious solemnities of On the Beach to the comic-strip rumbustiousness of the Mad Max flicks.") In interviews I read at the time of the release (I have neither the time nor the wherewithall to provide links), Haneke was seeking to distance himself from this genre, claiming that his film was special, different, better, etc - in rather the same way that he likes to separate Funny Games from slasher horror. LTDL is even less effective in its goals, imho, as he seems to have neither a grasp of the mechanics of the genre from which to comment or criticise, nor any kind of new insight or perspective to offer, other than managing to make the post-apocalypse film quite boring, which I suppose is an achievement of sorts. For a far superior recent blending of apocalyptic sci-fi and arthouse enigma, see Werner Schroeter's Nuit de Chien.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5304
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#12 Post by Gregory » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:30 am

Well, I understood you to be saying that Haneke took a scornful and/or superior attitude toward some entire category of films including George Romero's, and I just wondered if there was any source you could point to in order to back this up. I wanted to read what he said in his own words rather than accepting your gloss.

I find Haneke's work to be beyond category to a rather unique degree, but if forced to discuss genre vis-a-vis Time of the Wolf I'd certainly say it's some sort of drama rather than "sci-fi-horror." Concepts of genre are employed most usefully as entry points into making careful distinctions between films, not as reductive tools to lump films together that are in fact crucially different. A film as original and compelling as Time of the Wolf can't really be defined in the simplest terms of its setting (viz. some sort of undefinted post-apocalyptic scenario) but rather by what occurs within it.
If one is going to argue that the film is derivative, I think we'll need better examples than the Mad Max films. There are so many dissimilarities between the two that one hardly knows where to begin listing them. If I wanted to compare it to some earlier predecessor I might choose Hitchcock's Lifeboat, but again not mainly on the basis of genre. And I don't know exactly what Haneke thinks of Romero films like Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead (and in some ways it doesn't matter) but I see important common ground there.
Thus I think Haneke would be just as correct to separate Time of the Wolf from post-apocalyptic as he would to separate Funny Games from slasher horror. The idea of Funny Games fitting into the slasher horror genre strikes me as ludicrous.

By the way, I'm potentially interested in seeing Schroeter's Nuit de Chien but for this discussion (at least for my purposes) it's best to stick to things that have been shown in the U.S and/or had some home video release.

Nothing
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#13 Post by Nothing » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:16 am

The thing is that a post-apocalyptic environment tends to pose a particular set of questions, it isn't simply a pretty backdrop or setting. Yes, Haneke dresses his film up in an arthouse veneer - the lack of action, the moody lighting, Juliette Binoche - but these are all superficial differences. In terms of base ideas, it really isn't all that different from something like Mad Max 2, or even Twenty Eight Days Later: survivors fighting over slim resources; having to toughen up and learn how to survive (those who don't toughen up will die); rape and murder rampant as the systems of authority collapse; death as an everyday part of life; yet the yearning for hope in a seemingly hopeless situation; the question, ultimately, of what it means to be human. Romero's Dawn of the Dead is, of course, the ne plus ultra of this genre - and the reason why Haneke's film feels so entirely predictable, if not redundant. Yet, as I recall, Haneke claims never to have seen it and acts as if the question is itself offensive, as if only a moral degenerate would waste their time watching such trash (again, apologies that I can't recall the publications in which I saw these interviews, although I do also recall Mark Kermode decrying Haneke's attitude in an op. ed., perhaps you can find that, one of the rare occassions when I've actually agreed with Mr. Plastic Quiff).

Re: Funny Games, as I said in my last post, he has a much clearer grasp of the genre here. He understands the promises and tropes of the slasher film and is setting out to undermine them, to re-write the audience 'contract'. Yet I find the approach tiresome for different reasons. It presumes, firstly, that the genre is morally flawed and needs 'correcting' - a questionable concept in itself. Then, in setting out the way he does, by seeking to score points rather than build an interesting and/or convincing scenario, Haneke ends up with a film which is just as flat and mechanistic as the weaker examples of the genre he is attempting to lampoon - purely an exercise, in essence. Not to mention that the film is never likely to reach, or be appreciated by, the audience that Haneke believes to be in need of his 'treatment' - and, this being the case, who exactly is it for? Far more effective (and chilling) is something like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, a film that works modestly from within the genre, yet conveys far more genuine horror than Haneke's shenanigans could ever conjour.

Nuit de chien

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#14 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:46 pm

It was Huppert rather than Binoche in Time of the Wolf.

I slightly sympathise with Nothing on this point - I think I've said elsewhere that the writing of the note before the remains of the family move on in one of the scenes of Time of the Wolf reminded me a lot of the original ending of Stephen King's The Mist. Benny's Video could be seen as an entry into the Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer 'killers filming their crimes' cycle. And Kim Newman on Radio 4's Film Programme last week took Haneke to task for doing a 'remake' of Village of the Damned/Midwich Cuckoos with The White Ribbon, comparing it unfavourably with the recent unpretentiously entertaining horror film The Children.

But I do think that Haneke's films are interesting for the ways in the expectations and entertainments which help to make horrific material more palatable are removed from Haneke's works (this perhaps ties in to my negative reaction to Empire of the Sun being made more palatable in its film version vs whether the more complex issues come across just fine to an audience even while the film is providing entertainingly tense war scenes). The audience, like the characters, do not get a chance to revel in consequence free violence except when Haneke is (rather heavy handedly I agree) trying to make that the issue in Funny Games. There is very little to compare in horror films to the moment in Time of the Wolf where:
SpoilerShow
The family who shotgunned the father at the beginning of the film turn up at the station and eventually are accepted into the group without consequences.
As much as I love the excitement and impact of a Mad Max film, Fulci or Romero (I think I'm even one of the few defenders of Doomsday!), and even become fond of the characters they create, it is difficult to argue that the emphasis is on these relationships, they are just the icing on the cake. Instead these films are much more focused on the visceral: the head explosions or eyeball piercings and the general thirst for vengeance and immediate retribution that prevents a more subdued depiction of such issues. It doesn’t really mean that I feel that one approach is better than the other and I’d refuse to be drawn into totally subscribing to the Haneke or Nothing point of view – both forms of films deserve serious consideration and offer different pleasures and perspectives (and it’s a shame if Haneke truly does disdain horror films, as he’s portrayed some of the most interestingly diverse forms of horror throughout his career, though here is probably where the Bergman comparisons arise again, someone else no stranger to horrific images and blunt but powerful messages but difficult to label as a horror director in particular). But I would argue that by stripping the monsters, the gore or the supernatural elements out, the audience is forced to confront these issues head on. This approach might be seen as underestimating of an audience, but perhaps sometimes there needs to be an ‘in your face’ approach to emphasise the importance of a subject and prevent its easy dismissal.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5304
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#15 Post by Gregory » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:16 pm

Lets set the record straight first of all that Haneke does not categorically disdain horror films or Hollywood cinema. He has a deep appreciation for Hitchcock films like Psycho, for instance.

I disagree that a "set of questions" is simply dictated by the setting or by conventions of genre, all of which can be changed, complicated, eliminated, etc. according to what the filmmaker wants to do. This is a fundamental quality of any genre, distinct from "lampooning" it. The only reason these questions need ever be that rigid is when viewers tend to bring them to the film thus prejudicing the way they undertstand it.
I do think there are common areas between Dawn of the Dead and Time of the Wolf, but there are crucial differences, but I assume you will not budge on that point since you've already declared that there is not a single idea in the latter beyond. For example, I think the Haneke film is far less concerned with examining the structures of the nuclear family, race, and (in Dawn) consumer culture than the Romero films. But when Nothing says that Juliette Binoche is in the film, I begin to doubt even the most basic familiarity with it, let alone any kind of understanding that could come close to justifying such sweeping statements about literally every single idea and image in the film. Furthermore, these same statements -- along with accusations of pretension based on personal and arbitrary views about things like shot length and "moody lighting" -- show a lack of any kind of sympathy for a work that would be a bare-minimum condition for having a potentially interesting discussion about it.

As I argued before, it seems like Nothing is continuing to use genre not as a way of getting at specific qualities of films but rather to simplify and to mutilate films on a procrustean bed so as to be able to say "this film is like all those other films." One could surely point out a few superficial things that Funny Games has in common with Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp, and Halloween; but as I said before the list of vital differences would be very long indeed. I'm sure one could formulate sufficiently broad definitions of "horror" and "science fiction" to include Time of the Wolf, but one could just as easily not do so, and what's to be gained, other than making it easier to write off as derivative of other films that are simpler to place in terms of genre?
So far, this discussion seems to be about pigeonholing films and isolating one or two themes, while ignoring others, in order to fit them into these categories. This not only creates "cycles" where they don't really exist and encourages oversimplification and reductionism.
Apparently this is exactly what Kermode has done. He chooses not the most intelligent or charitable interpretation of a given film but the one that will allow him to be scathing and polemical. Throwing out strong opinions and offhand dismissals fits the soundbite format in which reviewers like Kermode work far better than careful. probing readings of a film that problematize a film and take its content seriously. As Kermode admits he enjoys gratuitious violence in horror films, it's not surprising he was disturbed and angered and yet so completely missed the point both of the film itself and is embarassingly misinformed about Haneke's reasons for directing the remake. So of course he calls him a sell-out.

Nothing
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#16 Post by Nothing » Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:49 pm

I saw the film at an early Cannes market screening in (200?), so you'll have to forgive me if Huppert has subsequently transformed into Binoche in my mind...
Gregory wrote:I disagree that a "set of questions" is simply dictated by the setting or by conventions of genre
You are chosing inappropriate vocabulary to blur the issue. I used the words 'sub-genre' and 'scenario' because the set-up of the films we are talking about here is far more specific than a broad genre or setting: we're talking about certain types of characters in certain situations with certain types of problems to contend with. I've already outlined what many of these are, quite specifically. Or, if you prefer. Are you suggesting that none of these thematic or narrative elements apply to LTDL?
Gregory wrote:accusations of pretension based on personal and arbitrary views about things like shot length and "moody lighting"
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I don't mean to pass judgement on the formal mode of the film, but simply to look beyond these elements when considering theme and narrative. ie. yes, the shots are longer, wider and darker than Mad Max or Dawn of the Dead, there may be fewer eye-gougings and car chases, but that doesn't in and of itself ascribe any greater significance or depth to the Haneke effort, nor remove it from the post-apocalyptic sub-genre.
Gregory wrote:the Haneke film is far less concerned with examining the structures of the nuclear family, race, and (in Dawn) consumer culture than the Romero films.
What is it concerned with then (that Romero has not already dealt with)? This is what it comes down to. What is he doing that is new and interesting? Okay, he takes the 'fun' out of the proceedings (the zombies, the violence) - I'll give colin that. But, for me, the subtraction of an idea doesn't equal a new one.

I don't think that's the right Kermode piece, btw. He's had it in for Haneke for some time. Which I don't, don't get me wrong. If Kermode and Haneke were up against the wall and I had to choose, Kermode would get it in an instant (regardless of the severe scolding that would then ensue). And I would class La Pianiste as one of the better films of this decade. He has a precise, if sparse, aesthetic and formal sense and he is good with actors, good at building tension. But, like Tarantino, he functions so much better when there is another influence to keep his baser instincts in check. Funny, I guess, in that Tarantino is perhaps the anti-Haneke; left to his own devices, Tarantino will revel in pulp splatter; left to his own devices, Haneke will tut and scold. Yet, given strong source material by the likes of Elfriede Jelinek or Elmore Leonard, both are capable of excellent work.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5304
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#17 Post by Gregory » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:56 am

Changing the order a bit to put the heart of the matter first...
Nothing wrote:What is it concerned with then (that Romero has not already dealt with)? This is what it comes down to. What is he doing that is new and interesting?
A fair question, though hard to answer without reducing the films to themes or qualities that can be compared side-by-side, doing no real justice to the films as organic things -- but here is a very brief attempt. First, the film’s political and psychological characteristics are woven into more elaborate historical, philosophical and religious contexts that have both resonate with European history in the last century and have broader relevance for all of human society. These, as I suggested before, are quite a bit different from the focus in the "...Dead" films on the nuclear family, consumer culture, and media. Race is a key issue in both, although it's handled quite a bit differently. The black characters in Romero tend to be coded as outsiders (in Dawn, Peter falls into the role of servant) while the workings of racism itself are not explored as it is in Time of the Wolf, as a feature of authoritarianism and social polarization.
Secondly, the film is centered on the experience and vantage-point of children and (to a lesser extent I think) the mother. In the Romero films (and probably most other films about struggles for survival) virtually all the main characters are people in heterosexual-couple relationships and/or males directly embroiled in contests over control. The relationships among the mother, the two children, and the orphan are all compelling, and it would be a different film if any one of these characters were taken out.
Finally, Time of the Wolf is clearly more grounded in realism in many ways, and not just in the lack of zombies and other horror or sci-fi elements. The situations shown in Time of the Wolf are currently going on in many places around the globe -- and we collectively tolerate this situation, to some extent knowingly. The reason it’s an “end of the world” scenario in the film is that it’s happening in France.

This is not to mention all of the film’s originality and creativity in form and imagery, but for now suffice it to say it’s very much Haneke’s own story expressed in his own voice. I'm also not getting into ideas and interpretations. These would all be pretty vast areas for me to try and write about here.
Nothing wrote:
Gregory wrote:I disagree that a "set of questions" is simply dictated by the setting or by conventions of genre
You are chosing inappropriate vocabulary to blur the issue. I used the words 'sub-genre' and 'scenario' because the set-up of the films we are talking about here is far more specific than a broad genre or setting: we're talking about certain types of characters in certain situations with certain types of problems to contend with. I've already outlined what many of these are, quite specifically. Or, if you prefer.
It seems like the term "sub-genre" compounds the problems with respect to genre that I was discussing. We would first have to agree on the genre before discussing what sub-genre it is, no? We could call it "post apocalyptic fiction," but that tells us very little beyond the obvious.
But I disagree that such a category provides us with "certain types of characters in certain situations" as you say. Obviously when society is breaking down, people need to focus on survival and finding food and shelter, but nevertheless the characters and situations in Tsai's The Hole for example are quite a bit different from those in Time of the Wolf, to choose two more disparate examples of post-apocalyptic films.
Are you suggesting that none of these thematic or narrative elements apply to LTDL?
Of course not. I did say that there is considerable common ground between the Haneke and the Romero films in question despite major differences.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Michael Haneke

#18 Post by FrauBlucher » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:42 pm

Last night I watched Funny Games and it is the first Haneke that I didn't care for. Actually, I hated it. It was heavy handed and overtly manipulative with a single intent to tease the audience. It seemed he created these characters and plot for one purpose. At one point I got so fed up I wanted the antagonists to kill the protagonists just to get it over with, but of course Haneke was stringing the audience along. I hate cheap sentiment and this is no better.
SpoilerShow
I found the gimmicks of the breaking of the fourth wall insulting to my emotional involvement, as I did with the rewinding of the film sequence.
I know that this is Haneke's style which I love. His films take the audience on a mysterious ride but I never feel like I am being taken advantage of by the journey he provides because the story lines, along with characters show a real depth. You get the feeling that you are watching something special. Not so with Funny Games.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Michael Haneke

#19 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:49 pm

I wouldn't argue too much with anyone who found Funny Games or its remake unnecessary, but I personally did find that long moment in the original version after the first member of the family has been killed, the killers have left and the other two are just left devastated in the wreckage of their holiday home incredibly moving. It created a unique feeling in me of expressing the emptiness of life just continuing on relentlessly despite someone suddenly being gone. All those left can do is just carry on, turn the TV off and busy themselves in small practical tasks, which makes the moments of breakdown into wracking sobs hurt even more.

Just because characters are trapped in a horribly manipulative, rigidly defined and sadistic game (or film) doesn't mean that genuine emotions cannot be expressed. And can't that describe all works of art to a greater or lesser extent?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Posts: 11965
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Michael Haneke

#20 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:24 pm

I preferred the original film for the actors chosen (though have grown quite a bit of affection for the English-language remake because the HD prints/discs available are pristine and gorgeous, and Michael Pitt is excellent), but I'm with Colin on Funny Games in general. As much as Haneke wants to discuss highfalutin motives for making the film, he definitely has a duality in his filmmaking philosophy and personality, and I'd contend that he made it as much because it's a tense, tightly-plotted thriller as he did because it's a commentary on violence in cinema, and I appreciate the former far more than the latter, though I believe him when he explains his motivations that it was a serious consideration and perhaps the jumping off point for him. The film is punishing because the pacifist in Haneke was sure to make each moment of both emotional and physical terrorism in the film as real and unflinching as possible, and I don't know that the film would work nearly as well without having been made through the lens of that philosophy.

yoshimori
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

Re: Michael Haneke

#21 Post by yoshimori » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:38 am

Anyone get the 12-disc French Haneke blu-ray box? According to the amazon.fr page (but not several other sources), there are English subs on Time of the Wolf, The Castle, Code Unknown, Seventh Continent, Benny's Video, and 71 Fragments. Can anyone confirm?

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Michael Haneke

#22 Post by tenia » Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:30 pm

Here what a poster from blu-ray.com who bought the set compiled :

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... stcount=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
RossyG
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:50 pm

Re: Michael Haneke

#23 Post by RossyG » Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:18 am

I think Artificial Eye are working on their own version, which should be a more anglophone friendly option.

nolanoe
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am

Re: Michael Haneke

#24 Post by nolanoe » Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:59 pm

I agree with the positive assessments on FUNNY GAMES. I would even counter that the world needs more ambivalent movies like that one - people are fare too fast to damn something than observe their own reaction to what is on screen.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14115
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Michael Haneke

#25 Post by knives » Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:33 am

Is his recent adaptation of Cosi fan tutte available anywhere with english subs?

Post Reply