i think we give way too many directors too much credit
and haneke is more deserving than some
but I am sick of hearing about him to be honest
The power of his craft I find to be virtually undeniable… but sometimes I wonder if he isn’t too cerebral. It’s the detached view he takes. I’ve heard Le Piansite spoken of with the highest praise, and while I certainly like it, and think its a tremendous technical achievement (like all Haneke’s films), I was little impacted by it. I do find myself sometimes recalling Huppert’s rueful wretch at the finale, and I smile – but that’s about it. In many ways Cache can be interpreted as reliant on context and, despite much effort, I find its essay a bit “easy.” The first time I watched Code Unknown I thought it was pure tripe – but I have a feeling I need to watch it again. And I’m sorry to say that Funny Games (U.S.) I enjoyed very much. What can I say? He’s a masterful director at the top of his game, and it’s a fun film (if you’re in on the joke). Still. Very cerebral. The Seventh Continent and Benny’s Video are old favorites, and are considerably simpler stories than his later work. Plain, unadorned nihilism, disaffection, and murder. That polemical bastard.
I digress. I like a world in which we have film/filmmakers who are “too” cerebral. I’m talking about Godard, Greenaway and Haneke right now. I’m sure there are about a billion more.
I realize I didn’t answer the thread’s question.
The Castle (1997)
10/10
A++
Undermining conventional movie expectations is no “playing games.” Haneke is always as serious as a heart attack.
The Piano Teacher was mesmerizing, thanks almost entirely to Isabelle Huppert.
I wonder if at least a tolerance for torture porn is required to excuse so many of Haneke’s adolescent tendencies.
I don’t think it is that important what directors intend or not intend, but rather the effects of using certain techniques. Certainly if that conversion did help to add to the distancing then it would be significant when we look at the film by itself and how techniques are used to psychologically affect viewers.
“I don’t think it is that important what directors intend or not intend, but rather the effects of using certain techniques.”
Couldn’t agree more. I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion, I just wanted to agree with Law.
…yeah.
I’d really like to hear what you didn’t like about The White Ribbon, User.
I’ll take a shot at this, since I saw it just last evening. These are top of mind comments, which I’m still considering, so cut me some slack. White titles on black announce the severity of an auteur. No musical accompaniment. O, dear Lord, I’m about to be schooled. I resent this. Professor Haneke is going to reveal to me the brutal inhumanity of our species. Again. The mise-en-scene is cold and precise. It’s directing as fetish. Without the puckish humor of LvT, because, HEAR ME!, man’s inhumanity is no fucking joke. The narrative is remarkably layered, and moves with an assured confidence which is undeniably impressive. It was probably all there on paper. Every angle. Every gesture. What is the rush Haneke derives from shooting, I wonder? The Coen’s are anal this way. The rush for them, as I see it, is the delight they take in actually getting their snarky superciliousness on film. Hitchcock shared the same condition, but he sought to entertain. Haneke, he wants to lecture. There are some who talk Haneke up as if he’s some kind of avant-garde practitioner, but “The White Ribbon” seems rather retrograde. As if its the last example of a dying breed: the art film colossus. Or wants to be. For all that, it does feel like a masterpiece. I rated it earlier. 4/5.
Haneke’s next lecture, I’ve read, will concern the decrepitude of the body in old age. I can’t wait.
Well that was nice, KJ. I go through a very similar thought process at times, specifically when writing reviews, and I’ve shared many of those thoughts on Haneke :) Took me a while to stop resenting the polemical provocateur, and his manipulations. Resent him or not, he will not be denied.
As I’ve stated on other threads relating to Haneke, I’m not a fan of the majority of his work. Most of which I find to be nauseatingly droll (god, what about Time of the Wolf, or his Funny Games films), and he’s certainly a director that shouldn’t be droll given his subject matter.
Anyway, suffice it to say that I LOVED The White Ribbon. Before I felt he was obviously talented, but grossly misguided in his approach to filmmaking, but after seeing the White Ribbon, I couldn’t help but applaud. Of course this doesn’t make me appreciate his other films more, but still, a good filmmaker’s a good filmmaker. So, to answer the OP’s question: I’d say “Yes”, but that’s only going on the general notion critics/people tend to have towards Haneke. If it was in reference to the White Ribbon specifically, I would probably agree with it, but overall I’d say, yeah he gets a little too much credit.
err although the discussion on Haneke in general is welcomed what I meant to ask in this thread was whether he receives too much credit simply based on his reputation as a provocateur. A couple of people gave opinions on the matter.
My Two Cents: I’ve only seen my first three Haneke films within the last few days, so I’m certainly not an expert, but I do think he is an excellent director. It is possible that at the worst he’s ‘overhyped’ but, in my opinion, that can be true with any great filmmaker or artist in general and I don’t believe it diminishes the power of his work. Then, that depends on how you react to it.
I don’t know if this answers your question, but I hope it helps. :|
Tzzzz once we get DVDs, Promos and Movieposters that have nothing to do with any movie Haneke has directed and still for some reason say “Better than Hanekes last masterpiece” or something, THEN may we talk about Haneke beeing overhyped. Until then: Please, focus all overhyping-critism on Tarantino!
In this era of 3D hyper-stimulating seat-rumbling bullshit, filmmakers like Haneke deserve all the credit in the world. His unwillingness to bend to public whims is highly commendable and is the true definition of auteur. Probably why Funny Games was so poorly received in America. For the most part, American audiences probably weren’t accustomed to seeing a film where the entire family is killed. No one is spared. If the film was remade by an Hollywood filmmaker, the father would have found a way to outsmart the captors and end up killing them and they’d all have a happy ending la de da de da.
He deserves all the praise heaped upon him. In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to find a filmmaker as resolute as Haneke, and I for one commend him.
“For the most part, American audiences probably weren’t accustomed to seeing a film where the entire family is killed.”
actually this is very common to American films and many of these like The Strangers are huge hits. I do not know anyone who was shocked by funny games but many were annoyed.
Not that I am comparing Funny Games to torture porn (which is often less deep but much more entertaining)
Haneke is a desired taste. Theres alot of psycholgy in his films, I wrote a paper on this for my socicology class and it was on directors and the way they use their medium to send a message and I chose Haneke due to the fact that I think the man is trying to voice something.
Bennys video- is about the effect that violence in the media has on children
Seventh contient- was from an article that Heneke read about a family that commited sucide together. and in an inerview on the DVD I think he said something like he put the scene where they flushed the money in due to the fact that society gets more upset when money is missused that when an entire family is killed.
Funny games- Is another of his atempts at violence in the media. You serioulsy need to read the essay he did on violence and the media. You get a sense of why he makes films the way he does.
He wants you to leave the film with some sort of feeling and if he does that than I think he won
I would rather watch Haneke who is trying to voice a problem than I would a director like Von Trier who it seems just loves to toture women.
THE WHITE RIBBON is suspiciously similar to MADEMOISELLE (Tony Richardson, 1966). At least it is not a very original film.
-what I meant to ask in this thread was whether he receives too much credit simply based on his reputation as a provocateur-
I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that he’s gets credit for his films having effects as if they were intentional when they’re actual unintentional?
-I was talking about the decision to shoot TWR in color and convert it to black and white in post production and how it felt like a mistake to me because of the way the finished product looked.-
Could you elaborate on “the way the finished product looked?” Are you talking simply about the fact that the film is in b&w, the quality of the image, or what?
I didn’t care much for cache to be honest because it felt too much like a director’s gimmick. It’s like a pandora’s box where when you open it up it’s some meta “breaking of the fourth wall” trickery that only the director knows for certain.
White Ribbon was brilliant however.
“I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that he’s gets credit for his films having effects as if they were intentional when they’re actual unintentional?”
I’m asking whether it’s a tendency for people to twist his films and certain elements within them into fitting how they view him as a director and his supposed goal as an artist. This doesn’t have to be limited to Haneke, I’m also interested in views in general.
“Could you elaborate on “the way the finished product looked?” Are you talking simply about the fact that the film is in b&w, the quality of the image, or what?”
I’m talking about the decision to light the film and shoot it for color and then change it to black and white in post production.
-I’m asking whether it’s a tendency for people to twist his films and certain elements within them into fitting how they view him as a director and his supposed goal as an artist. This doesn’t have to be limited to Haneke, I’m also interested in views in general-
Do people interpret his films? Yes. Do people interpret them correctly? Depends on what element(s) of what film(s) you’re asking about.
-I’m talking about the decision to light the film and shoot it for color and then change it to black and white in post production-
This is how most b&w films are done these days—shot on color stock and then desaturated in post. It’s a practical issue. Why is this a problem?
Don’t know if I have much to say here, but I want to take a shot, because I think the general question (Haneke or no Haneke) is an important one, as it relates to our concept of auteurism.
What I think User is ultimately getting at is that we come to expect certain things from directors. If, like Haneke, they’ve built up a very specific reputation over a long period of time, we tend to take that reputation for granted and interpret everything in each new film according to that reputation, rather than dealing with the movie on its own terms.
To get away from Haneke a bit, let’s use another obvious example with Martin Scorsese. He’s been working in American movies for over 40 years now, and as he’s moved along, we’ve picked up on themes and obsessions that he seems to carry from film to film. As a result, with every new film we’re looking for those themes again, interpreting almost every detail according to those themes, allowing his earlier films to overshadow the (perhaps) unique nature of the new ones. Are there new themes? New concerns? Have the old themes changed some? Are they even there anymore? I’m not trying to make an evaluative judgment between older Scorsese and the newer; only to offer up a different director so that we can open the discussion to a more general focus.
For some directors, like Soderberg, for example, have never followed a straight line; they’re always trying on new cloths, which enables us to free our expectations a bit. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Soderberg decided to make a comedy about the circus or a biopic of Dave Thomas, or an adaptation of “Melmoth the Wanderer”, or…you get the point). Most of our favorite directors, like most of our favorite musicians, follow a straight line, and I see where User is coming from in a general way (I haven’t seen “The White Ribbon” yet, so I can’t comment the B&W issue).
-As a result, with every new film we’re looking for those themes again, interpreting almost every detail according to those themes, allowing his earlier films to overshadow the (perhaps) unique nature of the new ones. Are there new themes? New concerns? Have the old themes changed some? Are they even there anymore?-
Sure, this is an important aspect of an auteurist reading. Seems to me there’s an implied mistrust of this type of reading in the OP, though. As for the whole intentional fallacy issue, it’s hard to address in the abstract. Phantom, to use Scorsese again, take the fade to white at the end of The Last Temptation of Christ—it wasn’t, strictly speaking, an “intentional directing choice,” but it ended up in the film, so Scorsese gets credit for it, and it’s open to interpretation as to what Scorsese “meant” by it.
. . . and I’m still puzzled by User’s initial comment about the cinematography of The White Ribbon.
User de Faux-Fuyants
I think because of the reputation he has earned as a director who likes to engage in games with his audience people seem to dismiss criticisms of his films as intentional directing choices. For example I was talking about the decision to shoot TWR in color and convert it to black and white in post production and how it felt like a mistake to me because of the way the finished product looked. However many people told me this was an obvious choice by Haneke to create an akward sense of atmosphere for his audience while watching it. Of course there are more examples, but it seems to be people just find ways to make every decision he makes fit the reputation he’s come to earned.