Was there a point to this movie? This was quite possibly one of the nastiest movies I’ve ever seen. It just leaves you feeling dirty and angry for watching it. It was like an art house version of “Hostel.” By the end of the film it just felt like the director hates his audience and did everything he could to insure the viewer would be uncomfortable. I don’t need to see three people tortured for two hours to get his “message” that audiences are desensitized to movie violence. And what was the point of the whole remote control rewind scene? That as an audience we expect the couple to at last get the upper hand and when that finally happens, Haneke has the film rewind as if to say to the audience, “No no, think again. You’re not getting off that easy”?
The performances were great, and I liked the use of music in the opening scene, but that’s about it. It felt like being forced to watch a rape or something really sadistic.
For those who haven’t seen it, here is the plot in it’s entirety: A loving couple and their son are attacked and taken hostage by two young men while on vacation at their summer home. The young men proceed to kill their dog, torture them, kill the boy, torture them a bit more, kill the husband, and then kill the wife. Then they move onto the next house. Game over, movie ends.
Oh, ETA: Something that was disturbing and funny at the same time, was how this movie was playing right next to “Horton Hears a Who” and several times during the film, some clueless parent would come in, 5-year-old child in hand, and proceed to take a seat and watch 5 minutes of the film or so, and then finally leave. I don’t know how someone would confuse a live action scene of a nearly naked woman being beaten with an animated kids movie, or think that a preview with such a scene would be shown before their film. :rolleyes:
I’m surprised that you saw this in a theatre; I just saw it on DVD via Netflix. I know that there is an American or European remake that was in production recently, but the film first came out in 1997. If I remember correctly, the remake was directed by the same person who directed the original film. In the DVD extras, the director talks about how he wanted to show how filmmakers manipulate audiences in their depiction of violence; for example when the wife shoots the bad guy, then the other bad guy rewinds, the audience is supposed to realize that they have just applauded a murder, whether the bad guy seemed to deserve it or not and while I think that the theme has been handled in better ways (Man Bites Dog, for example) I do think that the movie has greater artistic merit than, say, Hostel 2. Again in the commentary the director says something to the effect of, "if someone stays throughout the entire movie, maybe they need to be shocked by the ending; most people should walk out halfway through after they get the message and have had enough.’ (really roughly paraphrased)
I’ve seen the original. Haneke is clearly one of those European art house directors who feels a need to punish his audience for having the bad judgment to watch his film. Think of the old SNL character of Dieter saying “Do you wish to touch my minkey?” This is the kind of person we’re dealing with.
I hated the original and have no intention of watching the remake. I hope the remake tanks like nobody’s business, and I bet word of mouth will see that it does.
Hmmm, yes those are good points and thinking on the film more I guess I can understand the motivation behind it. I don’t know. I just thought it was weird how the film seemed very antagonistic towards the audience, like the audience should feel guilty for having seen it.
I was watching the American remake that opened last week, with Naomi Watts & Michael Pitt.
I do agree that it was a very well constructed film. I didn’t mean to disparage any of the talent behind it or make it seem cheap like “Saw” or “Hostel.” It just felt like that same kind of “torture-porn,” though in a different sort of way.
Yes, exactly! That’s the feeling I was getting by the end of the film.
Yes, I agree and probably so would Haneke. The points at which the bad guys break the fourth wall are meant to make the audience into accomplices; if you continue to watch, you are in some way giving consent. It’s meant to be a disgusting, disturbing film. Whatever you think of “those European art house directors” at least he doesn’t seem to hide his intentions.
I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t say this for certain. But I can’t help but wonder if this is where Haneke misses the mark.
I think American (Canadian, worldwide) audiences are desensitized to stylized violence. Put this way: from movies and TV, you get the impression that people who get a fatal gunshot wound immediately fall over limp and dead. In reality, someone can have up to two minutes before unconsciousness takes over and can even not realize they’ve been shot at all.
Only Haneke seems to not portray (or make a point about) stylized violence, but violence in general–which is why the movie is so brutal and uncomfortable, exactly because we’re not sensitized to this sort of thing. If there’s a point to be made about audiences cheering on stylized violence, I think films like Grindhouse or Shoot 'Em Up make them as well.
Again, I haven’t seen the movie (nor plan to), so YMMV and all that.
I’ve never quite understood why its supposed to be that one should feel guilty for watching violence on screen. It seems like the argument is supposed to go something like this:
You like to see violence on screen. (assumption)
It follows that you like to see violence. (from 1)
It is dastardly to enjoy seeing violence. (assumption)
You’re a dastard! (From 2 and 3)
But the inference from 1 to 2 is invalid.
I’m probably grossly oversimplifying what the idea (and the argument for it) is supposed to be though, both in general and as regards this movie specifically. I’d like to become enlightened about this.
I don’t really see the point of a remake, but the original was my favourite of that year - to think that I almost didn’t see it. We wanted to go to an outdoor movie, but the weather intervened and instead we went to the arthouse cinema. I chose the movie - and my wife still hates me for it.
So I went into this last weekend, not knowing anything about it, except it was supposed to be “controversial”.
Have we had spoilerized warnings before? Spoilers follow.
Knowing nothing going in, It was fantastic as a horror film. It was ruined by preaching to the audience. Specifically the rewind scene.
After the fact I read interviews with the director stating that anyone who walks out of it, doesn’t need to see it. What a dick. It would have been a great horror film without the pretentious drivel. Leave out the rewind scene, and the talking to the camera scenes, and it would have been great.
Apparently the director thinks I can’t separate fiction from reality. I’d like to hate it, but I liked it in ways that the director didn’t want me to?
It’s been my pet theory that Haneke wanted to create an “upper treshhold” of violence shown in a movie. To find out at what point people leave and it’s only the whack-jobs and their kleenex left in the showing room. It’s kind of the anti-thesis to the stylized, pornographic violence we see in most action movies.
So my guess is that Haneke basically wants to establish a “this far, but no further” limit of violence that we can stomach and hopes that once this has been done, the pendulum will swing the other way.
In related news, I liked “Funny Games” enough to put “The Seventh Continent” and “Benny’s Video” on my Netflix queue. Ugh. After twenty minutes of “The Seventh Continent” I put my DVD player on 8X speed, read the subtitles and was STILL bored. “Benny’s Video” wasn’t much better. For the love of god, you can make a statement without being boring! So I guess I’m also one who doesn’t really appreciate pretentious art house directors.
I think Haneke’s real intent was to enjoy scenes of a middle class family being tortured and killed. I think he hates the middle class – very common with art house directors.
Now, I have my problems with the middle class in the US. They often set my teeth on edge. They elected Bush president … twice! They knew the guy was a power-crazed warmonger the second time they did it! They didn’t care. They didn’t care if a bunch of brown towel-heads got killed for no reason, they just didn’t want to be faced with the possibility of having to sit down for a beer with John Kerry.
Yeah, the middle class in America can reasonably be described as a bunch of stupid, indifferent, gullible cows who worship a flying spaghetti monster on Sunday and the almight dollar the rest of the week. (There are exceptions of course, but this pretty much covers them as a group.)
But I don’t find the sight of them being tortured and killed entertaining at all. Pathetic as they are, middle class folk are not the same as psychopathic killers. Yet Haneke seems bent on drawing a parallel between them. This is where he fails for me. He seems to be saying that a family that uses violence to resist being tortured and killed by psychopaths is morally the same as the psychopaths because they use violence to defend themselves. Instead of what: sarcasm? Moral persuasion? (Remember, these are psychopaths we are dealing with.)
Sorry, I’m not buying it. My mind is open but my brain is in place, thankyewverymuch. Haneke is an ass.