The idea of Haneke's films is to show life at its absolute worst in order to learn from it and improve yours. If you're just looking for escapism, well, I dunno why you are watching arthouse european cinema in the first place.
There was a time when I would've made excuses like this for art like this, but at this point in my life I honestly think you're reaching for something that isn't there and giving Haneke credit he doesn't deserve. I've met and worked with people like him. I think it's far more likely that he genuinely is a bitter, insulated, misanthropic person, and the goal of his artwork (to the extent that he even has a goal) is to vent and spread his misery and to collect accolades from a bubble of equally miserable European arthouse pseuds
Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
>Did you honestly find it uplifting?
It might not be uplifting but it is certainly a humanistic and compassionate film.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I don't really think it is. I think it's telling of his character that when he finally makes a film that begrudgingly acknowledges that people are capable of genuinely loving each other, he chooses to fixate on the painful, humiliating end-of-life phase where their bodies and minds fail them and time turns their love into pain. Really, he just uses love as a weapon to torture his characters, and the audience along with them.
Gaspar Noe is another shitheel in the same mold and he pulled the exact same thing with his Alzheimers' film. And again I'm not against a love story that ends in tragedy, I'm not against a film that acknowledges these difficulties of life - but these are artists that fixate and wallow and singularly focus on the worst of life, because their argument is that life itself is terrible and you'll be punished for any attempt to enjoy it or find meaning in it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Amour is a far less bleak film than Vortex. Haneke can be sadistic, to be sure, but Amour stays rooted in Georges' meaningful (if ultimately futile) efforts to care for Anne, building to a horrible yet comprehensible decision that's more or less revealed before the narrative proper even begins. Vortex, by contrast, simply depicts mental and physical infirmity enveloping its helpless protagonists as if they were extras in The Blob.
You really can't see the massive difference between those two films? They're both dark films about old couples, but that's about where the similarities end. I feel like you're incapable of seeing the subtext in Haneke's films and just clutching your pearls at the surface provocations.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Haneke's more talented than Noe by far, but I do think the message and intent was roughly the same. Noe just hits that mark with a blunter instrument. If anything Amour is the bleaker film, specifically because Haneke does make Georges' love believable - but the film's intent is only to put the character through increasing pain until he eventually rips his own heart out
It's just more sadism and more "HA HA, SERVES YOU RIGHT FOR CARING ABOUT ANYTHING OR ANYONE." It's not an inherently "bad" story, but it lacks balance, because the place it's coming from is fundamentally rotten. Haneke does not deserve your defense and I think you will also reach a point where you're realizing this kind of artwork is a bigger waste of your time and brainspace than even the laziest, most meaningless Marvel cashgrab
3 months ago
Anonymous
The problem isn't even that his movies are dark, it's more that they are inherently negative. You can make dark movies that convey a productive message. You can show the horrors of humanity while also demonstrating an artistic message that can benefit a person's life. But Haneke is fueled by resentment. Movies like Funny Games are didactic trash that show blatant spite for his audience. No positive meaning can be found from the movie. No one will watch it and go "wow I guess I should stop watching violent movies."
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well said, yeah that's more or less what I was trying to articulate - it's just sadism for the sake of sadism. The same story told in "Amour" could've been fine in another filmmaker's hands, but Haneke doesn't depict the love between his characters with genuine empathy. It's a weapon he can use against them (and against the audience) later in the film, it's Chekov's Gun, it's the setup for a punchline, and the punchline is "it all goes to shit because life is shit, frick you"
It isn't really more intellectual than a Marvel film. He's got talent but he wastes it on empty nihilism and cynicism
3 months ago
Anonymous
That's how I feel about Von Trier, not Haneke. I feel that everything you've said about Haneke actually applies to Von Trier; at the very least, Haneke creates psychologically complex characters, whereas Von Trier's work is just schematically conceptual, pretentiously ascetic, hollow, and cheap.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Lars is nothing like Noe beyond surface level "bad things are being shown on screen!"
3 months ago
Anonymous
fat girl and the bergman film's i've seen are this as well...shame on criterion for lauding them
3 months ago
Anonymous
Fat Girl is absolute trash, but Bergman's capable of a lot more than just misery porn. I loved some of his earlier films. I don't know his life story but his films seemed to get bleaker as he got older. Even his bleaker work doesn't have the same freshman-nihilist "frick you, frick everything" sneer I get from Haneke
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Even his bleaker work doesn't have the same freshman-nihilist "frick you, frick everything" sneer I get from Haneke
This is Von Trier, not Haneke. At least Haneke uses psychological realism to show how people would realistically react in his fricked-up situations, Von Trier just makes "allegorical" "symbolic" trash that is far more contrived than anything Haneke ever did, with the exception of Happy End
3 months ago
Anonymous
hit the road jack
3 months ago
Anonymous
They're basically cut from the same cloth, Haneke is just smarter about it
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'd even argue that Von Trier's better on some level because he at least seems to be having some kind of fun with it. Like he views his audience-punishment exercises as some kind of "punk rock" thing, or at least he's just a lot more open about taking pleasure in sadism. Whereas Haneke shuns the idea of fun, refuses to admit any kind of pleasure, and dresses up his work in the trappings of intellectual high-art when the depth and meaning really aren't there and he scorns the very idea that it should be
I'm still not really a fan of Von Trier's films either, but he overall seems like less of a miserable c**t
3 months ago
Anonymous
The House that Jack Built was so intentionally funny that it made me look back and wonder if Dancer in the Dark was an incredibly dry parody
I agree. People are allowed to have eras, people are allowed to have moods, but Haneke's entire goal of his entire life has seemed to unerringly just be "be the biggest c**t possible"
At some point you're not transgressing art anymore, you're just a c**t
> Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
it's really that simple. Artists who fawn over darkness and depravity tends to be Humanist. Along with that comes a tenuously optimistic view of muh working class peepo while failing to reconcile the corruption and evil of other, equally human, people. You're only truly a serious person if you admit we're just heckin stardust and the universe doesn't give a single solitary frick about your feelings. Only when you believe this can you devote your energy to expressing filth.
Absolutely based. At a certain point misery or evil in art destroys the beauty of the work, and to be anti-beautiful is the definition of evil. The word evil in Greek is very close to the word "shit" or "feces." I used to believe that Evil meant "uhh, something that's like, bad" but as I grow older I realize it is that which denies and destroys the beautiful, that which is ugly. That's not to say there's no place in art for the evil or anti-beautiful but after consuming enough of it the soul of the viewer becomes stained with it, and you need your soul to experience art in a true sense.
Should've just said "Haneke reminds me too much of my co-workers" instead of the pretentious drivel you kept on spouting. How fricking uplifting and optimistic can your life be when your wasting your time in this shithole? >inb4 muh escapism
How about you escape to the real world to get some humility?
> comparing posting on a dutch alcoholism enthusiasts discussion forum with devoting a multi-decade film career to making rope fuel for the silver screen
do euros really?
Always struck me as slop for emotionally and artistically underdeveloped people, as do all Haneke films, really. Always "shocking" in the most square and cowardly way possible. Maybe Amour has a slightly more mature approach, aside from its cheesiness and predictability? I think The Seventh Continent is my favorite of the bunch but it's still so goofy.
Yes, Isabelle is good in it but I'm pretty sure anyone could give her anything and she would make it work.
I'm not quite sure if that's really "the idea" of his films since you can't apply it to a few (if not most) of them (in fact I'm not even sure if it applies to any of them, especially since "life at its absolute worst" is a nebulous phrase), but that's such a bunch of nothing. >If you're just looking for escapism, well, I dunno why you are watching arthouse european cinema in the first place.
I reject the notion of "arthouse European cinema" since that's purely a marketing phrase, but there's a ton of films that would be marketed as such that are definitely escapist to some or major extent, but many of those films are are even optimistic and idealistic. In fact, I'd argue Haneke's films are extremely escapist in how the characters and situations are typically very non-human in their emotionality and choices, existing mostly to serve a script or banal themes that the audience is already familiar with and Haneke -- the dull conformist he is -- simply reinforces these thematic fantasies: dramatizing symbols and comfortable situations is a type of wish fulfillment and escapism.
I agree. People are allowed to have eras, people are allowed to have moods, but Haneke's entire goal of his entire life has seemed to unerringly just be "be the biggest c**t possible"
At some point you're not transgressing art anymore, you're just a c**t
Yeah great art can certainly be dark, but Haneke isn't just dark, he wallows and rolls around in misery and that's pretty much it
I'm wondering what films by Haneke's contemporaries you think are good if you're so deeply unimpressed by Haneke's entire filmography. Genuinely curious.
Completely fair question. I really don't like Haneke at all so there are a lot of mediocre filmmakers whom I actually like more.
As far as contemporaries go, Haneke has technically been directing for half a century, including motherfricking Tarkovsky and Kurosawa and a whole bunch of other titans among his contemporaries, but I don't think that's what you mean.
For European directors who came up around the same time, I like a lot of the usual suspects like Bela Tarr. An infamously bleak filmmaker too, and definitely one for technical/directorial gimmicks like Haneke, but I personally think he's (at his peaks) much, much better.
>Calls Haneke slop for artistically and emotionally underdeveloped people >Likes Tarr
Tarr is one of the most pretentious self-fellating directors to ever grace cinema you pseud homosexual. Get off your high horse
I'll watch it if there's a lesbian sex scene in it.
As an American, I laugh at the overwhelmingly vast majority of foreigner's ideas of nihilism and philosophical despair. It's all so feminine and childish. >OH NOES, THERES....LE UNFAIRNESS IN THE WORLD >OH NOES, THERES....LE UNTIMELY ILLNESS/DEATH THAT MAKES MY HAPPYTIME SHORTER... >I'M LE GOOD PERSON, BUT LE SOCIETY IS HOLDING ME BACK
>>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNFAIRNESS IN THE WORLD >>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNTIMELY ILLNESS/DEATH THAT MAKES MY HAPPYTIME SHORTER... >>I'M LE GOOD PERSON, BUT LE SOCIETY IS HOLDING ME BACK
who are you quoting?
i'm that guy askin and i'm european myself.
i've noticed unnecessary romance subplots in many films. golden age Hollywood had one in literally every film.
i get it, it's very simple way to spark a feeling since that's something every normie does but it is so tacky and cheesy and it always ends up feeling like pointless filler.
my favorite films are ones where there isn't any kind of romance subplot. actually robocop 1987 does it right by having the robocop experience past relationship through vision and question his robo/human nature through his subconsciousness. that's an good example of romance being used in a way that fits to the plot where it doesn't become distracting or annoying to the viewer.
sex scenes are another subject related to this.
in my opinion, keep your clothes on and the movie is better.
Why do movies have to not be restrained? Why does there have to be gratuitous amount sof nudity, sex and women with hairy arm pits?
Whenever you ask euros this they never answer the auestion they just gasight and say "amricasn are prudes". Ok, and? You make it sound like a bad thing. Still doesnt explain why theres full front nudity of the actress 6 times in the movie and unsimulated sex. "ITS ART!", its not its porn.
Honestly no. It's overlong and overrated. A piano teacher fricks her student and liberates herself from the uptight b***h she is but she liberates herself into
being a prostitute. It's not nearly as interesting as it sounds. If you want to watch a Haneke movie watch Benny's Video or The White Ribbon, they are both much much better.
Having sex with an older woman is insanely based and I'm tired of pretending its not. Every man should try at least once in their lives to have sex with a woman at least 7 years his senior
You don't know the carnal heaven that is going raw and cumming balls deep in an older woman
the male character is a bit unrealistic. Even if he was put off by her fetish, I doubt he would react in such a way. I think every guy would play along for a day or two while working towards a smooth exit strategy.
I hated Haneke for years because for some reason I thought he was the guy who made that movie where a cuck's girlfriend gets killed and then the cuck finds her murderer and after a long conversation agrees to let him kill him, too
I still choose to blame him for that movie somehow
Yeah that's the movie I thought you were referring to. Overrated ending. Not sure why the main character chose to do that but the villain was top tier kino
I actually take exception to Von Trier being lumped in
Unlike the other morbid dismal navel-gazing euros mentioned ITT, the man has clearly laughed at some point in his life, even if he was laughing at The Diary of Anne Frank
>the man has clearly laughed at some point in his life, even if he was laughing at The Diary of Anne Frank
Most on-point characterization I've ever read
these c**ts are so annoying. it seems more like they're spooked by the faintest spectre of conservative values than anything else. incidentally, I do think rafman is a trash moron, as well as his friends the safdies.
>these c**ts are so annoying. it seems more like they're spooked by the faintest spectre of conservative values than anything else
I wouldn't characterize them as conservatives and I definitely agree they are annoying at times, but I don't feel like your statement is correct, especially not with how they have featured friends who are on the more conservative side of things.
It seems like an idealized scenario. How common is it for a boy to relate to a slightly older woman like a teacher? I guess it happens more in Europe.Movies with this premise tend to be a bit boring.
Nobody ever talks about Time of the Wolf but it's one of his best movies. Isabelle Huppert is in that one too and it takes place after an offscreen apocalyptic disaster. They kill a real horse in it
So many filtered clowns in this thread who don’t even understand haneke films, clearly just edgelords or coomers. Life is bleak and evil unless you’re incredibly lucky or privileged. Every great piece over art has tragedy built behind its meaning. Also I bet half the posters shitting on Lars haven’t seen the ‘The idiots’- an absolute masterpiece. Accept the shitting on Gaspar Noe.
i''ll watch it if you;re being sincere
it's truly kino
The idea of Haneke's films is to show life at its absolute worst in order to learn from it and improve yours. If you're just looking for escapism, well, I dunno why you are watching arthouse european cinema in the first place.
There was a time when I would've made excuses like this for art like this, but at this point in my life I honestly think you're reaching for something that isn't there and giving Haneke credit he doesn't deserve. I've met and worked with people like him. I think it's far more likely that he genuinely is a bitter, insulated, misanthropic person, and the goal of his artwork (to the extent that he even has a goal) is to vent and spread his misery and to collect accolades from a bubble of equally miserable European arthouse pseuds
Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
>Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
Then explain Amour, homosexual.
Amour was yet another miserable film. It's on you to explain how it's any kind of contradiction to what I said. Did you honestly find it uplifting?
>Did you honestly find it uplifting?
It might not be uplifting but it is certainly a humanistic and compassionate film.
I don't really think it is. I think it's telling of his character that when he finally makes a film that begrudgingly acknowledges that people are capable of genuinely loving each other, he chooses to fixate on the painful, humiliating end-of-life phase where their bodies and minds fail them and time turns their love into pain. Really, he just uses love as a weapon to torture his characters, and the audience along with them.
Gaspar Noe is another shitheel in the same mold and he pulled the exact same thing with his Alzheimers' film. And again I'm not against a love story that ends in tragedy, I'm not against a film that acknowledges these difficulties of life - but these are artists that fixate and wallow and singularly focus on the worst of life, because their argument is that life itself is terrible and you'll be punished for any attempt to enjoy it or find meaning in it.
Amour is a far less bleak film than Vortex. Haneke can be sadistic, to be sure, but Amour stays rooted in Georges' meaningful (if ultimately futile) efforts to care for Anne, building to a horrible yet comprehensible decision that's more or less revealed before the narrative proper even begins. Vortex, by contrast, simply depicts mental and physical infirmity enveloping its helpless protagonists as if they were extras in The Blob.
You really can't see the massive difference between those two films? They're both dark films about old couples, but that's about where the similarities end. I feel like you're incapable of seeing the subtext in Haneke's films and just clutching your pearls at the surface provocations.
Haneke's more talented than Noe by far, but I do think the message and intent was roughly the same. Noe just hits that mark with a blunter instrument. If anything Amour is the bleaker film, specifically because Haneke does make Georges' love believable - but the film's intent is only to put the character through increasing pain until he eventually rips his own heart out
It's just more sadism and more "HA HA, SERVES YOU RIGHT FOR CARING ABOUT ANYTHING OR ANYONE." It's not an inherently "bad" story, but it lacks balance, because the place it's coming from is fundamentally rotten. Haneke does not deserve your defense and I think you will also reach a point where you're realizing this kind of artwork is a bigger waste of your time and brainspace than even the laziest, most meaningless Marvel cashgrab
The problem isn't even that his movies are dark, it's more that they are inherently negative. You can make dark movies that convey a productive message. You can show the horrors of humanity while also demonstrating an artistic message that can benefit a person's life. But Haneke is fueled by resentment. Movies like Funny Games are didactic trash that show blatant spite for his audience. No positive meaning can be found from the movie. No one will watch it and go "wow I guess I should stop watching violent movies."
Well said, yeah that's more or less what I was trying to articulate - it's just sadism for the sake of sadism. The same story told in "Amour" could've been fine in another filmmaker's hands, but Haneke doesn't depict the love between his characters with genuine empathy. It's a weapon he can use against them (and against the audience) later in the film, it's Chekov's Gun, it's the setup for a punchline, and the punchline is "it all goes to shit because life is shit, frick you"
It isn't really more intellectual than a Marvel film. He's got talent but he wastes it on empty nihilism and cynicism
That's how I feel about Von Trier, not Haneke. I feel that everything you've said about Haneke actually applies to Von Trier; at the very least, Haneke creates psychologically complex characters, whereas Von Trier's work is just schematically conceptual, pretentiously ascetic, hollow, and cheap.
Lars is nothing like Noe beyond surface level "bad things are being shown on screen!"
fat girl and the bergman film's i've seen are this as well...shame on criterion for lauding them
Fat Girl is absolute trash, but Bergman's capable of a lot more than just misery porn. I loved some of his earlier films. I don't know his life story but his films seemed to get bleaker as he got older. Even his bleaker work doesn't have the same freshman-nihilist "frick you, frick everything" sneer I get from Haneke
>Even his bleaker work doesn't have the same freshman-nihilist "frick you, frick everything" sneer I get from Haneke
This is Von Trier, not Haneke. At least Haneke uses psychological realism to show how people would realistically react in his fricked-up situations, Von Trier just makes "allegorical" "symbolic" trash that is far more contrived than anything Haneke ever did, with the exception of Happy End
hit the road jack
They're basically cut from the same cloth, Haneke is just smarter about it
I'd even argue that Von Trier's better on some level because he at least seems to be having some kind of fun with it. Like he views his audience-punishment exercises as some kind of "punk rock" thing, or at least he's just a lot more open about taking pleasure in sadism. Whereas Haneke shuns the idea of fun, refuses to admit any kind of pleasure, and dresses up his work in the trappings of intellectual high-art when the depth and meaning really aren't there and he scorns the very idea that it should be
I'm still not really a fan of Von Trier's films either, but he overall seems like less of a miserable c**t
The House that Jack Built was so intentionally funny that it made me look back and wonder if Dancer in the Dark was an incredibly dry parody
I agree. People are allowed to have eras, people are allowed to have moods, but Haneke's entire goal of his entire life has seemed to unerringly just be "be the biggest c**t possible"
At some point you're not transgressing art anymore, you're just a c**t
Yeah great art can certainly be dark, but Haneke isn't just dark, he wallows and rolls around in misery and that's pretty much it
> Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
it's really that simple. Artists who fawn over darkness and depravity tends to be Humanist. Along with that comes a tenuously optimistic view of muh working class peepo while failing to reconcile the corruption and evil of other, equally human, people. You're only truly a serious person if you admit we're just heckin stardust and the universe doesn't give a single solitary frick about your feelings. Only when you believe this can you devote your energy to expressing filth.
>Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
Fact check by real Tolstoyan patriots: true
Absolutely based. At a certain point misery or evil in art destroys the beauty of the work, and to be anti-beautiful is the definition of evil. The word evil in Greek is very close to the word "shit" or "feces." I used to believe that Evil meant "uhh, something that's like, bad" but as I grow older I realize it is that which denies and destroys the beautiful, that which is ugly. That's not to say there's no place in art for the evil or anti-beautiful but after consuming enough of it the soul of the viewer becomes stained with it, and you need your soul to experience art in a true sense.
>Uplifting, moving, idealistic artwork is far more valuable than this dreck
based.
Should've just said "Haneke reminds me too much of my co-workers" instead of the pretentious drivel you kept on spouting. How fricking uplifting and optimistic can your life be when your wasting your time in this shithole?
>inb4 muh escapism
How about you escape to the real world to get some humility?
> comparing posting on a dutch alcoholism enthusiasts discussion forum with devoting a multi-decade film career to making rope fuel for the silver screen
do euros really?
Always struck me as slop for emotionally and artistically underdeveloped people, as do all Haneke films, really. Always "shocking" in the most square and cowardly way possible. Maybe Amour has a slightly more mature approach, aside from its cheesiness and predictability? I think The Seventh Continent is my favorite of the bunch but it's still so goofy.
Yes, Isabelle is good in it but I'm pretty sure anyone could give her anything and she would make it work.
I'm not quite sure if that's really "the idea" of his films since you can't apply it to a few (if not most) of them (in fact I'm not even sure if it applies to any of them, especially since "life at its absolute worst" is a nebulous phrase), but that's such a bunch of nothing.
>If you're just looking for escapism, well, I dunno why you are watching arthouse european cinema in the first place.
I reject the notion of "arthouse European cinema" since that's purely a marketing phrase, but there's a ton of films that would be marketed as such that are definitely escapist to some or major extent, but many of those films are are even optimistic and idealistic. In fact, I'd argue Haneke's films are extremely escapist in how the characters and situations are typically very non-human in their emotionality and choices, existing mostly to serve a script or banal themes that the audience is already familiar with and Haneke -- the dull conformist he is -- simply reinforces these thematic fantasies: dramatizing symbols and comfortable situations is a type of wish fulfillment and escapism.
Then explain Code Unknown
Oh wait, you can't
Haven't seen that one. At a certain point I felt like I saw enough from him to get what he's about and not want to see more
Sell me on it if you really think I'm missing something, but I honestly doubt it's much of an exception
I'm wondering what films by Haneke's contemporaries you think are good if you're so deeply unimpressed by Haneke's entire filmography. Genuinely curious.
Completely fair question. I really don't like Haneke at all so there are a lot of mediocre filmmakers whom I actually like more.
As far as contemporaries go, Haneke has technically been directing for half a century, including motherfricking Tarkovsky and Kurosawa and a whole bunch of other titans among his contemporaries, but I don't think that's what you mean.
For European directors who came up around the same time, I like a lot of the usual suspects like Bela Tarr. An infamously bleak filmmaker too, and definitely one for technical/directorial gimmicks like Haneke, but I personally think he's (at his peaks) much, much better.
>Calls Haneke slop for artistically and emotionally underdeveloped people
>Likes Tarr
Tarr is one of the most pretentious self-fellating directors to ever grace cinema you pseud homosexual. Get off your high horse
>NOOOO MY MOVIES HAVE TO BE FREAKING WHOLESOME 100 JUST LIKE MY DISNEY SUPER HERO MOVIES!
I'm not American. I don't like capeshit slop. I could do without most Haneke movies.
no way.
>me american. me need 5000th braindead cape movie with simpleton villain who gets defeated before happy ending.
I'll watch it if there's a lesbian sex scene in it.
As an American, I laugh at the overwhelmingly vast majority of foreigner's ideas of nihilism and philosophical despair. It's all so feminine and childish.
>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNFAIRNESS IN THE WORLD
>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNTIMELY ILLNESS/DEATH THAT MAKES MY HAPPYTIME SHORTER...
>I'M LE GOOD PERSON, BUT LE SOCIETY IS HOLDING ME BACK
>>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNFAIRNESS IN THE WORLD
>>OH NOES, THERES....LE UNTIMELY ILLNESS/DEATH THAT MAKES MY HAPPYTIME SHORTER...
>>I'M LE GOOD PERSON, BUT LE SOCIETY IS HOLDING ME BACK
who are you quoting?
99% of arthouse schlock.
this post is missing the absolute denial of Austrians about WW2 and holocaust
you can also see this with haneke filmography
especially the yellow ribbon
Crazy how Austria fricked over Germany two times and plays the dindu nuffin card
why is european cinema so weird and obsessed with sex?
Europeans would say American movies are so weird and restrained.
i'm that guy askin and i'm european myself.
i've noticed unnecessary romance subplots in many films. golden age Hollywood had one in literally every film.
i get it, it's very simple way to spark a feeling since that's something every normie does but it is so tacky and cheesy and it always ends up feeling like pointless filler.
my favorite films are ones where there isn't any kind of romance subplot. actually robocop 1987 does it right by having the robocop experience past relationship through vision and question his robo/human nature through his subconsciousness. that's an good example of romance being used in a way that fits to the plot where it doesn't become distracting or annoying to the viewer.
sex scenes are another subject related to this.
in my opinion, keep your clothes on and the movie is better.
dissent: deepthroat induced vomit is necessary for expressing the austrian spirit
Why do movies have to not be restrained? Why does there have to be gratuitous amount sof nudity, sex and women with hairy arm pits?
Whenever you ask euros this they never answer the auestion they just gasight and say "amricasn are prudes". Ok, and? You make it sound like a bad thing. Still doesnt explain why theres full front nudity of the actress 6 times in the movie and unsimulated sex. "ITS ART!", its not its porn.
Less shaving. Animal passions rise up.
Her reddit is amazing
>like pubes
>like armpit hair
>like hairy legs
Gotta move to Italy or something.
What European country has the hairiest women?
from my experience it's Portugal
Might I recommend Armenia?
7/10 from the neck down
3/10 from the neck up
just wait till you see how popular scat porn is over there
All Haneke movies are really captivating even if you don't agree with his message.
i watched caché and i wished I didn't. First 15 minutes are really good. After that it turns into boring pretentious nothingness.
Watch Lost Highway instead
keep the thread alive while I watch
shit movie
I actually love the book and have avoided watching the movie.
its been like 2 decades, should i watch the movie?
Honestly no. It's overlong and overrated. A piano teacher fricks her student and liberates herself from the uptight b***h she is but she liberates herself into
being a prostitute. It's not nearly as interesting as it sounds. If you want to watch a Haneke movie watch Benny's Video or The White Ribbon, they are both much much better.
But are the love scenes between the protagonists good?
i want my senior-year high school teacher to give me a rimjob
i love isabelle
explain yourself anon, extraordinary how?
This one is so much better than Funny Games for instance, the discrepancy between the two is huge in terms of the script being actually good
the difference is that The Piano Teacher was not an original screenplay.
Probably why it's his best movie.
Having sex with an older woman is insanely based and I'm tired of pretending its not. Every man should try at least once in their lives to have sex with a woman at least 7 years his senior
You don't know the carnal heaven that is going raw and cumming balls deep in an older woman
Are you speaking from personal experience?
I'm 28 years old and the oldest woman I ever sleep with have 32, should I try get a milf?
20's is primo but milfs will be much nastier from what i've gathered
Why did she do it bros?
her mother obviously has a lot to do with it
she's practically a femcel
the male character is a bit unrealistic. Even if he was put off by her fetish, I doubt he would react in such a way. I think every guy would play along for a day or two while working towards a smooth exit strategy.
it's a little bit moronic
It's Huppert kino.
I hated Haneke for years because for some reason I thought he was the guy who made that movie where a cuck's girlfriend gets killed and then the cuck finds her murderer and after a long conversation agrees to let him kill him, too
I still choose to blame him for that movie somehow
What movie is that
Yeah that's the movie I thought you were referring to. Overrated ending. Not sure why the main character chose to do that but the villain was top tier kino
I am not that anon
But it was easy to recognize based on his description
sounds awesome what's it called
sounds like the vanishing
Kino ending
You were filtered by absolute kino.
6:42 to 9:26 is about Jon Rafman, but I think it sums up my thoughts on Haneke quite well (or Noe or Von Trier for that matter).
I actually take exception to Von Trier being lumped in
Unlike the other morbid dismal navel-gazing euros mentioned ITT, the man has clearly laughed at some point in his life, even if he was laughing at The Diary of Anne Frank
>the man has clearly laughed at some point in his life, even if he was laughing at The Diary of Anne Frank
Most on-point characterization I've ever read
these c**ts are so annoying. it seems more like they're spooked by the faintest spectre of conservative values than anything else. incidentally, I do think rafman is a trash moron, as well as his friends the safdies.
>these c**ts are so annoying. it seems more like they're spooked by the faintest spectre of conservative values than anything else
I wouldn't characterize them as conservatives and I definitely agree they are annoying at times, but I don't feel like your statement is correct, especially not with how they have featured friends who are on the more conservative side of things.
It seems like an idealized scenario. How common is it for a boy to relate to a slightly older woman like a teacher? I guess it happens more in Europe.Movies with this premise tend to be a bit boring.
would it be cringe to say she's literally me?
You’re a middle aged femcel who could easily get laid if she wanted but doesn’t because she’s mentally ill?
Nobody ever talks about Time of the Wolf but it's one of his best movies. Isabelle Huppert is in that one too and it takes place after an offscreen apocalyptic disaster. They kill a real horse in it
So many filtered clowns in this thread who don’t even understand haneke films, clearly just edgelords or coomers. Life is bleak and evil unless you’re incredibly lucky or privileged. Every great piece over art has tragedy built behind its meaning. Also I bet half the posters shitting on Lars haven’t seen the ‘The idiots’- an absolute masterpiece. Accept the shitting on Gaspar Noe.
>michael hackake
Baby tier, watch more films, all of his joyless nothingburgers are intentional wastes of time
>pianofist
is that with the holowiener?
why didnt she like it when he matched her energy
Is it a straight shota movie? If not, I'm not watching.
All I see is a bunch of people being filtered in this thread.
filtered
Haven't watched Pianiste yet.
71 Fragmente is one of the 50 best movies I watched in my life.