My dad rented the Tim Roth version when I was a kid. We watched it as a family when I was like 8 and it was halfway scary, but the fourth wall shit irritated the frick outta me as a child. Thought it was handled so poorly and such a cheap trick
it's no surprise that someone who types as moronicly as you, doesn't get anything out of this movie except some regurgitated unfunny memes. that is the best you could come up with
Give a reason as to why you think it's shit. I am proposing the opposite: it's a good movie for the simple fact that it makes a mockery out of the generic horror murder slop by holding a mirror in front of the viewer
>doesn't get anything out of this movie
Anon you've shown your (moronic) hand. Haneke went on record multiple times stating Funny Games was indeed a response to audiences enjoying violence in films. He literally went >NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST ENJOY THINGS
and made a movie about it.
It's not wonder that a person (you) who is not able to comprehend this movie, thoughbeit not too difficult to understand (yet you still fail at that) is not capable of having a normal discussion without acting like a child or phrasing every sentence like a meme or a greentext
It fills you with rage that you are so dumbed down that you cannot even get anything out of a movie that is the entriest of entry levels of arthouse. Just stick to capeshit
no i just think its funny that you watch movies, the most low IQ, passive, low effort form of art/entertainment, and think it makes you intelligent
5 months ago
Anonymous
Movie watching does not make you intelligent, but an intelligent person can enjoy a movie on a different level than a capeshit watcher; that's a fact and has nothing to do with being a movie snob
5 months ago
Anonymous
its a midwit medium
5 months ago
Anonymous
Not true either. A movie can broaden your horizon just like a good book or a painting or any other type of art
5 months ago
Anonymous
>movies are good because they can broaden your horizon
shalom
5 months ago
Anonymous
>oneliner dumbshit meme reponse
You are actually in need of broadening your horizon
5 months ago
Anonymous
And you're in need of a gassing
5 months ago
Anonymous
nope. movies are inferior. you not being able to realize this tells me youre a midwit, which is why you brag about watching movies as if thats some type of accomplishment
>doesn't get anything out of this movie
Anon you've shown your (moronic) hand. Haneke went on record multiple times stating Funny Games was indeed a response to audiences enjoying violence in films. He literally went >NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST ENJOY THINGS
and made a movie about it.
Does he really think that bad guys getting killed in some action movie is the same as a child getting tortured and murdered in his?
Is he really that nihilistic?
Wasn't it about exposing the bloodlust of a moralizing viewer? and then just denying them their satisfaction? Can't you see how that could be a violence is le good arguement just as much? Dunno man maybe you got some growing up to do.
>just stop watching the movie you paid to watch and the bad fake pain will stop happening to the fake people. Oh you won't? I guess you're a bad person then unlike me :^)
riveting commentary, wow. Can't even comprehend the IQ necessary to conceive this
>Haneke states that the entire film was not intended to be a horror film. He says he wanted to make a message about violence in the media by making an incredibly violent, but otherwise pointless movie. He had written a short essay revealing how he felt on the issue, called "Violence + Media."
It's mostly because the guy's a homosexual with a stupid message presented in a stupid way. It's the same message as Spec Ops: The Line - 'violence is bad and you shouldn't like it and you should turn this off.' The problem is the difference between video games and movies. The movie still 'happens' whether you're watching it or not while game events literally do not occur without player input. Of course, this message in both cases only works with people that believe fictional shit is real, so it's stupid either way.
>that's, like, the point, man >real violence is boring
It fills you with rage that you are so dumbed down that you cannot even get anything out of a movie that is the entriest of entry levels of arthouse. Just stick to capeshit
>arthouse
The movie the writer/director got pissed nobody cared about it so he made a Hollywood remake of it hoping it would get anybody to give a shit and whined that still nobody liked his shitty movie? Real artsy shit.
Give a reason as to why you think it's shit. I am proposing the opposite: it's a good movie for the simple fact that it makes a mockery out of the generic horror murder slop by holding a mirror in front of the viewer
>Give a reason as to why you think it's shit
1) it's boring 2)when it looks like it might go somewhere it just rewinds
Boring is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching. A baby would find anything but bright loud cartoons boring.
What you find boring others can find riveting and vice versa.
Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks literally not being able to finish them, some of them think they are just pure fun. None of it says anything about the movie. Get actual arguments
>it only says what your mood was while watching
Yes, because nothing happens in it. It is a boring movie. That's the worst a piece of entertainment can be, not be entertaining. And halfway through when it looks like it might go somewhere when she shoots him it reserves to make sure anyone watching is completely checked out. >Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks
Bullshit, film critic intellectual gaywads might say " oh this is isn't art, it's not a real, it's so beneath me" but they couldn't be bored by it because things actually happen.
Reading comprehension please my dear brainlet friend, Haneke isn't against portrayals of violence or cheering for the good guy to win, but against empty mindless desentisizing violence which you often see in for example cheap horror flicks, where people laugh and cheer at random people being decapitated etc
>where people laugh and cheer
Yes, we need more "art films" that elicit zero response from the audience
>because nothing happens in it
Clearly lot of things happen in it, from the first to the very last frame. Only YOU find it as nothing, same like someone can think "nothing happens" in a movie you enjoy.
There are people who find Godfather boring, is it a bad movie then?
>While Haneke admits that he deliberately wrote in the remote-control rewind to play with the audience's emotions, he also wanted to teach the viewers firsthand that movies are manipulative by design and that the viewers can easily fall for a movie's smoke and mirrors.
>muh message
There is nothing more midwit than idiots who obsess about what the movie was trying to tell. I don't give a single frick what the director of Funny Games thinks about violence, I don't care if it's some critique of violent movies, I don't care if it's making a statement about the audience.
It's a well directed movie. The two guys wearing white and just being weird spergs and holding the family hostage was kino. The remote rewind scene was pretty dumb but by then the movie is pretty much over and gets wrapped up as all the important interesting stuff already happened. >NOOO YOU WERE NOT HECKIN' SUPPOSED TO ENJOY IT!!! I PLAYED LOUD ANNOYING MUSIC AND THE ENDING IS A FRICK YOU
didn't ask
>making a cashgrab shot-for-shot remake of your shitty movie 2 years later because nobody watched it >still nobody watches or cares about it
Could this homosexual be more of a hack?
Haneke is not against the portrayal of violence in films, practicaly every single Haneke film has violence in it, and it's more than often extremely brutal.
But that's the actual point, he never uses it just as a cheesy device for the audience to clap and cheer to, but as a deeply traumatic thing that should affect the narrative in some way just as it is in the actual real world.
Basically Haneke absolutely hates the desensitized entertainment flick tier empty weightless portrayals of violence where people cheer and laugh at other people being killed on-screen.
Haneke doesn't have heart attacks, he simply shits and pisses all over dumb morons.
Like pic related, the moment where Haneke mogged half of Hollywood in a roundtable by calling The Schindler's List a forced emotion piece of shit
>in a roundtable by calling The Schindler's List a forced emotion piece of shit
Not blowing my mind with that one anon. I was poking fun at Haneke because people enjoy violence in films while he seethes about it. That aside, what he's saying about using melodrama and historical films is correct and not. I think filmmakers should be more responsible with historical figures, but >Responsibility entails enabling your audience to remain independent and free of manipulation
is horseshit. These are films made to make profit, not documentaries (which are also made to generate revenue in some way anyway). He just reeks of old man yells at clouds, like Hayao Miyazaki.
>These are films made to make profit
Profit has nothing to do with it, the real argument is that art IS manipulation (like all communication is on some level).
In a movie you edit, shoot, write with an agenda in mind, you want the audience to feel some type of way, that's why you make specific creative decision.
How can you not manipulate, as you're explicitly guiding them through the story? It's only a matter of being more or less cheap about it.
>STOP LIKING IT WHEN THE HEROES FIGHT THE VILLAINS AAAARGHHH
This guy hates a basic tenet of myth and storytelling for thousands of years.
Why is he even in this business?
Reading comprehension please my dear brainlet friend, Haneke isn't against portrayals of violence or cheering for the good guy to win, but against empty mindless desentisizing violence which you often see in for example cheap horror flicks, where people laugh and cheer at random people being decapitated etc
>Haneke isn't against portrayals of violence or cheering for the good guy to win
Funny Games is absolutely making fun of the audience for "cheering for the good guy to win"
He's against cheering for mindless over the top cheap violence, no matter which side it comes from.
A good example is also pic related scene in Inglorious Basterds. While Tarantino most definitely likes over the top violence, this very scene shows how the cheers of the Nazi-partisan audience during the blatant propaganda film are meant to mirror the quite similar cheers let out by the actual live audience during Hitler's gruesome death scene. The audience of Inglorious Basteds quite literally becomes pic related just a few seconds after
laughing at the absurd ease with which life can be snuffed out is a way in which people deal with having to live through that absurdity every day and heneke is an absolute autistic prick for holding it against them. >NOOOO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAUMATIZED BY THE IMAGINARY DEATH OF A FAKE PERSON
no, i'm going to laugh at it, frick you.
>YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAUMATIZED BY THE IMAGINARY DEATH OF A FAKE PERSON
You're not supposed to do anything, there are mentally ill freaks who can literally watch children being murdered in rela life and enjoy it.
The point is how you portray things first and foremost, people will react however they will react individually.
but that's fricking stupid my man. it's made up people on screen, there's no reason why you would take the things that happen to them in the same way you would react to those things happening to people you know in real life. it would be mentally ill to do so. like, is he also turbobutthurt about slapstick comedies where someone falls down some stairs or something drops on their head? because IN REAL LIFE if an anvil fell on someone he would die and his family and friends would grieve him and his children would be orphans and there would be all this pain lingering for decades etc etc but in a looney tunes cartoon they make it into a joke. is he butthurt about that? does he want the cartoon to be DEEPLY TRAUMATIC, like "real life?"
A slapstick comedy is entirely different from for example A Serbian film and you know it.
There is a world of difference from a kid laughing while watching a cartoon and a soulless brainwashed subhuman horking like a seal at nihilistic antihuman israeli """violence"""
please don't mix your own obsession with israelites with heneke's opinions, i'm sure he'd be pissed off that you're misrepresenting him in this way. also we're not talking about a serbian film, the argument was about popular entertainment like slashers, which are very much a kind of borderline slapstick murder-comedy where the dumb teen gets sliced in half in an absurd way. it's not as far from a cartoon as you claim. also wouldn't a cartoon be a worse example since it "desensitizes" vulnerable children by showing them all this shit about people being crushed by falling pianos and anvils and making them laugh at it? the child is being primed to laugh at terrible violence being inflicted on people, isn't this awful by heneke's standards? isn't it just like the slasher but worse?
>which are very much a kind of borderline slapstick
You know it isn't. A person being sliced in half in extreme detail with endless blood and screaming certainly not the same as Charlie Chaplin falling down a couple steps in a humorous manner. >also wouldn't a cartoon be a worse example
Not even you agree with that cmon now anon. Do you honestly think a kid watching Tom & Jerry is worse than a kid watching the equivalent of a full resolution mexican cartel liveleak video scene in a slasher flick?
>certainly not the same as Charlie Chaplin falling down a couple steps in a humorous manner.
but if heneke's point is about "what it would mean in real life" then people falling down some steps is absolutely something that can lead to death, paralysis etc. real children are orphaned every day by a parent falling down some stairs and breaking their neck same way as by gun violence, so why would utilizing gun violence for entertainment be bad but not utilizing accidents involving stairs? follow your own logic, please. >Do you honestly think a kid watching Tom & Jerry is worse than a kid watching the equivalent of a full resolution mexican cartel liveleak video scene in a slasher flick?
again, follow your own logic. if the problem is "desensitizing people to violence" then hiding the negative consequences of violence makes it easier for a child to enjoy it as entertainment, so it would absolutely be "worse," as in more manipulative.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>then people falling down some steps is absolutely something that can lead to death, paralysis etc
Anon you are doing beyond ridiculous mental gymnastics now.
Sure, some people can die from falling down some steps, same like someone can die from nothing but drinking a glass of water the wrong way, that doesn't mean a character drinking a glass of water in a movie is something "mindlessly violent" and you know it. >follow your own logic
You're not following any logic, you're doing moronic mental gymnastics. No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent. The image of a man tripping over something is extremely different than a man being dismembered and you know it.
5 months ago
Anonymous
when you laugh at a person falling down some stairs you are laughing at somebody's pain and (risk of) injury. this is exactly the "desensitization" we were talking about. the fact that there's no gruesome blood splatter only makes it more manipulative in terms of treating pain as entertainment, as you've already conceded by not contradicting my cartoon argument.
those are not "gymnastics, " it's simply following the logic. if desensitizing the audience to human suffering is bad then it's not any less bad just because there's no fake blood in the scene, or else your problem is just stylistic (you don't like "gruesomeness") and not moral.
>No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent.
because they have been... desensitized?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>those are not "gymnastics, " it's simply following the logic
It's most definitely gymnastics and not logical. A person stubbing his toe is not the same as on-screen decapitation. >or else your problem is just stylistic (you don't like "gruesomeness") and not moral
Again, the difference between someone stubbing his toe and someone being decapitated isn't just "stylistic" and you know it. From the moral side especially. >No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent. >because they have been... desensitized?
No, because they are not literal morons. Being sensitized is exactly the part in knowing the difference between a minor injury and a literal murder.
If a dog runs into a door on accident most people will find that funny, but if a dog is killed with a shovel and dismembered most people will find that gruesome and violent. Finding the two as equivalent is beyond ridiculous, not logical and you know it.
5 months ago
Anonymous
this is exactly the logic of "desensitization:" that accepting a lesser instance today primes you for accepting a greater instance tomorrow. "haha the moron fell on his ass" and "haha the dumb bawd got impaled by michael myers" are just two points on the same spectrum, ie the spectrum of desensitization to human suffering. you're only interested in haneke's logic to the extent that it makes you feel superior to others (eg slasher fans) but you balk at actually applying it to the way you watch things yourself. "no, you don't get it, when i do it it's not the same. i only like MINOR injuries"
5 months ago
Anonymous
Falling on your ass is not the same as being impaled. Same like someone poking you with a finger is not the same as a punch in the face.
And sure, any mindless portrayal of anything certainly isn't good. Watching nothing but fail compilations surely won't make you a better person, but it's definitely a lot different than watching nothing but beheading compilations.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Falling on your ass is not the same as being impaled
thanks for the insight. it's like you're actively refusing to read what i write
5 months ago
Anonymous
Different anon jumping in here. My problem is why is violence the only thing that's treated this way? Physical violence and gore is the only thing we're not allowed to enjoy watching. How come no one writes a parody of Anna Karenina or Synecdoche talking about how almost literally every single piece of media is geared towards desensitizing us towards depression or emotional violence? It's a moronic double standard that always makes it feel more like a personal hangup than any sort of actual moral stance.
5 months ago
Anonymous
How does Anna Karenina or Synecdoche desensitizing you towards depression or emotional violence? If anything both of those films will make you better understand both of those things. It's not like you watch Synecdoche and laugh and cheer at the depressing parts.
Haneke is a living hack and his only decent film is piano teacher, everything else is just le psychological family distrubing stuff for le shock effect for arthouse reddit film student audience. Glad he stopped making film DOE
Based. Piano teacher is only good as well because it is based on an existing book and was barely touched by Haneke in terms of writing. Haneke should stick to directing. His style is great but his writing is gay as frick always with some heavy handed message behind it with allegory filling in the gaps for it.
Cache, Funny games and The white ribbon all fall in to this category. Amour is just him whining about being an old fogey and that people die. To be fair to him i havent seen all of his films but from what i have seen The Piano teacher is by far his best and most dense film in terms of an actual story/characters you get invested instead of everything being paper thin once you take the story or characters out of the allegorical framework or message Haneke builds the film around.
The Piano Teacher isn't really different than the rest of his movies. Thematically it's the same stuff about the inherent sickness of the bourgeois life that's everywhere in his filmography since The Seventh Continent, and as far as conventional narratives go The White Ribbon and Amour are more approachable, even having positive characters that the audience could relate to, this actually a rarity in Haneke's films.
I don't think the movie really succeeds in what it was supposed to do because by hiding the violence and making the situation so unnerving and hopeless it actually creates a creepier horror movie that any dumb slasher could ever hope to accomplish, but Haneke wins anyway because of how angry the mere idea of making a movie that criticizes mindless violence in media makes some people (mostly Americans I imagine, hence the point of the remake), just look at this thread 20 years after the fact.
Art is a means to an end.
Its purpose is to inspire, inform, or entertain the Volk.
This film does none of these things.
It is spiritual poison.
"Art" like this should be purged, along with the eternal parasites who are responsible for planting such a spirit within us.
I know being contrarian is part and parcel of being on Cinemaphile but fricking hell some of you guys must be so insufferable in real life.
The director is making a perfectly valid point and drawing comparisons to how we treat violence in real life compared to movies. And the excuse of >erm that's dumb because people know movies are fake
is bullshit because emotion is a fricking gigantic part of film and always has been. Audiences cry when the dog or nice person they've watched for 2 hours dies as they cry when their own dog or person they care about dies.
Audiences cheer and are happy when the protagonist overcomes their difficulties as they would if they were reading about or watching a real person do it.
Audiences get scared of the dark scary haunted house in movies just as they would if placed in a dark scary haunted house in real life
So why is it when people are getting blown up and murdered and horribly mutilated we feel indifferent or sometimes even happy when if that was happening in front of us it would be completely traumatising and horrific?
>So why is it when people are getting blown up and murdered and horribly mutilated we feel indifferent or sometimes even happy when if that was happening in front of us it would be completely traumatising and horrific?
because of
laughing at the absurd ease with which life can be snuffed out is a way in which people deal with having to live through that absurdity every day and heneke is an absolute autistic prick for holding it against them. >NOOOO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAUMATIZED BY THE IMAGINARY DEATH OF A FAKE PERSON
no, i'm going to laugh at it, frick you.
. just because some parts of the movie experience sometimes line up with "if it was real and happening to me" does not mean that that's the general principle, the general principle is that you are participating in a symbolic spectacle. when you're about to get to 0hp in a videogame, is that like actually dying?
I think both are valid points. I'm not saying Heneke is exactly right and I think it's dumb to say movies are just like real life but it's still something interesting to think about. How we can have such empathy but the moment we're removed from something enough that empathy goes out the window.
I'd argue that an even more extreme and better example than what Heneke is saying, would be ancient gladiator fights. Those people were watching real humans get slaughtered brutally in front of them and cheered and loved it but if they were in the ring they'd probably piss themselves being surrounded by all that carnage and threat of death.
>The director is making a perfectly valid point
No, he isn't. Anyway a movie like this where nothing matters can have no point. There's nothing to connect to
I hope Haneke's last film is just like Funny Games, but capeshit. Like hundreds of millions dollar budget full on CG blockbuster capeshit flick.
But instead of commenting on mindless violence he now has the actor calling everyone who still watches this CG rendered weightless anti human garbage a never developed manchild straight into the camera every 5 minutes. It starts with all the hope for them to succeed and it ends with all of their favorite superheroes being slaughtered with absolutely no chance of any revival while the actor just calls the audience dumber and dumber for still sitting there watching this antihuman CG rendered garbage.
And when he first makes it in American he also remakes it shot for shot in Chinese too, killing all the manchildren in both of those capeshit ridden markets.
the real torture was the on they inflicted on you, the viewer
My dad rented the Tim Roth version when I was a kid. We watched it as a family when I was like 8 and it was halfway scary, but the fourth wall shit irritated the frick outta me as a child. Thought it was handled so poorly and such a cheap trick
it's no surprise that someone who types as moronicly as you, doesn't get anything out of this movie except some regurgitated unfunny memes. that is the best you could come up with
Your pretentious shock film is shit Mike.
just because you are intellectually not capable of comprehending a movie doesn't mean it's shit
She is intellectually capable of comprehending it. That's why she knows it's shit.
Give a reason as to why you think it's shit. I am proposing the opposite: it's a good movie for the simple fact that it makes a mockery out of the generic horror murder slop by holding a mirror in front of the viewer
>it's a good movie because it's all META and criticizes the GENRE
yawn
>doesn't get anything out of this movie
Anon you've shown your (moronic) hand. Haneke went on record multiple times stating Funny Games was indeed a response to audiences enjoying violence in films. He literally went
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST ENJOY THINGS
and made a movie about it.
Yes, and? I fail to see what that has to do with what I said
Oh sorry you're just moronic nvm. Don't bother replying (seriously I'm not going to respond or read your post)
It's not wonder that a person (you) who is not able to comprehend this movie, thoughbeit not too difficult to understand (yet you still fail at that) is not capable of having a normal discussion without acting like a child or phrasing every sentence like a meme or a greentext
oh yeah? did the movie really affect you? you got a lot of insight out of this movie?
Yes, yes, and yes
movie snobs are pathetic
It fills you with rage that you are so dumbed down that you cannot even get anything out of a movie that is the entriest of entry levels of arthouse. Just stick to capeshit
no i just think its funny that you watch movies, the most low IQ, passive, low effort form of art/entertainment, and think it makes you intelligent
Movie watching does not make you intelligent, but an intelligent person can enjoy a movie on a different level than a capeshit watcher; that's a fact and has nothing to do with being a movie snob
its a midwit medium
Not true either. A movie can broaden your horizon just like a good book or a painting or any other type of art
>movies are good because they can broaden your horizon
shalom
>oneliner dumbshit meme reponse
You are actually in need of broadening your horizon
And you're in need of a gassing
nope. movies are inferior. you not being able to realize this tells me youre a midwit, which is why you brag about watching movies as if thats some type of accomplishment
Does he really think that bad guys getting killed in some action movie is the same as a child getting tortured and murdered in his?
Is he really that nihilistic?
Yes. Just google the interviews with Mikey about Funny Games.
his earlier movie benny's video does a better job at commenting on violence. it's basically a critique of the average gore thread lurker
I got bored when he went to Egypt
I quite like it. It's not even particularly violent.
Wasn't it about exposing the bloodlust of a moralizing viewer? and then just denying them their satisfaction? Can't you see how that could be a violence is le good arguement just as much? Dunno man maybe you got some growing up to do.
>just stop watching the movie you paid to watch and the bad fake pain will stop happening to the fake people. Oh you won't? I guess you're a bad person then unlike me :^)
riveting commentary, wow. Can't even comprehend the IQ necessary to conceive this
I would reck those twink boys in 5 seconds, I just couldn't take them seriously as a threat.
>Haneke states that the entire film was not intended to be a horror film. He says he wanted to make a message about violence in the media by making an incredibly violent, but otherwise pointless movie. He had written a short essay revealing how he felt on the issue, called "Violence + Media."
It's funny how people like it for the exact opposite reason it was made
It's mostly because the guy's a homosexual with a stupid message presented in a stupid way. It's the same message as Spec Ops: The Line - 'violence is bad and you shouldn't like it and you should turn this off.' The problem is the difference between video games and movies. The movie still 'happens' whether you're watching it or not while game events literally do not occur without player input. Of course, this message in both cases only works with people that believe fictional shit is real, so it's stupid either way.
The movie is not even that incredibly violent.
You're desensitized
>that's, like, the point, man
>real violence is boring
>arthouse
The movie the writer/director got pissed nobody cared about it so he made a Hollywood remake of it hoping it would get anybody to give a shit and whined that still nobody liked his shitty movie? Real artsy shit.
>Give a reason as to why you think it's shit
1) it's boring 2)when it looks like it might go somewhere it just rewinds
Boring is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching. A baby would find anything but bright loud cartoons boring.
What you find boring others can find riveting and vice versa.
Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks literally not being able to finish them, some of them think they are just pure fun. None of it says anything about the movie. Get actual arguments
>it only says what your mood was while watching
Yes, because nothing happens in it. It is a boring movie. That's the worst a piece of entertainment can be, not be entertaining. And halfway through when it looks like it might go somewhere when she shoots him it reserves to make sure anyone watching is completely checked out.
>Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks
Bullshit, film critic intellectual gaywads might say " oh this is isn't art, it's not a real, it's so beneath me" but they couldn't be bored by it because things actually happen.
>where people laugh and cheer
Yes, we need more "art films" that elicit zero response from the audience
>because nothing happens in it
Clearly lot of things happen in it, from the first to the very last frame. Only YOU find it as nothing, same like someone can think "nothing happens" in a movie you enjoy.
There are people who find Godfather boring, is it a bad movie then?
>While Haneke admits that he deliberately wrote in the remote-control rewind to play with the audience's emotions, he also wanted to teach the viewers firsthand that movies are manipulative by design and that the viewers can easily fall for a movie's smoke and mirrors.
I don't care what kind of pretentious crap Haneke had in mind, I like the movie on its own. I've seen it (the remake) 6 times.
>muh message
There is nothing more midwit than idiots who obsess about what the movie was trying to tell. I don't give a single frick what the director of Funny Games thinks about violence, I don't care if it's some critique of violent movies, I don't care if it's making a statement about the audience.
It's a well directed movie. The two guys wearing white and just being weird spergs and holding the family hostage was kino. The remote rewind scene was pretty dumb but by then the movie is pretty much over and gets wrapped up as all the important interesting stuff already happened.
>NOOO YOU WERE NOT HECKIN' SUPPOSED TO ENJOY IT!!! I PLAYED LOUD ANNOYING MUSIC AND THE ENDING IS A FRICK YOU
didn't ask
ALL CAPS RED TITLE
>making a cashgrab shot-for-shot remake of your shitty movie 2 years later because nobody watched it
>still nobody watches or cares about it
Could this homosexual be more of a hack?
This seems like the type of movie a israelite would make.
Are we sure Haneke isn't israeli?
Probably the most fart-sniffing movie I've seen. Even more than Cabin in the Woods.
Stick to capeshit
My country is so shit at making movies and TV, it's unreal.
Haneke is not against the portrayal of violence in films, practicaly every single Haneke film has violence in it, and it's more than often extremely brutal.
But that's the actual point, he never uses it just as a cheesy device for the audience to clap and cheer to, but as a deeply traumatic thing that should affect the narrative in some way just as it is in the actual real world.
Basically Haneke absolutely hates the desensitized entertainment flick tier empty weightless portrayals of violence where people cheer and laugh at other people being killed on-screen.
He must have had a heart attack watching QT films
?t=576
Haneke doesn't have heart attacks, he simply shits and pisses all over dumb morons.
Like pic related, the moment where Haneke mogged half of Hollywood in a roundtable by calling The Schindler's List a forced emotion piece of shit
>in a roundtable by calling The Schindler's List a forced emotion piece of shit
Not blowing my mind with that one anon. I was poking fun at Haneke because people enjoy violence in films while he seethes about it. That aside, what he's saying about using melodrama and historical films is correct and not. I think filmmakers should be more responsible with historical figures, but
>Responsibility entails enabling your audience to remain independent and free of manipulation
is horseshit. These are films made to make profit, not documentaries (which are also made to generate revenue in some way anyway). He just reeks of old man yells at clouds, like Hayao Miyazaki.
>These are films made to make profit
Profit has nothing to do with it, the real argument is that art IS manipulation (like all communication is on some level).
In a movie you edit, shoot, write with an agenda in mind, you want the audience to feel some type of way, that's why you make specific creative decision.
How can you not manipulate, as you're explicitly guiding them through the story? It's only a matter of being more or less cheap about it.
QT takes the piss out the audience in almost the same way.
haneke is the overwrought essay vs QT just writing notes on a napkin.
>STOP LIKING IT WHEN THE HEROES FIGHT THE VILLAINS AAAARGHHH
This guy hates a basic tenet of myth and storytelling for thousands of years.
Why is he even in this business?
Reading comprehension please my dear brainlet friend, Haneke isn't against portrayals of violence or cheering for the good guy to win, but against empty mindless desentisizing violence which you often see in for example cheap horror flicks, where people laugh and cheer at random people being decapitated etc
>Haneke isn't against portrayals of violence or cheering for the good guy to win
Funny Games is absolutely making fun of the audience for "cheering for the good guy to win"
He's against cheering for mindless over the top cheap violence, no matter which side it comes from.
A good example is also pic related scene in Inglorious Basterds. While Tarantino most definitely likes over the top violence, this very scene shows how the cheers of the Nazi-partisan audience during the blatant propaganda film are meant to mirror the quite similar cheers let out by the actual live audience during Hitler's gruesome death scene. The audience of Inglorious Basteds quite literally becomes pic related just a few seconds after
>The audience of Inglorious Basteds quite literally becomes pic related
if only
laughing at the absurd ease with which life can be snuffed out is a way in which people deal with having to live through that absurdity every day and heneke is an absolute autistic prick for holding it against them.
>NOOOO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAUMATIZED BY THE IMAGINARY DEATH OF A FAKE PERSON
no, i'm going to laugh at it, frick you.
>YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAUMATIZED BY THE IMAGINARY DEATH OF A FAKE PERSON
You're not supposed to do anything, there are mentally ill freaks who can literally watch children being murdered in rela life and enjoy it.
The point is how you portray things first and foremost, people will react however they will react individually.
but that's fricking stupid my man. it's made up people on screen, there's no reason why you would take the things that happen to them in the same way you would react to those things happening to people you know in real life. it would be mentally ill to do so. like, is he also turbobutthurt about slapstick comedies where someone falls down some stairs or something drops on their head? because IN REAL LIFE if an anvil fell on someone he would die and his family and friends would grieve him and his children would be orphans and there would be all this pain lingering for decades etc etc but in a looney tunes cartoon they make it into a joke. is he butthurt about that? does he want the cartoon to be DEEPLY TRAUMATIC, like "real life?"
A slapstick comedy is entirely different from for example A Serbian film and you know it.
There is a world of difference from a kid laughing while watching a cartoon and a soulless brainwashed subhuman horking like a seal at nihilistic antihuman israeli """violence"""
please don't mix your own obsession with israelites with heneke's opinions, i'm sure he'd be pissed off that you're misrepresenting him in this way. also we're not talking about a serbian film, the argument was about popular entertainment like slashers, which are very much a kind of borderline slapstick murder-comedy where the dumb teen gets sliced in half in an absurd way. it's not as far from a cartoon as you claim. also wouldn't a cartoon be a worse example since it "desensitizes" vulnerable children by showing them all this shit about people being crushed by falling pianos and anvils and making them laugh at it? the child is being primed to laugh at terrible violence being inflicted on people, isn't this awful by heneke's standards? isn't it just like the slasher but worse?
>which are very much a kind of borderline slapstick
You know it isn't. A person being sliced in half in extreme detail with endless blood and screaming certainly not the same as Charlie Chaplin falling down a couple steps in a humorous manner.
>also wouldn't a cartoon be a worse example
Not even you agree with that cmon now anon. Do you honestly think a kid watching Tom & Jerry is worse than a kid watching the equivalent of a full resolution mexican cartel liveleak video scene in a slasher flick?
>certainly not the same as Charlie Chaplin falling down a couple steps in a humorous manner.
but if heneke's point is about "what it would mean in real life" then people falling down some steps is absolutely something that can lead to death, paralysis etc. real children are orphaned every day by a parent falling down some stairs and breaking their neck same way as by gun violence, so why would utilizing gun violence for entertainment be bad but not utilizing accidents involving stairs? follow your own logic, please.
>Do you honestly think a kid watching Tom & Jerry is worse than a kid watching the equivalent of a full resolution mexican cartel liveleak video scene in a slasher flick?
again, follow your own logic. if the problem is "desensitizing people to violence" then hiding the negative consequences of violence makes it easier for a child to enjoy it as entertainment, so it would absolutely be "worse," as in more manipulative.
>then people falling down some steps is absolutely something that can lead to death, paralysis etc
Anon you are doing beyond ridiculous mental gymnastics now.
Sure, some people can die from falling down some steps, same like someone can die from nothing but drinking a glass of water the wrong way, that doesn't mean a character drinking a glass of water in a movie is something "mindlessly violent" and you know it.
>follow your own logic
You're not following any logic, you're doing moronic mental gymnastics. No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent. The image of a man tripping over something is extremely different than a man being dismembered and you know it.
when you laugh at a person falling down some stairs you are laughing at somebody's pain and (risk of) injury. this is exactly the "desensitization" we were talking about. the fact that there's no gruesome blood splatter only makes it more manipulative in terms of treating pain as entertainment, as you've already conceded by not contradicting my cartoon argument.
those are not "gymnastics, " it's simply following the logic. if desensitizing the audience to human suffering is bad then it's not any less bad just because there's no fake blood in the scene, or else your problem is just stylistic (you don't like "gruesomeness") and not moral.
>No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent.
because they have been... desensitized?
>those are not "gymnastics, " it's simply following the logic
It's most definitely gymnastics and not logical. A person stubbing his toe is not the same as on-screen decapitation.
>or else your problem is just stylistic (you don't like "gruesomeness") and not moral
Again, the difference between someone stubbing his toe and someone being decapitated isn't just "stylistic" and you know it. From the moral side especially.
>No one finds falling down a couple steps as mindlessly gruesome and violent.
>because they have been... desensitized?
No, because they are not literal morons. Being sensitized is exactly the part in knowing the difference between a minor injury and a literal murder.
If a dog runs into a door on accident most people will find that funny, but if a dog is killed with a shovel and dismembered most people will find that gruesome and violent. Finding the two as equivalent is beyond ridiculous, not logical and you know it.
this is exactly the logic of "desensitization:" that accepting a lesser instance today primes you for accepting a greater instance tomorrow. "haha the moron fell on his ass" and "haha the dumb bawd got impaled by michael myers" are just two points on the same spectrum, ie the spectrum of desensitization to human suffering. you're only interested in haneke's logic to the extent that it makes you feel superior to others (eg slasher fans) but you balk at actually applying it to the way you watch things yourself. "no, you don't get it, when i do it it's not the same. i only like MINOR injuries"
Falling on your ass is not the same as being impaled. Same like someone poking you with a finger is not the same as a punch in the face.
And sure, any mindless portrayal of anything certainly isn't good. Watching nothing but fail compilations surely won't make you a better person, but it's definitely a lot different than watching nothing but beheading compilations.
>Falling on your ass is not the same as being impaled
thanks for the insight. it's like you're actively refusing to read what i write
Different anon jumping in here. My problem is why is violence the only thing that's treated this way? Physical violence and gore is the only thing we're not allowed to enjoy watching. How come no one writes a parody of Anna Karenina or Synecdoche talking about how almost literally every single piece of media is geared towards desensitizing us towards depression or emotional violence? It's a moronic double standard that always makes it feel more like a personal hangup than any sort of actual moral stance.
How does Anna Karenina or Synecdoche desensitizing you towards depression or emotional violence? If anything both of those films will make you better understand both of those things. It's not like you watch Synecdoche and laugh and cheer at the depressing parts.
Haneke is a living hack and his only decent film is piano teacher, everything else is just le psychological family distrubing stuff for le shock effect for arthouse reddit film student audience. Glad he stopped making film DOE
Based. Piano teacher is only good as well because it is based on an existing book and was barely touched by Haneke in terms of writing. Haneke should stick to directing. His style is great but his writing is gay as frick always with some heavy handed message behind it with allegory filling in the gaps for it.
Cache, Funny games and The white ribbon all fall in to this category. Amour is just him whining about being an old fogey and that people die. To be fair to him i havent seen all of his films but from what i have seen The Piano teacher is by far his best and most dense film in terms of an actual story/characters you get invested instead of everything being paper thin once you take the story or characters out of the allegorical framework or message Haneke builds the film around.
The Piano Teacher isn't really different than the rest of his movies. Thematically it's the same stuff about the inherent sickness of the bourgeois life that's everywhere in his filmography since The Seventh Continent, and as far as conventional narratives go The White Ribbon and Amour are more approachable, even having positive characters that the audience could relate to, this actually a rarity in Haneke's films.
the cast for the 1997 version was much, much better. the dark-haired guy just exudes creepiness
The fact that he was the murderous kid from Benny's Video makes it even better.
Is there any US remake that's better than the original? I seriously doubt it.
The Austrian accent also gives the movie a nice touch.
I don't think the movie really succeeds in what it was supposed to do because by hiding the violence and making the situation so unnerving and hopeless it actually creates a creepier horror movie that any dumb slasher could ever hope to accomplish, but Haneke wins anyway because of how angry the mere idea of making a movie that criticizes mindless violence in media makes some people (mostly Americans I imagine, hence the point of the remake), just look at this thread 20 years after the fact.
Art is a means to an end.
Its purpose is to inspire, inform, or entertain the Volk.
This film does none of these things.
It is spiritual poison.
"Art" like this should be purged, along with the eternal parasites who are responsible for planting such a spirit within us.
I know being contrarian is part and parcel of being on Cinemaphile but fricking hell some of you guys must be so insufferable in real life.
The director is making a perfectly valid point and drawing comparisons to how we treat violence in real life compared to movies. And the excuse of
>erm that's dumb because people know movies are fake
is bullshit because emotion is a fricking gigantic part of film and always has been. Audiences cry when the dog or nice person they've watched for 2 hours dies as they cry when their own dog or person they care about dies.
Audiences cheer and are happy when the protagonist overcomes their difficulties as they would if they were reading about or watching a real person do it.
Audiences get scared of the dark scary haunted house in movies just as they would if placed in a dark scary haunted house in real life
So why is it when people are getting blown up and murdered and horribly mutilated we feel indifferent or sometimes even happy when if that was happening in front of us it would be completely traumatising and horrific?
>So why is it when people are getting blown up and murdered and horribly mutilated we feel indifferent or sometimes even happy when if that was happening in front of us it would be completely traumatising and horrific?
because of
. just because some parts of the movie experience sometimes line up with "if it was real and happening to me" does not mean that that's the general principle, the general principle is that you are participating in a symbolic spectacle. when you're about to get to 0hp in a videogame, is that like actually dying?
I think both are valid points. I'm not saying Heneke is exactly right and I think it's dumb to say movies are just like real life but it's still something interesting to think about. How we can have such empathy but the moment we're removed from something enough that empathy goes out the window.
I'd argue that an even more extreme and better example than what Heneke is saying, would be ancient gladiator fights. Those people were watching real humans get slaughtered brutally in front of them and cheered and loved it but if they were in the ring they'd probably piss themselves being surrounded by all that carnage and threat of death.
>The director is making a perfectly valid point
No, he isn't. Anyway a movie like this where nothing matters can have no point. There's nothing to connect to
I hope Haneke's last film is just like Funny Games, but capeshit. Like hundreds of millions dollar budget full on CG blockbuster capeshit flick.
But instead of commenting on mindless violence he now has the actor calling everyone who still watches this CG rendered weightless anti human garbage a never developed manchild straight into the camera every 5 minutes. It starts with all the hope for them to succeed and it ends with all of their favorite superheroes being slaughtered with absolutely no chance of any revival while the actor just calls the audience dumber and dumber for still sitting there watching this antihuman CG rendered garbage.
And when he first makes it in American he also remakes it shot for shot in Chinese too, killing all the manchildren in both of those capeshit ridden markets.