What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[Frankie Teardrop]

FUNNY GAMES – Continuing with my slight Haneke resurgence, thought I'd revisit the obvious – the notorious 'Funny Games', from 1997. As most of you will know, it's a brutal and disorienting foray into 'home invasion' territory, and shows us what happens when two sinister strangers inveigle their way into a middle class Austrian family's holiday villa. Even if you haven't seen it, I'm sure you can guess what follows. Or maybe not... Haneke set out to make anything but a genre film. He's all about critiquing media violence here, or at least violence served up as entertainment. Except, I'm never very certain of Haneke's motives. His stated premise is that Hollywood violence is bad, because it manipulates the viewer to the point where they don't recognise they're being manipulated. This is because of the emotional identifications such films seamlessly elicit. I've talked quite a bit about this sort of thing here recently, you know, the whole 'vengeance' thing going on in certain films, films which are more than capable of drawing out and, more importantly, directing hot, angry feelings from even fairly knowing audiences. I agree with Haneke on this score – I think there is a general media analogue. It's in the interests of power to use images in a certain way, which maybe results, for example, in the 'cheerleading' of the bombing of entire countries, or the scapegoating of social groups. But Haneke is a bit mandarin and not a little inscrutable, and I wonder whether his real project, in the face of mainstream depictions of violence (read – Hollywood's cultural dominance), is an attempt to reinscribe the role of the Euro-auteur. Interesting that he remade 'Funny Games', pretty much scene for scene, ten years later in America for Warners (for reasons that still remain ambiguous even if not mockingly ironic). So anyway, what we get with 'Funny Games' is basically a deconstructed horror thriller, one which uses genre trappings then trashes them, either through Brechtian effects (the hilarious 'rewind' scene), or just through an insistence that affects related to violence – namely, awful, excruciating suffering and sorrow, rather than sensation and excitement – are really pushed into the viewers face. The agony endured by the film's central couple is gruelling to sit through, and light years removed from any satisfying retaliatory pay off. But Haneke isn't interested in simply getting you to feel – he wants you to think, and to reflect. Like 'Salo', it overwhelms its audience twice, once with images and affects / emotions, then with questions. Whatever level you take 'Funny Games' on, it's an intense, thought provoking and necessary film.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

FUNNY GAMES – Whatever level you take 'Funny Games' on, it's an intense, thought provoking and necessary film.

I agree to a point with your analysis of the film, and your opinions of what Haneke was trying to say, simply because it was to basically tell the audience they are horrible people for watching the film and you shouldn't watch it to the end if you have any morals!

His reasons for re-making it were to do with language, with Haneke saying:
'The first version, unfortunately didn't get seen by its intended audience, because it was in German, so I thought this would be a good opportunity for it to reach the audience it was originally made for. That is the only reason.'

By that, I understand his intended audience are people who enjoy violent films, particularly violent action movies, such as the First Blood films where the audience (presumably) doesn't want John Rambo to be left alone because they enjoy the carnage he inflicts on those who try to capture/kill him.

I'm in two minds about Funny Games because, on one hand, it is an intelligent critique of audience complicity in film violence and colluding with the perpetrators, which is extremely well done. On the other hand, that 'lesson' felt like I was being condemned for all the violent horror films I've enjoyed over the years (and continue to enjoy), and John McNaughton did the same thing, really far more subtlely and effectively in Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer, with Haneke's tone being more abrasive and hectoring.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

The Mail gave Terminator Genisys 4/5.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

The Mail gave Terminator Genisys 4/5.

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian gave it 1/5 (calling it 'a cynical franchisebot') and, in the same paper, Henry Barnes gave it 2/5. Henry Barnes says:

"Salvation was boring, but Genisys makes you sad. Risk-averse Hollywood has made a crash-test dummy of a once great franchise, simply throwing everything at it to see what it stands. It’s heartbreaking to watch Arnie execute the same old programmes: the terrible robo-smile; the slang; the wear and tear of his living tissue revealing the cyborg underneath. “Old, but not obsolete,” the Terminator/Guardian tells us when his age is brought into question. In truth, it feels like both."

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian gave it 1/5 (calling it 'a cynical franchisebot') and, in the same paper, Henry Barnes gave it 2/5. Henry Barnes says:

"Salvation was boring, but Genisys makes you sad. Risk-averse Hollywood has made a crash-test dummy of a once great franchise, simply throwing everything at it to see what it stands. It’s heartbreaking to watch Arnie execute the same old programmes: the terrible robo-smile; the slang; the wear and tear of his living tissue revealing the cyborg underneath. “Old, but not obsolete,” the Terminator/Guardian tells us when his age is brought into question. In truth, it feels like both."

Doesn't sound good.

I didn't read what the Mail had to say, i just saw the star rating.

My guess is it will be nice to see Arnie in Terminator guise again but that's pretty much it.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

My guess is it will be nice to see Arnie in Terminator guise again but that's pretty much it.

Just going from the trailer (a poor indication of a film, I know), I did feel a bit sad and almost cringed at some of the lines and acting. It is annoying when filmmakers/studios can't let go of a project and feel the need to add a little bit more, whether it's a sequel or remake or, as this one seems to be, a little of both.

[Buboven]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian gave it 1/5 (calling it 'a cynical franchisebot') and, in the same paper, Henry Barnes gave it 2/5. Henry Barnes says:

"Salvation was boring, but Genisys makes you sad. Risk-averse Hollywood has made a crash-test dummy of a once great franchise, simply throwing everything at it to see what it stands. It’s heartbreaking to watch Arnie execute the same old programmes: the terrible robo-smile; the slang; the wear and tear of his living tissue revealing the cyborg underneath. “Old, but not obsolete,” the Terminator/Guardian tells us when his age is brought into question. In truth, it feels like both."

The question is, is the film better than Lady Terminator?

[Frankie Teardrop]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I agree to a point with your analysis of the film, and your opinions of what Haneke was trying to say, simply because it was to basically tell the audience they are horrible people for watching the film and you shouldn't watch it to the end if you have any morals!

His reasons for re-making it were to do with language, with Haneke saying:
'The first version, unfortunately didn't get seen by its intended audience, because it was in German, so I thought this would be a good opportunity for it to reach the audience it was originally made for. That is the only reason.'

By that, I understand his intended audience are people who enjoy violent films, particularly violent action movies, such as the First Blood films where the audience (presumably) doesn't want John Rambo to be left alone because they enjoy the carnage he inflicts on those who try to capture/kill him.

I'm in two minds about Funny Games because, on one hand, it is an intelligent critique of audience complicity in film violence and colluding with the perpetrators, which is extremely well done. On the other hand, that 'lesson' felt like I was being condemned for all the violent horror films I've enjoyed over the years (and continue to enjoy), and John McNaughton did the same thing, really far more subtlely and effectively in Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer, with Haneke's tone being more abrasive and hectoring.

The funny thing is, I don't care whether Haneke condemns me for being into violent horror films (I never said I wasn't a hypocrite!) I think he makes a broader point about media manipulation, the power of imagery in one register to shore up justifications for other kinds of violence – real violence, state violence – through emotional identification. Looking at some of his films, I feel that this is one aspect of his project. If he were to fall back on vagaries about morality - “these people looking at violence, how can they do it? It's just wrong!” - then I don't think his proposals would carry much weight. He's slippery though, and leaves a lot unsaid even when expanding upon his work, which is maybe as it should be.
One thing he maybe doesn't 'get' is that audiences, from mainstream consumers of multiplex action through to hardcore underground devotees, can have very diverse reasons for viewing aggressive or violent material, and can often articulate and 'own' their perspectives on their involvement in viewing without the intervention of representatives of high culture like Haneke. He also seems to want to reduce all possible viewer responses to such material to “the sense of being drawn in and entertained”, whereas in truth the power of this kind of material often plays on much more ambiguous states of (the viewer's) mind, regardless of the question of 'proper' self-conscious reflection. What would he make of, say, Lucifer Valentine's vomit trilogy? So much disturbing material is not about self-righteous triumphalism.
At the end of the day, he's high handed but interesting. Ironically, the visceral impact of some of his films lends them to audience fascination, and I'm pretty sure he 'gets' this at least.

Woah, I can't believe I'm writing this on a Friday night. Where did all the booze go?

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

Woah, I can't believe I'm writing this on a Friday night. Where did all the booze go?

I've only seen The Piano Teacher which i like, but you and Nos make Haneke sound like a right pretentious prick.

I think i've drunk your booze Frankie.

[Frankie Teardrop]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I've only seen The Piano Teacher which i like, but you and Nos make Haneke sound like a right pretentious prick.

I think i've drunk your booze Frankie.

'The Seventh Continent', 'Funny Games' and 'Hidden' are all great and I really vouch for them. You don't have to buy into Haneke's 'ideology' to find them affecting and really quite disturbing. Is he pretentious? He knows his shit and he's not pretending anything beyond what he presents, I just find his views on the relationship between audience and image a bit contradictory in some ways. But I won't get started on all that again or I'll seriously need that booze back, Dem.