28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

And hence I don't like the film.

Dude, it's about the context in which the crazy shit happens, not the shit itself.

[MacGuffin]

To be fair, I'm talking about one character in one movie. And I stand by my categorization. It has no relation to any other character in any other movie. Sorry.

You: I don't like The Piano Teacher because it has a character doing crazy shit and expects us to find that interesting.
Me: Her encounters ultimately affect others and herself. There's more to it than her being neurotic.
You: Yes, but I'm only talking about the one character. Not any of the others.

So yeah, your argument against the movie makes no sense.

[transmogrifier]

Ugh, you see and this is where I get frustrated.

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.

[transmogrifier]

Dude, it's about the context in which the crazy shit happens, not the shit itself.

Yes. And in this movie, the context is a huge void.

[megladon8]

I found her character and situational interactions with the other characters to be the most interesting part of the film, and of any film I've seen by Haneke.

[MacGuffin]

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.

Firstly, I don't see how she is not a character. I appreciate you attempting to look at the movie on a deeper level, but she is by any technical sense of the word, a character.

Secondly, I don't see how a movie could be dismissed on the basis of a characters' actions. The movie is merely a documentation of what the character is doing and as such, needs to be looked at on a broader level.

[baby doll]

She's not. She's a psychological diagnosis. She is not ever once interesting because, much like ghost horror, she was likely to do any old shit at any time, draining away all interest in the absence of any other plot.

I love Robin Wood.

Erika's behavior (which seems to me, given the data with which Haneke provides us, absolutely logical, step-by-step) can in fact only be understood within the context of our sexual history over the past one hundred years, our 'progress' from neurosis-breeding repression to what some have hopefully regarded as sexual liberation, which has proven, in practice, to be simply another form of imprisonment.

[transmogrifier]

You: I don't like The Piano Teacher because it has a character doing crazy shit and expects us to find that interesting.
Me: Her encounters ultimately affect others and herself. There's more to it than her being neurotic.
You: Yes, but I'm only talking about the one character. Not any of the others.

So yeah, your argument against the movie makes no sense.

Um, if the main character is the one ulitmately affecting the other characters, and I don't like that main character, then.....? Where is the logical problem with disliking the movie?

If you have a character apt to do something completely nuts at regular intervals, and I find the motivation and reasoning to be a total contrivance, I couldn't care less about how the other characters react, because they are reacting to a contrivance.

[transmogrifier]

I love Robin Wood.

If you are trying to make me dislike the movie even more, well done.

[baby doll]

Yes. And in this movie, the context is a huge void.

Now you're just denying what's actually on screen, right in front of you. Her relationship with her mother, who throws a giant fit when she comes home three hours late, her inability to explore her sexuality outside of Vienna sex shops, in secrecy as if she were doing something dirty, is clearly dictating her behavior, and how she interacts with Benoît Magimel's character.

[megladon8]

You don't have to like the main character of a movie to like the movie.

Isn't this something we've been over and over and over around here?

[MacGuffin]

Um, if the main character is the one ulitmately affecting the other characters, and I don't like that main character, then.....? Where is the logical problem with disliking the movie?

If you have a character apt to do something completely nuts at regular intervals, and I find the motivation and reasoning to be a total contrivance, I couldn't care less about how the other characters react, because they are reacting to a contrivance.

See post 45461. The logical problem is that you are dismissing the movie on the basis of a characters' actions, when the movie is, as baby doll says, about the context in which those actions occur. It's simply not fair to dismiss a movie as a whole because you don't like a character. I don't care which movie you are talking about—there's always going to be more to it than that.

[transmogrifier]

Now you're just denying what's actually on screen, right in front of you. Her relationship with her mother, who throws a giant fit when she comes home three hours late, her inability to explore her sexuality outside of Vienna sex shops, in secrecy as if she were doing something dirty, is clearly dictating her behavior, and how she interacts with Benoît Magimel's character.

Hey, I'm happy you got something out of the movie. But it is still nothing but a series of psychologically disturbed actions that contained nothing of interest for me. The fact that it might have been her mother that fucked her up doesn't deepen the movie. It is still just a series of "Hey, look at how fucked up she is!" scenes minus any type of emotional or dramatic energy. I need more from a film than a historical investigation of sexual liberation - to me, that is something that is only interesting in the context of interesting characters and plot, and emotional engagement. Otherwise it's the world's most banal PowerPoint presentation.

[transmogrifier]

You don't have to like the main character of a movie to like the movie.

Isn't this something we've been over and over and over around here?

If that's what you think I'm arguing, then you are thinking the wrong thing.

[Qrazy]

Explain.

Cache Spoilers

[

Show Spoiler

The film is all about culpability. There's lots of general voyeuristic sub-text to the film but the political sub-text to me suggests that Haneke holds the people of any given nation responsible for the unfortunate violent incidents that may occur in relation to a nation's government. That is to say the tone and thrust of the film felt to me as if Haneke wanted to indict the main character Georges for his act of selfishness as a child. That Georges was right to feel crushing guilt for the white lie he told. It seemed to me that Haneke does hold him primarily responsible for what Majid does to himself.

Extrapolated onto a political level this seemed to me an indictment of all of the French (not only those who were directly involved in the violence of the Algerian conflict) but those who didn't make a pro-active effort to help the Algerians or even those who remained silent. Certain snippets of dialogue (I can't recall the specific lines) in the film to me suggested that all of these groups of people are equally guilty.

Then Haneke shows ongoing footage of the Iraq War in the Laurent's apartment (this parallels the French/Algerian conflict) which to me seems like an indictment of all those Americans who aren't pro-actively trying to end the Iraq war. In both circumstances I feel that by doling out responsibility and focusing on guilt Haneke misses the mark that more delicate social commentary could provide (i.e. The Battle of Algiers). On the political level of the film Haneke is in my opinion only acting as a provocateur.

All that being said I enjoy other elements about the film... it's puzzle like nature, it's new approach to the voyeuristic angle, strong formal elements, etc. But I don't respect what I feel to be it's political slant.

]

[baby doll]

Hey, I'm happy you got something out of the movie. But it is still nothing but a series of psychologically disturbed actions that contained nothing of interest for me. The fact that it might have been her mother that fucked her up doesn't deepen the movie. It is still just a series of "Hey, look at how fucked up she is!" scenes minus any type of emotional or dramatic energy. I need more from a film than a historical investigation of sexual liberation - to me, that is something that is only interesting in the context of interesting characters and plot, and emotional engagement. Otherwise it's the world's most banal PowerPoint presentation.

Except the tone of the movie is a little different from, "Hey, look how fucked up she is"; it's more like, "Look how fucked up society is," and Huppert's character is a lot more sympathetic than Magimel, who's supposedly more normal. (There's an implied parallel between Huppert and her mother, and one of her students.) And I can't think of many movie sequences as emotional or dramatic as the opening sequence where her mother's bitching out at her, or the sequence when she brings Magimel back to her mother's place for some S&M roleplay.

[transmogrifier]

See post 45461. The logical problem is that you are dismissing the movie on the basis of a characters' actions, when the movie is, as baby doll says, about the context in which those actions occur. It's simply not fair to dismiss a movie as a whole because you don't like a character. I don't care which movie you are talking about—there's always going to be more to it than that.

The film is based around the psychology of its main character. That IS the context. If I find that psychology, and the actions that stem from it, to be boring, inexplicable and randomly assigned, then I'm not going to like the movie, am I? How could I? And that's why I don't like the movie. The character is a poorly written husk of amateur psychology.

It's like the aliens in Indy IV. If I find them cheap, tacked-on and totally ill-fitting to the Indy universe, I'm not going to give two shits that they provide the motivation for Indy to do heroic shit at the end, or that they end up killing off one of the main characters. They are still a shitty choice for the movie.

[baby doll]

If I find that psychology, and the actions that stem from it, to be boring, inexplicable and randomly assigned, then I'm not going to like the movie, am I? How could I?

Except that they're not if you have the slightest empathy for the character, instead of viewing her as a crazy person acting out the symptoms of her illness.

[transmogrifier]

Cache Spoilers

[

Show Spoiler

The film is all about culpability. There's lots of general voyeuristic sub-text to the film but the political sub-text to me suggests that Haneke holds the people of any given nation responsible for the unfortunate violent incidents that may occur in relation to a nation's government. That is to say the tone and thrust of the film felt to me as if Haneke wanted to indict the main character Georges for his act of selfishness as a child. That Georges was right to feel crushing guilt for the white lie he told. It seemed to me that Haneke does hold him primarily responsible for what Majid does to himself.

Extrapolated onto a political level this seemed to me an indictment of all of the French (not only those who were directly involved in the violence of the Algerian conflict) but those who didn't make a pro-active effort to help the Algerians or even those who remained silent. Certain snippets of dialogue (I can't recall the specific lines) in the film to me suggested that all of these groups of people are equally guilty.

Then Haneke shows ongoing footage of the Iraq War in the Laurent's apartment (this parallels the French/Algerian conflict) which to me seems like an indictment of all those Americans who aren't pro-actively trying to end the Iraq war. In both circumstances I feel that by doling out responsibility and focusing on guilt Haneke misses the mark that more delicate social commentary could provide (i.e. The Battle of Algiers). On the political level of the film Haneke is in my opinion only acting as a provocateur.

All that being said I enjoy other elements about the film... it's puzzle like nature, it's new approach to the voyeuristic angle, strong formal elements, etc. But I don't respect what I feel to be it's political slant.

]

I'm still not sure what is particularly condescending about that. If he wants to equate the two wars, isn't that his right as an artist? You could argue any criticism of anything in a film is condescending, because criticism by its nature implys superiority. I'm not aware of any element within the film that expressly contrasts your political reading with a "superior", filmmaker-endorsed alternative.

[number8]

So you're saying that because we know that the situation is staged, there is is really no problem with enjoying whatever content might be there? And that taking pleasure in violent content has no carry-over into the real world?

Just trying to clarify. Not necessarily disagreeing at this point.

Yes, kind of. We observe thrillers not because we want to see characters get hurt; usually we want them to survive the terrible ordeal. We can see this as a reaffirmation of our survival instincts, or we can see it as simply the journey of the hero overcoming obstacles, and violence is a pretty standard component of a quest's hurdles. Violence in fiction is typically a narrative drama issue, one that Haneke himself employs in this movie and others, and I really don't see that as being a propagation of a culture of violence in the media. I see it as a sign of heightened reality, where the violence is much more staged and far less grotesquely ugly than violence in real life, which are not drawn out, clever or planned.

Funny Games fails because, instead of just trusting its own story to reveal the difference or similarity between screen violence and real violence (the lingering shot of the bloody television is actually the most effective "point" for me), it constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a film, a sham, a made-up thing that's for all intents and purposes a cross between mere entertainment and punditry. Haneke makes the distinction more apparent, and therefore the connection groggier. Why should I feel bad about the peril of this family when the film reminds me time and again that it's all make-believe, whereas good straight thrillers do more to relate us to the characters and therefore make the violence a true turn-off?

[MacGuffin]

The film is based around the psychology of its main character. That IS the context.

Nope. I'm through here.

[transmogrifier]

Except that they're not if you have the slightest empathy for the character, instead of viewing her as a crazy person acting out the symptoms of her illness.

Am I right to infer from this that it is my job as a viewer to go into a film with already established empathy for a character I have never met before (or, more precisely, a screenplay I have never seen staged before) in order to forgive them (or more precisely, the screenplay) for acting in ways that irritate me?

Because I'm not prepared to do that.

[baby doll]

Am I right to infer from this that it is my job as a viewer to go into a film with already established empathy for a character I have never met before (or, more precisely, a screenplay I have never seen staged before) in order to forgive them (or more precisely, the screenplay) for acting in ways that irritate me?

Because I'm not prepared to do that.

No, you should infer that the character isn't sick, it's her situation that's sick, and the film clearly intends for us to empathize with her. It's not saying, "Look how crazy this woman is" (and if it were, it would be a bad film), it's saying, "Here's her situation, and this is why she behaves this way." You make it sound like she's acting out randomly, as if Haneke sat around trying to think of crazy things for Huppert to do just for his own amusement.

[transmogrifier]

Actually, Qrazy, I think we need to express what we mean by the word condescending, as we might simply be battling semantics here.

To me, being condescending involves treating others as if they were deficient in some way and thus unable to accurately choose the correct (according to the person being condescending) course of action or state of being. It does not involve simply criticizing an equal for a perceived error of judgement.

Correct?

[baby doll]

Yes, kind of. We observe thrillers not because we want to see characters get hurt; usually we want them to survive the terrible ordeal. We can see this as a reaffirmation of our survival instincts, or we can see it as simply the journey of the hero overcoming obstacles, and violence is a pretty standard component of a quest's hurdles. Violence in fiction is typically a narrative drama issue, one that Haneke himself employs in this movie and others, and I really don't see that as being a propagation of a culture of violence in the media. I see it as a sign of heightened reality, where the violence is much more staged and far less grotesquely ugly than violence in real life, which are not drawn out, clever or planned.

Funny Games fails because, instead of just trusting its own story to reveal the difference or similarity between screen violence and real violence (the lingering shot of the bloody television is actually the most effective "point" for me), it constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a film, a sham, a made-up thing that's for all intents and purposes a cross between mere entertainment and punditry. Haneke makes the distinction more apparent, and therefore the connection groggier. Why should I feel bad about the peril of this family when the film reminds me time and again that it's all make-believe, whereas good straight thrillers do more to relate us to the characters and therefore make the violence a true turn-off?

There are plenty of good, straight thrillers, and if that's all Haneke wanted to do, he could easily make a film like Winter's Bone; he certainly doesn't lack for craftsmanship. And despite all the Brechtian hijinks, I did empathize with the family's situation as it develops step-by-step, almost logically, and so on the one hand, I did have the Pavlovian response to it that other you get from a good, straight thriller, and in addition to that, the film forced me to think about how I was responding to the material. For instance, [

Show Spoiler

I think the key scene in the movie is the one where the wife or somebody gets a gun are shoots one of their tormentors only to have it rewound and undone. At first I was like, "Fuck yeah!" Then I was like, "Fuck!" And then I was like, "I see. Well played, Haneke."

]