28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[transmogrifier]

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.

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that.

[baby doll]

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that.

But it's not simply blank-faced. Granted, Huppert's character is all about control, and not giving away her emotions, but there are lots of scenes where the facade cracks.

[Qrazy]

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.

I actually had quite a different but similar problem with the film. I find examinations of disturbed characters very fascinating, but I found the examination in the film simply too facile. The basis for and examination of her neuroses didn't strike me as very revealing. I liked all the dialogue about music though.

[Bosco B Thug]

It doesn't really matter what Haneke did or didn't intend; all I can react to is how I perceive the film (which is clearly different to the way you did). But my opinion is, if I can't buy the actions of a character in terms of the context of the film - and I simply can't, because it is a parade of blankfaced self-sabotage, which interests me not a jot - then I'm not going to get anything out of an attempt to explain it, because I can't shake the ponderousness of how her character is presented, and how little I cared about what she was doing.

And that's that.

This is better explained. Throw some blame on the ponderousness of the presentation. And I can see where you're coming from, the film quite a parade of outrageous behavior and Haneke being a director who errs on the side of clinical exercises in shock and dismay. But, in more wish to assist than to presume understanding, or even to debate, your opinion, I do think you will not help your case by pushing the idea that this character only exists to "irritate you."

[Qrazy]

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.

It's incredibly condescending and also kind of naive and irritating attitude for Haneke to take to impose responsibility and guilt on a huge mass of people for a conflict which they have little to no control over. It also isn't nearly as cut and dried as the 'imperialists' vs the 'poor oppressed third world'. In the much more nuanced film The Battle of Algiers neither side is in the right or in the wrong, as it is in reality, the film represents the struggle as a much more complicated issue than that. As an American frankly I personally don't feel guilty about the Iraq War and I don't see that I should. I was born in America through no choice of my own, I didn't vote for Bush and I had no control over my country going to war. I don't think it's a just war and I'm glad we're finally withdrawing, but screw Haneke for assuming the moral superiority to dole out guilt and responsibility to an entire populace. I don't see that he has any right to do that. It's akin to a hardcore environmentalist vegan who sneers at you for having bacon and eggs for breakfast and then driving to work.

As a counterpoint to your generalization about criticism, I think there are certainly gradations... The criticism of bureaucracy in Kurosawa's Ikiru is not condescending, the criticism of the arbitrary nature of many social practices in Bunuel's The Phantom of Liberty is not condescending, the criticism of hedonism in La Dolce Vita is not condescending and the criticism of war in Wajda's trilogy is not condescending. But I do find the criticism of huge groups of people for not endorsing the political perspective Haneke embraces to be quite condescending.

[megladon8]

I have to shake my head when people claim that the only reason James Dean is still held in high regard is because of his death. That his dying so young is what made him legendary.

When I watch his films I see an incredibly talented young man with charisma coming out of his pores.

[number8]

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."

]

I hated that. Especially when the same point was already made more effectively with the knife red herring. This is what I mean by the film's fourth wall gimmick becoming its message's own undoing.

[endingcredits]

Cache is condescending.

I used to think this. Now, I just find it manipulative. This is a strength in my opinion.

[Derek]

mmm pre-code

Yup, it's the dessert of Classical Hollywood's smorgasbord.

Weekend:
* Perriot le Fou (Godard)

Ah, my favorite Godard. I'd love to heard thoughts once you see it.

Made a second attempt at Flowing, and now feeling glum for not having any compelling defense for my disengagement throughout, aside from "borrrrrring". In fact, I'm even struggling to recall what happened in it aside from some financial troubles and familial conflict amongst a geisha house whose inhabitants I can barely distinguish between outside of their age, so I don't even know if I should be adding a rating to my sig. Still keen for When a Woman Ascends the Stairs; maybe ensemble-piece Naruse just isn't for me (very much liked Repast and Sound of the Mountain).

If it's any consolation, it's my least favorite Naruse. Late Chrysanthemums is a much more successful ensemble piece.

I don't understand why Guy Maddin's films aren't more readily available to me here in Ottawa.

It's because Ottawa is awful. Haven't we been over this?

I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.

I motion we make Dennis Dugan MC's personal whipping boy. Bay, Sommers, Boll, etc. already get their just deserts, but Dugan's been flying under the crap radar for too many years.

[Dukefrukem]

I would never call someone like Dennis Dugan insufferable; he's just a crap director.

Who consistently knows how to make fun movies that make crap loads of money.

[Duncan]

Meg, you know you can get your library to request DVDs, right? Ottawa is a fine town. You have every single national museum, most bands touring Canada will stop there for a show, it's very pleasant and clean, from what I remember, and the country is, you know, run from there. There are lots of government jobs + all the benefits and pensions that come with those. It's also not exceptionally far from Montreal and Toronto if you want to go to either place for an urban weekend.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Nah. Meg's right. Ottawa sucks.

[Qrazy]

I used to think this. Now, I just find it manipulative. This is a strength in my opinion.

Not sure why it can't be both.

[megladon8]

Meg, you know you can get your library to request DVDs, right? Ottawa is a fine town. You have every single national museum, most bands touring Canada will stop there for a show, it's very pleasant and clean, from what I remember, and the country is, you know, run from there. There are lots of government jobs + all the benefits and pensions that come with those. It's also not exceptionally far from Montreal and Toronto if you want to go to either place for an urban weekend.

Nah, Ottawa is pretty shitty.

The city gave in to complaints from elderly residents who said that BluesFest was "too loud".

Give me a fucking break.

[Duncan]

Nah, Ottawa is pretty shitty.

The city gave in to complaints from elderly residents who said that BluesFest was "too loud".

Give me a fucking break.

From Wikipedia:

"The Cisco Ottawa Bluesfest has become the largest blues festival in Canada, and the second largest in North America.

In 2009, the festival was held between July 8 and 19. Some of the featured acts were The Black Keys, Jeff Beck, Jackson Browne, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sam Roberts Band, Loreena McKennitt, Matisyahu, Stone Temple Pilots, Xavier Rudd, Joe Cocker, Neko Case, Our Lady Peace, Blue Rodeo, Ice Cube, King Sunny Ade & His African Beats, Cake, Ludacris, Drive By Truckers, Live, Paolo Nutini, Jennifer Warnes, Spencer Davis, Estelle, Femi Kuti, Mick Taylor, Ani DiFranco, The National, Kiss, Styx, Busta Rhymes, DeVotchKa, Girl Talk, The Dead Weather, Toots & the Maytals, The Alan Parsons Project, Ornette Coleman, Iron and Wine, Los Lonely Boys, The Zombies, Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings, Metric, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and The Yardbirds.

The 2010 edition included: Carlos Santana, Rush, Iron Maiden, Alexisonfire, Hole, Matthew Good, Marianas Trench, Lights, Arcade Fire, Drake, The Flaming Lips, Keith Urban, Faber Drive,Weezer, Dream Theater, John Hiatt, Down with Webster, Roger Hodgson, Taj Mahal (musician), Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, The B52's, Steve Winwood, The Lost Fingers, Great Big Sea, and Crowded House.[1]"

I mean, I certainly don't like everyone mentioned there, but there are some pretty solid bands and it sounds like a good time to me. For a city of its population, I'd say it's way better than most.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm defending Ottawa.

[megladon8]

Um...how does listing the bands that played refute what I said?

They had to turn the volume down. Because people were complaining that a music festival was too loud.

[Duncan]

Um...how does listing the bands that played refute what I said?

They had to turn the volume down. Because people were complaining that a music festival was too loud.

It doesn't. Just a look-on-the-bright-side comment.

[Sxottlan]

Extreme Movie. A straight to DVD title I caught on Showtime, but it's Robot Chicken approach makes all the skits pretty short and kind of funny.

Best parts, Michael Cera in a rape role play gone wrong: "You can run, but you can't hide from forced sexual intercourse!"

Another part, a guy goes back in time to have sex with Abraham Lincoln and then his girlfriend calls his cell. His response: "I can barely hear you. I'm in 1864. Let me get closer to a window."

[Philosophe_rouge]

Ottawa is nice for a day trip. I wouldn't want to live there. Well, maybe if i was forbidden from living in Montreal maybe. Then i'd only choose Ottawa because it's close enough for me to visit Montreal whenever i wanted.

[MadMan]

All this talk about Haneke reminds me that I haven't seen any of his movies. I've put off Funny Games because I doubt it can live up to the hype, but I'm interested in starting with his earlier movies first and working my way up.

[Rowland]

My reaction to the original Funny Games was mixed at best, whereas I found the remake masterful, fine-tuned in a number of ways that's cumulative effect made for both a more compelling viewing experience and a more thematically sound thesis. It's definitely undervalued, and unfairly dismissed as an exact duplicate of the original. Caché is the best I've seen by him, although I'm open to the argument I've read in some circles that it tends to be overrated by those for whom the film is one of their first exposures to Haneke (as it was for me), while Time of the Wolf has a stunning first act followed by two acts of monotonous doldrums.

[Boner M]

My reaction to the original Funny Games was mixed at best, whereas I found the remake masterful, fine-tuned in a number of ways that's cumulative effect made for both a more compelling viewing experience and a more thematically sound thesis.

Aside from liking the performances more or not having to read subtitles, I find this baffling. 'More thematically sound thesis'? Wha?

[endingcredits]

Ah, my favorite Godard. I'd love to heard thoughts once you see it.

Potential Pierrot le Fou spoilers trickle .

I checked it out last night. Loved it. It was humorous, well acted, and aesthetic. The film is so rich and expansive that it's hard to pin down. That said, here are some of my initial reactions in brief. I thought it blended sociopolitical commentary and criticism of capitalism into the storyline more seamlessly than, say Week End. The indictment is there, it's just not as overt. The sterility of Pierrot's life as a bourgeois husband is brilliantly reflected in the party scene. It's also a very colourful and beautiful film. The scene with him driving Marianne home comes to mind, as does the one with the two of them on the beach gazing at the moon. I also liked how Godard denies the audience full realism in the film. Marrione's look at the camera in the scene with the animals, as if to state the duplicitous nature of all images, is to this effect.

[megladon8]

Lone Star is quite possibly the best film of 1996, and one of the best films of the '90s.

I love John Sayles. I'd give a lot to be able to write like him.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Aside from liking the performances more or not having to read subtitles, I find this baffling. 'More thematically sound thesis'? Wha?

I am also seriously confused. It's the same damn movie Rowly. Shot for shot.