Changing the order a bit to put the heart of the matter first...
Nothing wrote:What is it concerned with then (that Romero has not already dealt with)? This is what it comes down to. What is he doing that is new and interesting?
A fair question, though hard to answer without reducing the films to themes or qualities that can be compared side-by-side, doing no real justice to the films as organic things -- but here is a very brief attempt. First, the film’s political and psychological characteristics are woven into more elaborate historical, philosophical and religious contexts that have both resonate with European history in the last century and have broader relevance for all of human society. These, as I suggested before, are quite a bit different from the focus in the "...Dead" films on the nuclear family, consumer culture, and media. Race is a key issue in both, although it's handled quite a bit differently. The black characters in Romero tend to be coded as outsiders (in Dawn, Peter falls into the role of servant) while the workings of racism itself are not explored as it is in Time of the Wolf, as a feature of authoritarianism and social polarization.
Secondly, the film is centered on the experience and vantage-point of children and (to a lesser extent I think) the mother. In the Romero films (and probably most other films about struggles for survival) virtually all the main characters are people in heterosexual-couple relationships and/or males directly embroiled in contests over control. The relationships among the mother, the two children, and the orphan are all compelling, and it would be a different film if any one of these characters were taken out.
Finally, Time of the Wolf is clearly more grounded in realism in many ways, and
not just in the lack of zombies and other horror or sci-fi elements. The situations shown in Time of the Wolf are currently going on in many places around the globe -- and we collectively tolerate this situation, to some extent knowingly. The reason it’s an “end of the world” scenario in the film is that it’s happening in France.
This is not to mention all of the film’s originality and creativity in form and imagery, but for now suffice it to say it’s very much Haneke’s own story expressed in his own voice. I'm also not getting into ideas and interpretations. These would all be pretty vast areas for me to try and write about here.
Nothing wrote:Gregory wrote:I disagree that a "set of questions" is simply dictated by the setting or by conventions of genre
You are chosing inappropriate vocabulary to blur the issue. I used the words 'sub-genre' and 'scenario' because the set-up of the films we are talking about here is far more specific than a broad genre or setting: we're talking about certain types of characters in certain situations with certain types of problems to contend with. I've already outlined what many of these are, quite specifically. Or,
if you prefer.
It seems like the term "sub-genre" compounds the problems with respect to genre that I was discussing. We would first have to agree on the genre before discussing what sub-genre it is, no? We could call it "post apocalyptic fiction," but that tells us very little beyond the obvious.
But I disagree that such a category provides us with "certain types of characters in certain situations" as you say. Obviously when society is breaking down, people need to focus on survival and finding food and shelter, but nevertheless the characters and situations in Tsai's The Hole for example are quite a bit different from those in Time of the Wolf, to choose two more disparate examples of post-apocalyptic films.
Are you suggesting that none of these thematic or narrative elements apply to LTDL?
Of course not. I did say that there is considerable common ground between the Haneke and the Romero films in question despite major differences.
