Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:12 am
Judges?
***BUZZER SOUND***
***BUZZER SOUND***
Page 7 of 11
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:24 am
Another poster.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:36 pm
I just realised that there probably won't be any fat jokes, which is a shame, because they really contributed to the brothers' disturbing dynamics.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:34 pm
Red band trailer up at the official site.
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:46 pm
Anthony Lane's predictably glib review (and I say that as someone who likes Anthony Lane). He does make some good points, specifically concerning the question of why remake this film and also his observation about the inherent weakness, if not outright fraudulent valuelessness, of purely self-conscious approaches to cinema. I liked that a lot.
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:59 pm
"Glib" says it all....I can't wait for Armond's take!
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:13 pm
I still think Haneke's interest in challenging and wrong-footing his audience partly explains that though. After the comparative success of Hidden, remaking an earlier (and still exceptionally relevant) film shot for shot is an incredibly perverse move. The fact that Haneke was able to make the film on his own terms is important too. Yes, there's a sense of déja-vu, but for audiences who haven't seen the original, and you'd have to guess that 90% of the remake's audience haven't, it's going to be a nerve shattering experience.
John Cope wrote:Anthony Lane's predictably glib review (and I say that as someone who likes Anthony Lane). He does make some good points, specifically concerning the question of why remake this film and also his observation about the inherent weakness, if not outright fraudulent valuelessness, of purely self-conscious approaches to cinema. I liked that a lot.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:29 pm
You asked for it tavernier, so here it is.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:32 pm
Entertainment Weekly interviews Haneke.
A particularly memorable passage:
A particularly memorable passage:
One of my female colleagues saw the film to the end and left in tears, partly because she regretted not leaving before. How do you feel about provoking that kind of reaction?
You mean to say that she had tears in her eyes because she didn't leave earlier?
Yes.
Well, if someone has such a degree of self-pity, then I can't have pity on her.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:40 pm
=D>
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:15 pm
Haha, never thought I'd see those words together in my lifetime.Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Entertainment Weekly interviews Haneke.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:58 pm
Haneke comes across as such a self-aggrandizing prick in interview. He refuses to answer any questions about interpreting his work while smugly telling his 'English-language audience' to swallow their bitter pill. There's something aggravatingly parental/authoritarian about his and his films' attitude toward his characters and audience.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:47 pm
That's sort of a weird interview with Haneke, considering he has been perfectly forthcoming in other interviews I've read about the meaning of his films. Maybe not exactly explaining them completely (if such a thing is even possible or desirable), but he's a lot more willing to elaborate on his themes and his intentions than, say, Stanley Kubrick.
Speaking of which, I just saw a fan-made trailer on YouTube that reworks The Shining in the style of the Funny Games U.S. trailer - I hope the irony was not lost on the user who created it, but I fear it was.
Speaking of which, I just saw a fan-made trailer on YouTube that reworks The Shining in the style of the Funny Games U.S. trailer - I hope the irony was not lost on the user who created it, but I fear it was.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:23 pm
I think that interviewer had just cribbed all the press interviews Haneke had done since wrapping up the film late last November, and all the questions were third-hand versions of questions he had already answered. And it is Entertainment Weekly, not, uh, Shock Cinema (Bi-Monthly?), and which of the combined reportage probably saw The Castle, if even? Either way, I always get a kick out of seeing a photo bubble (a la "with special guest star Rip Taylor!") accompanying a story.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Save the date!
NY City Opera press release:
NY City Opera press release:
Film director Michael Haneke to stage Così fan tutte for New York City Opera in 2012
New York City Opera General Manager Designate Gerard Mortier will present a production of Mozart's Così fan tutte, directed by Austrian film director Michael Haneke. Currently slated for City Opera's 2012 season, this production will mark Mr. Haneke's second collaboration with Mr. Mortier and his second opera production. His first production for Mr. Mortier was Mozart's Don Giovanni for the Paris Opera, set in the financial district of Paris and commissioned in celebration of the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth. Michael Haneke is currently in New York for the March 14 premiere of his new film Funny Games starring Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:03 pm
and Armond called him eurotrash.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:39 am
Great review, good to hear not everyone is falling for this bullshit
this is pretty funny too, from the NY Times:
this is pretty funny too, from the NY Times:
At these moments, using techniques that might have seemed audacious to an undergraduate literary theory class in 1985 or so, the film calls attention to its own artificial status.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:33 pm
Yeah, I was pretty pleased to read that review. I was hugely unimpressed with Cache, and after reading countless smug interviews with Haneke, Scott's bullshit detector is right on the mark. I think there is an inherent problem when you make a film from the perspective that you are smarter and better than your audience.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:02 pm
So far it's taken a real critical pounding in the States. It might be better received in the UK. Hidden received unanimously great reviews in the UK major newspapers and Haneke's stock is very high amongst our critics.
I wonder whether Haneke's assertion that this film is for an American audience; that is American audiences as consumers of violence, ruffled the feathers of US critics. Von Trier's "American" films were also similarly panned by American critics, who didn't like the fact that a European was lording his intellectual superiority over them by satirising American values.
I wonder whether Haneke's assertion that this film is for an American audience; that is American audiences as consumers of violence, ruffled the feathers of US critics. Von Trier's "American" films were also similarly panned by American critics, who didn't like the fact that a European was lording his intellectual superiority over them by satirising American values.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:24 pm
Cache was pretty well received critically in North America as well. As for Von Trier, Dogville received both glowing and damning reviews. Manderlay didn't receive great reviews from the critical field in general simply because it was a lesser film.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:26 pm
I'm glad you mentioned Dogville because that film is a great example of how to make the audience question their positive response to violence while still remaining a movie. Funny Games is a one-note thesis in smug superiority that has such contempt for its audience that it must spell the "lesson" in such insulting ways that it becomes, as I read one critic yesterday brilliantly say, the work of a schoolhouse bully. It's an Important Film for viewers too stupid to realize that they're being mocked by a cheap provocateur regardless of whether they loved or hated the film.thirtyframesasecond wrote:So far it's taken a real critical pounding in the States. It might be better received in the UK. Hidden received unanimously great reviews in the UK major newspapers and Haneke's stock is very high amongst our critics.
I wonder whether Haneke's assertion that this film is for an American audience; that is American audiences as consumers of violence, ruffled the feathers of US critics. Von Trier's "American" films were also similarly panned by American critics, who didn't like the fact that a European was lording his intellectual superiority over them by satirising American values.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:03 pm
Wow, pretty blatant cribbing of Ebert's "It's not a movie, it's a thesis!" talking point. I think it's kind of bullshit, even though I'm extremely suspicious/contemptuous of this film and Haneke's intentions behind the remake - this notion that there's inherently something unacademic or antipedagogical about film as a medium confuses me.domino harvey wrote:I'm glad you mentioned Dogville because that film is a great example of how to make the audience question their positive response to violence while still remaining a movie. Funny Games is a one-note thesis in smug superiority that has such contempt for its audience that it must spell the "lesson" in such insulting ways that it becomes, as I read one critic yesterday brilliantly say, the work of a schoolhouse bully. It's an Important Film for viewers too stupid to realize that they're being mocked by a cheap provocateur regardless of whether they loved or hated the film.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 pm
I hate much of Von Trier's work because he points a finger at us and calls us racists, yet he refuses to step foot on American soil.
Yet at the same time, some of the most racist world events are happening in Europe (even in his own back yard), but he doesn't leave Denmark or refuse to attend Cannes.
Yet at the same time, some of the most racist world events are happening in Europe (even in his own back yard), but he doesn't leave Denmark or refuse to attend Cannes.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:10 pm
It's Emerson, not Ebert, and the film being a lesson is not an idea that originated with him-- but apologies for using the word "thesis" onceportnoy wrote:Wow, pretty blatant cribbing of Ebert's "It's not a movie, it's a thesis!" talking point. I think it's kind of bullshit, even though I'm extremely suspicious/contemptuous of this film and Haneke's intentions behind the remake - this notion that there's inherently something unacademic or antipedagogical about film as a medium confuses me.domino harvey wrote:I'm glad you mentioned Dogville because that film is a great example of how to make the audience question their positive response to violence while still remaining a movie. Funny Games is a one-note thesis in smug superiority that has such contempt for its audience that it must spell the "lesson" in such insulting ways that it becomes, as I read one critic yesterday brilliantly say, the work of a schoolhouse bully. It's an Important Film for viewers too stupid to realize that they're being mocked by a cheap provocateur regardless of whether they loved or hated the film.
The best criticism of any institution usually comes from an outsider who can see things those indoctrinated in the experience cannot.miless wrote:I hate much of Von Trier's work because he points a finger at us and calls us racists, yet he refuses to step foot on American soil.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:54 pm
true, but why does he only point out American racism?domino harvey wrote:The best criticism of any institution usually comes from an outsider who can see things those indoctrinated in the experience cannot.miless wrote:I hate much of Von Trier's work because he points a finger at us and calls us racists, yet he refuses to step foot on American soil.
Racism is something innately human, and to point out just America's example is akin to saying it's someone else's problem (especially since he refuses to 'experience' American culture). Nearly every country on Earth has some current or past racism that could easily be used for a filmic study and to just focus on the ol USofA seems a bit counter-productive.
It's a Human problem, not a distinctly American one.