criterionforum.org

knives wrote:Is his recent adaptation of Cosi fan tutte available anywhere with english subs?

It's on Blu-ray and DVD from C Major.

Thank you very much.

Here's an interesting video on the use of media imagery in Haneke's films (though with a warning that it features the real killing of animals that appears in a number of the films). I would argue a little differently from the guy in the video however and suggest instead of his work being about how imagery is fundamentally unable to capture reality, it feels that Haneke's films are about how people have a tendency to be unable to understand the world in which they live in general. The playacting, the artificiality, the documentary footage (with its meanings being manipulated by editing and narration) are just technological versions of people manipulating their world to fit into a particular narrative they find appealing. Haneke's films feel as if they are ever more urgently showing how the world outside the screen is also full of manufactured elements. Rather than destroying reality, these elements seem to ask the audience to look at the world outside the cinema with a more critical eye, and one open to our inevitable need to 'capture', organise and make sense of the world around us, even if it runs contrary to other potential, less destructive, interpretations (the "plural truths" that might be available, as mentioned in the video).

The need for order to life can sometimes lead to bad ends - the refusal of different points of view, jumping to conclusions, imposing interpretations, even joining together in groups (which is something that potentially links the social media connections of modern set films with the kids in The White Ribbon!) The colder seeming technological aspects can also suggest connections that never could have previously occurred (arguably should never have had the opportunity of occurring in some of the more violent scenes of the films!), but also just capturing imagery (perhaps the reason why CCTV footage often appears - image capture without a human behind the camera, or a human drive guiding the camera movement) offers the opportunity for multiple interpretations, especially if we try and ignore the production process of the imagery, or commentary running over it, and transform it to our own ends! It may not capture 'reality', but it shows another facet of it.

It's taken on a more important role in this current political age where figures like Trump (A man who Haneke has open disdain for.) can simply brush away harsh realities of their actions by using not only his "truth" but the truth constructed by the media that supports him. Although it's primarily about Happy End Haneke's open disgust of how the internet has manipulated people's perception of reality here.

The difference between what Haneke is saying in films like say The Seventh Continent or The White Ribbon is that there IS a reality there but the way each of us goes about it reveals our own personal truth. The White Ribbon in particular was frustrating to talk about with people when it first came out because people wanted to do here and online was talk about was "whodunnit?" rather than what I thought was more important. The results of these actions on the current generation that would lead into the odd mix of furor and apathy. The furor coming from the attitude towards scapegoats during the rule of the Nazi party and the apathy coming from the complete and utter inability for regular people to stop and say "Wow maybe this isn't okay.". The "Banality of Evil" as Hannah Arendt called it.

With the increase of all manner of bizarre conspiracies happening in this day and age (Exacerbated by the internet no less) it's become increasingly difficult for people unwilling, incapable or simply not knowledgeable to do anything about it. And that saddens me deeply because people no longer for instance want to look at the implications of their actions but rather bask in their own shit filled roost. One of the saddest articles I read last year was about how a small town still supported Trump in spite of the very up front knowledge that he wouldn't do anything for them. They supported him simply because he hated the same people they did.

I really like Haneke as a filmmaker even though the introspection he forces makes me deeply uncomfortable at times.

I would agree Big Ben, though I am also very much against the current trend (espoused in 'old media' of television and newspapers) of the internet being the horrible thing that is suddenly skewing the 'reality' being presented, and that we should all be pining for previous times when we were told what our views should be, rather than trying to understand our individual viewpoint about the news we receive. More different and distinct voices should be a celebrated thing, though of course that 'plurality' of 'content creators' does mean that there is always a danger of people gravitating towards a 'known name brand' like a Trump or a Clinton (or a Logan Paul!) for their entertainment. The thing that most worries me is that news media (papers and TV news) does not seem to have an authorial voice of its own, and maybe now relies too much on getting its news from the internet and 'reacting' to it, like the rest of us, which just ends up presenting a few key facts over and over rather than doing its own journalism to make its content distinct from its competitors. In fact if you want your news story to go viral, you want to make sure that there is little individuality there as possible, to prevent people having a negative reaction to it! Having a too obvious 'house style' can be an active detriment in the online space (that can also backfire in interviews where, say, a candid Playboy article would have been tailored to a particular audience compared to a broadsheet newspaper, contrasting to a women's magazine. Someone doing a publicity tour for a book or film might talk to reporters from all sorts of publications and what used to be a good approach of tailoring your interviewer/interviewee relationship to a perceived audience for your particular publication can suddenly become an active detriment in the online space, where that context is 'flattened' and all interviews exist together without that implied specific context. That seems to be the thing that trips a lot of celebrities up these days - that suddenly you are going to have your Playboy interview read by people who might be upset by it, who would never have seen it in that printed publication but now that it is online is accessible to a much wider circle of people, and so on). Which is probably the reason why there are so many bland, impersonal clickbait top ten list articles around, as they are likely to not be as inadvertently inflammatory to a wide audience!

One of the things that I also think that Haneke's use of imagery to 'capture' reality is asking the viewer to look at is the way of approaching an image (any image really). Many of his characters have a motivation to 'use' others in some way (often in the production process of a video, sometimes just because other people are there to be used), and I think the agenda or polemic driven nature of a lot of characters in Haneke's films are something he is highlighting as limiting their horizons. They order their realities but in an often bleak and unsatisfying way because they cannot step outside of the restrictions they have imposed on themselves to see life in a different way. That could apply to the killers in Funny Games (who control all, but end up seeming the most pathetic of all - trapped in a cyclical never-ending process and with no existence outside of the film. They can only be in the moment, slaves doing the bidding of the unseen viewer of the film, compared to the more fully rounded, albeit fully part of the fictional world and bound by their own restrictive upper-middle class lifestyle, families they kill. Those two lads have really made the leap to an existence entirely inside the image that Benny from Benny's Video is yearning to make), or Erika in The Piano Teacher who fulfils her desires but cannot leap beyond them into a new relationship with her world, because she has not planned that next step, instead just ending up trapped back where she was at the beginning of the film, even more frustrated.

Or the journalist character in Code Unknown, grabbing candid snapshots of his fellow train passengers to then philosophise about in voiceover, comparing them (and their anonymous nature) to his war photos, whilst even articulating (the "CNN contacts") but seemingly being unaware of the privileged position he is in that has affected his choices of subjects, and ability to access them, and that maybe there is also a moral responsibility there to wield that power with humility rather than as a weapon for an agenda. If only an agenda of career advancement!

Coming to something, especially an image but any situation really, with a particular agenda is perhaps Haneke's key point, and the thing that he finds most monstrous about the behaviour of his characters. In imposing your meaning pre-emptively on a situation, you can end up limiting the space for an image to reveal new information to you that might change your world.

This past week I watched The Castle. An odd little film, but I guess you can say that about much of Haneke’s works. I have not read or know much about the source material. I will assume that may be important to understanding this film in it’s full context. I did find the coldness of the locale as well as coldness of the characters to go hand in hand in his intentions. But in no way was it off putting to me. It added to the mystery. I almost felt like I was watching an old horror film. I’m interested to hear what folks think about this, especially the ending. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been mentioned or discussed.

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 8:41 pm This past week I watched The Castle. An odd little film, but I guess you can say that about much of Haneke’s works. I have not read or know much about the source material. I will assume that may be important to understanding this film in it’s full context. I did find the coldness of the locale as well as coldness of the characters to go hand in hand in his intentions. But in no way was it off putting to me. It added to the mystery. I almost felt like I was watching an old horror film. I’m interested to hear what folks think about this, especially the ending. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been mentioned or discussed.

The most important thing to know is that Kafka never finished The Castle and as I recall the film literally states that and it stops mid sentence. I believe that Kafka did have an ending in mind ( K being allowed to live there but not as an official citizen.) but due to his untimely death and other commitments never really got around to finishing any of his major stories (Amerika or The Trial.).

As a Haneke film though I think it really, really plays to his strengths as a filmmaker. The cold, detached eccentricities of Kafka's bureaucratic hellhole make a nice companion to Haneke's Glaciation trilogy (Although with less death!). The dialogue for instance about flawless paperwork is riddled with a droll sensibility and an irony which I think lends itself to Haneke's broader criticisms of societal structures in films like Code Unknown.

It's awful however that the film's two stars, Ulrich Muhe and Susanne Lothar are no longer with us.

As I make my way through Haneke's older films, the latest watch for me was Benny's Video. This film threw me off. I expected one thing and got something else. Especially after Benny accidentally kills Mädchen (some may question whether it was really an accident). I was waiting for Benny to go on a killing spree. But that never materialized. I found Benny a tough read. Did he feel remorse? Was he nonplussed by what happened? There was no anger, except when he hit his friend at school. And the hot weather in Egypt seem to irritate him oh so slightly. I just couldn't gain any grasp of his mental state. Maybe that is what Haneke wants the audience to think. Confusion. And the finale was really out of left field for me. Did he hate his parents? Did he suffer huge pangs of guilt? Again, Haneke does what no one expects. He is quite good at that. I'd love to hear folks's take on the ending.

It's part of Haneke's Glaciation Trilogy obviously and that concept that society has had a damaging effect on how we perceive and interact with one another has created significant social issues. Combine that with a disaffected, likely sociopathic teenager and you've got a recipe for disaster.

It's been some time since I've seen it but what I recall most about watching Benny's Video was the sense that Benny's impulsive nature mixed with a numbness to consequence was a core component to the film for me. I'm still under the idea that Haneke doesn't want to tell us specifics about Benny's mental state through anything other than action. He's privileged and lacks the crucial sense of awareness that someone who doesn't have his hum drum lifestyle might have. To someone like Benny I don't think there was, in his mind a difference between the video of the bolt gun killing a pig and using it on a human being. While that might seem ghastly to us you'd be shocked at how some young people react to certain things. It's only until the very real consequences set in that Benny begins to go "Gee this might not be a good thing...for me." And when that reality sets in he blames his parents, escaping his punishment. I don't think being unable to comprehend the mind of a teenager is really all that disingenuous of a statement as they have a tendency to move at a rapid pace. But it's worth noting that most people don't murder people with bolt guns and then blame their parents for it either. I don't think we're supposed to understand the specifics but rather the reality of the actions this young man has committed in his vapid, enclosed existence.

“My Family Friend”: Michael Haneke and the Dangers of TV

A new piece that came up today on MUBI. Interesting read.