Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4885
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Thu May 21, 2020 12:44 pm

Captain Terror wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:55 am
I know many people who dislike Bringing Up Baby BECAUSE she's too manic and shrill. Those people are wrong, but she can definitely do screwball, is my point.
I wouldn't go as far as dislike but my main memory of that film is finding her immensely irritating. She's far better in The Philadelphia Story, more toned down.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu May 21, 2020 12:54 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:14 pm
there was a moment when Doug Collins is recounting coaching his first game with the Bulls and the stress and the pressure of the final minutes and at a moment when all hope seemed lost, Michael came in with a cup of water and promised him that he wouldn't let Doug lose his first game (and they didn't). and I was instantly reminded of the scene in Ben-Hur when Jesus gives Charlton Heston the water. poetic cinema!
I don't have the faintest interest in basketball, and this movie is all basketball all the time, and it's fantastic.

I was sad it was only ten hours long. I wanted more. I can only imagine the depths of despair those in Chicago felt when it all came to and end in real time.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu May 21, 2020 2:41 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 am
Sterling K. Brown, who I don't think I've ever seen before but has real magnetism.
My favorite Sterling K Brown performance is a a murder suspect on an episode of Brooklyn-99.
User avatar
wichares
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by wichares » Thu May 21, 2020 2:55 pm

Simon of the Desert (1965) is one of the most purely "fun" Buñuel to go along with his usual satirical depth, which is condensely barbed throughout from its compact length and seems to anticipate Monty Python four years later. Also, his best ending ever?
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Thu May 21, 2020 3:15 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 am
and then there's the standout of the film, Sterling K. Brown, who I don't think I've ever seen before but has real magnetism.
I've only seen him in This Is Us and Black Panther, but I'll join the praise anyway. He's a really good actor, at least based on what little I've seen.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu May 21, 2020 4:44 pm

wichares wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:55 pm
Simon of the Desert (1965) is one of the most purely "fun" Buñuel to go along with his usual satirical depth, which is condensely barbed throughout from its compact length and seems to anticipate Monty Python four years later. Also, his best ending ever?
We watched this in high school Spanish class, and then I rewatched it about 10 years later. You're right--it is fun.
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Captain Terror » Thu May 21, 2020 5:05 pm

Death Proof wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 1:50 am
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - 8/10
This has been a family favorite since I was a kid, so there's a certain group of cousins who can't have a conversation without somebody quoting this at least once. We don't even realize we're doing it at this point. At 3+ hours, there's pretty much a quote for any situation one finds oneself in.

"Just press the button marked BOOZE!"
User avatar
takeshi
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by takeshi » Thu May 21, 2020 5:09 pm

Damn, I haven't posted on here in forever. I see a lot of new users joined around 2017? Was there some board migration going on? I've been trying to write more about film and read and write more about ideas pertaining to politics and art. I'm working on a website to do this but I've also been trying to review more things on my letterboxd (would follow back, I'm very strapped for film friends currently which is a shame).

I've been watching/rewatching Haneke chronologically and trying to plot out his overall filmography.

So far I'd rank 'em:
1. The Piano Teacher
2. Code Unknown
3. The Seventh Continent
4. 71 Fragments on a Chronology of Chance
5. Benny's Video
6. Funny Games
"your review shows me only that you dont understand anything about movies and that you are a untalented wanna bee filmmaker with no balls and no understanding what POSTAL is. you dont see courage because you are nothing. and no go to your mum and fuck her …because she cooks for you now since 30 years ..so she deserves it." — Uwe Boll

letterboxd
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2471
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Torgo » Thu May 21, 2020 5:14 pm

takeshi wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 5:09 pm
Damn, I haven't posted on here in forever. I see a lot of new users joined around 2017? Was there some board migration going on?
The Rotten Tomatoes forums went away that year, so a good number of us who stuck it out until the end took refuge here.
Welcome back! Check out Cache and The White Ribbon next.
Last Great Movie Seen
Before Sunrise (Linklater, 1995)
User avatar
takeshi
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by takeshi » Thu May 21, 2020 5:23 pm

Ohhhh I see. I was one of the few here who came from word of mouth rather than from RT so I wasn't aware of anything going on.

I watched Cache when I was 15 but remember nothing about it at this point and I saw on imdb that I had rated it quite lowly haha. Def needs a rewatch the most, though I'm just going in order. Taking a break from Haneke to jump into more Marguerite Duras. Other than that, it's been The Last Dance and random crap like 90 Day Fiance when I need some wallpaper viewing.
"your review shows me only that you dont understand anything about movies and that you are a untalented wanna bee filmmaker with no balls and no understanding what POSTAL is. you dont see courage because you are nothing. and no go to your mum and fuck her …because she cooks for you now since 30 years ..so she deserves it." — Uwe Boll

letterboxd
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4885
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Thu May 21, 2020 5:58 pm

I've only seen Amour, Code Unknown, and Happy End and liked them all, roughly in that order. Gonna go for the trilogy and Caché next.
Welcome back! I came back to the forums recently as well, the lockdown made me love movies again. Followed you on Letterboxd.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 6:23 pm

A tentative Haneke ranking

Amour
The White Ribbon
The Piano Teacher
Funny Games
Cache
Time of the Wolf
Benny’s Video
Happy End
Code Unknown

I’m a fan of them all. I need to track down a few to finish his filmography.
User avatar
takeshi
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by takeshi » Thu May 21, 2020 7:15 pm

Sweet! I followed you back. I've always kept engaged with film and I'm in my final year of film studies but I've been a pariah when it comes to talking about film online. Felt an urgency to rant and express myself again given the lockdown. Was surprised to see this forum bounce back considering it was on its last legs around 2015/2016.

I'd say you both need to check out The Seventh Continent. You can see a lot of his future ideas begin to promulgate in it. Was surprised to find out it was his debut too, quite fully realised. Depressing and cynical at times, but that goes without saying.
"your review shows me only that you dont understand anything about movies and that you are a untalented wanna bee filmmaker with no balls and no understanding what POSTAL is. you dont see courage because you are nothing. and no go to your mum and fuck her …because she cooks for you now since 30 years ..so she deserves it." — Uwe Boll

letterboxd
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 7:21 pm

I definitely need to see SC. I’ve just never happened upon it in a manner that has allowed me to. It’s never popped up at any of the places I buy movies or on any streamer and it’s been prohibitively expensive online for years.

I keep hoping Criterion or Artificial Eye will put out a Blu-ray of it. I believe the others I haven’t seen are TV movies.
replican
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by replican » Thu May 21, 2020 7:41 pm

I'm scared to watch Amour.
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4885
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Thu May 21, 2020 7:48 pm

Amour is extremely bleak but worth anyone's time. I'm gonna check out The Seventh Continent, takeshi, I'm sold. I'm scared to check out Funny Games, though, I see it's on MUBI but everything I've heard about it just sounds like I'm gonna have a miserable time.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 7:48 pm

replican wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:41 pm
I'm scared to watch Amour.
My grandfather had approximately 7 strokes and I had to help take care of him in my youth. No movie has ever drained me the way it did.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu May 21, 2020 7:57 pm

Oooh, The Seventh Continent is the good stuff.

Amour was just too much for me though. I don't do well with aging and falling apart fare.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu May 21, 2020 7:59 pm

The White Ribbon
Piano Teacher
Cache
Seventh Continent
Amour
Funny Games
Time of the Wolf

Time of the Wolf is the only one that didn't do much for me.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 pm

MrCarmady wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:48 pm
Amour is extremely bleak but worth anyone's time. I'm gonna check out The Seventh Continent, takeshi, I'm sold. I'm scared to check out Funny Games, though, I see it's on MUBI but everything I've heard about it just sounds like I'm gonna have a miserable time.
I think that understanding Funny Games as a critique of a whole genre helps. I found that I had a very meta experience watching it--I was very aware of what (1) I expected would happen and (2) how I expected I would feel. Keeping track of how the film did or did not hit those beats kind of abstracted me from the experience.

As someone who watches horror/thrillers for their cathartic effect, I'm not a huge fan of the type of film he's criticizing anyway, but on a technical/narrative level it's interesting to watch a rebuttal of sorts.
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4885
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 pm

Stand By Me. Thinking of making a canon of deer scenes in cinema. This, A Most Violent Year, Three Billboards (lol), Bambi, Night Moves, what am I missing?
Oh yeah, the film is good, too, funny and affecting in parts and with a nice back-drop and run-time.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:57 pm
Oooh, The Seventh Continent is the good stuff.

Amour was just too much for me though. I don't do well with aging and falling apart fare.
It’s a hard one to recommend. I do think it builds interestingly on his “Georges” and “Anne” constructs that echo throughout his work and it feeds almost directly into Happy End, which is a bit of a conflation of everything he’s ever done, so it may be a mandatory rite of passage for fans.

But damn is it affecting.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 8:02 pm

MrCarmady wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 pm
Stand By Me. Thinking of making a canon of deer scenes in cinema. This, A Most Violent Year, Three Billboards (lol), Bambi, Night Moves, what am I missing?
Oh yeah, the film is good, too, funny and affecting in parts and with a nice back-drop and run-time.
Slither
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4885
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Thu May 21, 2020 8:04 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:01 pm
I think that understanding Funny Games as a critique of a whole genre helps. I found that I had a very meta experience watching it--I was very aware of what (1) I expected would happen and (2) how I expected I would feel. Keeping track of how the film did or did not hit those beats kind of abstracted me from the experience.

As someone who watches horror/thrillers for their cathartic effect, I'm not a huge fan of the type of film he's criticizing anyway, but on a technical/narrative level it's interesting to watch a rebuttal of sorts.
Yeah, that chimes with what I've read and is exactly why I was reluctant to watch it - I don't think it's especially ground-breaking to point out that we're desensitised to violence and the stylistic tropes employed to achieve that catharsis are extremely enjoyable. Take them away and you have nothing, the film seems to say, and I agree but I don't need anyone to prove it to me. Then again, maybe I should just swallow the pill and watch it to find out for myself.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Thu May 21, 2020 8:09 pm

replican wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:41 pm
I'm scared to watch Amour.
ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:48 pm
My grandfather had approximately 7 strokes and I had to help take care of him in my youth. No movie has ever drained me the way it did.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:57 pm
Amour was just too much for me though. I don't do well with aging and falling apart fare.
Yeah, add me to the group. I think I've mentioned it here before, but I still haven't fully gotten over my grandmother's death which was 11 frickin' years ago, so this one is still a big no-no for me.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
takeshi
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by takeshi » Thu May 21, 2020 9:08 pm

MrCarmady wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:04 pm
Yeah, that chimes with what I've read and is exactly why I was reluctant to watch it - I don't think it's especially ground-breaking to point out that we're desensitised to violence and the stylistic tropes employed to achieve that catharsis are extremely enjoyable. Take them away and you have nothing, the film seems to say, and I agree but I don't need anyone to prove it to me. Then again, maybe I should just swallow the pill and watch it to find out for myself.
It's ultimately quite a pointless film to watch (I think Haneke himself said that it was intentionally pointless) and you'll get the lack of point pretty soon into it. I think your enjoyment depends on how much you don't mind a film antagonising you constantly. It's unique in its own way, I thought it was alright.
"your review shows me only that you dont understand anything about movies and that you are a untalented wanna bee filmmaker with no balls and no understanding what POSTAL is. you dont see courage because you are nothing. and no go to your mum and fuck her …because she cooks for you now since 30 years ..so she deserves it." — Uwe Boll

letterboxd
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu May 21, 2020 10:29 pm

Regarding Haneke, I've only seen Funny Games, Cache, and The White Ribbon. I had my issues with Funny Games, but the other two are really good to great.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu May 21, 2020 10:52 pm

MrCarmady wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:04 pm
Yeah, that chimes with what I've read and is exactly why I was reluctant to watch it - I don't think it's especially ground-breaking to point out that we're desensitised to violence and the stylistic tropes employed to achieve that catharsis are extremely enjoyable. Take them away and you have nothing, the film seems to say, and I agree but I don't need anyone to prove it to me. Then again, maybe I should just swallow the pill and watch it to find out for myself.
Well, what's kind of interesting is paying attention to what is being criticized and where you fall with it.

For example (MILD SPOILERS)
the wife/mom character is forced to undress, but the camera never shows her naked. I know that this is meant to be a criticism of how nudity is deployed in horror films, but I actually found that it made the sequence more effective. Because it doesn't feel like fan service and instead of focusing on her body you are forced to focus on her face.
But other parts feel more blatant in terms of hitting a familiar horror emotional beat and then undermining it. For example (and this is a famous sequence, but still, MODERATE SPOILERS)
there's a sequence where meta means are used to undo an escape attempt.
It's not a story (per se), and yet it has some elements that are hard not to respond to on a basic emotional level. It's certainly interesting to watch a critique in the form of a film.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 11:32 pm

Funny Games is the cinematic equivalent to a darkly funny essay on the problematic use of violence in slasher films. It’s didactic and at times preachy but it’s so well thought out and well constructed that it appeals greatly to me. It also functions better than most other meta-horrors on a superficial level just in how manipulative and subversive of the “rules” it is.

And you can copy and paste that paragraph as a review of the remake.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:32 pm
Funny Games is the cinematic equivalent to a darkly funny essay on the problematic use of violence in slasher films. It’s didactic and at times preachy but it’s so well thought out and well constructed that it appeals greatly to me. It also functions better than most other meta-horrors on a superficial level just in how manipulative and subversive of the “rules” it is.

And you can copy and paste that paragraph as a review of the remake.
I mean, I get the joke he's making. I just don't think it's that good as Haneke's view of the genre is really simplistic and I'm not convinced that audiences solely care for violence like he seems to think. I enjoyed a number of portions in the film, but I'm not a fan of it overall. I thought White Ribbon and Cache were much better.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu May 21, 2020 11:53 pm

Funny Games works for me because Haneke seems to grasp what he's criticizing. Dude may not like horror movies very much, but he absolutely knows how to make an effective one, as the movie has some extremely tense, upsetting sections despite the flagrant cheating.

I've been unmoved (Time of the Wolf) or actively put off (Cache, Benny' s Video) by what else I've seen from him (been too long to go into specifics why), so maybe he's not for me. (I'm thinking I might eventually check out The Piano Teacher for Isabelle Huppert, but am in no rush.)
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu May 21, 2020 11:55 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 pm
I mean, I get the joke he's making. I just don't think it's that good as Haneke's view of the genre is really simplistic and I'm not convinced that audiences solely care for violence like he seems to think. I enjoyed a number of portions in the film, but I'm not a fan of it overall. I thought White Ribbon and Cache were much better.
While I think there’s certainly humor, I don’t think the thesis of the film is a joke nor do I find the thoughts on cinematic violence to be simplistic. There’s a very nuanced assessment of the “rules” of horror, much like Scream, but a greater emphasis on how those rules and expectations are dictated by audience participation and desire. It asks the question of “why” we watch these films and by removing the spectacle of violence, he heightens and emphasizes the tragedy and sadness of the situation. In essence, it’s more horrifying because he steps away from “horror.”

Why does extricating the physical act cause this effect on the audience? Why does horror exist to often invert and remove that element? Why is that what we find entertaining especially when we inherently buy into a rigged system that will give us what we want?

There’s a bit more accusation in the film than say, Cabin in the Woods, but it’s also much more inquisitive about the mechanisms of horror in general.

The White Ribbon and Cache may be better but I don’t particularly consider it a “lesser” work, if that makes sense.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Fri May 22, 2020 12:14 am

Rock wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:53 pm
Funny Games works for me because Haneke seems to grasp what he's criticizing. Dude may not like horror movies very much, but he absolutely knows how to make an effective one, as the movie has some extremely tense, upsetting sections despite the flagrant cheating.
This was my take, as well.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 12:20 am

I think the ultimate idea of Funny Games is that audiences don't actually want horror. They want a film that plays by rules that are unfair for the protagonists but ultimately safe for the audience. By cheating, Funny Games ironically becomes a genuine horror experience for all involved.

It's also Haneke's most fun film to discuss.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Fri May 22, 2020 12:37 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:55 pm
While I think there’s certainly humor, I don’t think the thesis of the film is a joke nor do I find the thoughts on cinematic violence to be simplistic. There’s a very nuanced assessment of the “rules” of horror, much like Scream, but a greater emphasis on how those rules and expectations are dictated by audience participation and desire. It asks the question of “why” we watch these films and by removing the spectacle of violence, he heightens and emphasizes the tragedy and sadness of the situation. In essence, it’s more horrifying because he steps away from “horror.”

Why does extricating the physical act cause this effect on the audience? Why does horror exist to often invert and remove that element? Why is that what we find entertaining especially when we inherently buy into a rigged system that will give us what we want?

There’s a bit more accusation in the film than say, Cabin in the Woods, but it’s also much more inquisitive about the mechanisms of horror in general.

The White Ribbon and Cache may be better but I don’t particularly consider it a “lesser” work, if that makes sense.
I'll concede that the thesis isn't a joke, but the reason I say the thesis is simplistic is because I think those who watch horror/slasher films generally don't want what Haneke thinks they do. Instead of mindless violence, I think that what people typically value regarding horror films includes being scared, feeling suspense, or having a connection to the characters in the film and hoping for them to survive to the end. Or, if the audience actually does value mindless violence above all else, wouldn't the majority of slasher films get high ratings from the audience since they typically contain violence? In my experiences, watching a horror film with characters you don't care about that's devoid of suspense/scares/etc, but contains a lot of violence can be slogs. Overall, I think the genre does more than what Haneke seems to think of it and the fans of them generally care about more other than just mindless violence, which is why I think his thesis is simplistic.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:37 am
I'll concede that the thesis isn't a joke, but the reason I say the thesis is simplistic is because I think those who watch horror/slasher films generally don't want what Haneke thinks they do. Instead of mindless violence, I think that what people typically value regarding horror films includes being scared, feeling suspense, or having a connection to the characters in the film and hoping for them to survive to the end. Or, if the audience actually does value mindless violence above all else, wouldn't the majority of slasher films get high ratings from the audience since they typically contain violence? In my experiences, watching a horror film with characters you don't care about that's devoid of suspense/scares/etc, but contains a lot of violence can be slogs. Overall, I think the genre does more than what Haneke seems to think of it and the fans of them generally care about more other than just mindless violence, which is why I think his thesis is simplistic.
I don't think he's saying they only claim violence, though violence is certainly a big part of the genre. I also don't think he's tackling all horror but specifically slasher and home invasion films which had certainly fallen into formula and become very reliant on exploitation in regards to violence and nudity.

I think what he's highlighting is the avoidance of legitimate trauma, suffering, sorrow and emotional pain that comes with violence. We willingly put our avatars through a hell we've set up for them in order to get those thrills but at the expense of the recognition of what comes with actual violence, which is more horrific than just the physical act.

That avoidance is something extremely common in the genre and is why those that have implemented them have become films noted for their "unique" approach, like Don't Look Now or Hereditary. It's something almost entirely missing from the subgenres he is addressing and I can't think of another instance outside of Funny Games that even attempts emotional authenticity to the scenario.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Fri May 22, 2020 1:12 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 am
I don't think he's saying they only claim violence, though violence is certainly a big part of the genre. I also don't think he's tackling all horror but specifically slasher and home invasion films which had certainly fallen into formula and become very reliant on exploitation in regards to violence and nudity.

I think what he's highlighting is the avoidance of legitimate trauma, suffering, sorrow and emotional pain that comes with violence. We willingly put our avatars through a hell we've set up for them in order to get those thrills but at the expense of the recognition of what comes with actual violence, which is more horrific than just the physical act.

That avoidance is something extremely common in the genre and is why those that have implemented them have become films noted for their "unique" approach, like Don't Look Now or Hereditary. It's something almost entirely missing from the subgenres he is addressing and I can't think of another instance outside of Funny Games that even attempts emotional authenticity to the scenario.
Honestly, maybe I should rewatch it again. I don't recall the film exploring how slasher films avoid how trauma typically comes with violence, but there might be more to the film's themes I missed.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Fri May 22, 2020 1:16 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 pm
I mean, I get the joke he's making. I just don't think it's that good as Haneke's view of the genre is really simplistic and I'm not convinced that audiences solely care for violence like he seems to think. I enjoyed a number of portions in the film, but I'm not a fan of it overall. I thought White Ribbon and Cache were much better.
This is my boat. Funny Games has some good stuff in there, but for every couple of ingenious imitations, teasings out, or upendings of the genre, there's a real clunker, and underneath it all lurks a dumbly literal, Puritanical sensibility not far removed the Family Values crowd that think we invariably become what we consume. He thinks rewinding a dude getting blown away will make people stop and regret their having celebrated a murder, but all it really does is draw us back to seeing the film as a film and saying, oh, yeah, of course, you're just doing that thing you've been doing the whole time--punishing us for being a naughty, naughty audience.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 1:37 am

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:16 am
This is my boat. Funny Games has some good stuff in there, but for every couple of ingenious imitations, teasings out, or upendings of the genre, there's a real clunker, and underneath it all lurks a dumbly literal, Puritanical sensibility not far removed the Family Values crowd that think we invariably become what we consume. He thinks rewinding a dude getting blown away will make people stop and regret their having celebrated a murder, but all it really does is draw us back to seeing the film as a film and saying, oh, yeah, of course, you're just doing that thing you've been doing the whole time--punishing us for being a naughty, naughty audience.
While I've read comments (perhaps Haneke himself? Or a previous discussion between the two of us) that the remote scene was to punish us for praising violence, I don't think it operates EXACTLY on that level (us questioning the morality of murder or cheering for it) but rather a reveal of the mechanism in all films, in all the times we've cheered on a killing. It's essentially saying this is what all films do but you like it when it plays by your rules.

I also just think it's one of the great moments of audience manipulation in cinema history. I've shown it to a few friends throughout the years and there's never not a strong reaction.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Fri May 22, 2020 1:39 am

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:16 am
This is my boat.
There's a joke in here about throwing hog-tied couples off a boat. A real gut-buster. I'm desensitized, Michael. Crush me!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 1:41 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:12 am
Honestly, maybe I should rewatch it again. I don't recall the film exploring how slasher films avoid how trauma typically comes with violence, but there might be more to the film's themes I missed.
I appreciated it much more on a rewatch. Just focus on where Haneke is decided to shift focus vs where a more traditional slasher/home invasion would rest their camera. The film had a fixation on suffering and regardless of which version, the actors he chose to play George and Anne masterfully communicate that agony.

There's a 7 min long take in which Anne merely howls in horror and I think it's more affecting and horrifying than even the greatest Savini effect (albeit they hit in entirely different ways).

It's partly why I find Aster's output fairly fascinating as he seems to combine visceral gore with emotional horror in ways that have rarely been done.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 1:41 am

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:39 am
There's a joke in here about throwing hog-tied couples off a boat. A real gut-buster. I'm desensitized, Michael. Crush me!
Let me find the remote so we can pretend that I noticed the whole time.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Fri May 22, 2020 1:45 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:37 am
While I've read comments (perhaps Haneke himself? Or a previous discussion between the two of us) that the remote scene was to punish us for praising violence, I don't think it operates EXACTLY on that level (us questioning the morality of murder or cheering for it) but rather a reveal of the mechanism in all films, in all the times we've cheered on a killing. It's essentially saying this is what all films do but you like it when it plays by your rules.

I also just think it's one of the great moments of audience manipulation in cinema history. I've shown it to a few friends throughout the years and there's never not a strong reaction.
I'm just not sure I get all that much out of him pointing at the mechanism and slightly cocking his glasses down as he stares at us. I mean, sure, the movie is an artificial product and we're pleased when it depicts things that please us and displeased when it depicts things that displease us. It doesn't really dig into the problematic aspects of our being pleased by depictions of violence or what that does or doesn't entail. He seems to just take it for granted that it overall it just makes us more violent.

Maybe there's some cleverness in the moment and it's provocation, but it feels superficial.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Fri May 22, 2020 1:46 am

I was glad when the prick died. I will be glad when Trump dies. Crush my balls, Michael!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 am

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:45 am
I'm just not sure I get all that much out of him pointing at the mechanism and slightly cocking his glasses down as he stares at us. I mean, sure, the movie is an artificial product and we're pleased when it depicts things that please us and displeased when it depicts things that displease us. It doesn't really dig into the problematic aspects of our being pleased by depictions of violence or what that does or doesn't entail. He seems to just take it for granted that it overall it just makes us more violent.

Maybe there's some cleverness in the moment and it's provocation, but it feels superficial.
Perhaps it's the novelty of it that appeals to me. Outside of perhaps Mel Brooks comedies, I've not seen such a "laying bare the device" to quote some film theorist (Bordwell, maybe?) that was discussing Man With a Movie Camera."

I think had the movie not so effectively and authentically explored the suffering and anguish of its characters then juxtaposed it with such a stunt, I would feel similarly. Taken in the context of the whole, it may not be the thesis of the scene itself but it's a mighty fine exclamation point.

I don't think he's saying it makes us more violent in the real world but that cinematic violence is still a form of violence that we attempt to compartmentalize and play safely. I think the film serves as a darkly playful reminder that it's only safely when it plays by our rules.

I can't argue with someone feeling like its didactic and preachy. It's why I compared it to an essay first and foremost. I just rarely find a film that explains itself in such a fascinating way.

See also: Its much more fun to discuss than his other films. We could all just be agreeing on the many layers of depression Amour hands us or how thoroughly he psychoanalyzed the generation that would give us the Holocaust in the White Ribbon. But we don't. We always come back to Funny Games and that's gotta say something to it's cultural value.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri May 22, 2020 1:59 am

Unrelated but a surefire Stu summoner:

That BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA sure is an excellent film, ain't it? Better than I remembered.

Also, it feels as though McCarthy stole Peckinpah's essence when he passed away. Coincidence that he wrote Blood Meridian a year after Peckinpah died and almost every novel after feels like something Sam should've directed?
replican
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by replican » Fri May 22, 2020 2:03 am

Just saw a trailer for a new Wes Anderson flick in the 'new release' thread.

Do you think Wes could make a good non-Wes movie? Like what if a studio backed the brinks truck into Wes's palace on an island somewhere, and were like go make us a zombie movie. But no whimsy. No over achievers, no meticulously crafted sumptuous shots. No out of left field humor.

Could he pull it off? I'm glad that he hasn't 'sold out' and continues to make HIS movies but I'm curious about how a non-Wes Anderson film directed by Wes Anderson would look and whether it would succeed.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4020
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Fri May 22, 2020 2:15 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 5:30 am
I wouldn’t even call Grant the straight man. He’s so goofy and nebbish but the movie forces him into the straight man by proxy role because of how, well, explosive Hepburn is. Such a blast that film is.
:up:
Agreed Grant does great comedic work in that, but the actual role is a straight-man to Hepburn's whatever the hell she is, he just makes an hysterically funny straight man.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri May 22, 2020 2:17 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:59 am
Unrelated but a surefire Stu summoner:

That BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA sure is an excellent film, ain't it? Better than I remembered.

Also, it feels as though McCarthy stole Peckinpah's essence when he passed away. Coincidence that he wrote Blood Meridian a year after Peckinpah died and almost every novel after feels like something Sam should've directed?
I am not Stu but I'm thinking I should dust off my DVD and revisit it this weekend.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Fri May 22, 2020 2:20 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 am
Perhaps it's the novelty of it that appeals to me. Outside of perhaps Mel Brooks comedies, I've not seen such a "laying bare the device" to quote some film theorist (Bordwell, maybe?) that was discussing Man With a Movie Camera."

I think had the movie not so effectively and authentically explored the suffering and anguish of its characters then juxtaposed it with such a stunt, I would feel similarly. Taken in the context of the whole, it may not be the thesis of the scene itself but it's a mighty fine exclamation point.
I feel the extent to which it dug into their suffering goes to undermine the stunt. It pales next to that. Finding catharsis in suffering is one of the foundations of drama. Just because it's found a more popcorn-friendly outlet in a home invasion movie doesn't mean it doesn't speak to the same urges and desire to imaginatively play with morbid circumstances.
ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 am
I don't think he's saying it makes us more violent in the real world but that cinematic violence is still a form of violence that we attempt to compartmentalize and play safely. I think the film serves as a darkly playful reminder that it's only safely when it plays by our rules.
I'm not so sure that's how he sees it. He literally thinks these movies shouldn't exist. Movies are a playground for engaging, for two, our fears and darker urges, and there's room taking issue with some of the most common ways it does this. There's also room for realizing that this compartmentalizing is a real and relevant part of the art thing. I think he would prefer we stop watching horror movies, probably because he has a fairly shallow understanding of how we watch horror movies. Probably thinks Marcuse told him all he needs to know.
ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 am
I can't argue with someone feeling like its didactic and preachy. It's why I compared it to an essay first and foremost. I just rarely find a film that explains itself in such a fascinating way.

See also: Its much more fun to discuss than his other films. We could all just be agreeing on the many layers of depression Amour hands us or how thoroughly he psychoanalyzed the generation that would give us the Holocaust in the White Ribbon. But we don't. We always come back to Funny Games and that's gotta say something to it's cultural value.
I think the movie has merit. I also think those movies are better.
Post Reply