I’m sorry to say, I just don’t get it. This film has been revered across the world, notably on this very site. I guess it comes down to the old struggle between art and entertainment; there are still those who believe you can’t have both. There’s a worrying theme running throughout the waves of criticism on this film which contends that it’s not a film made to be ‘enjoyed’, but intellectualized, revisited and picked apart. Why on earth would I want to revisit something that gave me absolutely no pleasure the first time round? The characters are underdeveloped, the plot intriguing but frustratingly inconclusive, which I’m sure was the whole point, but for God’s sake why? What would have been lost by the provision of a satisfying climax? Okay, so it’s not real life, but what in this film is?
And is it just me that feels like the premise is old hat now, falling somewhere between Lost Highway and Cape Fear. I understand a lot of the points Haneke is making, about cosy middle class intellectualism, racial tension, disassociation from real societal problems, and I suppose that the disinterested, vague tone of the film is intended to reflect the emotional disconnection of his central character. I just find it frustrating, arrogant and desperately underwhelming.
by Tom Huddleston | Source: DVD
20 May 2007 6:37 AM | Comments (4)
I’m sorry to see that you didn’t enjoy this film, a film which in Europe has done surprisingly well in the box office. While certainly no Spider-Man, it is “enjoyable” for many. Perhaps it reaches out to an audience more used to, and certainly more comfortable, with unusual narrative structures and a post-modernistic approach to storytelling. It seems that your frustration comes from some sort of expectancy that a film needs to be within some rules in order to work at all. This is, of course, BS. In order to fully articulate his message, Haneke has opted for a form of storytelling that is in unity with this message. Form and function.
I just don’t get not getting this movie.
Haneke’s films are not voluptuous experiences by any means, but I find this film riveting from beginning to (thankfully!) inconclusive end. The entire point (and, for me, the satisfaction) of the film lies in its deceptively dispassionate tone (which is anything but vague and disinterested) and in this inconclusive conclusion. To have made it more plain or whodunit-y (or, for the love of Christ, to give it some kind of Shyamalan twist) would have undermined (or at least thoroughly altered) Haneke’s entire purpose in making the movie. It would imply an ascription of guilt to an individual (say, Majid or his son) and the exoneration of all others (say, Georges and Anne, and more importantly, the filmmaker and spectator). To be reductive: the need for clear-cut villains (Arabs!) and finger-pointing are the very things this film is criticizing, and to think Haneke is vague or disinterested in this regard is, I think, to miss the point entirely.
Or if one doesn’t want to be quite so moralistic about it, it would at least be a very different (and, for me, far less interesting) film. But be careful what you wish for: Our ol’ buddy Ron Howard is supposedly adapting this for American screens. Prepare yourself to be wowed by an utterly toothless and simplistic denouement no doubt imagineered to satisfy the narrative expectations of every living being on the planet.
Wow… do you patronise professionally, Heiavincent, or is it just for kicks? As an Englishman I realise that a thin strip of ocean separates me from all those enlightened European intellectuals who really ‘got’ this film. I guess I’m just lucky to have concerned citizens like your good self to point out what I really wanted and where I’m going wrong. Keep up the good work.
As for Leo’s comments… I think there’s a certain level of just basic difference in taste going on, I personally like a movie to ‘connect’, on some level at least, and this one felt intentionally disconnected. Which I understand from an intellectual point of view, I just find it hard to give a damn. As a sort of post- 9/11 socio-cultural postmortem I can grudgingly admit the film is pretty solid. I guess I was just expecting something different, and I do have a tendency to react badly when unpleasantly surprised. But I stand by my original conclusion, this film just left me cold.
I must admit, though, I have a sort of trainwreck fascination with this Ron Howard adaptation, and I can totally see Tom Hanks in the leading role. If it’s possible to make a film more boring than The Da Vinci Code, this has all the right ingredients.
Hehe, I did not mean to patronize! But come to think of it, if I have a talent, I should dedicate myself to perfectioning it. First and foremost, English is not my maternal language – please excuse me if I sound a bit harsh – my intention was not to label you. My point was, to try to make it more clear, that your argument of a film giving you “pleasure” and the discussion of art vs. entertainment must be seen in correlation with the Box Office figures and the general audience response. Which is in favor of the film, I my honest opinion.
HeiaVincent
21 May 2007
3:19 AM
Website