Did this movie fail in what it set out to do...

I was watching this like a few days ago again was there not a scene where he rapes the mother?

i think it had to be an effective horror movie for the message to have any weight behind it. that sort of miscommunication is almost built into it when it's done right though, just by virtue of having to draw the audience into the movie that you'll be eventually flipping on them. To answer your question of wether it failed I don't think it did if the director was trying to make an open and shut critique of the horror genre. But if haneke wanted to be truly subversive and change how audiences perceived horror he would've had to find a way to do that without fucking with the 4th wall. True subversion never reveals itself

yeah, haneke isn't a very artistically successful director. he really, really wanted to be an auteur, but he's got no real subtlety about what stories he chooses or how he tells them.

something like Funny Games only seems clever to people who think breaking dramatic principles for the hell of it is inherantly interesting.

Funny Games, like all Haneke movies, is primarily about making the audience ask themselves questions. I don't think his intention was to destroy the horror genre or or anything like that. He knows it's preposterous to think people are going to stop watching violent movies. As long as you come away from the movie asking yourself questions about why you like violence, why you expected certain things to happen, why some things made you uncomfortable or frustrated, and so on, then then film has succeeded.

I realized that the movie was meant to torture the audience by denying them catharsis pretty early and I thought it was interesting, but the scene with the remote was stupid
it was like haneke came on the screen and said DO YOU GET IT, DO YOU GET IT YET

Obvious similarities here to Natural Born Killers and the unintended effects on the audience

Excuse me, what?
The Piano Teacher & Amour are two of the best films, ever.
Amour is an extraordinarily restrained and subtle version of itself.
And The Piano Teacher puts high art (classical music) on screen extremely effectively, treating it with real reverance, and playing out whole pieces of music for the enjoyment of the artform, not merely as a story device or to ellicit some kind of emotion like how music is normally used. Then it contrasts that high art, and the world around it, with absolute sexual depravity. And that contrast is genius.

To think.
Yes
But also he wants his audience to feel, and he's generally successful at that too.

>the movie was meant to torture the audience by denying them catharsis
this is a key part of it, the film breaks the fourth wall in more ways than one. obviously the parts when they talk to the camera and break it in a literal sense, but also it makes the audience the subject of torture. we are the ones being fucked with, just as much as the family. and it feels fucking horrible. and when you start getting annoyed or frustrated by that I think it really hits home about how twisted and weird it is that we normally consume violence torture movies as entertainment.

fanboys fuck off

just want to say I love the recent trend of Haneke threads on Yea Forums... gives me hope for this board.
Anybody seen 71 Fragment of a Chronology of Chance?

Amour is a very conventional story. That's why it's the most awarded of his movies. I wasn't surprised when he announced his intention to retire afterwards.

Piano Teacher doesn't use the contrast you identify to say anything, beyond "look at this".

He's not done anything that Ingmar Bergman didn't do more cogently & engagingly in the 50s/60s/70s.

I'd invite you to compare the vagina slicing scene in Piano Teacher with the one in Cries and Whispers and judge for yourself which is more effective as a vehicle for exploring themes and character.

I just gave you an actual analysis. You've likely formed your opinion based on irrelevant biases and probably haven't even seen Amour which he won the Palme d'Or for.

reddit: the thread

>Amour is a very conventional story.
Is that supposed to be a criticism?
Scenes from a Marriage is a 'very conventional story'.

>Piano Teacher doesn't use the contrast you identify to say anything, beyond "look at this".
The effect is to have the audience seeking grotesqueness in beauty and beauty in grotesqueness. The scenes with the music and the supposedly perfect upper class lives feel 'off' and the scenes with the sex are coloured by how moved you are by the music.

Yea Forums isn't one person, unluckily for you

the reason Funny Games seems cleverer to you than pic related is because you're too susceptible to assessing a film's intellectual content by how it PRESENTS that content.

Attached: the-cabin-in-the-woods-571954b83b352.jpg (1000x1426, 1.12M)

Funny Games is essentially a big fuck you to the Tarantino crowd

How something is presented IS the content you dummy, especially in a medium like film. You can take a single object and person and depending on how you present (frame, compose, lighting etc) them you get widely different content.

I don't think Funny Games is clever.
I also think Haneke is wrong about a lot of things, and obnoxious in lecturing people with his ideas. Both in his films and out of them. Like lecturing a room of American jews, Judd Apatow, etc, in German about how they've subverted the holocaust for entertainment value.

I've got very little interest in general about the 'ideas' or 'intellectual merit' of a film, what the 'message' is or what it 'has to say'. Haneke makes compelling drama with artistic merit, that is highly entertaining.

You add a -not him but- please m8 because the irony of assuming anyone who replies to him is one person is probably lost on him

>hurr stop being violent
wow they should've shilled this to all the soccer moms around that era it would've been a bigger hit

>Scenes from a Marriage is a 'very conventional story'.

it's 5 hours and psychologically microscopic, with most scenes featuring only two characters: i.e. it was original.

>The effect is to have the audience seeking grotesqueness in beauty and beauty in grotesqueness.

that's literally a student-film-level concept: the definition of pseudointellectualism.

it was presented to you via "art movie" conventions. so you took it as an art movie.

the depth of ideas is what makes something art. you're literally saying "presentation equals content", but no amount of cinematography can make up for shallow writing.

>Piano Teacher doesn't use the contrast you identify to say anything, beyond "look at this".
And just inherently, a sharp contrast, or a contradiction which is nonetheless true, is at the heart of many great creative works. For no deeper reason than that such a thing is extremely powerful to us.

Have you read/ seen perfume?

Haneke's coldness suits the topic of vicariously enjoying violence more than Whedon's comedic tone imho
presentation matters

>the depth of ideas is what makes something art
What an absolutely retarded sentence.
So only something "le deep" can be art? Nothing simple can ever be art?

>probably haven't even seen Amour which he won the Palme d'Or for.
>man has shiny thing!
sad

>the depth of ideas is what makes something art
You could not be more wrong. A great piece of music, or a great dance, for example, might have no ideas in them whatsoever and be impossible to analyse intellectually without making things up.

He isn't fighting against violence, but against portraying violence as this empty weightless entertainment device. If you watched any Haneke film you would be aware that he doesn't shy away from violence, but when he portrays it he portrays it in a brutal uncomfortable way, like violence is.

no, I'll put it on my list though. I assume you mean the 2006 one not the 2001 one.

>if only a small portion of the audience looks at it that way, and the majority of people look at it as a normal horror film, didn't it just add to the problem it is try to criticise?
OP, I think this is an important part nobody has addressed yet. The fact is the majority of people do not understand or care what Haneke was trying to do here. It was not a commercial success, it held no mainstream appeal, and obviously Haneke wanted the film to reach a wider audience because he remade it for the US.
He did it shot for shot as well, so clearly he thought the problem was the language barrier, not the content of the film, but the remake also flopped.
No matter his intention and how well he made it, only a small percentage of people appreciate his message. Funny Games is intended to be a commercial, widely seen film, and it wasn't.
Fact is that the people who care about the message, like people posting ITT, are a small group and largely living in a bubble, or "echo chamber" to use the language of today. I'm guilty too. A lot of arthouse movies have lofty ideals but if they're only reaching the same group of people every time, who only discuss the film amongst themselves, and never really make a large impact on the general public, what is the point?
Funny Games did not succeed in what it was trying to do, which was using the structure of the mainstream horror film to appeal to mainstream fans, and then subvert itself and other films like it. The only lasting impact it had was 20 years to occasionally create threads on Yea Forums with 12 posters that will get eventually get bumped form the catalogue by Alita Thread no. 67. What good is that?

>that's literally a student-film-level concept: the definition of pseudointellectualism.
Am I wrong though? Are you just suggesting that my analysis is basic? Because simple common things which can be easily understood are not definitively uninteresting or necessarily lacking effect in films or unworthy of pointing out.

Labeling things as 'pseudointellectualism' isn't very impressive either.

>Nothing simple can ever be art?

I see it as a waste of the storytelling potential of film to make a whole film around one contrast. humans beings' personalities aren't reduceable to one contrast, so if you do that you end up with shallow "prop-like" characters that have no sense of independent life outside of the point the director is trying to make.

btw you're doing a good job conveying the difference in your mindset though, which is making me think more about why Haneke underwhelms me. better than the "I'm sleeping with a prostitute guys!!!" thread.

I hate to explain your own thoughts to you but saying Funny Games is a fuck you to Tarantino is saying it's a fuck you to the amount of violence he uses in movies, so don't backtrack from that point. And the point is soccer mom bullshit

*amount and manner of violence

>only a small percentage of people appreciate his message
there are a lot of people who understood what he was trying to say but don't agree with the movie's message
people don't like being told that something they enjoy (violence as entertainment in this case) is wrong and bad for them
I bet the RLM guys would absolutely haaaate this movie even if they understood it

Yeah, don't, it's not a great film. The book is great though. It just illustrate my point well. The concept for it is fantastic.

Man with hyper sense of smell, and no scent himself, is an outcast because people feel like something is off about him. But he becomes a master perfumer and aquires wealth and riches and begins murdering beautiful virgins to capture their scent. And then when he's caught and on the executioners block at a public execution, he releases his masterpiece perfume made from the girls essences and the entire crowd falls into an orgy.

depressingly cynical attitude there mate. you know most people will never understand any scientific breakthrough or medical development either, only a small bubble of a dozen people talking to eachother. That small bubble can still impact the world greatly and change the course of things. Don't act like arthouse circles are irrelevant, because what are mainstream success like Scorsese's Goodfellas or Nolan's Memento if not films that have been adapted from arthouse techniques and developments and used to make massively influential movies?

music has musical ideas. dance has choreographical ideas. it would be possible to point to musical and choreographical equivalents of Haneke's films, where everything is an academic examination of what people expect music/dance to be like. the audience tends to be limited to academics, though.

films for me is about drama, character and storytelling so that's what I judge them on.

not him, but what's interesting to me is how some movies straddle the line between artistique obscurity like Haneke, and blatently disregarding mass audience interests.

one of the reasons I liked the Favorite so much is because it was both a good story and pretty much flung shit in a "normal audience members" face for the whole running time, and in the process said a lot about what people are actually like.

the underwhleming thing about Haneke for me is that he doesn't even seem to be willing to try to balance those two goals. I think it's probably that he doesn't know how rather than because he has low expectations, though.

Attached: the-favourite-cwbq0onfmeilu5xgqnnjjampfpw.jpg__350x1000_q85_subsampling-2.jpg (350x525, 24K)

>saying Funny Games is a fuck you to Tarantino is saying it's a fuck you to the amount of violence he uses in movies,
Not it isn't. Haneke would hate Tarantino's portrayal of violence even if there was literally just a single scene of violence in his films.
The problem is not in the quantity, but in the execution where every single violence scene in a Tarantino flick is portrayed as an empty "entertainment" spectacle where the audience should clap and cheer after instead of being genuinely struck by it.

that's not what ideas are.
those are not valid concepts, or you have invented them now.

>>the depth of ideas is what makes something art
>>films for me is about drama, character and storytelling so that's what I judge them on.

these are mutually exclusive, unless you either don't consider great art films to be art, or you think drama ideas, character ideas and narrative ideas are all ideas too.

Just watch a good horror satire like Scream

>Am I wrong though?

I think I get what you think you mean, but I find it hard not to immediately reach for reductio ad absurdems like going "Michalangelo wouldn't have gotten far with that attitude m8" or "show me the beauty in terrorist execution videos then".

ultimately you're reacting to grotesquenesss as beauty because it's in an art movie, so it's a bit like the bubble thing the other user referred to.

So poems can't be art because they are too simple? A song can't be art if it doesn't have complex chord progressions in it? A film can't be art if it doesn't explain the backstory of absolutely every single character?

Has anyone here seen his most recent film, Happy End ?

I thought it was incredibly good. It's a loose sequal to Amour (odd, but works) focusing mostly on Isabelle Huppert's character

Slasher films are so effective for a similar reason, so it's not like the concept is only valid for pretentious art house fans.

You see a qt young girl and then you see her getting fucking stabbed and the stabbing is kind of like penetrating her and the horror and the sexual excitement of the whole thing is a contrast not unlike the high art and depravity in The Piano Teacher.
Such contrasts are just highly engaging, and make good work, for everyone, and in general.

Cannibal Holocaust did the same thing.

>Movie designed specifically to string together scenes of extreme sex and violence
>Ends with the main character practically turning to the screen, and saying "Fuck you for watching this, you sickos".

Never seen it, will watch it later today. I guess watch the original and skip the american remake?

that's a bit different then (haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust) because if they do it at the end then it's like the movie is a prank and a punchline. like "gotcha!". In Funny Games they very early on ask the audience why they're watching. And then the movie keeps going. So really if you keep watching you know what you're doing is "wrong" and you deserve everything you get from the rest of it. I think it creates a lot more unease in the viewer and makes you ask yourself more questions, and makes you feel more involved in the making of the horror on screen.

they're shot for shot remakes by the same direct, just with different cast and a slightly different setting but almost entirely identical, watch either one
I prefer the actors in the original personally

I can't argue the point any more because we're well into the subjective "what is art???" territory.

It might be useful for explaining my point of view that I do generally find more complex ideas (of any kind) to be more interesting, as opposed to simple contrasts. that includes music, films, novels, etc.

possibly the problem with haneke for me is that I feel like I'm ahead of him while I'm watching so I just sit there thinking "oh so he's doing that".

would you consider Cabin in the Woods and Scream to be more "complex" than Funny Games? they have plot twists and characters with depth and at the end of them you have some idea of what the point of what you watched was. do you really think that makes a movie worse, or that those things make a movie easier to write?

You know just because we highlight one thing and choose to pick one thing as a strength, doesn't mean that nothing else is going on

>You see a qt young girl and then you see her getting fucking stabbed and the stabbing is kind of like penetrating her

there's literally a scene about this in Cabin in the Woods. but it's made clear to the audience what the point is, so it doesn't have the same "you are watching an art movie!!!" prestige value. worse, it's actually funny!

You're talking to several people btw

Again, I don't like Funny Games that much

Thanks! Will watch the og.

I didn't use that example to suggest that slasher films are art movies.
You've completely misunderstood my post.

Haneke is a literal 70yo contrarian edgelord, the worst kind of "man" possible

>dude american entertainment is disgusting, gore and pornography is disgusting. stop watching it
>you better watch my crap, which is the exact same thing, only it's even more disgusting
>also whitey is bad, he should pay reparation to poor black refugees

white guilt austrian cocksucker.

shush, /pol/ embryo

>>also whitey is bad, he should pay reparation to poor black refugees
Here it is

I wish you cunts would just come right out and say when this kind of shit is why you don't like something because then I won't have to bother trying to have a serious discussion with you

my point was that the division is meaningless. I don't see the crowdpleasing value of a movie to have any bearing on how artistic it is.

I have to go to work. I tried to think of a simple poem I like and it's easy to CTRL-V it here, so you retards can all consider yourselves culturally enriched now thanks to me ;^)

A Drinking Song
By William Butler Yeats
Wine comes in at the mouth
And love comes in at the eye;
That’s all we shall know for truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you, and I sigh.

american gore and pornography is created with the intent to entertain
his gore and pornography is designed to make you feel uncomfortable

but yes, watching too much of either is probably not good for you
consuming too much media in general probably isn't good for you

>anti horror
it wasnt anti horror
youre basically brainlet and thats the issue

feeling uncomfortable is entertaining though

Yes but I struggled to make sense of it, more than any previous Haneke film and that's saying something. I think the whole point of his movies is to try and work out a valid interpretation on your own so I've tried not to look up any writing about it and work it out in my own mind, but think I've failed. I'll post my thoughts below...

So far what i feel is that the movie is about what we expect to happen or what we consider to be neat, happy, perfect, not just the family unit but the structure of movies. The opening scene with the words appearing on screen watching the woman in the bathroom describing her actions before she does them threw me off. I think it's like him saying we've seen this routine so many time (including in his own movies) that we know what's going to happen before it happens. Same old same old.
By the end, we've seen the whole family unit is pretty much bullshit and everyone is hiding secrets or has done some fucked up shit and they're all deeply unhappy. But then there's the intrusion of reality, the migrants w/the son at times and it sort of ruins the structure of the stories and it frustrates us because we don't really know what's going on, what brought this all about. because we're focused on the stories of these characters in a fairly privileged and protected lifestyle. Any time immigration of the migrants are brought up it's an intrusion and it disturbs a big party of white rich people talking about fairly banal problems.
Except to us they're not that banal, I was really interested in them, and they're fairly serious as well (suicide, murder). In some ways the child and the grandfather end up as our protagonists, and they've both committed murders. we become sympathetic to them, I did anyway.
And Haneke I think is goading us a bit here by making us like them, and then at the end there's the attempted suicide/euthanasia in the water. And it's almost like a happy ending, because I was sort of waiting for it to happen and expecting it to happen and in many ways wanted it to happen. it's a conventional "happy end" that I guess the film had been pushing me to want. Except when you step back and watch it like the girl does on her phone, it's pretty fucked up. Reality intruding? Anyway, character limit reached, have a lot more thoughts on it but yeah

Did you like it?
I haven't really thought about what it means and I don't care, but I really enjoyed watching it.

I thought the performances were all fantastic, and some of the visual language, like when huppert visits her son in his apartment or the scene in the apartment, was masterful.
The meaning behind the stuff with the refugees didn't matter to me, but I thought that scene was highly entertaining and a great climax. And the rolling into the ocean and her watching him and filming worked for me on a poetic level, not an intellectual one. It was just a poignant, funny, beautiful ending.

To me it wasn't even good like pic related good. I actually really liked it.

Attached: peep show.jpg (569x345, 39K)

yes I liked it but I've been watching a lot of Haneke stuff lately
There was some technically very impressive or beautiful camera work for such a fairly reserved movie, like a lot of Haneke's work
Like when the grandfather is wheeling himself down the street, or when the son is beaten up outside the apartment block. Even the scene of the building site collapse was shocking but still maintained that cool distant feel of his.

hmmm yea
the one bit i didn't get was when the grandpa runs away, the lights are already on in his car before he even enters the garage.
who turned the lights on??
was that really just because it looked cool and he didn't give a fuck that it made no sense?

I can't quite remember if the car lights came on before he entered. I think some cars automatically turn them on when you press the key to open them? idk

lol what, headlights don't turn on auto do they? that's interior lights. I'm sure they were on.
i think haneke is going a bit senile

Attached: 1362343804421.jpg (764x584, 85K)

I unironically loved this movie, and the American remake, too. Muh subversion? Don't care, this is a grade a horror.

I find it hard to understand how someone can like the movie while also saying they don't care about the subversive element of the movie. What do you like about it?

The good guys win.

>haha it's le violent media that criticizes violent media xDDD
There is literally nothing more pretentious or infuriating than this. Between this and the childish fourth-wall breaks this movie was like a fourteen-year-old stoner's idea of deep. It's not smart. It's not clever. It's not even particularly experimental due to how simple and one-note it is. You don't get to criticize a genre when you yourself are contributing to it, and if you want to get a message across, make a genuine fucking film and do it through the story and characters, not through this ironic meta garbage.

Moreover, this retard missed the point that many people like violence in films precisely BECAUSE it unsettles them, makes them feel bad, and draws them closer to the characters. Nobody would remember the cop in Reservoir Dogs if he only got slapped around a bit instead of having his ear cut off.

Attached: 1536576159179.png (498x467, 16K)

It's a trap movie but I feel like Robocop did it better.

>Funny Games is disturbing

Hesukristo, this place has turned to reddit

It insists upon itself.

looks like Haneke's still got you seething in rage 20 years later, bud

>many people like violence in films precisely BECAUSE it unsettles them, makes them feel bad, and draws them closer to the characters
Not really. You watch a capeshit flick and millions of people die and you don't feel a thing. An entire city is bombed and you don't feel a thing. In a flick like Inglorious Basterds or Kill Bill it's expected for the audience to laugh and cheer at the deaths, not to be deeply impacted by it and to feel uncomfortable.
Haneke hates that and wants to bring back the weight and impact of actualy violence. Yes Funny Games is not a good film aswell and he explored it better in literally any other film of his.

I did wonder if that Fyre Festival documentary was a stealth advertisement for expensive social media influencers. The message seemed to be that $500k spent on buying tweets is much more effective than $500k spent on television ads that no-one will watch.

Nobody's seething, simp. I'm only pointing out that this jabroni can't even get his own gimmick straight. Probably why he is and forever will be a no-dimes indie shitter who can't even get airtime in bingo halls.

subversive arthouse auteurs? mmmm you don't wanna mess with them

Yes. It's his masterpiece, I'd argue. Haven't seen Amour and Happy Endings yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y_osgrcpes4
Is Haneke in the right here?
I watched the documentary he was talking about 'Night and Fog' and got quite sad and if anything, it was simply more powerful as cinema than what i'm used to and what he was criticizing.

>asp lingo
funny because this movie is the definition of a worked shoot

Well the film was produced by FuckJerry which is the social media influencer marketing company in the film so yes, I think so.

>Haneke hates that and wants to bring back the weight and impact of actualy violence.
And rather than make a genuine film that features meaningful violence and being the change he wants to see in the medium, he instead makes yet another gratuitous hyperviolent film while trying to posture having the moral high ground to the audience. There's nothing dumber than going "You're a bad person for watching this stuff" when you're the one who wrote, directed, filmed, and edited it. He put me off completely and I agree with him.

>And rather than make a genuine film that features meaningful violence and being the change he wants to see in the medium
Literally watch any other film of his.

The ending in itself deterred a lot of the typical horror fans

he doesn't want you to feel good infact the entire film is an insult to the audience of the film and a thinskinned person is offended by that

>THR: Would you make a film about Hitler?

>Haneke: No. It's impossible for me, turning this into entertainment. That's why I have problems with Steven Spielberg's film about the concentration camps [Schindler's List]. The mere idea of trying to create suspense out of the question of whether the showerhead gas is going to come is unspeakable. For me, the only film about the Holocaust that is responsible is Alain Resnais' Night and Fog. Resnais asks the spectator: What do you think about this? What does this mean to you?

watch any of his other films you dip, he's built his entire career on doing exactly what you just said

I liked it. It was pretty fun. I was rooting for the bad guys the whole time though.

haha same xP

epic

I also found Night and Fog a lot less about posing questions to the audience, and more emotional than Haneke asserts in this clip.
Haneke is a huge fan of Resnais work though so idk, maybe an element of fanboyism clouding his judgement on it

Haneke isn't saying you should be clinical and devoid of emotion while depicting it, he's saying it should not to be subjective in it's answers and to make it as a haunted house entertainment ride out of it.

zoomer cringe

Glad to hear that. I casually stumbled across this movie in cable tv quite a few years ago (the American remake) and I honestly just kept watching it for the performances of Naomi Watts and Tim Roth initially, I didnt know ANYTHING about the movie or the director (let alone that it was a remake). Needless to say that the whole thing hit me right in the guts and the ending was especially effective on me since I was totally unprepared.

>the movie was meant to torture the audience by denying them catharsis
this got me good. It might sound simple but it really made me feel a mix of anger, dispair, choler, frustation.
I'd say if you watch this movie knowing what you're in for it kinda spoils the experience.

Attached: consider.png (680x510, 1.34M)

reddit games more like

haven't seen it, but i'll just say that it's very much possible to make fun of your own audience the way you describe, and it's not a bad thing

So was Inglourious Basterds.

The fundamental flaw in this movie's thesis is that people react differently to reality and fiction.

>Haneke-bot hammering in "no fun allowed" sign
He can fuck right off and I thought that when I first saw the movie long ago

youtube.com/watch?v=0Ow1Lcl-gj4

That's Joshua Oppenheimer's take on Night & Fog. Pretty interesting. He's the guy who directed The Act of Killing & The Look of Silence, which are incredible films.

That's a good point and you're totally right. I always try and know as little as possible about films which I know i want to watch, but that's hard and so many movies are ruined by expectations.

sounds similar to the experience I had watching it with my mom and sisters

fuck off Adum, go watch a Bergmann and get some taste

if you only like one and not both you're just pretending to like the one

Bergman is just Haneke-lite

True desu. The fact QT was so creative and thoughtful with Basterds make his recent stuff like Hateful 8 look all the more bland and pedestrian

it's really a very silly comparison

i think even though it seems to say this message it is moreso trying to make you just consider how horrible a thing like this be in reality, the fact that it's just entertainment makes everything consumable, but if it weren't explicitly suggested that it was a movie (4th wall breaking) it should be unacceptable. i don't think Haneke's message is don't enjoy this shit (look at his filmography), i think it goes more for just realize how fucking horrible this is.

>reee why is no one posting about black cocks trannies trump or niggers REEEE
go back

Actually a good thread where I learned something. Thanks Yea Forums.

So what? It succeeds fine. Literally all the audience have to do is rewind or pause or turn off the film to end the family's suffering. But they don't. They are literally the killers/torturers.

no it exactly accomplished what is set out to do
and imo the remake is better
i speak german and the austrian accents are just too distracting for me the main dude sounds like falco
Is the white ribbon worth watching and the newest one happy end?

For the film to succeed then as soon as you watch it you would have to never want to watch or enjoy any violent film ever again. How many people who saw it did that?

you're dumb

>For the film to succeed then as soon as you watch it you would have to never want to watch or enjoy any violent film ever again
Not at all you dummy, the point of the film is not to never display violence, but to not display in a weightless "entertainment" fluff kind of way.
Practically all Haneke films have some kind of violence in them, but those moments are meant to be extremely brutal and uncomfortable for the viewer, not for the viewer to clap and cheer.

holy fucking cringe and soi

You can’t be serious

i am serious, and don't call me shirley
lol

It's shit since half of movie like in every Haneke's movies. Wow I'm psychologist look how stupid this people are hahaha I'm smart. Fuck Haneke and his movies.

It's a movie that tried to prove that torture porn movies are bad by making a bad torture porn movie. It is both a stunning success and a dismal failure at the same time, assuming you define success as "make a terrible movie".

I'm a horror fan, but never watched because something about it felt weird. I'm not a fan of people breaking in and torturing people. Too real. Especially because something like that happened to my grandparents. They were tied up and beaten and tortured by robbers. They were going to kill my grandparents, but eventually left because they started to fight with each other and then later one got caught for killing the other.

If you watch it watch the shot for shot remake Haneke did in 2007, much better in every way.

Based on The White Ribbon alone, I'd say he is a good storyteller. His direction was okay-ish but his strength definitely lies in telling morality fables. Admittedly, that sort of makes him look like some sort of Bergman-lite. But, as far as story-telling goes, The White Ribbon isn't inferior to Bergman's stories.

I have to watch it again as the first time I seen it I was around 12 but what you said there makes a lot of sense. We can watch someone else in a movie be tortured and murdered but when its turned on us or when we become part of it somehow, we want it to end. It's like we deep down dont care until its happening to us. Its only exciting or entertaining when we we are far removed from it.

>that damage control
Not even the user you replied to. You just sound like an idiot

Wrong, pleb.
>soul vs soulless

Attached: 1414719577166.jpg (1996x1080, 382K)

Wait what? He made the same movie twice with the same people?

yes. he said the reason was because the original film is really designed to speak towards american/hollywood audiences and most of those audiences have no interest in a subtitled movie

Yeah, he originally wanted to set it in America, but couldn't get the funding so settled for Austria. Then a decade later he gets the backing and does it again, nearly identical. But it's not a better film: for one, it's not a carbon copy like some say, because the actors' take a different approach in each. For example, the father character is much more pathetic and reserved emotionally in the remake. Secondly, the remake is heavily graded digitally and just doesn't look as cozy as the original, with it's natural, earthy palette and film grain.
I think really the only reason Haneke remade it was in hopes of reaching an American audience.

tbqh I find the original actor much creepier, even tho michael pitt looks more like a movie psychopath. the original guy is more like a casual normal person and seems more jovial, it's a bit weirder for him to be the torturer.

reddit cringe

Yea Forums based

The building collapse was amazing

I found it really pretentious. Haneke presents it not from a satirical point of view like "Look what we are doing, and YOU participate", but he decidedly exempts himself from that by assuming the moral highground and standing there with the index finger raised scolding me for everything that his bourgeois snob mindset finds bad in taste.
I mean, the intro alone - instead of using actual grindcore they use John Zorn's freejazz chaos stuff, because of course, everything else wouldn't be artistic enough.
Also, I get furious when I hear Arno Frisch pronouncing "Golfball". And the mother was so ugly I really hoped she would be killed first so I just didn't have to see her anymore.

>And the mother was so ugly I really hoped she would be killed first so I just didn't have to see her anymore.
based psychopath poster

Sorry, it's a rare occurrence, but it completely throws me off. Like the stepmother in Hellraiser, can't watch the movie anymore because of her hideous mug.
Maybe I should watch the US remake, Naomi Watts is a qt.

You know you can stop watching a film? You can literally pause or stop it altogether just like the character do in the film itself.
Yes it's like he's scolding you because you are still watching it, he's repeatedly asking you why the fuck are you still watching it and straight up directly telling you that there will be no payoff

>implying anyone will ever do this
Also, it's just a cheap cop out. Like with Seul contre tous, when in the end they show this message TURN OFF NOW BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOTALLY FUCKED UP MAN WE SWEAR!
That's cheap, nothing else. Clickbait in film form, if you like.

thats a shallower statement than just putting cartoon violence in your movies

brainlet detected

stfu faggot, take your buzzwords back to r/flicks

if anything you're the redditor trying too hard here bud, just let people have a conversation

dubs of truth

I AM NOT GAY but the stalker from the German version in OPs post is super hot. If I had to do one guy, he'd be it

based fag poster

no

this is the kind of quality posts i come to Yea Forums for

whatever you say

>and the majority of people look at it as a normal horror film
>normal horror film
>where one of the characters breaks the fourth wall and rewinds the movie

Probably was one of the most genuinely disturbing movie I've watched (apart from snuff trash), until 29 Palms.

Ok sure but you can't deny that the sudden change from Händel to Naked City in the main titles wasn't fucking awesome.

normal horror film as in something to watch for entertainment and violence, not a philosophical message

The English version is so much better.

they're the exact same movie wtf

>until 29 Palms.
what is this

reddit shit

please leave

I remember seeing this on dvr when I was in highschool on the on demand movies we got. I didn't know what I was thinking when I read the title and the description because I remember going in thinking it was gonna be normal and then it all started to fall apart at the seems.