Sunday, November 1, 2015

Hi, everybody! It’s always hard for me to find something to post here because even though my life is very intense, I’m not sure if you would find it interesting. And I don’t want to talk about politics because I’ve already spent so much time trying to convince some of my acquaintances that we don’t have to live in the Middle Ages and saying: ‘no, the refugees won’t bring us dangerous illnesses’ that I got bored with talking about it.

That’s why I recalled a conversation I had a few days ago, when I was trying to make new friends with someone from one of our English groups. I was asked about my favourite director and, without taking any time to think about it, I said: Michael Haneke.

The first film written and directed by Haneke that I saw was Funny Games, a psychological thriller from 1997. It's a story about two men who hold a family hostage and torture them with sadistic games. Georg, his wife Anna and their son Georgie are subject to a large session of pointless cruelty that seem to have no reason an and no aim.

The spectator experiences an endless feeling of inconvenience. There is no pleasure in being part of this irrational performance, but there is no possibility to leave it. Once you start watching, you turn into a passive observer frustrated by your helplessness and confusion.

There's no point in this terrifying violence and brutality. There's no reason for this uncontrollable aggression. So what watch it for? That's one of the questions that Haneke leaves without being answered. He's well-known for his passion for 'breaking the fourth wall' and for playing strange games with the spectators. The frame, the light, the music and the silence: everything has its own meaning and function. And the only rule of this game (these Funny games) is that you can't stop watching it because there's no place to hide. If you're watching it, you're in. Because there's no place to hide from the violence that surround us. If you live, you're in.



'My film are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus' (Michael Haneke)

No comments:

Post a Comment