Michael Haneke Interview (excerpt 1)

[Mrmercuzio1]

Unbihexium I completely agree with you. In my opinion Clockwork Orange was a much more significant movie, also for the time when it was made. Funny games (I have only seen the american version) is definitely a good movie, but here violence seems a little bit for free: it lacks a true deepining of the characters, mainly of the two young criminals.

[xoGorilla]

@Mrmercuzio1 that's the whole point. The two criminals are not meant to be relatable or multidimensional. They are products of the times, tom and jerry beavus and butthead. And, I don't really know why Haneke made an American version.. the film lost its essence. Especially when it comes to the acting, the original was amazing. The remake... doesn't compare. See the original :) lol you'll like it guaranteed!

[Unbihexium]

Have you seen clockwork orange (1971)? I have a Déjà vu.

[klearlykahmerican]

I think people are confusing the message of the movie. To me, I simply see the characters as interesting and horrific. If they are supposed to make us watchers ashamed of watching these movies, it didn't do it for me. I did not feel ashamed, I was entertained. So in that way, maybe the director failed. I thought the characters were extremely interesting.

[korrekterelfer]

@klearlykahmerican

A lot of people dont seem to get it like that. I only got it when i thought more deeply about what i felt. Disturbing is not what you see. Disturbing to me was what you dont see. The difference here is that it creates a feeling of disappointment. Others let you believe you just guessed wrong, this one reveals that it was a wish rather than a guess. Ever wished something like see a women being raped? It IS embarrasing. Some might even quickly forget they did. More pacifying.

[korrekterelfer]

@korrekterelfer

*Spoiler alert*

Ill explain the rape scene in more detail. I was wondering if a rape will happen. It didnt. I didnt even get to see her breasts. I felt disappointed by the missed opportunity somehow. Later you see her breasts. It did not feel nearly as satisfying as expected. The question: Why? Are sexual feelings ethical in this scenario of torture? I did not feel it that strong without this scenario. Why? The questions are unsettling enough to rather not realize that at all.

[brambau]

the director thinks he's superior

[Bjornsten]

@brambau Well, he is!

[brambau]

@Bjornsten

yes to sheep-like fans

[simpsonment1]

@brambau You didn't get the film at all.

[Algernon483]

I'm gonna make my high school's most imortant project about funny games :D really.

[guitarnashelter]

poor herr shober,they fucked his knee up with a golf club,what a grim film,but gripping

[delaneymccraney]

One of the best films of our age and day. Primarily because it is so utterly repulsive - and I sat through it because I paid to get in, was going to get my money's worth, and waited for some type of hopeful redemption. This is what made it so profound. Impeccable - because it made me as bad, as calloused, as evil as those I watched for two hours. Bravo.

[SeeThinkFall]

I never fully appreciated Funny Games, until my friends took me to see Saw on Halloween. Sitting through two hours of torture porn, I came out of the theatre fucking depressed that all my friends loved it so much. I tried to get them to watch FG, and I'm still trying.

[TheMadShangi]

@SeeThinkFall Funny Games is indeed the better film. Those Saw movies are crap.

[korrineeex3]

omg this movie was insane..!

[Fionaredrum]

Benny's videos??... wots he's talking about?? plz some1!!!

[Benesyed]

Its a movie he made

[Zarathustra06]

'Benny's Video' is one of Haneke's first feature films; it was made in 1992. It's regarded as part of a trilogy with 'Funny Games' and 'Hidden/Cache'. In my opinion it's less overwrought than 'FG' and more compelling than 'Hidden'. Definitely check it out! But it's also very shocking, in the vein of all his films.

[Jadabh3]

Ah. I just watched recently the two you mentioned. With his recommendation I'll seek it out

[Zarathustra06]

Yes, do! Also, a slight correction: I've since learnt that Bennys Video is not actually part of an official trilogy with Hidden and Funny Games, but rather with The Seventh Continent and 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance. I haven't yet seen the latter two; haven't found them readily available. But I'm sure they too are worth your while.

[ectoteric]

I think a sequel is in order here, to show some justice, years later, after the teens grow up, and have killed the whole neighborhood, they finally get caught, or killed themselves! YEAAA!!!

[ReservoirDentPie]

do you understand the concpet of the movie?

[PrettyLush956]

lol that's the point of the movie there...........we as the audience expect some justice but there is not.

[themadshangichannel]

That would be funny if they did a sequel like that. Like in the beginning of "The Player" the Robert Altman film where an executive is being pitched "The Graduate II"

[tdhtv]

@PrettyLush956 Justice is a very subjective idea.

[xAnesthesiAx]

lol, you just proved the point of the whole film

[junkazamafan555]

i hope that happened

[sandoz31381]

i didn't realize saruman made such marvelous films in his younger years.

[WalkerEntertainment]

me neither. i heard he records them with his staff!

[n2j3]

lol!

[awfuljugul]

what an egg michael..........

[rafael25X]

excelente!

[visioncreation1]

Brilliant.

[blackmarchudak]

through watching the movie, one of its intentions is for the viewer to ask himself what would he do in a similar situation...i would immediately recognize them as sociopaths and realize the uselessness in begging, as for them, its only entertainment...then again, if they are not getting enough entertainment from your emotional agony, then they might just go on and torture you physically...you're pretty much fucked either way...

[ectoteric]

In the first place, no person in their right mind would EVER open their door to a stranger, and let them into their house. I certainly wouldn't! Especially if I was home alone. This woman appeared too trusting, and that's unreal.

[me5g435rg]

they were in the ritzy rich neighbor hood with gates etc...and he said he was sent over by there friends next door and used there names i could see where she would let them in and she wasent home alone

[ALIENFETUS]

I don't think you understand, she'd just seen them in their neighbours yard, then she saw them talking to her husband outside, and when he came to the door he was polite and he referred to her neighbors by their first names, which both of them made a point of doing... for example: "Eve, I mean Mrs Thompson" (can't recall the surnames.)

and besides, people like her judge people by the way they dress and handle themselves.

[junkazamafan555]

is that movie based on a true story?

[e97zsa]

Yes. Your family.

[junkazamafan555]

if it is r they still alive and where r they

[blackmarchudak]

still theres the thought that maybe the only way to approach it is not to pretend, yet to actually become as much of a sociopath as themyou still might not be able to foresee their next moves, yet at least in your mind you now have taken a more offensive approach, now you work to manipulate the situation to satisfy yourself, rather than satisfy them, and your willing to do all the nasty shit you feel is necessary...

[blackmarchudak]

yet naturally this is frightening, to jump off the deep end, to become what you hate, to now not care about anyone's life, maybe not even your own, and are you going to be able to swim back to shore if you do happen to survive?

[benjaminkmy]

What is the final point Haneke wants to stress? What does his movie do?

He is one of those intellectuals who claim to have understood how life or society works. It works badly, it is torture, people be stupid, etc, etc. He blaims. But has no point. His movie doesnt improve anything, it doesnt include an idea of how living life better, it is too shallow. Haneke had the idea of showing how bad society is, but he didnt think it to the end. A true message is missing. He is really not that clever.

[MattIAm1987]

Wouldn't you say it suggests that we do not get so smitten by the alluring, comic, conventional way that violence is protrayed in the media? That Haneke is steeling us against becoming desensitized to an overabundance of streamlined, violence-as-titalizing-commodi­ty? Wouldn't you say that is a true enough message?

[benjaminkmy]

This movie is a contradiction in itself. I guess noone can deny that.

It does not sentisise. It is not consistent, because he scratches on the superficial surface of that topic just like all the other discussions. There is no new insight.

He potrays the facts. He forgot the message. That is why this is not art. It appears to be intelligent and questioning but with or without that movie nothing would be different. That is Haneke's mistake, he has nothing to say.

[Lemjok]

You may be right.

Though I do think that Funny Games was a deeply moving and disturbing film, as well as a talented direction, I'd be lying if I said that the film has radically changed my perception of violence in other films. I'd like to think it has, but there was something missing - maybe a message.

Or then, maybe one film is simply powerless, seeing as it hasn't changed the general rules of filmmaking. It can't destroy Hollywood, can it.

[zoltankissjnr]

" Or then, maybe one film is simply powerless, seeing as it hasn't changed the general rules of filmmaking. It can't destroy Hollywood, can it. "

Right.

Haneke needs to make more films like this!

[robingraham]

The violence in Funny Games is completely different than that of say, Kill Bill, in that it isn't entertaining at all. In fact it's incredibly uncomfortable and brutal. It's intention is to reclaim sympathy to violence in film, to shake viewers out of apathy.

[bzeliotis]

Sick Michael Haneke has contributed to 'art'which anaesthesises people to violence implying its usual and maybe OK too.For 90min the audience is oppressed by being forced to watch 2 sick youths who descend on a family of 3 and torture them for 'fun' psychologically , physically and finally kill them all. The violence is not shown explicitly but you imagine it which is a lot worse!Film cuts as they're about to do the same to yet another family. We hope for justice but none comes. Protest!

[kokitos66]

Most of us have grown up watching all this shit movies and i think our brain and conscience is dammaged seriously by all this negative influence of meaningless violence on us.

We have the example of Tarantino's fucked up brain by Karate, sex, spaghetti western b-movies, who tries now to promote all this b-shit to cult movies. Fortunately his last two-film (death proof-planet terror) project did not had the expected success.

[kokitos66]

Violence is a human instinct, a biological meccanism of survival.We have it embedded in our DNA.Violence is something we must to elaborate and manage with rationality.Haneke probably loves violence or simply knows violence so well that he use it as an instrument in his film to make reflect the audience about it.

[RoosterCogburn]

kokitos66 wrote: "Haneke probably loves violence or simply knows violence so well that he use it as an instrument in his film to make reflect the audience about it."

But that's NOT what he claims. Haneke is critical of, at least, "Hollywood"-style violence in film, and he intended Funny Games to be a critique of those who enjoy such movies.

That's why I say he's a hypocrite -- because he pretends to be opposed to "Hollywood" violence, and then makes a movie that's full of such violence.

[RoosterCogburn]

The film is torture-porn. It tries to be ironic about it, but that's what it is.

Imagine a fundamentalist preacher who makes an "anti-gay" movie with sex scenes that are supposed to show how BAD homosexuality is, but are actually a BIG TURN-ON to gays, and a secret turn-on to fundamentalists who go to the movie.

Haneke is like that, except he's a pompous avant-gardist rather than an uptight fundy, and he's anti movie-violence rather than anti-gay. But secretly he LOVES the violence.

[kokitos66]

A fundamentalist preacher who makes an "anti-gay" movie with sex scenes???LMAO!!!!

Faster Pussycat kill kill kill!!!

There is a new drug in town guys...

In that terms, Francis Ford Coppola should never make a film like Apocalypse Now, Scorsese Natural Born Killers, Tarantino Pulp Fiction, Coen Brothers Fargo ecc ecc ecc ecc

Fortunately for all of us who love cinema he and so many other directors included Haneke do not agree with you.

[kokitos66]

errata corrige: oliver stone's natural born killers

[RoosterCogburn]

kokitos66 wrote: "In that terms, Francis Ford Coppola should never make a film like Apocalypse Now, Scorsese Natural Born Killers, Tarantino Pulp Fiction, Coen Brothers Fargo ecc ecc ecc ecc"

The difference is, Coppola, Scorcese, etc., have NEVER claimed to be anti-violence. But Haneke has, and that makes him a hypocrite.

And my point stands: for someone who's supposedly anti-violence to make a super-violent movie is just as bizarre and hypocritical as a fundamentalist making a sex film.

[kokitos66]

Maby Coppola never claimed to be against war but his masterpiece IS against war. Maybe he never claimed it because it is too obvious. What do you think?

[RoosterCogburn]

Of course Coppola was against the war. But I don't see what that has to do with Haneke. The situations are not analogous.

You don't have to MAKE WAR to make an anti-war movie.

But if you make a supposedly anti-Hollywood-violence movie that is actually FILLED with Hollywood-style violence, then you're either a fool or a hypocrite.

Now, I'm not saying Haneke is a fool; on the contrary, I think he's quite intelligent. But then, there are many intelligent people who are hypocrites.

[kokitos66]

Well, he wanted to make a provocatory film. Otherwise he would make a european style film witout violence but in that case the message would not arrive to anyone. The difference between hollywood stereotypated films and this film is that this film created all this discussion between us. Other films like the brave one or dirty harry 1,2,3 or death wish 1,2,3,4,5 and tons of other similar shit movies did created any constructive discussion between the viewers???

[RoosterCogburn]

That's a legitimate point. Haneke is nothing if not a provocateur.

[kokitos66]

Yes he is. And he is also sarcastic and provocateur in Cache' and in Benny's Video.

All this creates constructive debates and reflection. You know, when a friend goes to see a movie i always ask him: "did you talk about this film when you went out of the cinema?"

If the answer is no that means, at least for me, that he have spent time and money for nothing.

[tmdv]

Ever heard of the term 'meta-reflexivity'? If not, look it up and watch Haneke's film again!

[RoosterCogburn]

Ever heard of the term 'hypocrite'? If not, look it up and watch Haneke's film again!

[faraz1729]

Do you honestly think Haneke isn't aware that he's using violence in his movies to commentate on the state of violence in movies? Did you actually listen to his interviews? His works are an observation on the place violence has in our art culture. If he wanted to make violent movies he'd make violent movies without the commentary.

[faraz1729]

RoosterCogburn, you're being too shallow about possibilities in art. He could make films where a person stands at the podium and talks about the culture of violence in cinema. Or he could do it artistically this way. Also, Haneke's position on it is not as simple as "Let's all stop making violent films." He's more of a commentator than a protester.

[RoosterCogburn]

"RoosterCogburn, you're being too shallow about possibilities in art."

- In my view, you're being too indulgent of Haneke's hypocrisy.

[faraz1729]

I'm beginning to think you're the one who doesn't know what the word hypocrisy means. Hypocrisy would be if Haneke condemned violence and then made films like Kill Bill. But he's not doing that, is he? He's condemning violence and is then making films like Funny Games, which to anyone with half a brain clearly has undertones of social commentary and satire.

[RoosterCogburn]

The "undertones of social commentary and satire" you reference merely provide politically correct cover for the film's violence. In response to my critical comments, people seem to assume I'm not sophisticated enough to understand the film. Far from it. I understand what Haneke is doing. And I might add that J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who is one of the most sophisticated critics of avant-garde and experimental film, agrees with me. That doesn't mean I'm right. I'm just sayin', is all.

[Lemjok]

Thing is though, that you can't demonstrate your pacifist views by making films without violence. Those ten-a-penny films with Jennifer Aniston and Cameron Diaz and those sort of people contain little to no violence, but could never be seen as anti-violence. You have to show the audience what you're protesting against, otherwise you're making a mute point. The alternative is a "Look at the birds! The sunshine! The playing children!"-sorta film, that no one takes seriously.

[jesuswassooooemo]

the seventh cont was his best film anyway

[RoosterCogburn]

Haneke is a pretentious, hypocritical asshole. He's selling Hollywood-polished violence, and pretending - "Oh no! Moi?? I'm ANTI-violence!!"

Bullshit! He entices the audience with a promise of violence, accepts their money to see violence, then delivers violence -- and he's going to claim he's above it all? That he's an artist CRITICIZING violence in film?

FUCK NO - he made a violent film to MAKE MONEY, and then he sneers at the audience that paid to see his product.

He's a hypocrite.

[stargazzerr]

Rooster, did you actually see the film? Almost all the violence is off-screen... not really 'Hollywood-polished violence' if you ask me.

[RoosterCogburn]

Yes, I saw it. It's very "Hollywood" in its visual polish - both camera & editing - and that includes the violence, such as when "Fatty" is shotgunned. The film feeds the bloodlust of a certain kind of viewer, as is clear from comments on other threads with clips from the film. These viewers GET OFF on the violence - just as they would with ANY violent movie - and don't give a SHIT about Haneke's supposed anti-movie-violence message.

I repeat, Haneke is a hypocrite, and a pompous ass to boot.

[Jadabh3]

*Spoiler* "Fatty" getting shot-gunned will not do though will it? That's why the film "rewinds". Anyway. Even if people who go to watch the film as you say "GET OFF" on the violence I think they'd be disappointed because most of it IS edited out. And with the challenge to the audience from one of the torturers I think Haneke IS challenging the audiences voyeuristic attitude to violence

[kingizo]

the interview helps but they should play this at the beginning of the film so you at least know not to walk out- i saw it last night a few people walked out and i DEFINATELY considered it but i was giving someone a ride and didnt want to leave them

[sonofthestork]

funny games is a great film. i saw the new one yesterday and it was great. it has an ...aquired taste to say the least but it was amazing.

[magicninja091]

i hated it, but watching this it makes sense i wouldnt call it a great movie, but i like wut the director does, nut it was not clear enough

[n2j3]

Should note here that the interview was done a while before the 2007 remake

[Capitel]

Very interesting interview, very useful to understand a film that conceals some of its properties

[mert0571]

michael pitt... the mind boggles... such a different vibe! the only reason to believe in such a decision is mr pitt's ability to play a twisted young man.

[dsarkissian]

some one should kick this idiot in his balls

[pifox]

thanks for posting the entire interview, that redeems youtube from all the wannabe stars that post their lives when some of us want to see something clever and thoughtful

[buttholeangel]

actually this is not the entire interview because I remember on the DVD Michael Haneke does say that Funny Games was the first and only movie he had made where he went out of his way to use extreme violence deliberately for the sake of shock value (as a means of making a point about the media). great director and great interview.

[buttholeangel]

my bad. I didn't realize this was a part 1 of 2.

[straightflushnuts]

Haneke is pretty brilliant.

[Cinilga]

I liked the movie, I hope American variant won't be horrible

[kissunmasked1980]

The trailer looks good, IMO !

(Not just because of Naomi, I like her ! But looks good !)

[Baalsaack]

I think it's pointless though. Why make a remake of a flawless movie?

[MizukiTHPS]

It is a flawless remake of the movie, shot for shot, exact.

[MizukiTHPS]

It is a flawless remake of the movie, shot for shot, exact.

[TheodoretedBundy]

funny games is my favorite . thank you for this

[FLOdeTETUBAN]

J'ai peur de ces gants blancs, ne rien respecter, et mettant des gants, c'est fortiche, bien vu, effrayant, glacial,

[PushycatLand]

He is.

[murilolimma]

Haneke is one of the most greatest genious in filmmaking.