He is like the Samuel Beckett of film-making, in that he force the viewer to come to terms with the fact that they are a viewer and and are incriminated. Beckett forces the reader to recognise the failure of literature, by conronting us with the absolute reality of thought rather than a normal narrative.
It is an interesting point that things that are not shown in a film can create a stronger impression than what is shown. If done properly, not showing something activates the imagination of the spectators so that they become actively involved, rather than just passively consuming. CGI misses this: It does all of the imagining, making spectators passive and uninvolved. Good artwork often invites the viewer to actively interpret it and to be involved with it.
Thoughtful. I feel bad for CGI as an overall art medium though. I actually feel sad how far it falls commercially and how it may fundamentally be redundant. People regularly call 3D effects soulless and disgusting; a medium that makes itself look terrible in terms of expenses, and the overall look. I feel interested in CGI as making something that can't possibly happen naturally. It's a tool for the imagination.
Yes i completely agree. I think a film maker should not underestimate the audiences' perception or ability to imagine a scene. One great example I think is No Country for Old Men.
@@lampad4549 Υοu have a valid point, it all depends on the context of how the director chooses to use this technique. In the movie i mentioned, the director has already eshtablished how evil the killer is and what he is capable of, so when the movie suddenly breaks the normal patern of a death scene by not showing the actual killing, the emotional impact is still the same if not bigger because YOU imagine the worst possible senario.
haneke is the best filmmaker alive. his movies are just so full of meaning and deep sense of truth, nothing in his movies is arbitrary or superficial. i am a huge fan, i recommend 7th continent and benny`s video.
@@user-pj3qt8iy9d I find the complete opposite. The US version to me has better acting, better camerawork, and the themes of the film work better with a US backdrop given the critique on US horror movies and audience expectation in the film. The performances from the kid and the villains are just flat out better in the remake.
It’s an important film. Fantastic acting and camera work. It dissects how violence is consumed by horror/slasher film enthusiasts in a very interesting way. I disagree with its hypothesis that violence in fiction desensitizes people and that people who view violent films are all NASCAR loving buffoons. It’s a little pretentious. I think people view mindless slasher films for entertainment purposes and to be scared. Also, fictional violence only desensitizes people to images of fictional violence. Not to real life violence. No study has shown a connection with violent film and crime rates rising when those have been at the forefront. If anything crime hit its apex in the 90’s. At least here in the US.
@@inthemoment8410 It's true that fictional violence does not accurately represent real violence, I think Haneke's point is that it gives audiences the wrong impression of it. Media allows us a way to experience violence, in some sense, without having to deal with the very real consequences of it. That's why Funny Games is a movie that focuses so much more on the consequences of the violence inflicted towards this family rather than the violence itself.
@@Brianwithab1 Yeah Haneke is great but he doesn't say anything here he hasn't said 1000 times before. Very nice font though from the interviewers, well played.
Haneke once said that Salo or 120 days of sodom (original title: Sálo o 120 giornate di sodom) is one of his favorite movies. I doubt if you're able to find a more disturbing or violent movie.. Maybe that movie somewhat inspired him for Funny Games.
He said it is the only film that has been able to show violence for what it truly is. Which proves a point that many miss about Haneke: he’s not against violence in cinema, he’s against how violence is shown in many films, such as slashers. They take something that is awful and painful and portray it in a easy consumable fashion. Funny Games is about the consumability of violence, not violence itself. He has said that it worries him how audience members literally desire to see death/murder, not because what’s happening on screen is real (it’s not, obviously) but because that constant desire to see more and more gruesome violence makes you numb (kind of like porn) and that numbness can manifest itself in your *real* life. This is what Haneke ultimately is trying to say, with Funny Games and some of his other films as well. Take out of it what you will.
@@wes6571 i disagree with you on this , if i a moviegoer who has been numbed by the violence on screen is pointed a gun at all of a sudden i would do as i am told by the person who's pointing the gun at me. Watching violence on screen doesn't take away from the fact that in the end it is imaginary/made-up and real life tends to be real life
Proof he is a sadomasochist of the worst kind. That film is the most appaling piece of garbage ever made and everyone watching it to the end cannot be right in the head.
@hellohi821 I completely agree with you on this apart from the CGI. When CGI is used properly, as in Take Shelter, it can be used well to describe our inner turmoil. CGI, like 3D just hasn't found its own niche yet.
Its unfortunate that I think I already spoiled myself on the... meta aspect of Funny Games? Is that okay wording? I've heard as a viewer, I'm "incriminated". If "incriminate" means condemn, am I condemning myself even further for wanting to watch this motion picture out of pure curiosity for speculation? I don't think I'm mature at all. I'm only 17, so I don't know jack. I shouldn't watch a film so I can like the thought of myself "thinking deeply" about it while being entertained by what I presume to be "dark comedy" (I presume too, to say that Funny Games looks like an anti-comedy). I feel like I should look inward towards my taste in movies, and how "manipulation" is used bad or well in the stories I like.
CGI films do not do all the imagining. I can think of plenty of films that use CGI that have scenes where an event happens without us viewers actually seeing it.
Anyone think seventh continent was boring af? It makes you uncomfortable…that’s fine…but at Least make it interesting…I like Polanski films better.. Haneke films makes for an unpleasant viewing… That’s his style and I don’t mind it….but dude you Can still make em interesting…I only like the piano teacher Of his.. and bennys video..his films might be impactful… But mostly they are all boring..
"morals of violence in cinema" Hanecke and you are assuming that there are morals in cinema in the first place. The man is basically projecting his own distaste of violence in movies (aiming at American movies) and say that they are morals about it, as if The Purge actually happens in America due to movie violence. (A) Hanecke is a hypocrite and (B) Hanecke's philosophy behind the film is just self-importance.
His entire brief is making films that are uncomfortable for the audience and of course he's going to borrow from things that he finds uncomfortable. So it's less consumable, but more meaningful.
![[CC] Interview with Michael Haneke (2017) on "Funny Games" (1997)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BauZmlexQ_g/mqdefault.jpg)
He is like the Samuel Beckett of film-making, in that he force the viewer to come to terms with the fact that they are a viewer and and are incriminated. Beckett forces the reader to recognise the failure of literature, by conronting us with the absolute reality of thought rather than a normal narrative.
He's the Haneke of filmmaking
It is an interesting point that things that are not shown in a film can create a stronger impression than what is shown. If done properly, not showing something activates the imagination of the spectators so that they become actively involved, rather than just passively consuming. CGI misses this: It does all of the imagining, making spectators passive and uninvolved. Good artwork often invites the viewer to actively interpret it and to be involved with it.
Thoughtful. I feel bad for CGI as an overall art medium though. I actually feel sad how far it falls commercially and how it may fundamentally be redundant. People regularly call 3D effects soulless and disgusting; a medium that makes itself look terrible in terms of expenses, and the overall look.
I feel interested in CGI as making something that can't possibly happen naturally. It's a tool for the imagination.
Yes i completely agree. I think a film maker should not underestimate the audiences' perception or ability to imagine a scene. One great example I think is No Country for Old Men.
@@mousikopaigmonas23 isn't that just an excuse for the director/writers lack of imagination?
@@lampad4549 Υοu have a valid point, it all depends on the context of how the director chooses to use this technique. In the movie i mentioned, the director has already eshtablished how evil the killer is and what he is capable of, so when the movie suddenly breaks the normal patern of a death scene by not showing the actual killing, the emotional impact is still the same if not bigger because YOU imagine the worst possible senario.
haneke is the best filmmaker alive. his movies are just so full of meaning and deep sense of truth, nothing in his movies is arbitrary or superficial. i am a huge fan, i recommend 7th continent and benny`s video.
"Funny Games" is a fantastic film.
Which one?
@@WaaDoku 1997. I love Tim Roth in US and in general but US is inferior in almost every way.
@@user-pj3qt8iy9d I find the complete opposite. The US version to me has better acting, better camerawork, and the themes of the film work better with a US backdrop given the critique on US horror movies and audience expectation in the film. The performances from the kid and the villains are just flat out better in the remake.
It’s an important film. Fantastic acting and camera work. It dissects how violence is consumed by horror/slasher film enthusiasts in a very interesting way. I disagree with its hypothesis that violence in fiction desensitizes people and that people who view violent films are all NASCAR loving buffoons. It’s a little pretentious. I think people view mindless slasher films for entertainment purposes and to be scared. Also, fictional violence only desensitizes people to images of fictional violence. Not to real life violence. No study has shown a connection with violent film and crime rates rising when those have been at the forefront. If anything crime hit its apex in the 90’s. At least here in the US.
@@inthemoment8410 It's true that fictional violence does not accurately represent real violence, I think Haneke's point is that it gives audiences the wrong impression of it. Media allows us a way to experience violence, in some sense, without having to deal with the very real consequences of it. That's why Funny Games is a movie that focuses so much more on the consequences of the violence inflicted towards this family rather than the violence itself.
i prefer his older movies. but he's prolly my favorite director
You see somone beating somone else it is definitely your business.
Thanks to Missed Movies tamil youtube channel for giveing information about this man.
Is the font Helvetica? Looks very pleasant.
thats what you got from the fucking interview?
@@Brianwithab1 Yeah Haneke is great but he doesn't say anything here he hasn't said 1000 times before. Very nice font though from the interviewers, well played.
Haneke once said that Salo or 120 days of sodom (original title: Sálo o 120 giornate di sodom) is one of his favorite movies. I doubt if you're able to find a more disturbing or violent movie.. Maybe that movie somewhat inspired him for Funny Games.
I think his Seventh Continent is more disturbing
He also said he only watched it once and would be unable to watch it again.
He said it is the only film that has been able to show violence for what it truly is. Which proves a point that many miss about Haneke: he’s not against violence in cinema, he’s against how violence is shown in many films, such as slashers. They take something that is awful and painful and portray it in a easy consumable fashion. Funny Games is about the consumability of violence, not violence itself. He has said that it worries him how audience members literally desire to see death/murder, not because what’s happening on screen is real (it’s not, obviously) but because that constant desire to see more and more gruesome violence makes you numb (kind of like porn) and that numbness can manifest itself in your *real* life. This is what Haneke ultimately is trying to say, with Funny Games and some of his other films as well. Take out of it what you will.
@@wes6571 i disagree with you on this , if i a moviegoer who has been numbed by the violence on screen is pointed a gun at all of a sudden i would do as i am told by the person who's pointing the gun at me. Watching violence on screen doesn't take away from the fact that in the end it is imaginary/made-up and real life tends to be real life
Proof he is a sadomasochist of the worst kind. That film is the most appaling piece of garbage ever made and everyone watching it to the end cannot be right in the head.
Really good interview!
Great interview but I wonder what that child's mother said to him when he interfered. lol
I suppose Herr Haneke ought to be the one to tell us what and what not to watch.
Brilliant man, indeed he is...
@hellohi821 I completely agree with you on this apart from the CGI. When CGI is used properly, as in Take Shelter, it can be used well to describe our inner turmoil. CGI, like 3D just hasn't found its own niche yet.
Great comment. I'll take note to watch that.
Its unfortunate that I think I already spoiled myself on the... meta aspect of Funny Games? Is that okay wording? I've heard as a viewer, I'm "incriminated". If "incriminate" means condemn, am I condemning myself even further for wanting to watch this motion picture out of pure curiosity for speculation? I don't think I'm mature at all. I'm only 17, so I don't know jack. I shouldn't watch a film so I can like the thought of myself "thinking deeply" about it while being entertained by what I presume to be "dark comedy" (I presume too, to say that Funny Games looks like an anti-comedy).
I feel like I should look inward towards my taste in movies, and how "manipulation" is used bad or well in the stories I like.
Thank you
just wacht la pianiste . just crazy
Funny Games ist ein grandioser Film!!!
CGI films do not do all the imagining. I can think of plenty of films that use CGI that have scenes where an event happens without us viewers actually seeing it.
7:00 "condamn"
Anyone think seventh continent was boring af?
It makes you uncomfortable…that’s fine…but at
Least make it interesting…I like Polanski films better..
Haneke films makes for an unpleasant viewing…
That’s his style and I don’t mind it….but dude you
Can still make em interesting…I only like the piano teacher
Of his.. and bennys video..his films might be impactful…
But mostly they are all boring..
stick to Bollywood.
haneks is too complex for you.
@@c.augustedupin8860damn
I read over 6000 books 😲
Cool
@billardprofi34, whatever, shouldn't you be busy annexing Czechoslovakia?
thank you for speaking in German Haneke hihi xDD
Oh, you can't stand violence? Why'd you make Funny Games then?!??! ;_;
Because it was a film showing the morals of violence in cinema. It's amusing that the American audience didn't get it.
I know, but still. 'Tis harsh, man!
Because "Funny Games" is made as a statement on how terrifying violence is.
"morals of violence in cinema"
Hanecke and you are assuming that there are morals in cinema in the first place.
The man is basically projecting his own distaste of violence in movies (aiming at American movies) and say that they are morals about it, as if The Purge actually happens in America due to movie violence.
(A) Hanecke is a hypocrite and (B) Hanecke's philosophy behind the film is just self-importance.
His entire brief is making films that are uncomfortable for the audience and of course he's going to borrow from things that he finds uncomfortable. So it's less consumable, but more meaningful.
Thumbs up if the Guardian brought you here.
he says "xenophia", did he meant "xenophobia"? I can´t find that word
It was definitely xenophobia, probably a mistake from the person who made the subtitles.