Michael Haneke

So in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine was an article on Austrian film director Michael Haneke, who is often lumped in amongst extreme horror directors like takashii miike and park chan-wook for their extreme uses of violence in their films. but in reading the article, a few things intrigued me, mostly the fact for a director known for his shocking tactics, there really is not much on screen violence in his films. most of the violence take place off camera. which made me sort of puzzled as to how shocking it could be. furthermore, i have a weak stomach, and really cannot stand gore, although sometimes in ridiculous hellraiser type horror movies i often crack up at the gore because its so unreal. but if it serves the story well i can usually take it. case in point is apocalypse now and its infamous cow slaughtering denoument which is horrifying and stomach churning to watch and even to this day every time i see it it makes me weak in the knees, mostly because i know it is real. but anyways the article also delves into haneke's philosophical goals of his films which are primarily a critique on western (which by default usually means american) films and media depiction of violence. but the conundrum is can you use more realisitic violent images to critique the effects of unrealistic violent images? or does it just serve to further desenstize audiences?

having these questions in mind, i decided to go rent a haneke film to see what theyre all about. So i went down to my local library, the poor man's netflix, and took out "benny's video". It was quite disturbing but in a completely different way then i expected. First of all tonally it was just quite banal and calm and i think thats what made it all the more unnerving because it created this overall sense of dread over all the proceedings. it was also a much more sophisticated and sensitive and philosophical social critique of the effects of violent images and the fundamental nature of the viewer-media interface than i was expecting. i had been led to believe that his films were much more sensationalistic and titillating but the banality of the evil in the movie makes the violence truly and existentially horrific whereas traditional horror movies offer us the thrills of watching violence without the danger of actually getting hurt. this movie hurts you because when the girl is killed so coldly by benny, its such a surprise and youre as gobsmacked as if you were in the room, and paralyzed by a sense of not knowing what to do in the same situation in life. Secondly, in watching the interview with haneke, he dissects his use of off camera violence, in that in film, the mere act of showing an image creates distance between the reality in the film and the reality of the viewer. but if you dont show it or show it slightly out of the frame while still maintaining the audio, it is much more powerful, because the sound enters your mind and feeds the imaginination which erases all distance between the viewer and the film. this i think is also why movie music works so well to enhance and manipulate emotions in film, as they tickle the reptilian parts of the brain over which there is no conscious control.

anyways it has given me alot to think about and now i have also rented caché with juliet binoche about a family who keeps receiving anonymous disturbing surveilance videos of the family and drawings on its doorsteps every morning. once again it seems like another meditation on the act of recording and its place in modern society as a replacement for actual experiences.