A strong dislike of a majority of world cinema gives me an unfortunate bias against this film, but I feel it is as valid an opinion as any. Whilst yes, it is nice to hear a movie use the technique of silence for a change, this movie leans on it like a documentary - except documentaries actually usually use more music than this, and cover something you can care about. Within the part we watched, there were no identifiable or likeable characters, no one I cared about and in a way that was because the film contained barely any dialogue (especially relative to the length of the film).
Whilst it is entirely possible that seeing the entire film would change my perspective (and I would be very happy if it did) on this basis it seems unlikely. A very important part of film-making is knowing where to cut a scene, and this director either doesn't know or doesn't really care. This impatience with static, mostly silent shots that don't show you what's going on could be attributed to a short attention span, but I sat through the whole of Eastern Promises the other day with no problems and that film makes a glacier look nippy when it comes to plot progression. But it does it whilst actually showing me what's happening. If I want to see car's headlights behind me, i'll get my housemate to drive in while I stand facing the gate. But I don't. I turn around.
I have a rule. If I look at a film and think "I could have made that myself" then I will never describe it as creative.
Could you have made this, in this way? What Haneke seems to have succeeded in is making you feel as uncomfortable as his characters. Later on in the film there is a shocking moment of violence. This causes a strong reaction in most viewers and contributes the film's power.
ReplyDelete