Michael Haneke Doesn't Agree With Spielberg's 'Schindler's List'
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 11. 2012
- German born writer, director and Palme d'Or winner Michael Haneke gives us his take on Nazi movies 'Downfall' and 'Schindler's List'.
Roundtables are back! The Hollywood Reporter’s 2016 Emmy Roundtable season has premiered. Subscribe to stay up to date with new Roundtable videos publishing everyday this awards season! Who do you want to see on this season’s Roundtables? Tell us in the comments below!
Tune-in for the full Drama Actress Roundtable on Monday, June 28th!
Stay tuned to everything you need for this season of Roundtables:
www.hollywoodreporter.com/roun...
Subscribe to our channel: / hollywoodreporter
Like us on Facebook: / hollywoodreporter
Follow us on Twitter: / thr
Follow us on Instagram: / hollywoodreporter
Watch more videos on THR.com www.hollywoodreporter.com/video - Zábava
The greatest plot twist in anything I've ever seen it when the camera panned from arthouse auteur Michael Haneke to Office star John Kraskinski. It's very strange seeing them in the same room tbh
I started laughing so hard when it cut to Krasinski
Seriously
John's reaction was so gold this wasn't better only because he didn't look at the camera.
“Arthouse” the guy just makes challenging films. Brilliant ones. But it’s not arthouse. Arthouse is a silly term in general. Subject to change every second of every day.
@@sealife12 Objectively speaking, he is an arthouse director. It simply means films that stray from the mainstream commercial path and are primarily concerned with artistic expression.
Lmao Michael Haneke and John Krasinski
Its like to make a conversation between Mozart and Justin Bieber
lmao
Or Heinrich Biber and Justin Bieber.
Lmao
or a true artist with a true vision and authentic ethic, and an actor who is comfortable making what amounts to CIA propaganda
@@just4fun6671 You're coming from Gamefully Unemployed, aren't you?
Michael Haneke stands for the objectivity through his cinema and let's his audience be audience, not letting them get in the shoes of the protagonist through the editing and direction of his films, he makes subjectivity the last thing to happen in his film. That why he's a treasure for standing apart from the crowd of filmmakers.
If people had actually seen the movie Haneke mentionned (Nuit et Brouillard or "Night and Fog" by Alain Resnais), they would not say that he is being snobish or anything like that.
Whatever Jewish people went through when they were on the verge of being gased is simply impossible to portray. "Night and Fog" is actually a docu-film that is very neutral, and it really goes deep into the viewer emotions rather then spark "ready-to-cook" feelings like suspense. Whatever Jewish people went through, it was definitly not "suspense", it is almost insulting from us to say that we can ever know what they felt. The horror is just unspeakable, like Haneke said.
Yeah Resnais really likes to stress how impossible it it to comprehend such horrors (like Hiroshima mon amour) but to some extent, you have to understand that the only thing people experience - in real situations and in situations in front of a screen - are emotions. Why can't cinema evoke similar emotions to those in reality? Spielberg made SL working closely with holocaust survivors. Who's to say the emotions the film evokes aren't similar to the ones they experienced? albeit diluted by the fact that were not actually there or in danger, i believe the emotions can be very similar
Couleurs Versatiles i
Couleurs Versatiles i think schindler's list is a very good film but haneke have interesting points and opinions, and yeah sometimes i felt the movie was a bit in my face with the nazis are evil thing (at least they're not pussies like the ones in saving private ryan) but i think it was a respectful film but from a mature spielberg film a prefer Munich
Couleurs Versatiles
The translation is flawed. He never used any word close to the meaning of "unspeakable". He was very technical and neutral in his descriptions of why it's not possible for him to make a movie about the Holocaust. He spoke of "wrong approach" (dt. "falsche Herangehensweise") and "out of question" (dt. "indiskutabel") when talking about Spielberg's film and the aspect of creating a film about the Holocaust for entertainment purposes. For both of these subtle nuances "unspeakable" was used as English translation.
But should there be such a discouragement from attempting? Is not Schindlers List an earnest attempt? I think the fact that it is "entertaining" is secondary; it's not a pleasant film to watch. It's about as "entertaining" as any somber documentary, but it shines more brightly, it forces you to look. Practically everything humans do is some form of entertainment; only our minds require stimulation, not our bodies. You are just as welcome to take what it says on face value or to scrutinize it more deeply. The fact that it brings to life a single person's (Spielberg's) subjective perspective does not diminish the atrocity. (And btw I agree that Spielberg's presentation was a bit Hollywood-ized and overly simplified)
Never thought I'd see Haneke and Apatow on the same panel.
the rest of the panel are petrified once Hanake is finished talking...squirm central.
Major squirm. It's like having Proust on with the ladies from The View.
Nothing compared to interviewing Fassbinder!
I'll bet Herzog's also a brutal interview
@@TroglodyteDiner Herzog eats interviewers for breakfast and asks for second helpings...the man is a force of nature!
Ha. A lot of German surnames here 😁
Ha ha. Krasiznki and Apatow are a little out of their league I would say.
Marsha Dingle nah Haneke is just another pompous pseudo intellectual. His theories have no empirical basis, the guy take psychoanalysis seriously. I know uncritical airheads like yourself like to put a lot of stock in contrarians like Haneke because you read about him in some shitty East Coast literary rag, but the reality is that Haneke is out of Krasiznki's and Apatow's league because they have not lost touch with reality.
Ppwalk05 why do you go onto every comment section belonging to any video somewhat related to Michael haneke and trash him? Get a life. Haneke is pretty great. His direction is meticulous and near flawless. Go onto IMDb and he barely makes any mistakes for his film the white ribbon. He has great cinematography in his films and gets brilliant performances out of his actors. Funny games was a pretentious, pompous piece of shit but all his other films are brilliant especially amour. One of the most intimate films I've seen. He makes the films he wants to make so you can only say they are not in your taste rather than he is a bad writer and director. I'm guessing you don't like Stanley Kubrick either and prefer more optimistic and sentimental directors like zebeck is and Spielberg.
owen moore nice projection bro. Stanley Kubrick is great, Haneke is trash, White Ribbon is critical theory turned into dramatic trash. Pseudo intellectual nonsense parading as something serious, the more straight forward Downfall is far more serious. All of his film are like the Funny Games, I know plebs like yourself are too thick to see through his obfuscations.
ppwalk05 You have to know how ridiculous and pretentious you sound. If you jumble a bunch of complicated words together that doesn't make you smart. You're talking utter bullshit. I don't think obfuscations make a director bad. Kubrick was the same, PTA is the same, The coen Brothers are the same, Jodorovsky is the same. Just because you're not force-fed everything doesn't make him a bad director. What is so pseudo intellectual about his work? Everything you're saying is just opinion. pseudo intellectual this pseudo intellectual that. You're just spouting stuff without giving proof like some religious nut. Give a reason as to why I should believe you. Even if you just look at a haneke film at surface level you see brilliant performances, dazzling camera work and layered characters. The arguments you are making I could make about any film. 2001 a space odyssey is pseudo intellectual nonsense parading as something serious. 12 monkeys is critical theory turned into dramatic trash. Give some evidence.
ppwalk05 at least admit his and I'll be fine. He's an outstanding director. I'm not talking about his writing. I'm talking about his direction. All the critical theory comes from the screenplay. If he directed someone else's screenplay he'd be doing a great job. To be honest I had to look up a few of the words you used. I'm not.gonna bother refuting what you've said. I think what you're saying is bullshit and none of us will change each other's mind. Don't categorise me with other handle fans who blindly like his films. He's not one of my favourite filmmakers. I didn't like funny games, cache was good but not great. I know what critical theory is. Cache was criticizing how atrocities committed by society are hidden and how they affect those victims for a long long time. I get all. My problem with your argument is you're going in circles and using fancy words to run away from an argument. I would have no problem with your argument if you added an "in my opinion" in your comment but you go on to insult haneke and people who like his films when every criticism your making is based on YOUR OWN FUCKING OPINION. you are the psuedo intellect because.you think you're so high and mighty because you read a book about film philosophy and thought you were Roger Ebert. My problem is not with your dislike of hanele but with you being a pompous prick.
The audacity of putting a genius like Haneke in a room with a bunch of poncy Hollywood featherweights and letting him rip
Oh my lord when they turned to John Krasinski!! *Jim looks into the camera worried*
Haneke asks a serious philosophical question on tackling sensitive topics and leaving the audience to formulate their opinion rather than just manipulating them despite the material's message may be the same as the audience's opinions though I do disagree with certain parts he said as films are manipulation and Haneke's film sometimes end up being used as manipulating the audience. Then cut to Jim from The Office who smirks it off. Pathetic.
I really think people are misinterpreting what Haneke is discussing here. He is not saying that writers and directors should not inject any of their opinions into their films, but that they should try as best they can to present the characters and material as objectively as possible as to not manipulate the viewer’s emotions to believe a certain thing or feel a certain emotion, especially when it comes to complicated or even evil characters or people such as Hitler. He also believes that any film which presents a character or an event such as Hitler or the Holocaust should not be treated as entertainment, because at that point you are creating entertainment out of a vile scenario. This is why he felt it was irresponsible of Spielberg to present the shower scene in Schindler’s List in a “suspenseful” manner, as he put it. Basically, present things realistically, not to get a reaction.
I think most of all he says, you should be aware as a storyteller of what you want to manipulate and think about how much will you respect your audience.
Don't get me started on Spielberg's use of music to over manipulate empathy and beat a dead horse to the point of making serious matter trite. I can't watch his films anymore.
"Funny Games" is meant to show the audience how easily manipulated they get by films, as well as how they glorify violence as a result of that. That's the whole point of the film, it's an anti-manipulation film. It's incredible to me how many people misunderstood that film, I think the point is clearly stated throughout the whole movie in more than obvious ways (the way one of the perpetrators speaks to the camera - that is, to us, the audience, and everything he says).
Yes you're right. And that's why I don't like the message of that movie.
Funny Games genuinely thinks that the audience can't distinguish fictional violence from violence in real life and that fictional violence deadens the viewer relating to real violence.
I think this message is wrong and reminds me of that stupid belief that violent videogames are to blame for homicidal mania.
@@auriculus3058 that's not the message at all. It's the idea of the glorification of violence. Violence gets certified in a certain way due to it's irresponsible portrayl in media. This doesn't "cause" more violence but rather transforms the way we consume violence. In today's age day and age when there is a mass mass media consumption going on it is only natural to aspire to bring a little responsibility to the audience and the filmmakers. But yes, I think the intended audience for whom the film was made will never be able to take the message of the film and the people who understand the reality already will not gain anything from the film either, so the film itself doesn't truly work in that sense.
Funny Games is a highly formalist experiment, a test set-up, If you will. And that's why I think it may come off as shallow and, yes, aggressive towards the viewer. It's just deeply uncomfortable. I think the term anti-manipulation or even meta-manipulation (a film about the manipulative mechanism of film) fits quite well given the aims of the director. So I totally understand this film not working with the masses.
@@auriculus3058 I don't think Funny Games says that you can't distinguish the two, more so that if you enjoy violent media then there is a primal part of you, deep down that enjoys the concept of tragedy and pain being subjected to others. Funny Games is meant to litetally ask you: "Why do you watch things like this and what are you trying to get out of the experience?" I don't think it says that real world violence and simulated violence are the same, but just begs the question as to why you enjoy watching something on screen that would horrify you if you saw it happen in real life.
And this is why Tarantino has been a hack since day one and Michael probably detestes his work.
I would love if they did a 2 hour conversation just about this very subject. It's is not only important but very interesting. I would also love to see a discussion between Haneke and Scorsese, or him and Friedkin.
Me too. That would be educational. Two Masters with compelling arguments.
He talks as a writer, which I think is fantastic
Yes I Agree 100% #Hanekeisfantastic :)
Haneke is such a genius. he just operates on another level than most. highly intelligent.
i can understand why he feels the way he does
Haneke talks more like a philosopher
because he is a philosopher?
He studied that and psicology, if i am not mistaken.
And he is not 100% dedicated to cinema like Spielberg, he made other things (he devotes himself to writing, the theater and other ways of living)...
Wow. Krasinski gets a follow-up question to Haneke. He had to embarass himself.
who gives a crap what this nazi has to say
tbh, I'm pretty impressed with how well he was able to form a response to that. I probably would've frozen in his position.
I didn't hear anything to be embarassed about.
He didn't embarass himself
@@cashmirthoughts No I don't think he did either, but it does seem an unfair question to post to Krasinski because Haneke has built his whole career on those kind of questions and Krasinski has simply come to being an extremely talented director from a very different route. I think it would have been fine had Spielberg been there to ask him, but to put JK on the spot like that feels a little unfair.
When theyasked JIm he should've pull his famous smirck and close up, haha
LOLLLLL
Here after watching Oppenheimer and finding myself going on a rant to my friends on how irresponsible the approach was to arguably the defining turning point of the 20th century and the controversial historical figure that was behind it.
I don't think I totally got Haneke's point when I first watched this but apparently it struck a cord with me that I found myself reiterating some of his points years after hearing them first. We're really lucky to have thinkers like him that take the art form that seriously.
I am glad that you were able to see Haneke's vision and genius, more so after seeing Oppenheimer directed by someone who is miles, miles away from Haneke's level. Period.
yall act like Happy End wasnt dogshit@@MikelGCinema
@@elbowjuice2627 Happy end has nothing to do with what the OP said. and he doesn't said all Haneke movie was brilliant
he seems kinda lost, intellectually speaking, in front of fools like Apatow. But WOW... he is really what people called a wise man. wise wise wise !
Who's idea was it to put Haneke with those guys? He looks out of place.
Onmysheet right? i guess it was a poor attempt to bring some cinematic class to the hollywood hills ;)
The Empathy Channel Haneke is great but Apatow is a really smart man as well!
Here's a more detailed translation (mea culpa if it's not perfect):
"Well, first of all, I have to say that I argued with Bernd Eichinger about the film. I think this movie is disgusting. And dumb. For a reason: You can't humanize a figure with that much historical context behind it to start a melodram that might perhaps move some people - but what is being moved? Which emotions are moved why? If you choose such a topic you have to think about it what it means for the spectator. And the question of responsibility not only concerns the responsibility in relation to the subject being treated, but first and foremost the responsibility to the viewer: To what extent do I give the spectator the opportunity to be independent and not manipulated? Responsibility is always a matter of manipulation. The question is, how seriously do I take the viewer as a subject? How much opportunity do I give him/her to be involved in a communication with the work? Am I just postulate my opinion and try to force my opinion on the spectator, or on the contrary, am I taking the spectator seriously and providing him/her with the means of creating and forming their own opinion? That's a fundamental question, wether you're dealing with Hitler or simply an individual who you've written for the script."
"Would you make a film about Hitler?"
"No."
"Why?"
"For that reason. Perhaps I'll sit myself into hot water here, but I think a film like Spielberg's about the concentration camp is also wrong. You cannot create a moment of suspense out of whether gas or water will come out of the shower. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach. There's one movie about holocaust - “Nuit et brouillard” by Alain Resnais - which approaches the topic in this way: What's YOUR opinion? You, the spectator? What is your position? As soon as such a subject becomes entertainment, it is, in my opinion, out of discussion."
Thank you.
Thank you (2)
Wow. I heard his written essays are worth a read too.
Dammit, I should try Amour again. But the movie felt so damn long, and the editing of when the young lady (I forgot) first appears in the story felt... blocky? Flat? I don't have better words as I type this.
But, I love the subtle cinematography, and the opening long shot. Is there anything I should know before trying Haneke's most acclaimed motion picture?
@@sung4ji3 In Haneke's late work, as little editing as possible is done to give the viewer the freedom to orient himself/herself in the action. In my opinion, the concept works best in "Code inconnu", where cuts are only made when there's a change of location. But his best films are "The Piano Teacher" and "The Seventh Continent," I think. The latter is getting a bit long in the tooth. In any case, hard fare and not for the faint-hearted.
@@henningbackhaus6268 Thank you so much for taking your time writing this!
krasinski is such a fed
Everyone is calling out Krasinski but what about Judd Aptow?? the guy who literally makes the opposite end of cinema to Haneke?
Haneke is right in many ways 'though I don't completely share his opinion because every piece of art, especially film, uses manipulation in different forms. Even Haneke himself does that a lot. And I don't think this is a particularly bad thing if you want your audience to feel a certain way. It depends on your task as a director and the idea behind your picture. Anyway, I disagree that there are topics you shouldn't touch on in cinema. As someone else pointed out in the comment section, film is a very powerful medium, where every filmmaker can bring something new to the table.
a true filmmaker surrounded by hollywood fools
Lol I live for these comments. You have to wonder what dirt they had on him to get him to sit down with these clowns
another elitist schil
@@pietrpiepir6444 money just like any other filmmaker
Couldn't that argument be extended to cinematic portrayals of pretty much any unpleasant phenomenon? Any film that has murder in it is making entertainment out of the worst thing anyone could do by that definition
Yeah, I agree. I have family who survived the Holocaust and Occupation (we're not Jewish, but we're Polish. The Nazis hated us almost as much as they hated the Jews.), and I don't find films or any form of media depicting the Holocaust offensive or exploitative. I don't even think joking about it is too over the top, but I may be in the minority in that opinion. It's hard for one of the most openly discussed events in human history to be stuck in the confines of history books and autobiographies. I also think that putting limitations on art and media in that way ends up doing nothing but gagging an artist, writer, or film maker, which is antithetical to everything I value as an American.
Poor Haneke, stuck in an interview with those goofballs. No wonder he couldn't even look at them.
chirisici
He should've sat there with other great directors to discuss this subject matter. Not with B level romcom actors.
I wonder what Haneke thought of "Son of Saul". That seems like a movie entirely free of cheap audience manipulation.
I was just thinking that!
son of saul does for schindlers what the believer did for american history x
son of saul does for schindlers what the believer did for american history x what jaws did for sharks
FTFY
'Son of Saul' goes even further, in that it is first-person. There is no distance at all. The way the camera is used, shallow focus, blurring,.., is nothing but manipulation from minute one up to the end. I think it is a very bad film, very disrespectful.
Movies are always manipulation. Anyone telling a story are manipulating. Especially talking about true events. WHATEVER you're telling for a story, and the views expressed through this story, is tinted by a point of view. ALWAYS. So just stop rejecting movies like Son of Saul and take them for what they really are. A way to represent what it was like in concentration camps WITHOUT emotions or plot devices to create an artificial reality. Point is, there's ONE plot (a kid survival to gaz chambers) and the character tries to find a humane way to dispose of his body. It's done with taste and subtlety that Schindler's List is entirely lacking. There's no emotional change from beginning to end. No evolution in term of psychology. No humanization of the Nazis. It's about Saul's journey, from hope to despair, in the context of the concentration camp. PLUS, it's much more truthful because he ends up dying, just like 90% of the jews in the concentration camps. It's not a story sending a message, it's not about creating a moral of hope, it's about the truth of Auschwitz and how it was just chaos and screams and desolation and treason. Nothing that hollywood likes to tackle with honesty.@@deplaneetegmont
Lmao. Haneke among these fools. What the fuck was THR thinking?
money will get anybody to do anything.
I love Haneke. Such an intelligent and a decent person.
Michael Haneke "A Rare wonder in cinema"
The Virgin Americans vs the Chad European
Haneke said that you shouldnt force your opinion and emotions on viewer, but i think there is nothing wrong with that. Schindler's List definitely forces strong emotions and doesn't leave room for interpretation, but again there is nothing wrong with that. That film is soooo immersive and has incredible atmosphere and tone. It shocks the audience at times just like Haneke shocks in his films.
haneke is against fascism in all forms, and to him a form a fascism is propaganda masquerading as art - even in the case where the propaganda explicitly agrees with his position on a subject
@@nitewalker11 he shouldn't act like a fascist then
leonardo tavares dardenne what makes you say he acts like a fascist?
If having an opinion on something, and expressing that-is wrong or “fascistic” … then not only is all art “fascist”, but all of philosophy is too. It’s literally impossible to create a piece of art that is “neutral”. And even if that wasn’t impossible, it’s ridiculous to say that you can’t have a stance on something in your work, because it drastically limits the questions you can ask, and it limits your ability to express things you may be right about.
Saying that “everything is fascist” _is fascist._
He is doing exactly what he is criticizing others for. He’s presenting his beliefs as though they’re facts, and telling others they should not present their beliefs as though they’re correct. He’s taking a stance-on why you should never take a stance.
So, not only is what he saying impossible and therefore hypocritical … He’s also limiting the topics a piece of art can talk about, and therefore limiting the empathy and knowledge that we can have on those kinds of topics.
Haneke is a master of film-maming
Krasinski, too afraid to speak his mind, agreeing with all sides like a typical Hollywood coward.
I think you meant to say “Comment Section of this video”, instead of “Krasinski”.
These subtitles are so insccurate
All cinema essentially amounts to manipulation so that in that respect Haneke is most definitely correct. There is certainly a coherent logic to what he's saying, and an interesting question concerns the limits of when manipulation becomes exploitation, particularly in films dealing with sensitive subjects, e.g. the Holocaust. Where I think that he is wrong is in his assertion that exploitation is inherently a bad thing. Take Schindler's List: it is undoubtedly a film that is intended for audience consumption. It doesn't really answer any questions. However, insofar that the film is effective cinema, through consuming the horror, through being sickened by the violence, and unnerved by the possibility of violence, the audience comes to a closer understanding of the situation and the surrounding issues. This can be instructive in itself. Films like 12 Years A Slave are also good examples of this even though superficially they arguably amount to torture porn.
Schindler’s List is drivel and exploitation that brought no one closer to understanding anything historical. Spielberg in the end is an egotist a pacifier and an entertainer.
If an artist like Haneke makes a film for us to see, he isn't showing us something he doesn't want us to see. It interests him, and bringing it out for us to bear witness, may allow us to have opinions about it but, the moment it's put in front of us... how is that not a "manipulation"? There may be a viewer who was never interested in a certain topic, then sees a film in which he didn't realize how much he should've been interested in it. How can that happen without the manipulative elements-or craft- of storytelling? Haneke of all artists should know that.
oh my god that's jim from the office
MyNamaJeff It would be like having Albert Einstein and Otis Eugene Ray in the same room together.
Haneke never said some subjects should never be touched in film or art .....the interviewer didnt even understand haneke's answer .....
Is there someone here who speaks German that could type up a transcript of this? I definitely recognized some words that weren't in the subtitles while he was talking and would love to get a more precise understand of what he's trying to convey.
It might be not perfect but I'll try:
"Well, first of all, I have to say that I argued with Bernd Eichinger a lot about the film. I think this movie is disgusting. And dumb. For a reason: You can't humanize a figure with that much historical context behind it to start a melodram that might perhaps move some people - but what is being moved? Which emotions are moved why? If you choose such a topic you have to think about it what it means for the spectator. And the question of responsibility not only concerns the responsibility in relation to the subject being treated, but first and foremost the responsibility to the viewer: To what extent do I give the spectator the opportunity to be independent and not manipulated? Responsibility is always a matter of manipulation. The question is, how seriously do I take the viewer as a subject? How much opportunity do I give him/her to be involved in a communication with the work? Am I just postulate my opinion and try to force my opinion on the spectator, or on the contrary, am I taking the spectator seriously and providing him/her with the means of creating and forming their own opinion? That's a fundamental question, wether you're dealing with Hitler or simply an individual who you've written for the script."
"Would you make a film about Hitler?"
"No."
"Why?"
"For that reason. Perhaps I'll sit myself nicely into hot water here, but I think a film like Spielberg's about the concentration camp is also wrong. You cannot create a moment of suspense out of whether gas or water will come out of the shower. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach. There's one movie about holocaust - “Nuit et brouillard” by Alain Resnais - which approaches the topic in this way: What's YOUR opinion? You, the spectator? What is your position? As soon as such a subject becomes entertainment, it is, in my opinion, out of discussion."
Haneke gave a very intellectual answer. Schindler's List is a Hollywood movie for entertainment, and of course it differs to the perspective of arthouse films having different types of audience.
@Ris Sid I agree with you, but no one can deny that despite it's masterful aspects, Schindler's List is a gimmicky, manipulative and partialized Hollywood movie, which is not even spoken in the languages it should be, simply because it would have sold less. Don't get me wrong, i like this film and i'm very aware of it's virtues, but that won't change the fact that Haneke's statement is completely accurate.
I think he might have the same comments about Come and See, which was produced as a commemoration of the 40 years of the war in the Soviet Union (obviously not for profit).
The point he's making is the very fact that it is a "Hollywood movie" for entertainment - that the subject matter is mobilized for the purposes of "entertainment" - is the issue. Those purposes require the form of manipulative techniques and ideology he is referring to, which affect and form our subjectivities. The way film is produced affects how our consciousness is produced. How we think, and live. How this world is lived, how we arrange ourselves in it. Our cinema produces a particular moral image of thought.
This is a total joke, pairing a master like Haneke with wannabes lightweights like Krasiznki and Apatow?
Bert Delf I think Haneke should be the only person to speak. Ever.
@@KOOWAS751 wtf why??
I am pretty sure Haneke would not think like this. A wise man knows how to learn from different people. There is no below or above in film hierarchy.
I wonder what he thinks of The Pianist
On one hand I agree with him but at the same time that's the whole point of cinema in a way, a film is always just showing real things through the lenses of someone's vision. Let's think of the very violent scene in cachè, there are literally millions of people who went through that in history, and that feeling could never be replicated through film, it's something only people who were physically hurt like that could understand, yet its used in the film for the sake of telling this story (obviously this example is something very specific that has happened in real life, not an actual true story like in the case of shindlers list and downfall, but by the logic presented in the video, you would never be able to tell a true story on film because it will always be manipulated in some way in its presentation and could never replicate what actually happened unless it's real footage, like with night and fog). I completely agree with him on the topic of manipulating the audience though, the film should be constructed in a way to allow the viewer to make his own conclusions on what's being shown, but I don't think it applies to Shindler's List, since what spielberg showed was simply what literally happened, there were times when not gas but water would come out of the shower heads. Now you can argue this is still irresponsible from the filmmaker because the suspense is created from the fact that the audience is aware of the possibility that gas can come out of the shower heads, while the jews did not know that was likely what was going to happen. But you can also argue against that argument by the simple fact that regardless of the effect those scenes have on the audience, they are things that really happened, thus spielberg was just doing what michael haneke said was the correct approach, to simply show and let the audience come to their conclusions, regardless of how obvious spielbergs opinion and intention with the scenes were when you know the context around the film itself.
Wie vergnüglich die Überforderung in den anderen Gesichtern zu erhaschen, wohl nicht gewohnt geht eine Ansicht/ ein Diskussionsansatz mal etwas tiefer als gewohnt.. Vor allem in den USA ?
Haneke wasn't saying that there are some subjects that are off limit. But how you treat those subjects is important, so that you avoid it being an entertainment.
funny story, this scene Haneke mentions is a core childhood memory of mine because of exactly what he's bringing up. in 2001 I was 7 years old and on summer vacation with my brother and cousin and we decided to watch schindler's list (because we were normal children and that's what normal children do). I honestly remember very little else of the movie, but I remember this scene very vividly, because when it happened I laughed, and my brother spent the rest of the trip telling all the adults how horrible I was for laughing at schindler's list. I don't know if I registered what the subtext was or if I just reacting to the direction, but clearly, Spielberg was using a conventional enough cinematic language (of tension and release) that I understood the purpose of that formulation, even if I misread the narrative intention. I can see how that kind of melodramatic framing, warping a real-life tragedy to extract manipulative emotional reactions from your audience, can seem immoral and irresponsible., twisting the historical context of something horrible to create entertaining, dramatic material. disagree with his point about Downfall though.
Funny Games, I think, is a real cuestion about violent cinema.
Interesting point. However, I would be interested in knowing what are those "underhanded techinques" you're referring to specifically (the "rewind" scene that everyone gets so upset about perhaps?). I concede there's a fair amount of "chastising the audience" throughout the film, but otherwise, I don't see a more effective way to make the point come across. I don't see how Haneke "simplifies the ways in which audiences approach violence in media" to be honest. Would you mind elaborating on that?
His opinion is really interesting
I got the fourth wall breaking elements, the lack of redemption, ect. Though the reason I find it manipulative is because of how it condemns the audience of violent entertainment through the most underhanded techniques. It simplifies the ways in which audiences approach violence in media, this type of simplistic thinking can also be seen throughout the interview. I will accept Haneke's moralizing when he elevates above that which he is condemning or when he gives some nuance.
it's simplistic but it's not simple minded. There's a difference
Haneke also fails to explain why we should be concerned about the problem at all. Where is his evidence that it's damaging to people?
Dear Lord,everytime when I am listening to Michael Haneke,he makes me believe that he is the smartest man alive. I mean, he is a genius and he is making an amazig movies but come on! When he is in the room,everybody (exept him) seems ... dumb.
(i'm sorry for any mistakes,my english is not perfect)
Finally, someone who will talk sense.
"would you make a film about Hitler?"
"No"
The White Ribbon: 👀👀👀
What makes you think it’s about Hitler?
@@brianhueber3683 the fact that young Hitler is a character in the movie is a pretty big hint
U.S.A. TIME Lol. Great interpretation, bro.
@@brianhueber3683 not really an interpretation... Just kinda... What happens in the movie lol
U.S.A. TIME it’s a stretch and you know it. Lol
Well, he was born in Germany and his father was German; "100%" doesn't really fit. I mean, I don't care, I'm just a double-citizen myself (German/Swiss in my case). But of course Haneke seems much more connected to Austria and has a heavy Austrian accent as well. :)
People criticizing Haneke's answer probably don't know that he did in fact make a film about Hitler and the Holocaust. THE WHITE RIBBON is set in pre-WWI Germany, but it's about the generation of children brutalized by hierarchies who would later grow up to become Nazis. Haneke's cinema is historical and political, but it's also subtle.
Except hierarchies are not unique to the Nazis, he is basically running with some critical theory and trying to layout a vague but ahistorical explanation to something highly complex and concrete.
theyre just a bunch of kids asking if anyone needed help and hanging out in a group. was not impressed.
Well, Haneke mentioned that not all the children of the white ribbon will necessarily support the Nazi regime. He knows that social movements are more complex than that and are not a reduction or have a direct correlation with childhood upbringing. What is important to notice is how everyone in this movie are hurting the upbringing of the children. You can't make a commercially viable movie while at the same time be so complex. Well, he actually made movies like that in the past, but they're not accessible. Anyone not familiar with his first films won't find anything interesting in his early films. Maybe the best exemple of a balance between accessibility and portrait would be Cone Unknown. It won a mention at Cannes but that's it.@@ppwalk05
@@ppwalk05 What I mean is : if you want a strong movie (emotionally or intellectually), you HAVE to manipulate the audience. thus reducing the complexity of a story to one exclusive point of view.
@@ppwalk05 yes. Only left wing losers with a bad 60's hangover have problems with hierarchy. The rest of us understand their essential function in life and nature. Hierarchies alone do not cause aggression. That is a lame reductive sub-Freudian reading of history.
the scene in Schindler's List where water comes out, not gas... that, to me, is a key to the film. Spielberg is saying; you know what happened, I know what happened, it can't be shown. And that to me is a really really strong way of showing it. It's another way of involving the audience than Haneke's way, where we are sort of turned into unwilling voyeurs (the killing of the girl in Benny's video, Majid's suicide in Caché, Anne's falling apart in Amour); Haneke asks that question, oh you want to see it, do you? do you REALLY want to see it? Are you sure you're ready? Spielberg, on the other hand, says: it wasn't water. You know that. Close your eyes and see it. That involved me to the max at the premiere in NY in '94. But this interview was before Son of Saul
Schindler's genius is inviting the audience to watch the film with their eyes closed? This seems untrue
Theme song bangs
Kubrick didn’t agree either.
source?
I worship Haneke, but I completely disagree with him. All art (and movies in particular) are manipulative. I see no problem with it.
you didn`t get his point
KCRyder Enlighten me please, oh, infinitely wise one.
Agent69
if you have to go to being condescending right away you have pretty much lost the chance to have any constructive conversation at all
KCRyder That is hilarious considering that you were the one being condescending in the first place by claiming "NO U JUST DUNT GET IT!!!" instead of actually rebuking any of his claims.
giantzombiechild
"You didn`t get it" is condescending? If you claim that 2+2 equals 5 is it condescending of me to point out that you´re wrong? There is no point in rebuking his points - because I agree with him....still he didn´t get what Haneke was saying...
Haneke made some interesting remarks here, but I think he was being a bit sloppy when talking about his views simply due to the fact that he knew none of these meatheads would actually get into a discussion with him.
There is a fine line between history and fiction.
so what would u say about in the context of historical fiction?
2:43 has he seen shoah?
The interviewer said "huma-lizing" at first, haha.
Downfall didn’t create melodrama, it recreated it. Calling upon emotions is not irresponsible, it’s human. Willingness to avoid something like the Schindler’s List showerhead scene simply because it is intense? That is irresponsibility.
As for Schindler’s list being entertaining, it is. It’s a film. All forms of presentation art exist to entertain, interest, and intrigue. To do so with history (without compromising accuracy) is good and is what keeps history alive.
I'm curious to hear what Haneke's opinion on Jojo Rabbit is.
He’s probably not a fan, wonder what he thinks of come and see, a true anti war film
Spielberg made a tale of little red riding hood and the big bad wolf, just that he replaced the bad wolf with Nazis. "Schindlers list" is a children's film and if you don't think so go and watch "Come and see (1985)"
haneke is one of the finest directors on this planet WTF is he doing there?!? his answers were perfect though.
Haneke was adorable on stage when he won best foreign film
thought job for the translator
Stories are not manipulation, but they can be manipulative.
the man who directed funny games talks about letting the viewer form his own oppinion. thats rich
That film is literally a satire about how viewers like getting manipulated by violent non-sensical movies.
@@KartikeyaDutta_And?_
If his argument is: “it’s unethical to manipulate the audience”;
Then, _he doesn’t get to “manipulate the audience”,_ just to show viewers that “they _can_ be manipulated”.
That’s a direct contradiction.
@@CipherSerpico if it was satire to begin with then it doesn't matter if you think he contradicted himself. a movie with character deliberately talking straight to audience multiple times and a movie about holocaust with sad music that plays with audience emotion isn't even comparable at all and doesn't diminish his stance
Honestly - as much as I adore Haneke - but in what way can you label Schindler's List as "entertainment"? Makes me wonder if he's even seen the film.
Well there are several instances sprinkled throughout the film, but the one he's referring to is creating suspense out of waiting to see if gas or water will come out of the shower head in the women's room.
lol
Haneke is such a treasure
Downfall was an intriguing and smart that comprehends that to understand something, you have to see all sides unclouded by ignorance.
All people are people, saints and sinners. It is important to humanize figures rather than saying they are simply “evil” or “sick” because understanding them actually solves things and progresses our societies in the right direction.
I kinda agree with Him about Schindler's List even if that movie was based on a novel unlike Donwfall that was based on the memoires of one of Hitler's secretary
Haneke must be so insanely depressed.
Because he's a dick or because you agree with the rest of the comment section that he's a "higher intelligence" that shouldn't mangle with mere mortals?
i kinda get his point, but his view is a bit drastic in my opinion... i really dont see a film like "schindlers list" as entertainment... yes spielberg plays with the suspense in those chamber scenes, but the people there knew what was going on, so thats probably what they thought in that moment :(
alright, theres clearly some circlejerking going on in the comments
its not circlejerking. its called having an opinion
Directors/filmmakers are a bit like your children -- each have their own quirks and particulars you love and dislike. To some degree, we've enjoyed films directed everyone on this panel for various reasons. Several of Haneke's films we really tossed our hands up into the air, Funny Games comes to mind. Implausible in our view. The Piano Teacher is another. To say Haneke isn't manipulating the audience is an exaggeration. That's what all filmmakers/directors do. And like everything, some more than others. In general, a great film to us is one we want to watch again. It happens but it's rare. And there isn't one film made by anyone on the panel that falls into that category. Once was enough. ( a personal thing for sure, such is art). So, for all the awards and hype from the so-called experts, that tells you something.
He's such a hot intellecutal Lad! I would lay down and let him do anything to me, yes sir!!!!
I like his view on things, let the viewer come to their own conclusions on the topic . that's why i don't like movies like Django and inglorious bastards, even though it was comedy
both of those are completely fictional, but schindlers' list is not and it boasts itself as a true story.
why did he do caché...?
No, then you are born in München and live your life in Austria, plain and simple. In the end that's got nothing to do with nationality.
I agree with his comments on melodrama and turning suffering into spectacle (entertainment, as he called it). I hope that he's not suggesting that a filmmaker or writer can be completely objective in their presentation of historical figures, though. As I understand it, he is claiming that certain subjects (e.g. gas chambers) are unknowable to the extent that attempting to depict them is pure ideological fluff. He raises an interesting epistemological difficulty that he muddles with a word like "unspeakable," which has both an epistemological and a moral resonance.
so basically showing how unimaginative he is as a writer? The idea of finding the humanity and emotions in the unknowable is the challenge alot of artist have to do.
@@lampad4549 "The idea of finding the humanity and emotions in the unknowable is the challenge alot of artist have to do"
it is indeed challenging. but perhaps people are way fed up with the way how hollywood manipulates and treats its audience emotion and starting to find non hollywood movies which treats its audience with respect.
"so basically showing how unimaginative he is as a writer?"
the term "unimaginative" itself is pretty subjective. i would say film like Funny games is an example how little he gives a damn to what people think because it takes a masochistic mindset to make movie like that and having a joy seeing people slammed the door and leaving cinema of his own movie as he said it himself in 2017 interview.
Don't show him Zone of Interest.
I liked "downfall" maybe describing it as a picture about Hitler is too simplistic?
I do love Michael Haneke, but this is a hypocritical and ignorant comment in and of itself. I appreciate his care level for films covering this subject matter, but he is simply categorizing Schindler's List and films alike as being a form of entertainment, saying that's unfair is a severe understatement. Ruling out Holocaust films or WW2 films also rules out the creation of most all films ever made. Now, I agree that implementing morals or begging questions to make the audience contemplate something rather than simply viewing it and turning it off and forgetting about it is true. I will agree with that. But in that case, aren't history books or autobiographical novels an unspeakable form of manipulation? To a degree? And sure, lets NOT include tension because that's NEVER been an attribute of films to immerse their audiences to a feeling portrayed and depicted as close as possible to REAL historic events. No. Lets NOT utilize a film like Schindler's List grossing 320+ million dollars, or the Pianist (regardless of your views on the film) broadcasting an immersive history lesson for everyone out there to view. And P.S., the film wasn't made without the aided assistance of TRUE survivors. Because Spielberg (even though I don't love him) would nneeevverr do all of the research, subjective and objective, to curate the closest thing to the event, once again, proofed by the actual people, for the film, with a HUGE responsibility on his back. Never.
Why did Haneke agreed to do this is a mystery, be in front of fools like Judd Apatow, please. Maybe it was his distribution company, who knows...
haneke next to apatow for fuck sake .. the only way to describe it .. its like monty python philosophers football match
Funny Games relies on the fact that the spectator is engaged in viewing a film (ie Paul's manipulation of the narrative direction of the film with a TV remote), this helps to move the violence away from an analogous relationship with the "real world" - which is the point that Haneke is speaking to in this clip. Though he does represent brutality in his films, I don't find this to be exploitative, which is what he seems to be accusing Spielberg of - the suspense created by the shower head.
John nice way to deflect and not answer the question at all re Spielberg
showing you pure violence. And it was your turn to judge it
This is weird to me. Haneke constantly tackles traumatic/horrific subject matter in his films and makes it into entertainment.
Never saw a Haneke movie that could be described as "entertainment". I watched the entertaining movie Hot Fuzz twenty times at least, I never saw Haneke's "Benny's video" more than once, and I still can probably talk about the later movie significantly longer.
@@ViolentFEAR In that case I wouldn't consider Schindler's List as entertainment either
@@ViolentFEAR I don’t think people watch the shower scene in Schindler’s List and think “Hey, this is entertaining”.
And if creating an accurate portrayal-i.e. creating suspense in an attempt to recreate the actual experience of people during a particular event - is unethical, then you could also say that a writing a history book about the Holocaust-is also unethical.
@@CipherSerpico Not to diss on you too much but comparing the suspense you see when watching the shower scene to anything that happened during the Shoah is beyond stupid. Reading a history book is rarely "thrilling" or filled with suspense.
@@kecksohn I think it’s “beyond stupid” to suggest that ‘saying “attempting to create an accurate portrayal of the actual experience”’-means that someone is _equating_ “a scene in a movie”-to “actually experiencing what it was like-to literally be in a concentration camp”.
I think it’s “beyond stupid” to conflate the term _’compare’,_ with the term _’equate’;_
I think it’s “beyond stupid” to not understand the difference between the two.
I think it’s “beyond stupid” to suggest that _’comparing_ two things’-means that you are _’equating_ them’.
I think it’s “beyond stupid”-to take a rational comment from someone you don’t know-and then-completely twist it around, in a way that makes it seem like they said something that was extremely ‘Unethical’-just so you can pretend to be “outraged”-just so you can pretend to be ‘Morally-Superior’-just so you can feel better about yourself.
And, I think it’s “beyond stupid”-to not only, go out of your way-to try and make other people look bad-but _also,_ be willing to _exploit victims of the Holocaust_ - just so you can feel better about yourself.
Say whatever you will, the seventh continent is a crap film…
The whole point of the movie was to make audience uncomfortable, that’s fine but
At least make them interesting...
Saying that we shouldn't portray historical events like that out of "reverence", when the people telling the story and most of the extras in the film are either survivors of the Holocaust or their direct descendants, seems to be calling to censor their experience. Film provides a way to empathize with people in such situations, people know they're not literally there (?) and suggesting that it's more "morally pure" to hide history rather than honor its sufferers seems horrific to me and I'm actually depressed at the amount of comments glorifying (and not questioning) Haneke here.
His films aren't without "manipulation" either, all films are literally fabrications (that's not inherently negative), and claiming that they're not and he's morally superior as a result is absurd. All of his films are written, directed and edited to provoke specific reactions, just because they're slower and less specific than Hollywood films doesn't mean he's not in control of what happens.
Curious to hear his thoughts on The Zone of Interest
dont mislead the audience - haneke is 100% austrian and only born in an german hospital - that doesnt make him to a german.
Clearly, this man is brilliant. But I've only seen Funny Games and I have to say, I was not bowled over. I was expecting something "otherworldly" good (based on every review I'd read), something to challenge me, something up there with the best from Hitchcock, Kubrick, Polanski.... it's definitely a good film and I got his point. The violence is portrayed in a way that breaks all the "rules" of standard action/violent /horror films, to show you how horrible violence really is and how easy it is for someone to manipulate you. I just don't think it ranks even close to the pure cinematic greatness he was aiming for, & which people seem to lump him in. I personally prefer Lanthimos as a film-maker.
Haneke never aimed for "cinematic greatness". He follows Robert Bresson and Ingmar Bergman, not Hitchcock or Kubrick. "Funny Games" is also arguably the most "accessible" Haneke film (can't speak for the last three), since obviously, a satire needs to somehow speak in the same "language" as the thing being satirized. So I would recommend diving a bit deeper into his filmography.
@@ViolentFEAR okay
I'm not a big fan of either of the versions of Funny Games (he remade it himself frame for frame). Caché, Amour, The White Ribbon, The Piano Teacher and the Seventh Continent are all on a higher level to me.
What in the world is this lineup?
I'd love to see Haneke's thoughts on Jojo Rabbit.