Movies, Violence, and Michael Haneke (Part II of IV)

Categorized | Gary Karbon, movies

Tags | films, michael haneke, movies, violence

Movies, Violence, and Michael Haneke (Part II of IV)

Posted on 28 March 2008 by Gary Karbon

Since the day our earliest ancestors pressed their hands on a cave wall in Altamira and Lascaux and sprayed paint on them we tried to improve the control over our fate by manipulating it first in a symbolic domain.

We proved to ourselves that we could hunt that mammoth or the saber-toothed tiger by first depicting it killed in a cave painting.

We always trusted that life imitated art; that we had to have faith in our symbols first before we could have faith in our technology.

We instinctively understood that if we got the Narrative just right, there would eventually be a mechanism to translate it into reality. Magic had always been our Ace in the sleeve in the poker game of survival where winner takes all.

One of the most efficient cultural devices ever discovered to cope with the dread of survival is to deal with violence on a controlled symbolic platform.

Yes, the big bad wolf eats up both the grandma and the little girl but then the Brave Hunter (Joseph Campbell's Hero) shows up and cleans his clock big time. "Justice" is restored and our world is safe once again.

We are redeemed and assured through the way we deal with violence in our movies.

That's why even in David Cronenberg's aptly titled A History of Violence, we are still allowed a way out. There is still some light, however feeble, at the end of the tunnel. There is a context of justice challenged and restored, and a sub-text of hope and redemption.

Secondly, we are always passive spectators trying to learn how Life solves "these issues." We are not perpetrators. We, as audience, do not participate in the crime. That's one taboo all directors respect and observe because they understand the true restorative function of violence in motion pictures.

Not Michael Haneke, the Austrian director who earlier gave us the very disturbing Piano Teacher (2001). Now he inflicts his Funny Games (2007) upon us and crosses the last threshold separating narrative art from an "interactive" kind of violence that amounts to unfiltered evil without a context.

We'll look into how Haneke has missed the whole point in the next two parts of this essay.

See: Part 1

Popularity: 5% [?]

Share and Enjoy:

2 Comments For This Post

Bobby Ozuna Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Wonderful essay Mr. Karbon! I can’t say I have followed or even stumbled upon any works by Michael Hanake, even for as much as I pride myself in being a movie (story) fanatic. I suppose we all have our little prejudices that help dictate and mandate what we consider “good” and what we will give effort to try and sample.

I loved the way you explained how movie directors (writers/producers) allow us to partake, without being directly involved in the “crimes” born through violence in film by allowing us a “way out” that somehow justifies our earnest desire to witness atrocities on the big screen. I have always been a fan of the tragedies, those that allow us to follow a hero–regardless of how evil they are–through the end of a story, only to find ourselves hoping they survive when in all fairness (in film and within our society) they should not live or survive or “get away with it.”

I suppose that’s what makes a story good or bad, with bad being over the edge or beyond comprehension because we need to believe there is a resolution to a story, no matter how obtuse. While reading your article I considered the (Cormac McCarthy) story “No Country For Old Men” where the audience had a chance to choose between (potential) heroes. The ending was not tied off with a bow (and that is why I believe there were as many people hating the story as their were loving it) forcing us to determine our own conclusions for what happened to the “killer.” I think it made the audience doubt their own belief in the concept of what is considered GOOD because although the villain should not have gotten away…we almost wanted him to, for the sake of closure.

I can’t wait to read more…you bring up some wonderful points in all your work.
Gary Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Bobby, thanks for your kind words. I personally liked the ending of “No Country for Old Men” because it brought the focus back to Sheriff Bell. At that point I realized that, despite all the blood and gore that went before it, the film was really much less about the “Crime and Punishment” theme than the fact that Bell is living in a brand new social environment which is “not for old men” like him and his pals. A social commentary disguised as a crime thriller: it’s Bad New World out there, cold and heartless, in which a lot of crimes go unsolved or unpunished (one assumes). All of a sudden Sheriff’s “character arc” matters a lot more than a psychopath’s relentless bloodletting. Reminded me “The Silence of the Lambs” in a way in which Clarice Starling’s personal transformation was probably more crucial to the story line than the madness of Hannibal Lecter who did not change even an iota throughout the film. I guess I find characters that change more significant and fascinating than those that donâ€™t â€“ which might also explain why I canâ€™t enjoy James Bond movies anymore. My 2 cents worth. Best regards. GK