haneke
i feel like making a bold statement, so here it goes: i think that michael haneke is far and away the best living film director right now PERIOD and i really doubt that that is going to change any time soon.
i know that a lot of people are either unfamiliar with him or they hate him because they might only be familiar with his newest movie FUNNY GAMES U.S. , which is a real shame because that movie (and the original version of it) are the only two films (technically) in his entire oeuvre that are actually cerebral, obnoxiously transgressive, and painfully postmodern to the max. having said that, i'll add in that i still loved FUNNY GAMES, even though i've only seen the original german version.
i also know that many people think its highly pretentious to list someone relatively obscure and then make such a bold declarative statement, but my reasons for saying such a thing (and then writing about it) is most definitely NOT because i want to appear pretentious or arrogant, it's because i want more people to know about him and i want people to know WHY i would say such a thing in the first place. believe me, if steven spielberg actually made amazing movies anymore, i would be the first person to "boldly" claim him as a favorite filmmaker. this ridiculous idea that obscurity somehow benefits independent or lesser known artists is a bullshit notion that is rooted in elitism and academic buffoonery. also, let it be known that just because something might not have mainstream appeal doesn't automatically make it good either. if something sucks, it doesn't fucking matter how popular or unpopular it is, it STILL sucks. likewise, if something is really good, it doesn't fucking matter how many people know about it, it is still going to be GOOD. all i know is that my purpose in writing this is simply to either bring about discussion or to get people to see his movies.
i'll start with the negative: apparently, a lot of people hate his movies for numerous reasons: they are too "slow," they are too "bleak" or "nihilistic," there are animals killed (one horse, one pig, one chicken and some goldfish), or my favorite complaint-NOTHING HAPPENS. not to down play other people's opinions, many of which are not only valid, but opinions that individuals are completely entitled to having, it's necessary to point out that all opinions are simply an assessment of personal aesthetics and as such, there is no way that one opinion will ever "out do" another. the criticisms that his films elicit are totally valid and i don't even completely disagree with them, especially because many of them are completely true, even though those reasons do not affect my personal feelings about each respective work.
bringing attention to this apparently detrimental aspects might not seem like the best way to show people why i would claim haneke my favorite living film director, but i feel as though one has to work through the negativity in his creations in order to understand the positive appeal that his movies ultimately end up having. anyway, there is no way around the fact that his movies ARE not made for people who consider burger king value meals "fine dining." once again, this is not to make some snooty social commentary, but a way of simply saying that its much easier to get into his movies if you appreciate basic processes, whether that is in regards to the technicality of a film, the rudimentary 'construction' of a meal from scratch, or something as beautiful (and utterly boring) as the formation of clouds. those unwilling to patiently sit through a 2 hour movie usually are not big fans of haneke's works, but then again, they are more than likely not going to appreciate the value of ANY movie where they might have to shut the fuck up and not get up every 15 minutes to take a leak or check their cell phones for text messages. if someone is not willing to give their attention to the movie that they are about to watch except for the things that THEY want to get out of it, then it's their loss. it's specifically those type of people who are the most likely to not only misinterpret most movies, since they aren't willing to let a film teach them anything, but the kinds of people that make shit films like SAW III number one at the box office on opening week. good films are good films regardless of any outstanding circumstances. art snobs and film geeks alike might scoff at the notion that something like TERMINATOR 2 would ever be considered "high brow" enough to allow itself to be validated by academia, but what they fail to recognize is that it's their own elitism itself that has created the void between the box office and the art house. the context for any film is not (and should not) be assessed according to how you will be perceived by others, but by how you personally feel about something. it is this sad stigma that i feel keeps most of haneke's films from the public's attention, which is a true pity because anyone with half a brain who is even slightly tired of feeling manipulated and cheated by mainstream movies could stand to benefit A LOT from his films.
haneke's films are NOT manipulative at all except for FUNNY GAMES, which is COMPLETELY manipulative on purpose. the best word to describe the rest of his movies is "static," which once again might turn many people off simply because they are not used to long takes with no dialogue or music, which is a staple in most haneke films. oddly enough, i remember initially feeling bored sometimes in his movies, only to realize a few minutes later that i was simply falling into the cog works of his cinematic vision. to say "nothing happens" would be a gross understatement that downplays his ability to basically drop the viewer into real life in ways that many might not like. most people do not like being reminded of how boring and mundane everyday can be and it is specifically because of these long lulls in reality that we all face all the time that makes the feel of his movies hit that much closer to home for me personally. one of the best things about his movies is the fact that they are capable of getting such a strong emotional response from viewers. people either love or hate him, but they will never have a middle of the road opinion.
haneke's vision often shows the systematic breakdown of society in microcosmic instances, which is another thing that many probably do not wish to see. we all know that life sucks sometimes, right? why would we want to be reminded of that in a movie? for many, seeing such portrayals is disheartening and unnecessary, but to me, it's the absolute essence of purity in filmmaking, because his visions of people are so genuine and realistic that it elevates itself into another realm above the standard characterization that takes place in most movies. i know this sounds kind of stuffy and over long, but i can't overemphasize how significantly honest many of his movies end up being. the writing is so on point and realistic, i've often felt like a voyeur watching his movies because you forget that you are even watching a movie sometimes.
perhaps the best example of this is his movie the piano teacher, (bold statement alert) the most deeply erotic and sensual film i've ever seen, which is ironic since the film deals heavily with extreme sexual repression. i'm not really sure how he does it, but he is able to get such believable performances from his female stars that i've often second guessed my own perception of human behavior after watching this film in particular. it is rather grim and extremely disturbing, but the complex implications are astounding.
even though his movies are definitely not for everyone, i think many people can stand to benefit from watching at least some of them. michael haneke is, in my opinion, a purifier. he is someone who creates art that transcends into the realm of our day to day life in ways that most other filmmakers are incapable of doing. there is a dark rhythm in his films and it is meant to be felt, physically and emotionally.