1 line
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
I, quite unfortunately, viewed this film in a film class I am currently enrolled in at Hunter College. As a preface to this film, as well as other Michael Haneke films, my professor declared Haneke as one of her favorite filmmakers, and discussed several film-making techniques (such as the use of the long take, as well as other realistic elements that were supposed to serve the story better) that Haneke offered in his films. I, being a fan of such techniques (and having used some of them in my own films), was slightly excited. However, I then saw this film.<br /><br />This movie was horrendous. The beginning of the film, taking place in a car wash, was interesting. It grabbed my attention. Instantly, my mind started reeling: what was this? Was this related to what I was about to see? Was this the culmination of the rest of the story? Was I seeing the ending first? And, possibly most importantly, was I seeing a symbolic reference to what this movie stood for?<br /><br />At the end of the film, I felt something deep inside me. However, instead of it being that truly remarkable and unmistakable feeling of seeing something that genuinely affected you as a person, filmmaker, artist or moviegoer, it was the kind of feeling that triggered the violent, savage part of me that desired to do little else than find Michael Haneke and tear his insides out with a pitchfork. This film lacked, in all sense of the word, coherency, from the first scene to the last.<br /><br />I understand the concept of "realism," as well as the widely influential style of film-making inspired and, in some ways, birthed by the French new wave. However, this film was attempting to do something that it failed in every respect in doing: it did not seem realistic, the acting was overdone and completely implausible, it offered little to no explanation as to half of the film's plot (a.k.a. why was the girl so distraught, and why was the husband so mentally disassociated?), the directing was far from impressive, the story was boring (and I rarely use the word "boring," but it frankly was), the last thirty minutes or so were beyond ridiculous (with little explanation offered), and the final shot of the film was, to admittedly sound sophomoric (I guess mimicking the film), horrendous.<br /><br />Skip this film, or burn the negative, and go watch a film by Lars von Trier, Gus van Sant, or Inarritu. Good luck. |