The brutality of the bourgeoisie, the allure of apocalypse: 20 years of Michael Haneke

There are reasons to be grateful for the existence of Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke, even if you don’t exactly fall in love with his movies. He is a master craftsman, as devoted to technical precision as the finest Hollywood journeyman, as formally rigorous as the most innovative arthouse maverick, and, most impressively, has maintained this standard while working in different languages and different countries with distinct industries. He’s prolific—10 features in 20 years, with another on the way—yet a case can be made for his having never made a single film that’s contributed to what he describes as the disempowerment of the audience. Long after the golden age of foreign and art film distribution, Haneke has held unrelentingly to a mandate of consistently challenging movies and survived, even thrived. And that’s fascinating in itself: large numbers of people see Haneke’s films, yet not a one of them promises a good time in any normal sense. They’re downright unpleasant. And there is no release.

The ten features tell a story in themselves, of a singular career, of an aesthetic, of an evolving social critique, of an increasingly amalgamated Europe and globalized world. Thanks to Metro Cinema’s generous full retrospective, Edmonton filmgoers can watch it all unfold completely and chronologically, one chilling, enigmatic, unbroken single-shot scene at a time.

Based on actual events, The Seventh Continent (1989) is a sort of diptych that’s devastatingly effective in its simplicity. A bourgeois family of three is shown performing quotidian tasks—closing doors, preparing breakfast, tying shoes—often in close-ups that show no preference for faces or offer clues that might convey an internal life. This series of what would be inserts in a conventional movie is strangely riveting, brimming with a certain tension. Devoid of scoring and making use of black leader between scenes, there’s genuine beauty to the clipped rhythm of it all, to the collage of room tones, and the superbly specifying actors—including the late Ulrich Mühe, a Haneke regular—embody the tone plausibly. Haneke’s debut follows the course of the family’s routines, checking in to see how they alter over three years, until the machinery of their “lifestyle” suddenly collapses in one of cinema’s most sustained sequences of intensely concentrated, near-wordless action. The result is really a perfect movie on its own terms, with an inspired balance of overt polemic and ambiguity. It also, to a surprising degree, perfectly encapsulates so much of what’s to come.

Benny’s Video (92) advances certain aspects of its predecessor while focusing more pointedly on what is surely Haneke’s central zone of interest: visual media. The horrific Oedipal journey of teenage Benny (Arno Frisch) is one filtered through the abstraction of increasingly accessible video technology, which Haneke proposes as facilitating voyeuristic tendencies to ever-more alarming degrees. A crudely-made video of animal slaughter is slowed-down in replay, making what was initially intended as a quick, relatively painless death into a weirdly aestheticized bloodbath. Benny, almost always placid, seems completely untouched by the Real, in the Lacanian sense. He seems to process the world exclusively through video screens. Video becomes a component in teenage mating rituals, which themselves house experiments in punishment. So there is watching, there is death, and there is the cleaning up afterwards. There’s also a mother-son vacation to Egypt, where the unruliness of the greater word is still kept always at arm’s, or, as it were, eye’s length. It’s also kind of boring, but this very carefully-nourished boredom seems vital to how this all works. Haneke’s gaze can be at once that of a visionary director and that of an especially patient anthropologist. If you can jive with both sensibilities, you’re in for the long haul.

There is, however, the problem of Funny Games (97) to contend with. Haneke’s most notoriously merciless work, an anti-thriller in which a pair of absurdly polite hooligans (one of whom is Frisch, as though picking up where he left off) terrorize another of Haneke’s bourgeois families on holiday, is brutal, but it’s also quickly numbing and over-intellectualized while feeling intellectually facile. Haneke seems to have had a checklist of items he considered antithetical to genre moviemaking—kill the dog, kill the kid, break the fourth wall—and went about dutifully seeing each through. The irony lies in how, at the best of times, the very sort of polished Hollywood thriller Funny Games explicitly opposes can actually prove far more thought provoking than such exercises in didacticism. Yet Haneke was clearly happy with the results. He re-made the thing, shot-for-shot, as his English-language debut with Hollywood stars (07). I wonder if he liked the marketing—Warner pitched it exactly as if it were a generic thriller.


With Code Unknown (00), Haneke arrives at a major turning point and delivers what may be his finest work. His first film made in France inverted the hermetically-sealed strategy of Funny Games, broadening his perspective to take in a larger network of character types, relationships, social confrontations and causalities, and Juliette Binoche, who from her first moment onscreen introduces a warmth and fullness of character previously unseen, if not un-permitted, in Haneke’s work. Brilliantly book-ended with scenes of deaf-mute children playing charades—an elegant expression of the title—the remainder of Code Unknown consists of scenes, nearly all of them playing out in single, unbroken shots, that explore questions of what is and isn’t other people’s business, from an uppity young black man’s attempt at forcing an act of social justice to Binoche’s paralysis when overhearing domestic violence to a photojournalist’s resurrection of Walker Evans’ fabled journey through the New York subway system taking surreptitious photos of strangers. Like the unseen, rather obnoxious director who at one point auditions Binoche’s actress, the photojournalist seems to be hunting for a “real face.” Yet, while I’d argue that Code Unknown explores inter-connectivity with greater resonance than films like Paul Haggis’ Crash (04) or Fatih Akin’s The Edge of Heaven (07), Haneke is never so assuring. The characters here, spanning class, race, nationality, education and age, are given freer reign to reveal a richness of attitude, anxieties and even fleeting moments of happiness and relief. But their environment doesn’t make room for complete vulnerability and so many masks are worn that the very notion of witnessing truth becomes futile. This was the first Haneke I saw, and it remains a personal favourite.


Haneke’s embracing of France and its great actresses continued to great acclaim—and even greater controversy—with The Piano Teacher (01), an adaptation of fellow Austrian Elfriede Jelinek’s novel. Isabelle Huppert’s Erika Kohut, an instructor obsessed with a 17-year-old pupil, is a creature of a sort I’m not sure the movies had ever previously given us: intensely sexually repressed, sadomasochistic, obsessive, icy in that way that disguises overwhelming anguish, capable of Elektralian hysteria, and never for a moment less than magnetic. It is a career-capping performance, and with Huppert that says a lot.

When Huppert returns for Haneke’s criminally under-seen dystopian drama Time of the Wolf (03), the only way she can kick things off properly is to get sprayed with her murdered husband’s blood and then vomit in the first five minutes. From there, the apocalypse is a paddleboat ride. Whatever disaster befell society before the story begins is—and here’s a surprise—left undefined. Yet in destroying the social order, the media and consumer-based society, it’s also robbed Haneke of the key subjects of his entire canon. The good news is that Haneke not only rises to the occasion but also proves just what a shrewd and atmospheric storyteller he can be with a minimum of elements. And of course, as Huppert’s Anne and her children traverse the countryside to fend for themselves, the customs of civilized society will haunt them in their every encounter. (It’ll be interesting to see how this film compares to John Hillcoat’s forthcoming The Road.) Whether you know Haneke’s work or not, I urge you to catch this one in a rare public screening.

Haneke’s almost perverse emphasis on the irresolvable finds its apotheosis in Caché (05), another hit, and his most recent, though hopefully not last French film. Pairing Binoche with Daniel Auteuil, Caché returns to the sinister voyeurism of Benny’s Video by way of David Lynch’s Lost Highway (97), when a Parisian bourgeois couple starts receiving anonymous videocassettes that feature only unedited footage of their home’s exterior. Haneke has insisted in interviews that he hasn’t been especially interested in specificity of location in his films and that readings emphasizing the conditions of a certain national culture are usually made out of a failure to recognize how these stories could take place anywhere in the first world. It’s a respectable and quite instructive stance, but I still think it makes Caché that much richer a movie when we account for the particularities of the Algerian War and the Paris massacre of 1961. There is a ghost lurking in this story that demands to be reckoned with. It is a ghost not dissimilar to those haunting other nations, but it looms over these characters with a particular gravity, making it an interesting companion piece to Alain Resnais’ masterpiece Muriel (63).

Which brings up to the present, post-Funny Games US and pre-The White Ribbon, Haneke’s first Austrian film in a dozen years. Despite the divisive retroactive—not to mention reactionary—aspects of his last movie, Metro’s retrospective reminds us that there’s every reason to anticipate more provocative and fascinating work from Haneke. I only hope there continues to be room in the world for the likes of him.

Ways of not seeing

The original Portuguese title of Blindness, the 1995 novel that prompted José Saramago’s winning of the Nobel Prize for Literature, is Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira, or Essay About Blindness. I think it’s worth mentioning here because those unfamiliar with Saramago’s work might glean from this specification some sense of this extraordinary novel’s tone, which, characteristically, is digressive, allegorical, and basically unconcerned with character development or the well-measured escalation of drama—the sorts of elements that conventionally make for engaging movies. It’s equally worth mentioning that Blindness the movie, as adapted by Don McKellar and directed by Fernando Meirelles, is clearly uninterested in being a conventional sort of movie. Yet in its attempts to carve out its own identity while making select concessions to the basic form and structure of a dramatic feature, the film seems to lose out in both gambits. Blindness is a deeply intriguing movie that can’t fulfill its promises, a strangely flat apocalyptic drama that rarely shows signs of knowing what it’s about.

It begins, boldly, and not unlike a horror movie, with the first victim of the mysterious disease of “white blindness” becoming afflicted while waiting behind the wheel of his car at a traffic light in the middle of an unnamed large city, the attack thus accompanied by a thunderous chorus of car horns and hollering, intensifying the sense of some terrible pestilence raining down on the masses from an angry god. The disease goes airborne, and we follow a chain of others who catch it: the thief who steals the first blind man’s car (played a little too obviously mercenary by McKellar), the doctor who treats the first blind man (Mark Ruffalo), the patients who shared the doctor’s waiting room with the first blind man (Alicia Braga’s tough, dignified prostitute, Danny Glover’s one-eyed wise man), and so on. Following the measures decided upon by a panicked government (helmed by Sandra Oh), the blind are quarantined, and much of what follows plays out in the characters’ increasingly decrepit confinement.

Saramago’s formally rigorous prose style, with its extensive, multi-page paragraphs with scant punctuation, serves Blindness more perfectly than any of his other novels because, with so few signifiers to help break up dialogue, you actually feel sort of blind while reading it, trying to keep track of who’s talking, depending largely on the nuances of their individual printed voices. Since McKellar’s script resigns itself to simply dramatizing the novel’s action and does little to evoke its refrain of philosophizing and consideration of motives, Meirelles, perhaps as a countermeasure, seems to be trying to build up a like sense of blindness in the viewer through the repeated use of rack focus, white-outs, and the blurring of the frame’s edges. Yet the white-outs look uninterestingly synthetic—imagine if that “milky whiteness” were evoked by using actual milk!—and the strategy feels like an affectation, partly because it makes no sense as a way of creating a subjective point of view: the characters are either blind or not blind, never anything in between. At the same time, the entire visual world of Blindness is so cold and steely, filtered so as to suck all warmth out, that there’s no sense of the richness of the visual world that’s been stolen from the victims, no nostalgia either suggested or displayed that might pierce the emotions.

Over the course of Blindness the quarantined exhibit both the most base and vile of human tendencies—Saramago’s Marxist leanings can be detected here in the pathetic trading of food for utterly material goods—and the most ennobling and moral. The hero of the story is the doctor’s wife (Julianne Moore), the sole character to retain her sight, a fact she wisely holds secret. In a journey not unlike those of other characters that Moore has played over the years, she seems initially to be fairly vacuous and only through crisis reveals herself as resourceful, maternal, valiant and wily—though this transformation feels a matter of course, rarely becoming something we’re able to identify with. So on one hand, Meirelles is trying, unsuccessfully, to put us in his characters’ shoes, while on the other hand the characters, each of them as anonymous as the world they inhabit, fail to assume the specificities and interior lives that might draw us to them. Where literature, which only need supply the data it desires and nothing more, can function quite well in a world without specifics, it is a tremendous challenge to create a movie, particularly one shot on location, that exists in an everyworld full of everymen.

I can’t help but wonder if the movie might have worked better if Meirelles simply opted to maintain a detached, clinical approach, a la Michael Haneke in the similarly inexplicable apocalypse wrought in his underseen Time of the Wolf, allowing us to gradually develop our own empathies through a distinctive, vivid, stark visual world in which trauma and negotiation play out fully. Indeed, how oddly appropriate it might have been if the perspective through which we watched Blindness unfold was strictly observational.

Know what? Not that funny...

Peter and Paul, the young antagonists in Funny Games, Aryan, clad in stark white, exuding a sort of studied, robotic idea of politeness, seem to spread through the isolated world of the film like some chillingly disaffected infectious disease. These boys move from one country house, one family, to another, each time seeking to exact a more or less identical program of horrifically violent disaster. They begin by penetrating the home through feigning innocence and asking an innocuous favour. They then disarm the resident patriarch and engage the entire clan in a game of terror whose rules are childishly simple yet hopelessly fixed in the assailants' favour. Watching their campaign unfold is like bearing witness to a nightmare of such deadening inevitability as to be, above all, wearying.

For those who’ve followed the work of Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke, watching Funny Games will also provoke considerable, perhaps undesirable, déjà vu. Haneke is not only remaking his own 1997 Austrian film of the same name, but delivering a shot-by-shot duplication: the story, characters, even the lighting, props and layout of the house and surroundings where it all takes place, everything has been lovingly recreated, only this time in English and with English-language actors. The duplication is so precise that while watching the new film the viewer can’t help but become distracted by the most incidental shift in detail. (Hey, there’s soymilk in the fridge this time!)

With regard to the performances, as someone who doesn’t speak German it’s hard to gauge what’s largely a matter of linguistic familiarity. While the characters are virtually unrecognizable as human beings, even sociopathic human beings, Peter and Paul, here played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt, do seem slightly more textured. Their victims, Ann, George and little Georgie, likewise have one or two moments that caught me off guard. Executive producer Naomi Watts, who seems to possess a special interest in horror/fantasy remakes (see The Ring, The Ring 2, King Kong and, coming soon, The Birds) is certainly committed, and begins the film with a bit more vulnerability than Susanne Lothar, her 1997 counterpart. Tim Roth, in a role previously played by the late Ulrich Mühe, creates what for me is by far the film’s most affecting moment, the scene in which George, suffering unimaginable shock, barely able to stand, asks his wife to forgive him for not being able to somehow prevent the catastrophe that’s beset their family. Overall however, both versions prompted exactly the same response in me: intrigue, followed by a period of extreme anxiety and repulsion, followed by utter, exasperating boredom, and, once the film was through, a degree of grudging intellectual appreciation.

The ostensible point of Funny Games, in both versions, is to function as a critique of the commodification of violence in movies. The critique filters into the film through numerous, highly calculated attempts at subverting audience expectations. We might expect to see exciting, dynamic violence; we might expect suspense; we might expect to see the antagonists undone by some mixture of ingenuity on the part of their adversaries and unpredictable forces from the world beyond this house under siege: Haneke denies us all of these things. The problem is that what he’s put in their place are the sort of winky alienation techniques you might expect from some annoyingly smarty-pants film student, such as having the antagonists condescendingly talk directly to the camera or, in the film’s most tiresome scene, pick up a remote control and rewind back a few minutes so they can correct events in a way that suits them better. There are simply no identifiable rules, no interior logic, to Funny Games, a fact which no doubt upsets our bourgeois notions of cathartic drama, but nonetheless does little to implicate us any further in what’s unfolding, because to implicate us we’d need to care a lot more.

Let me be clear: I greatly admire the films Haneke’s made since the first Funny Games. Code Unknown, The Piano Teacher, Time of the Wolf and Caché all seem to succeed where both versions of Funny Games fail: they make a deeply troubling spectacle of violence and withhold certain pieces of what would normally be crucial information as a way to coerce our more active participation with the narrative and the many layers of significance inherent in it. In his Cineaste review of the film, Robert Koehler suggests that Funny Games “is best addressed not in terms of whether it actually works on screen, but as an object that spews out ideas.” I agree that you do indeed need to actually see Funny Games to be able to appreciate the ideas it has to offer. But do you need to see it in two languages? Do you even need to see it twice? And furthermore, does a thriller or horror film need to be so loftily schematic and relentlessly cold in order to engage us in questioning how we consume and/or become disaffected by violence? If viewers are required to be self-reflexive anyway, could they not be just as provoked by a smart genre film, say one by Hitchcock, Verhoven or Cronenberg, that’s infused with ideas, auto-critiques and still delivers the goods with regards to emotional investment in story and characters?

Caché: The murderers are among us

Making good on one of the enigmatic triggers that gradually evaporated in the mirror-miasma of David Lynch’s Lost Highway, Austrian writer/director Michael Haneke’s Caché begins with a VHS tape left on a doorstep, a little act of psychological terrorism perfectly blurring the innocuous and the sinister. The tape reveals only hours of the same fixed shot of the exterior of the recipients’ Parisian home. They come and go, unknowing while nothing happens, their walls remaining uncompromised—at least, physically.

Yet the tape-maker has more than succeeded in his act of invasion: the camera may never move into the house but the tape does (and more soon follow), along with some crude cryptic drawings, penetrating not only personal boundaries but psychic ones buried in the troubled memories of Georges (Daniel Auteuil). Like the tape-maker, Georges prefers to keep his thoughts and motivations hidden, even from his wife Anne (Juliette Binoche, superb) and pre-teen son Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky). And the tape becomes a catalyst for mistrust, which spreads like a contagion through the family.

In his chillingly clean, understated exploitation of the thriller genre, Haneke manipulates our frames of perception from the film’s opening moment, offering us suspense but no privileged information, no sudden close-ups constructed to clarify intent, no transitions that might guide us toward an easier contextualizing of what we’re watching, whether it be surveillance, dramatic action, memory or fragment of a dream. Everything in Caché is presented in the same directorial deadpan, which functions all the better toward implicating us in the very deep murk lying just outside the film’s periphery.

By accident or design, Georges is being led back 40 years to unpleasant childhood experiences shared with Majid (Maurice Bénichou), the son of an Algerian couple once briefly employed by Georges’s family. Georges’s guilt is, in fact, the true engine of the story, and Auteuil’s heavily guarded panic inspires both our identification and our dread. This is a remarkable performance that draws no attention to itself—indeed, rather than play for the camera, Auteuil’s Georges becomes so fearful of hidden viewers as to be afflicted with pretend calm that he can’t let go of no matter where he is.

But where we in the audience are being led as witnesses of Georges’s fruitless search for resolution is toward equally confrontational if unspoken questions of long-term responsibility that reach far beyond a single character’s psychological closets and into the collective consciousness: the failures of the integrationist model of French citizenship, France’s ghastly mistreatment of Algerians, and, broadening the historical scope, global paranoia about terror and Islam. For all the ambiguity, perhaps the one certainty we share with Georges is the knowledge that our sense of home comes at a terrible cost to others.

The evocation of home is as questionable on a literal level as it is on the figurative: the neatly arranged walls of books that envelope Georges and Anne’s place, while signifying educated, rationalist, middle-class comfort, are eerily echoed by the representational walls of fake books that envelope the set of the literary chat show Georges hosts. The tension between reality and theatre is left suspended in Caché; there is a deliberate lack of release (though you’re advised to sit through the closing credits if you want every chance at closure). This tension then hovers disconcertingly in our consciousness as we leave the theatre and try to make sense of the film, its final triumph being the way it finally denies a solid form to its bogeyman, knowing full well that he’s lurking inside the formless fluids of our minds.