Michael Haneke hates Schindler's List

youtube.com/watch?v=Y_osgrcpes4

Michael Haneke argues against the morality of Downfall and Schindler's List- saying it's irresponsible to dramatise Hitler and The Holocaust in that matter. He says a filmmaker trying to create melodrama out of these characters doesn't given the audience the independence necessary to reach their own conclusions. Haneke says he tries to make his films raise questions, not just give easy answers. Confronting the historical figure on their own.

But isn't it exactly the opposite?

Haneke says he takes his audience seriously enough to give them questions they can mull on their own instead of easy answers- I say Spielberg takes his audience seriously enough to give them answers without presupposing he has a Svengali-like influence on them. Haneke seems to think the audience is full of easily-influenced children, ready to lap up any answer given them, like 5-year olds irresponsibly given opium by cluseless 17th century opothecaries. That shows he DOESN'T respect them- he feels he has to give them something far more palliative than an answer, a question.

The fact is in this comparison Spielberg is the one being more daring, daring to be wrong in his answer, daring in the fact his audience could reject his ideas and disagree with his message, break free of his manipulation- but Spielberg has nobility in the fac the got into the ring. Haneke is being the cautious conservative one, insisting the audience won't be able to handle it if he makes a statement on his subjects, especially Hitler. That's a more old-fashioned view of art, the one-sided view of art, not the modern art as dialogue view of art, that an audience may or may not reject your art and respond to it in their own way.

>oh my god people are talking to me what do I say what do I say uh uh SPIELBERG FUCKING SUCKS NAILED IT

Haneke shows a lack of respect for audiences that is in direct proportion to the latitude he feels they need- like a man who creates a large cage for a gorilla because the gorilla is unpredictable and wild. It is not the man who gives other men extra latitude that is the brave one, it is the coward. It is the normal man who can ride in a cramped elevator to work and feel safe, if inconvenienced, it is the outlier who is claustrophobic and agoraphobic.

Another thing about being a filmmaker that only raises question in his audience as opposed to providing answers is it is the former filmmaker who is less likely to hear his audience's answers and responses- a film that raises questions in the audience may make the audience come up to the director and give his interpretation of the film, but the director can answer every single response with "it's all up to your interpretation." It is very easy to write a riddle that may or may not have a solution, it is much easier to try to solve one. Spielberg, by giving answers, opens himself up to far more loud, frequent, and potent criticism in the "easy answer" he gives that Schindler was a great man who did a great thing- he may be heckled on the treat or by interviewers who insist they have evidence to the contrary that Schlinder was NOT a great man, that he didn't do enough, that he didn't care about the jews, that Spielberg was wrong in this or that historical fact, and that Schindler's answers are or are not wrong. It's easy to say you're raising questions, it is quite another to actually engage with the answers- which Haneke shows disdain for. You cannot have a positive without a negative- Spielberg's approach guarantees you'll have answers and questions, a wide diversity or responses and opinions. Haneke isolates himself from responses like an aging scared agoraphobe who hates going outside because his neighborhood is changing.

At the end of the day Haneke has committed that most forgivable and harmless of vices that all artists have- self-importance. But his unforgivable mistake is thinking this vice is a virtue, and an inarguable fact. Nobody changes their entire life philosophy based on a film no matter who manipulative it is- nobody takes him or any director's opinions that seriously.

He can forgive Haneke's pretensions as sins, but not as virtues.

Haneke might grouse at Spielberg's Schindler's List and say "Who are you to tell the world what to think?" and Spielberg who rightly respond "Who are you to think the world cares what us directors think? Or for that matter that I care what the world thinks? I'm expressing what I think" He makes a mountain out of a molehill, and then insists the mountain is a danger to public health.

pretty nice analysis. but i'm not gonna fall for it and think about it since it will only feed your self-importance

>Haneke seems to think the audience is full of easily-influenced children, ready to lap up any answer given them
Well, he's not wrong

>Reporter ask Judd Apatow right after
>He shills up and makes John Krasinsky talk only

FUCKING JEWS

Even if you sincerely believes this, you then cannot go and use the "I have much more respect for audiences" argument- it's clear that a man that thinks of audience as cattle does not fancy himself a Hindu, but a butcher.

he is an artist. he has to promote his intellectuallity. just a slip up

that interview is still one of the most funniest, cringy things I've ever seen

the contrast of having fucking Haneke and Judd "pee poo lmao" Apatow in the same room is funny

In these discussions it is almost always felt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that film, entertainment, or such stuff should only appreciated on its intellectual content as opposed to its entertainment content. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of watching films is to watch them as intellectual exercises. And for this reason, If a man watches films in order to be entertained, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something he does not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is al ittle insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if a man watches films in order to get smarter, he is trying to get something natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without; something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to being without.

The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of being ecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy of being ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to a strong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument," doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off the Monument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it to a blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under a heavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eye swhenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing at daybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult to deny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctor knows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick as medicine even when they need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think the idea of films as intellectual exercises is necessarily unjustifiable. But I do mean that watching them for fun are the proper use of them, and a great deal more consistent with intellect.

Haneke is a fucking hack and Spielberg, technically speaking, is the far superior filmmaker.

fuck off nigger bait

I love his work, but I hate a lot of his intellectual pretensions. It is one thing to say "lots of films that come out are about entertainment and not art, so I'll provide the art." it is another to say "audiences are wrong for wanting entertainment and not art, art and entertainment are mutually exclusive, i provide art, and nobody should get entertainment." In that he is as conservative as a women's temperance league founder insisting on the need for prohibition.

Is is one thing to criticise Hollywood for the answers they give audiences as being too easy and simple and therefore wrong, it is another to say because some people give wrong answers, nobody should give any answers at all.

Would love to see you elaborate on that, using your own words.

>Haneke says he tries to make his films raise questions, not just give easy answers.

so whats his problem with the Downfall? A movie that portrayed Hitler as a human instead of the comic-book villain you get in american films like the rise of evil?

anyways, this sounds like HE wants to instrumentalize the holocaust and WW2 to stroke his inflated "artist" ego more than anything.

Haneke is kinda pretentious though, and this statement just reinforces that.

>Haneke says he takes his audience seriously enough to give them questions they can mull on their own instead of easy answers


like Funny Games which is 100 minutes of preachy anti-violence shlock purposely made to not be enjoyed to cram the message down the viewer's throat?

le cynical edgy movie man

>it's a Haneke trashing thread
Yes!

Cache is a trite little story that desperately wants its bougie festival audience to feel uncomfortable with their lives and their choices which are inevitably a microcosm of brown people who get fucked over by said choices on a daily basis, at least according to Haneke's finger-wagging race-baiting parables anti-western. Pretty much all of his movies are like this, at least the ones people give a shit about.

white guilt and le media and the audience's culpability: the movie

Another thing about Haneke is he really just goes along with all film studies orthodoxy- when he just accepts, for example, the idea of the audience's voyeurism and the male gaze and all that stuff. But that wasn't all the case in cinema, people used to talk about, in the 1930s, the "innocent eye" of the audience. Now we have the original sin like theory of the guilty eye of the audience- its their fault for watching violence, it's never the filmmakers.

OMG I'M GOING TO EXPOSE OUR MODERN UPPER CLASS CAPITALIST LIFESTYLES AS FRAUDULENT PRISONS THAT HAVE MADE US DETACHED AND COLD TO OUR PEERS AND COUNTRYMEN! LOOK AT HOW SAD THE OLD SCIENTIST IS WHEN HE IS REPLACED BY THE MAIN CHARACTER, AND HOW HE STARES AT THE PICTURE OF HIS DOG! IT IS OUR MODERN LIVES THAT CAUSE SUCH HOLLOW PAIN! I WILL POSIT THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CONFRONT THIS REALITY IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROY ALL OF OUR POSSESSIONS AND KILL EACH OTHER! YES, THAT WILL SHOW THEM! FUCK THE BOURGEOISIE! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE WHILE I WRITE MY NEXT ANTI-WESTERN PARABLE!

nigga needs to read some chesterton smdh

Its universally accepted that Haneke is a lying little cunt.

He is the master manipulator of emotions like despair and anxiety with his films.

To blame Spielberg for manipulating conscience or pity or empathy, HOW is that different from the hack shit Haneke does?

There's a reason why most of his peers loathe an insufferable little hypocrite like Haneke.

>Not in english
??

He can't be too loathed by this peers considering he wins all the awards. Didn't he win at Cannes like 3 or 4 times? And one year while Spielberg was the head of the jury.

Michael "dude I'm 18 and my taste in film is so superior" Haneke

he's basically the prog metal of cinema

I think I have a better comparison...

This.
Schindler's list is not the best example though.

zizek is based tho

smdh tbqphfamiglia