Stop watching horror movies

Stop watching horror movies.

why

Stop watching Emma Stone

>Stop watching hollywood shit

FTFY, plebstain

He's only against trivialisation and pornification of violence. And that's something I agree with.

Bend over and apologize for eveything you did to the noble brown people, horrid white man.

Are you implying that character didn't have a point in doing this?

Stop making shitty films

>haneke
>shitty
special snowflake syndrome huh?

>haneke
>good
muh superior taste huh?

The characters and plot are irrelevant and don't hold up to scrutiny.
They're only a vehicle to talk about the responsabilities of western society on the algerian war.

Superior to what? Yours? Probably.

A comeback as good as a Haneke flick, bravo.

It was great, i know. Thanks

>Amour
>White Ribbon
>shitty

Stay fucking pleb.

Way to ditch the point because of your politics.

But you've made horror movies.

Name a good filmmaker

>inb4 Gibson

Дeнниc Дyгaн

Thought as much.

wrong

Correct. Funny Games is a horror movie.

oops

Haneke's movies are only about their politics, with the only possible exception of Amour.
Focusing on anything else is pointless.

Suck my cock.

>imdb
WEW

What's the main purpose of a horror film? I'd say it's to scare the audience, which is not the point of Funny Games

>What's the main purpose of a horror film? I'd say it's to scare the audience
Not necessarily. It might want to, you know, HORRIFY the audience and that is certainly what Funny Games aims at.

Chong is not cool enough... he had to send chong

>WEW
Hey, you used google to prove it isn't a horror movie and google isn't any better than IMDb.

Why is Tommy Chong so uptight? Did he switch strains?

Stop marrying, having children, working and buying things. Western society is an abomination.

Is that the message of every Haneke film?

I'm not that dude but i partly agree with you. The major themes Haneke presents are political and they're obviously the essence, but to say that nothing else matters is reductionist and absurd. They're films, not dissertations, the characters exist and act within their own parameters.

But it's not to horrify either, it's to make them aware of the mindless and irresponsible use of violence in films. Pic related is from wikipedia

When he's not patronizing you for watching violent movies.

So what if he says it's not a horror film? He's not the one to decide that. The movie fits into the horror genre whether he wants it or not.

except for the ones about how multi-culturalism is a good thing.

I think you missed the point but ok. You can continue to believe it's horror, the line is blurry, i'm not gonna blame you

Eagerly waiting for his movie about the refugee crisis seen through the eyes of a bourgeoisie family.

You can't deny that the film can totally be seen as horror and Haneke's opinion doesn't change that.

I said ok mate, read my post again

The only time Haneke sees "refugees" is when their bodies wash up on the beach at Cannes.

you said it tries to make people aware. how does it do that? by showing people how sadistic and detatched violence in films is. it's an unconfortable experience it, it makes you sick, it HORRIFIES you.

k

The White Ribbon is literally just Haneke having a REEEEEE at protestantism and blaming it for the Nazis.

O. K. !!! I already said the line is blurry, you gotta meet me halfway here. Can you at least agree it's a subversion of horror films?

Funny Games isn't subversive of anything. That's like saying Pat Robertson is subversive of moral decadence.

Haneke is triggered by the existence of horror films and that people enjoy seeing them. His sense of prudish ethics is what's being subverted.

>Funny Games isn't subversive of anything
But it is. You can try to explain why it isn't though

>Haneke is triggered by the existence of horror films and that people enjoy seeing them
He's not anti-horror per se, he just advocates for a more responsible use of violence in films.

>His sense of prudish ethics is what's being subverted
How come?

best islamic whatever will teach You a lesson.

>But it is.
No, it literally isn't. Haneke is not subverting an established moral order, he's bitching about the fact that society is not MORE restrictive.

>He's not anti-horror per se, he just advocates for a more responsible use of violence in films.
This means pretty much nothing. Haneke thinks that violence should only be employed to serve his political ends and all other displays of it are immoral and people who enjoy watching it are closet murderers. He's as fucking prudish and off the rails as the most insane bible thumper.

>How come?
Haneke is so triggered by the fact that people enjoy violent movies without his consent, he devoted two entire films to the subject. He's just an SJW who can't stand that people like what he doesn't.

Put down the joint Chong.

>Haneke is not subverting an established moral order
He's subverting horror films. You walk in thinking it'll be a standard home invasion flick and as it progresses you end up realising you're being toyed with and made accomplice by watching it. That's the subversion i was talking about

>he's bitching about the fact that society is not MORE restrictive.
In a way, yes. But he's not pro-censorship or anything, he just wishes we didn't glorify violence as much we do.

>This means pretty much nothing. Haneke thinks that violence should only be employed to serve his political ends
Which are? Can you back this up?

>all other displays of it are immoral and people who enjoy watching it are closet murderers
Possibly immoral, i don't know if he feels as strongly as this. Definitely not closet murderers though, vicarious would be the proper term

>He's as fucking prudish and off the rails as the most insane bible thumper
Opinion

>Haneke is so triggered by the fact that people enjoy violent movies without his consent
I answered this above. But you didn't answer how his ethics are being subverted.

>You walk in thinking it'll be a standard home invasion flick and as it progresses you end up realising you're being toyed with and made accomplice by watching it.
That's not how being made an accomplice works. It's an active choice. Haneke chose to write the movie, he chose to direct the movie, and then he turns around with all the moral sophistication of a five year old and blames the audience for coming to see it. You're just mistaking bile and contempt for a thoughtful message.

>then he turns around with all the moral sophistication of a five year old and blames the audience for coming to see it

Fucking this, it's an embarrassing film and I feel bad for people who think it succeeds at implicating the audience in anything

Sorry to wade in, but clearly Haneke's feelings o the subject are very strong indeed. He made a film in German which did poorly, and then went to the expense of a glossier hollywood remake which also did poorly. Clearly he hates this kind of movie and wants people to think before indulging.

I think it is subversive, but that subversion is effectively used to chide his audience. It's a film so deliberately unpleasant it dares it's audience to switch off. Which most of them did.

He's an incredible talent, but he's clearly prudish on this issue to a fault.

>blames the audience for coming to see it
Yes. There's a quote somewhere that he says if you leave the theater, then you didn't need to see the film anyway. It's confrontational filmmaking

Another quote
>Yes, of course the film is a provocation. It’s meant as a provocation, and of course, all the rules that usually make the viewer go home happy and contented are broken in my film. There’s this unspoken rule that you can’t harm animals. What do I do? I kill the dog first thing. The same thing with the boy. You’re not supposed to break the illusion. What do I do? I break the illusion. It’s the principle of the whole film. It’s a very ironic film.

What about the other points i made?

I agree with all of this, i was saying if he feels as strongly as to say people who enjoy that kind of mindless violence are immoral. I only said possibly because i can't back it up.

It's a thriller, you fucking idiot. There's noting paranormal in it. Unless you want to play retard and tell me they were devils and shit and the remote was to demonstrate demonic power. In that case I suggest you jump in front of a train.

ROMERO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any living director

>It's confrontational filmmaking
So what? A fire and brimstone protestant sermon about the evils of sodomy in front of a crowd of faggots is 'confrontational', but that does make it thoughtful or sophisticated or worth anyone's time.

>What about the other points i made?
I'm not going to respond individually to an ever increasing number of fragments in every post. Pick a point and emphasize it or I'll choose which one I respond to.

You are an idiot.
That's like saying a parody of a horror movie is a horror movie

Can you even articulate yourself? You sound like a fucking twelve year old and you are making ZERO points about the quality of filmmaking in your idiotic post. Which is also oversimplifying as shit.
Dipshit.

>having a REEEEEE at protestantism and blaming it for the Nazis

So?

>Which is also oversimplifying as shit.
It's not my job to be more sophisticated than Haneke when talking about his shitty movies.

So I guess that passes as quality historical analysis if you're a bitter fedora wearing teenager, but it's pretty worthless to most people.

>So what? A fire and brimstone protestant sermon about the evils of sodomy in front of a crowd of faggots is 'confrontational', but that does make it thoughtful or sophisticated or worth anyone's time.
No but it explains the nature of the film. If you don't like it it's entirely up to you. Also i'd stop with the analogies, you're not good at it.

>I'm not going to respond individually to an ever increasing number of fragments in every post. Pick a point and emphasize it or I'll choose which one I respond to.
The points were made and left unaddressed, i'll just assume you don't have any arguments. That's alright because i gotta go anyway, so bye

>Haneke thinks that violence should only be employed to serve his political ends and all other displays of it are immoral and people who enjoy watching it are closet murderers.
Way to fog up an argument, asshole. Morals and politics can be interchanged in your idiotic analysis.
My guess is you post on Sup Forums because you're not bright enough to lead arguments on Sup Forums?

And also again- Haneke is not anti-horror -he is anti pornographic violence and no, these two are not the same.

>Michael "films about the Holocaust shouldn't be made" Haneke
He's a fucking idiot. There's no such thing as a subject too delicate to handle, and nothing about violence specifically being so serious or sacred that shouldn't be depicted in a ludic and fun way.
But this is the guy that in Benny's video states that fictional violence causes detachment from reality and actual violence, so.

You're a fucking idiot. Stop posting.

>Michael "films about the Holocaust shouldn't be made" Haneke
I guess you missed the interview where he praises Night and Fog?

Here, here.

Tarantino is retarded with that shit.

You seem like a passive aggressive bitch, m8.

>There's no such thing as a subject too delicate to handle
There is however a shitton of films with moral doublestandards about virtues, morals and violence being shat out by Hollywood. And I take an artistic open moralistic statement any day over massproduced idiotic garbage that consideres literally nothing sacred and is hence simply decadent.

It's the same interview, where he shits on Spielberg for creating suspence in a scene about jews going to the showers.
His point is that it's a subject too sacred to be made into a thriller movie. And that's idiotic.

>And also again- Haneke is not anti-horror -he is anti pornographic violence and no, these two are not the same.
Is that why he's not above slaughtering animals on camera when he makes his shitty moral scare films about the dangers of watching evil Hollywood violence?

>quality historical analysis
Good thing he's a filmmaker and not a historian

Then he should make films and not screech at his audience for occasionally enjoying violent movies he doesn't approve of for 90 minutes.

Why are Italian American directors so great?

>Haha! Killing and guns are fun! Look he blew that guys head off and cut off that woman's nipples! Haha, right!

>Then he should make films
Again stop posting you fucking retard.

The average slasher fan is probably more morally sophisticated than you.

That is real stuff. I don't agree with him doing that (in one film I know of) but its exactly the opposite of what Hollywood is showing you.

>His point is that it's a subject too sacred to be made into a thriller movie
His point is that it's manipulating the audience and creating artificial tension and turning it into entertainment. He feels that way about violence in general, so of course he'd be against the pornification of the holocaust. If it's a responsible film, like Night and Fog, he has no problem with it.

Maybe you shouldn't watch his movies if you screech at him for making movies you done approve of.

Are you feeling alright?

>The average slasher fan is probably more morally sophisticated than you.

So Hollywood would be 'moral' if it showed its audiences actual snuff? Do you even think about the shit you spew or do you believe everything that falls out of Haneke's mouth?

The only argument I accept in this is that Slasher fans self insert into the victims and reach some form of catharsis by doing that. But I still think Haneke has a point about tarantinofication of violence and the loss of virtue in general in filmmaking.

Maybe you shouldn't read my posts if you don't approve of them.

Are you retarded? Are you missing the point on purpose, you dumb shithead?

Maybe you should stop posting.

>There's noting paranormal in it.
Not all horror movies are paranormal, you retard.

Nothing is sacred. If I want to make a slapstick comedy about a concentration camp I should be allowed to do so without old faggots like Haneke complaining about it being disrespectful or serious and self important enough.
Yeah, so?
What's about violence that makes it immoral employing it for entertainment?

Has nothing to do with Tarantino.

Nigga, we got violence on our phones 24/7

That's pretty liberal of you. See where 'anything goes' and no virtues get you, faggot.

>has nothing to do with Tarantino

>I remember when Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction (1994) came out, and I was sitting in a matinee filled with young people. The famous scene of a boy's head being blown off caused a huge commotion in the theater. They thought it was great and they almost died laughing. I was upset because I think it's irresponsible.

Haneke probably wouldn't agree with you.

It seems like a thrill for upper class white liberals who are in search of exactly the same kind of 'real' violence as the protagonist of Benny's Video, and no doubt it was a little thrill for Haneke as well. Honestly, it's not a major issue to me, but Haneke is clearly motivated by the desire to have exclusive rights over violence and suffering and to condemn the rest of civilization for daring to employ them for any means other than to advance his politics against the European middle class.

Tarantino makes no pretense of moral authority, which means he's just juvenile with his violence instead of a perverted retard like Haneke.

These threads are always filled with thinly veiled rage against Haneke's supposed political positions because they are different from what ppl here seem to like. People are making next to no points about his abilities and achievements as a filmmaker.

Wasn't Psycho one of his favorite films?

Haneke's movies are filled with thinly veiled rage against things because they don't agree with his politics though, so it's appropriate.

>perverted retard
>makes personal moralistic statements about morals and violence in his films

>Tarantino is a decadent piece of shit who is bathing in a liberal industry and lives his juvenile perverted taste for blood and gore out on screen.
>He makes no pretense and not the perverted retard in this

Go die in a fire.

In hand Haneke would be agreeing with censorship.

Fuck that cunt.

Humanity is what it is.

No