MichaelFrances (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

our complicity and acceptance of violence which surely cannot be a bad thing? For me, violence and rape aren't simply taboos; they're wrong. Do we need reminding of brutality (against children for example) to realise our sense of moraltiy? For me this is extremely bleak while Haneke's movie though hardly a classic is much more sophisticated and original in that gives us the jolt while also being a first step in scaling us back from the gratuitous spectacle (visually at least).

MichaelFrances (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

So you wouldn't object to my making of a cinematic celebration of the beauty of children by making a similarly violent movie? If not, is it not because, as humans, our immanent sense of reason tells us that the sanctity of the human body is the one and only given? We don't need a 'wanky' and 'moralistic' filmmaker explaining to us the virtue of human goodness and morality when it is already inherent in MOST of us. For me Haneke's movie is much more worthwhile in that it urges us to question..

PantsMcPants (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

His portrayal is of the brutal honesty of reality, the taboo's of reality, and not only that the film techniques don't hide any of it. It is meant to make people uneasy, but that is only the first half the other half of the film is gorgeous, and the non-linear structure is meant to emphasize a sense of morality and beauty. I don't understand how you could place Funny Games above this, when that is extremely de-moralising and wanky, as much as I love Haneke I felt that film made him seem arrogant

regurgitatedsmegma1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

so i'm guessing this comes from Irreversible?

CerpinTaxt1983 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Gasper Noe's films are so beautiful.

stoatyboy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Ha Ha... Thats quite a cynical view of the world of the arts... Theres bound to be someone out there whos cracked one off to just about everything! You know just as an aside to all this, I work in a music shop and we had to pull some Batman Joker badges off sale because they had pictures of knives on them, pictures! Because they might incite knife crime? Perhaps your right, if people really are that easily led we should ban everything. Bring back mary Whitehouse, alls forgiven.

stoatyboy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

And Reservoir Dogs is a bunch of blokes in a warehouse, and the Blair Witch Project is just 3 kids running round a forest, and High Fidelity is some bloke banging on about his ex's, One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, some guys in a nut house, The Shining, just a mental in a hotel, I could go on all day. Its about HOW something is filmed and portrayed that makes it. Lighting, script, camera angles, The viewer understanding the directors motives and reasons, you get it or you don't, Like it or don't.

MichaelFrances (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

One peal through the Monday edition of my local tabloid and I can find all the evidence I need. Who's to say the guys crackin' a wank over this film aren't involved in high art?

MichaelFrances (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

For me, it's not an amazing film though that's my point, it's extremely basic in all its 'explorations', it is a movie done in reverse featuring a brutal rape. What makes that in any way a quality movie? Funny games for example challenges the viewer to rethink our complicity with onscreen violence and it is done in a very clever way. Maybe I need to watch it again but I failed to see any subtlety in Irreversible, any nuance other than 'we have bad men in society'.

stoatyboy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It has ben argued for years what is art an what is not, the sprawling mess that is Caligula, recently rereleased and revered and reviled in equal amounts, Pasolinis Salo, sick sadistic, poorly veiled pornography or an anti-fascist and anti-power statement? Whatever, these acts of extreme cinema exist for a reason, you decide what it is.