"My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its disempowerment of the spectator"
These are the
words of Michael Haneke, the Austrian auteur who has made a string of confrontational and aesthetically challenging European pictures. Such a robust statement makes it all the more strange to learn of this provocateurs new feature, a journey into the placid waters of Hollywood to remake his 1997 film, Funny Games.
Leaving aside the fact that Haneke is remaking his own picture, which immediately raises concerns over complacency and the pursuit of the 'Yankee Dollar'. What is more alarming about this decision is that Haneke's work to date has been the antithesis of Hollywood classicism. Haneke is pungent blue Stilton in comparison to Hollywood's smooth chalk. Haneke deliberately structures his films to confront the audience, causing us to question our own social ideologies. He achieves this through a number of techniques that include a lack of intrusive soundtrack, voyeuristic composition, and a fearless disregard for inflicting prolonged moments of realism upon his audience. All of which are alien to modern American cinema. In fact, such techniques could be interpreted by the unaccustomed American eye, as being a touch boring.
Boredom is Hollywood taboo. It is not just a word that sends Harvey Weinstein and his like, running for another helicopter to blow up, but it is also a concept that the contemporary 'indie' movement consciously steer away from. A glance at the films born out of this years 'Sundance Film Festival' will highlight this fact. They may differ in tone and subject matter to the average Hollywood blockbuster, yet they are classically structured in exactly the same way. Shot, reverse shot. A refusal to break the 180" rule, and edited in a way that satisfies the viewer in space and time. Haneke's movies in contrast, are not afraid to confront such formal conventions.
It is this juxtaposition that will make it intriguing to note the audience reaction upon Funny Games' release. It is worth acknowledging that Haneke's films to date, have become steadily more successful without him ever having to sacrifice his unique style. Haneke's most recent movie Hidden played for over 2 Months in the UK and grossed over £900,000, making it one of the best performing foreign pictures of the year, celebrated by both audiences and critics. Crucially though, this audience was predominately made up of the alternative crowd and was a commercial success as far as art house cinema is concerned. Targeting the multiplexes could be more difficult. Will Haneke have to alter his approach to satisfy the money men at Warner Bros? Such a major production company would surely be looking for economic assurances from it's director. It is precisely this dynamic that makes Haneke's move to Hollywood peculiar, especially considering that he was achieving an artistic and relative commercial success by working in Europe. So surely Haneke knows something we don't.
With such overwhelming factors against Haneke's gamble, one could conclude that he must have something up his sleeve. His approach to filmmaking is shrewd and calculating a
nd this decision may be a deliberate and intelligent provocation of mainstream cinema. If Funny Games sticks to the original script, then it will be a vicious attack on the media's presentation of violence. How apt then that he is choosing to remake Funny Games in Hollywood, where on screen violence is frequently embellished and romanticised. After being such a fierce critic of Hollywood, it could be seen as strangely logical that he would take his unique vision to America in order to expose the questionable ideologies' of their films. If you agree with this perspective, possibly Haneke will penetrate American cinema in the same way that he has startled European audiences after all.
This is all just hopeful conjecture though. You can never be entirely sure how a European director will fair in the land of 'Mickey'. We will just have to wait until Funny Games is released in December to debate weather Haneke flourishes or flounders. However, one thing that such a debate does illuminate, is how there is still a polarisation between Hollywood and European cinema. Which is a shame, because there was a time when alternative American cinema promised so much. During the early nineties and the growth of the independent circuit in particular, there was a moment when we thought American cinema was going to challenge movie goers with a daring originality not seen since the 1970's. Sadly, such optimism seems to have evaporated of late. Right up Grindhouse's self referential ass no doubt.
These are the
words of Michael Haneke, the Austrian auteur who has made a string of confrontational and aesthetically challenging European pictures. Such a robust statement makes it all the more strange to learn of this provocateurs new feature, a journey into the placid waters of Hollywood to remake his 1997 film, Funny Games.Leaving aside the fact that Haneke is remaking his own picture, which immediately raises concerns over complacency and the pursuit of the 'Yankee Dollar'. What is more alarming about this decision is that Haneke's work to date has been the antithesis of Hollywood classicism. Haneke is pungent blue Stilton in comparison to Hollywood's smooth chalk. Haneke deliberately structures his films to confront the audience, causing us to question our own social ideologies. He achieves this through a number of techniques that include a lack of intrusive soundtrack, voyeuristic composition, and a fearless disregard for inflicting prolonged moments of realism upon his audience. All of which are alien to modern American cinema. In fact, such techniques could be interpreted by the unaccustomed American eye, as being a touch boring.
Boredom is Hollywood taboo. It is not just a word that sends Harvey Weinstein and his like, running for another helicopter to blow up, but it is also a concept that the contemporary 'indie' movement consciously steer away from. A glance at the films born out of this years 'Sundance Film Festival' will highlight this fact. They may differ in tone and subject matter to the average Hollywood blockbuster, yet they are classically structured in exactly the same way. Shot, reverse shot. A refusal to break the 180" rule, and edited in a way that satisfies the viewer in space and time. Haneke's movies in contrast, are not afraid to confront such formal conventions.
It is this juxtaposition that will make it intriguing to note the audience reaction upon Funny Games' release. It is worth acknowledging that Haneke's films to date, have become steadily more successful without him ever having to sacrifice his unique style. Haneke's most recent movie Hidden played for over 2 Months in the UK and grossed over £900,000, making it one of the best performing foreign pictures of the year, celebrated by both audiences and critics. Crucially though, this audience was predominately made up of the alternative crowd and was a commercial success as far as art house cinema is concerned. Targeting the multiplexes could be more difficult. Will Haneke have to alter his approach to satisfy the money men at Warner Bros? Such a major production company would surely be looking for economic assurances from it's director. It is precisely this dynamic that makes Haneke's move to Hollywood peculiar, especially considering that he was achieving an artistic and relative commercial success by working in Europe. So surely Haneke knows something we don't.
With such overwhelming factors against Haneke's gamble, one could conclude that he must have something up his sleeve. His approach to filmmaking is shrewd and calculating a
nd this decision may be a deliberate and intelligent provocation of mainstream cinema. If Funny Games sticks to the original script, then it will be a vicious attack on the media's presentation of violence. How apt then that he is choosing to remake Funny Games in Hollywood, where on screen violence is frequently embellished and romanticised. After being such a fierce critic of Hollywood, it could be seen as strangely logical that he would take his unique vision to America in order to expose the questionable ideologies' of their films. If you agree with this perspective, possibly Haneke will penetrate American cinema in the same way that he has startled European audiences after all.This is all just hopeful conjecture though. You can never be entirely sure how a European director will fair in the land of 'Mickey'. We will just have to wait until Funny Games is released in December to debate weather Haneke flourishes or flounders. However, one thing that such a debate does illuminate, is how there is still a polarisation between Hollywood and European cinema. Which is a shame, because there was a time when alternative American cinema promised so much. During the early nineties and the growth of the independent circuit in particular, there was a moment when we thought American cinema was going to challenge movie goers with a daring originality not seen since the 1970's. Sadly, such optimism seems to have evaporated of late. Right up Grindhouse's self referential ass no doubt.
