Essentially an attack on the individual viewer and our sensibilities in approaching film from an objective standpoint; with the ideas behind it focusing on everything from the nature of voyeurism, violence, social dissatisfaction, and the always contentious implication of the culpability of the media in how they choose to document brutality in an often wholly gratuitous way. With this in mind, the film can definitely be seen as a product of its time, with the subject matter tapping into the territory of similar cinematic think-tanks such as Kika (1993), Natural Born Killers (1995), The Doom Generation (1995) and Funny Games (1997); all of which use the platform of creative expression to the point the finger at our mainstream media (and the audiences that support it) for blurring the lines between fact and fiction, journalism and exploitation. Of course, such presentations leave the filmmakers themselves open to the accusations of hypocrisy, and indeed, exploitation; as the presentation of the film and the resulting controversy becomes an almost salient point in selling the film to overseas distributors.
With this in mind, the film becomes targeted to the very audience that it was originally attempting to critique; creating a sad irony that renders much of the film's satire completely flaccid and the presentation of the events manipulative in the extreme. This is always a difficult argument to reconcile when discussing cinema of this nature, as the intentions of the filmmakers are often shown up by their choice of presentation. Something like Funny Games for example - which attempts to criticise the overriding desire for violence and brutality as presented by contemporary cinema - strives to go against the whims of its audience by setting the scene for the eventual carnage, only to then pull away from it; denying the viewer the sweet relief of hard-core violence and leaving instead the suffering of its central characters and the hollow desperation of its eventual end. Man Bites Dog (1992) attempts to convey a similar idea, with the story of a group of documentary filmmakers following one of Belgium's most vicious and notorious serial killers as he goes about his everyday activities. However, whereas Haneke chose to go against his audience, taking away the thrill of the violence and inevitable retribution, the filmmakers here have gone all out with numerous instances of gore, brutality and genuine mean-spiritedness.
Technically, it's brilliantly done and is incredibly well acted; with the cinema verite-like quality of the images and the natural charisma of lead star Benoit Poelvoorde conveying both the thrill of his actions and the necessary horror. In choosing to realise the film in such a way, the directors make a self-conscious decision to place the audience in the midst of the action; putting us in the position of the filmmakers themselves and forcing us to go along on such a journey with this dangerously charismatic figure. However, once again we must ask ourselves what this presentation adds to the satire of the film, as the continual bombardment of sadistic violence and random acts of brutality perpetuated against innocent, everyday people, becomes completely numbing. So, by the end of the film - at which point we've been privy to strangulations, child-murder, rape and home invasion - we're no longer sure if we should be enjoying the film or turning it off in disgust. If the film is to be taken as a work of entertainment, then the satire that many argue is the most prescient point is completely lost; making the film a failure. If it is a satire, meant to push the audience into rejecting the presentation of violence in the media, then the majority of the film's "fans" have obviously missed the point.
As a result, it is impossible to review the film in a traditional sense, as I feel - ideologically speaking - that as a work of both satire and entertainment, the film is fatally flawed. Instead, I'll concentrate on the technical presentation, mentioning only the basics of the appearance and how it might be interpreted by a more appreciative audience. After all, just because I didn't value the film, doesn't mean that you won't. In fact, you might even love it. The way the filmmakers exploit the set up of the situation - with the film camera becoming our eye, showing us only what it reports and turning the audience into voyeurs (or accomplices?) - is self-reference at its very best; compelling the audience into the proceedings when we should be walking away, but also acting as a necessary barrier. It's the famous tagline of Last House on the Left (1971) suggesting that "to avoid fainting keep repeating, it's only a movie, it's only a movie..." perfectly subverted by the fact that the "movie" in question is purporting to show actual real-life events that mock the seemingly endless (and pointless) cycle of violence that the audience screams out for. The ending helps to put things into context, but even then, I'm still not sure whether it clarifies the satirical intentions of the filmmaker, or merely continues the idea of shallow, sensationalistic entertainment?
The film goes to some shocking extremes in an attempt to repel the audience; pushing us to a limit of discomfort that few films can equate. However, unlike similarly controversial films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), Straw Dogs (1971) and Irreversible (2002), the intention here is more towards comedy; creating a sense of definite entertainment value from the violence and degradation. However, in spite of these flaws, the argument remains an intelligent one; with the filmmakers (sort of) implying that those who subject themselves to prolonged and extreme depictions of violence will eventually become so desensitised that all violence will lose its ability to shock. Or are they? Either way, we're free to interpret the film as we see fit, taking it as a somewhat flawed critique, or simply as an outré black comedy. Regardless of my somewhat formless critical opinion, the actual classification is ultimately your own.
With this in mind, the film becomes targeted to the very audience that it was originally attempting to critique; creating a sad irony that renders much of the film's satire completely flaccid and the presentation of the events manipulative in the extreme. This is always a difficult argument to reconcile when discussing cinema of this nature, as the intentions of the filmmakers are often shown up by their choice of presentation. Something like Funny Games for example - which attempts to criticise the overriding desire for violence and brutality as presented by contemporary cinema - strives to go against the whims of its audience by setting the scene for the eventual carnage, only to then pull away from it; denying the viewer the sweet relief of hard-core violence and leaving instead the suffering of its central characters and the hollow desperation of its eventual end. Man Bites Dog (1992) attempts to convey a similar idea, with the story of a group of documentary filmmakers following one of Belgium's most vicious and notorious serial killers as he goes about his everyday activities. However, whereas Haneke chose to go against his audience, taking away the thrill of the violence and inevitable retribution, the filmmakers here have gone all out with numerous instances of gore, brutality and genuine mean-spiritedness.
Technically, it's brilliantly done and is incredibly well acted; with the cinema verite-like quality of the images and the natural charisma of lead star Benoit Poelvoorde conveying both the thrill of his actions and the necessary horror. In choosing to realise the film in such a way, the directors make a self-conscious decision to place the audience in the midst of the action; putting us in the position of the filmmakers themselves and forcing us to go along on such a journey with this dangerously charismatic figure. However, once again we must ask ourselves what this presentation adds to the satire of the film, as the continual bombardment of sadistic violence and random acts of brutality perpetuated against innocent, everyday people, becomes completely numbing. So, by the end of the film - at which point we've been privy to strangulations, child-murder, rape and home invasion - we're no longer sure if we should be enjoying the film or turning it off in disgust. If the film is to be taken as a work of entertainment, then the satire that many argue is the most prescient point is completely lost; making the film a failure. If it is a satire, meant to push the audience into rejecting the presentation of violence in the media, then the majority of the film's "fans" have obviously missed the point.
As a result, it is impossible to review the film in a traditional sense, as I feel - ideologically speaking - that as a work of both satire and entertainment, the film is fatally flawed. Instead, I'll concentrate on the technical presentation, mentioning only the basics of the appearance and how it might be interpreted by a more appreciative audience. After all, just because I didn't value the film, doesn't mean that you won't. In fact, you might even love it. The way the filmmakers exploit the set up of the situation - with the film camera becoming our eye, showing us only what it reports and turning the audience into voyeurs (or accomplices?) - is self-reference at its very best; compelling the audience into the proceedings when we should be walking away, but also acting as a necessary barrier. It's the famous tagline of Last House on the Left (1971) suggesting that "to avoid fainting keep repeating, it's only a movie, it's only a movie..." perfectly subverted by the fact that the "movie" in question is purporting to show actual real-life events that mock the seemingly endless (and pointless) cycle of violence that the audience screams out for. The ending helps to put things into context, but even then, I'm still not sure whether it clarifies the satirical intentions of the filmmaker, or merely continues the idea of shallow, sensationalistic entertainment?
The film goes to some shocking extremes in an attempt to repel the audience; pushing us to a limit of discomfort that few films can equate. However, unlike similarly controversial films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), Straw Dogs (1971) and Irreversible (2002), the intention here is more towards comedy; creating a sense of definite entertainment value from the violence and degradation. However, in spite of these flaws, the argument remains an intelligent one; with the filmmakers (sort of) implying that those who subject themselves to prolonged and extreme depictions of violence will eventually become so desensitised that all violence will lose its ability to shock. Or are they? Either way, we're free to interpret the film as we see fit, taking it as a somewhat flawed critique, or simply as an outré black comedy. Regardless of my somewhat formless critical opinion, the actual classification is ultimately your own.