This is truly beautiful, not in the way that Bergman's Sven Nykvist made beautiful silver insertions into loneliness, but as pure, soulless visions of soulless people and their children being ripped. Haneke has famously "explained" this movie as depicting the oppressive fog on the land which generically produces twisted, homicidal societies. I wish he had kept his mouth shut because that much is obvious as a background.
What is more interesting is who Haneke has revealed himself to be, and what he thinks of us as viewers. I've always felt uncomfortable with his films, not because they have an intended unsettling effect (that makes you "examine" self), but because they make interestingly flawed assumptions about me and how to get to me. Those flaws are fascinating and far, far more engaging and disturbing than the events depicted.
In this case, as with many of Herzog's films, the very thing that is being revealed to be destructive is built into the fabric of the thing and the contract with the filmmaker we are forced into complying with. Simple, reductionist morality? Obsessively bleak vision? Condescending view of natural emotions and passions? Yes, yes, yes, both in what we have and how we have it. "Cache" was at least cleverly constructed, just as this is wonderfully framed. But the man is just too, well too Austrian.
There are several mysteries in this story, cleverly not closed. The loud implication is that the children were behind many of the events. This fits the film's intent, as the filmmaker has patiently told us in interviews that these children become the Nazis he is beholden to understand. But much more interesting is a different solution to the mysteries, surely subconsciously placed.
Our narrator is the village schoolmaster. He is in a unique position, the only institutionally allowed connection between the children and the adults. He alone has anything remotely like honest love. He uniquely is untouched by the disasters. He is also our narrator, a role we are reminded of throughout. He also tells us at the beginning that what he will tell us is partly lies, partly truth. No doubt, Haneke identifies with this storyteller and has hidden truths about himself just as our teacher has.
Look at this closely and you may interpret as I did the second time around. I think the teacher is a plausible culprit, wholly unintended by the filmmaker and hiding his worst tendencies just as the filmmaker has.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
What is more interesting is who Haneke has revealed himself to be, and what he thinks of us as viewers. I've always felt uncomfortable with his films, not because they have an intended unsettling effect (that makes you "examine" self), but because they make interestingly flawed assumptions about me and how to get to me. Those flaws are fascinating and far, far more engaging and disturbing than the events depicted.
In this case, as with many of Herzog's films, the very thing that is being revealed to be destructive is built into the fabric of the thing and the contract with the filmmaker we are forced into complying with. Simple, reductionist morality? Obsessively bleak vision? Condescending view of natural emotions and passions? Yes, yes, yes, both in what we have and how we have it. "Cache" was at least cleverly constructed, just as this is wonderfully framed. But the man is just too, well too Austrian.
There are several mysteries in this story, cleverly not closed. The loud implication is that the children were behind many of the events. This fits the film's intent, as the filmmaker has patiently told us in interviews that these children become the Nazis he is beholden to understand. But much more interesting is a different solution to the mysteries, surely subconsciously placed.
Our narrator is the village schoolmaster. He is in a unique position, the only institutionally allowed connection between the children and the adults. He alone has anything remotely like honest love. He uniquely is untouched by the disasters. He is also our narrator, a role we are reminded of throughout. He also tells us at the beginning that what he will tell us is partly lies, partly truth. No doubt, Haneke identifies with this storyteller and has hidden truths about himself just as our teacher has.
Look at this closely and you may interpret as I did the second time around. I think the teacher is a plausible culprit, wholly unintended by the filmmaker and hiding his worst tendencies just as the filmmaker has.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.