'Funny Games' is certainly not a pleasant film to watch. As the title implies, this film is about Michael Haneke playing games with the audience rather than simply telling a story and this artistic strategy is borne out in the interview added on to this DVD edition.
I don't want to give too much away, so I'll comment on the interview with the director. Haneke takes a rather mocking view of the audience by chastising viewers who would object to his film yet stay to watch the end of it; he implies they are perhaps sick for doing so. He also says that the scene where the female hostage shoots one of the torturers, caused many people at cinema screenings to clap with relief, only for them to fall into silence when the scene is rewound like a videotape and the woman is returned back to her terrible predicament. Haneke says that they were applauding murder by cheering the woman's actions. In essence they were not. Her actions were not an act of murder but a desperate act of self-defence, but, hey, this is only a film. However, Haneke seems to think that screen violence is the flip side of real violence. To the director the audience's reactions to the shooting are more than a reaction to a narrative, but a condonation of a 'murder', which it is not. The woman's actions can be judged as justifiable self-defence whether as part of a narrative or real life itself.
Haneke vainly congratulates himself for 'manipulating' the audience with this scene. However, this suggestion of manipulation is rather pompous of Haneke, as almost all films, in fact all forms of storytelling, manipulate the audience; it is part of the cathartic pleasure of watching a film and what makes cinema such a uniquely rich and rewarding experience, but this 'manipulation' ends the minute a film is over. We are perfectly capable of emotionally and intellectually distinguishing between a depiction of fictional violence and the real thing itself, and I think Haneke is mistaken to believe otherwise. This is a film everyone should watch or attempt to watch (it certainly isn't pleasant viewing), but I would take Haneke's thesis interlinking screen and real violence with a strong pinch of salt.
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Charging of Jon Venables
Apparently, Jon Venables is in custody for having committed a 'serious sexual offence' (that could mean anything these days!). Jamie Bulger's mother is angry because the government won't tell her what the offence is. Overall, that is the correct decision, but should Venables' current offences, ugly though they may be, be turned into a national story? Surely, it is Jon Venables the adult who should be tried and judged on this matter. Jamie's mother, Denise Fergus, says that the government don't want to admit that all the money spent on protecting and rehabilitating Thompson and Venables was 'a waste'.
While one can understand why Mrs Fergus feels bitter at the unconsolable loss of her 3 year old child, what is society supposed to do with children who kill? Do we brutalise them and lock them up for the rest of their life, so that they will never grow up with the freedom needed to develop into rounded human beings? The 27 year old Venables is not the 10 year old Venables. Any offences committed now should not be seen as having a direct parallel to the killing of Jamie Bulger. No doubt, psychological problems in childhood may not go away completely in all individuals, but Venables should be tried for the current allegations against him as an adult. When Thompson and Venables were 10, they were treated like adults; they were demonised as urban folk devils. The conduct of all governments on this matter has been cowardly, craven and a disgrace; none of them have argued against inciting vengeful feelings because they are too busy endorsing and indulging the victim culture.
I feel like putting to some of those people (not Jamie Bulger's family) who rail against child killers, what they think should happen to them. Incarcerate them forever? Get grown adults to beat them to a pulp? Reason is missing in this whole matter. Thompson and Venables' wrongdoing are not the same as Hindley and Brady's. Hindley and Brady were adults who knew precisely what they were doing, the same cannot be said of two 10 year olds who killed a toddler who could easily have been their little brother.
Another point to add is that under the law a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, before judgement is carried out on the adult Venables, adequate evidence must be provided to show that he is guilty. I also disagree with the view that a jury would not be able to put aside their knowledge of Venables' killing of Jamie Bulger; that is a cynical underestimation of the mental capacity of members of the public. The jury system is one of the most important democratic components of law and I would rather be at the hands of 12 ordinary men and women than unelected judges and unaccountable 'experts'. Being in a jury can expand the capacities of anyone and people should not be judged condescendingly because they are manual workers or they didn't go to university - that is a very stupid thing to do.
While one can understand why Mrs Fergus feels bitter at the unconsolable loss of her 3 year old child, what is society supposed to do with children who kill? Do we brutalise them and lock them up for the rest of their life, so that they will never grow up with the freedom needed to develop into rounded human beings? The 27 year old Venables is not the 10 year old Venables. Any offences committed now should not be seen as having a direct parallel to the killing of Jamie Bulger. No doubt, psychological problems in childhood may not go away completely in all individuals, but Venables should be tried for the current allegations against him as an adult. When Thompson and Venables were 10, they were treated like adults; they were demonised as urban folk devils. The conduct of all governments on this matter has been cowardly, craven and a disgrace; none of them have argued against inciting vengeful feelings because they are too busy endorsing and indulging the victim culture.
I feel like putting to some of those people (not Jamie Bulger's family) who rail against child killers, what they think should happen to them. Incarcerate them forever? Get grown adults to beat them to a pulp? Reason is missing in this whole matter. Thompson and Venables' wrongdoing are not the same as Hindley and Brady's. Hindley and Brady were adults who knew precisely what they were doing, the same cannot be said of two 10 year olds who killed a toddler who could easily have been their little brother.
Another point to add is that under the law a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, before judgement is carried out on the adult Venables, adequate evidence must be provided to show that he is guilty. I also disagree with the view that a jury would not be able to put aside their knowledge of Venables' killing of Jamie Bulger; that is a cynical underestimation of the mental capacity of members of the public. The jury system is one of the most important democratic components of law and I would rather be at the hands of 12 ordinary men and women than unelected judges and unaccountable 'experts'. Being in a jury can expand the capacities of anyone and people should not be judged condescendingly because they are manual workers or they didn't go to university - that is a very stupid thing to do.
Friday, 5 March 2010
'Los Bastardos' (2008)
Amat Escalante's 'Los Bastardos' (2008), which I had the pleasure of seeing at the Tate Modern in December 2009, fits into the existential ‘buddy narrative’ of films/plays like ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’ and Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’. The long opening shot is of a desolate urban landscape on the outskirts of Los Angeles, and shows two wandering figures in the far background. Escalante sets the scene for the film and introduces us to the broader social predicaments of the characters, who are illegal Mexican labourers in the United States.
'Los Bastardos' opens slowly and the two main protagonists, Jesus and Fausto, don't come to the fore till at least halfway into the film. They have been contracted to kill an American woman. The woman's life is portrayed as rather drab. She lives with an uncommunicative and awkward adolescent son, with whom she can barely hold a conversation, and she seeks solace through drug use. When Jesus and Fausto break into the woman’s home is where the narrative begins to unfold. ‘Los Bastardos’ is very similar, stylistically, to the German director, Michael Haneke’s ‘Funny Games’ (1989) - Jesus demands food from the woman and she is constantly watched over with a shotgun. Whilst Haneke’s film is very much a modern, dystopian fairy tale with the nice middle-class family being tortured and imprisoned by two sadistic sociopaths from no particular place, Escalante portrays believable characters in Jesus and Fausto. Jesus and Fausto are not ‘natural’ friends – Jesus is in his 30s, while Fausto is an awkward and reticent teenager. They are two people thrown together by their own social and economic deracination – neither of them can speak English; they are illegal aliens; and the very thing that has driven them to cross the US border – namely, money for a better life – is something they can only acquire in any substantial amount through killing another human being, whom they know nothing about.
The incarceration of the woman is gruesome and harrowing to follow. Though the two Mexicans are not brutal to the woman, she is still their prisoner and when she is told to strip down to her underwear to go swimming with them, she takes on a clown-like character and adds an ‘absurdist’ element to the drama. The woman cannot speak enough Spanish to plead or bargain with her kidnappers, and they take advantage of home comforts such as food, swimming pool and TV whilst holding her captive. Escalante could be mocking passivity and consumerism when showing the kidnappers aimlessly lounging around in their victim’s home indifferent to her basic humanity, but on the other hand they could be seen as taking advantage of what little comfort is available to them both in America and their home country.
The narrative of ‘Los Bastardos’ in many ways becomes larger than the sum of its parts. Whilst a writer like Samuel Beckett was seen as hinting at the existential, philosophical alienation and deracination of post-war Europe in ‘Waiting for Godot’, Escalante’s film opens up channels of discussion about the very real human and existential void created by irrational preoccupations in the Western world with issues such as illegal immigration and the notion of the ‘economic migrant’. The United States is so determined to keep Latinos out that it is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on border security and perimeter walls. The inhuman consequences of these policies result in Latin Americans seeking even more dangerous routes, such as through desert, to get across the border leading to tragic consequences for those who perish at the cruel hands of nature.
There is no proper debate about immigration in America or Europe. The real human issues are ignored and immigration is reduced to a merely economic and technical problem – albeit, a very expensive one in terms of the social and financial expenditure required to contain it. The ingenuity of Escalante’s film is that it makes us think about what is happening in front of us. He avoids endowing the film with an explicit social message, but you can’t watch and fully appreciate a film like ‘Los Bastardos’ if it doesn’t make you question why these things happen to people and why it is wrong.
'Los Bastardos' opens slowly and the two main protagonists, Jesus and Fausto, don't come to the fore till at least halfway into the film. They have been contracted to kill an American woman. The woman's life is portrayed as rather drab. She lives with an uncommunicative and awkward adolescent son, with whom she can barely hold a conversation, and she seeks solace through drug use. When Jesus and Fausto break into the woman’s home is where the narrative begins to unfold. ‘Los Bastardos’ is very similar, stylistically, to the German director, Michael Haneke’s ‘Funny Games’ (1989) - Jesus demands food from the woman and she is constantly watched over with a shotgun. Whilst Haneke’s film is very much a modern, dystopian fairy tale with the nice middle-class family being tortured and imprisoned by two sadistic sociopaths from no particular place, Escalante portrays believable characters in Jesus and Fausto. Jesus and Fausto are not ‘natural’ friends – Jesus is in his 30s, while Fausto is an awkward and reticent teenager. They are two people thrown together by their own social and economic deracination – neither of them can speak English; they are illegal aliens; and the very thing that has driven them to cross the US border – namely, money for a better life – is something they can only acquire in any substantial amount through killing another human being, whom they know nothing about.
The incarceration of the woman is gruesome and harrowing to follow. Though the two Mexicans are not brutal to the woman, she is still their prisoner and when she is told to strip down to her underwear to go swimming with them, she takes on a clown-like character and adds an ‘absurdist’ element to the drama. The woman cannot speak enough Spanish to plead or bargain with her kidnappers, and they take advantage of home comforts such as food, swimming pool and TV whilst holding her captive. Escalante could be mocking passivity and consumerism when showing the kidnappers aimlessly lounging around in their victim’s home indifferent to her basic humanity, but on the other hand they could be seen as taking advantage of what little comfort is available to them both in America and their home country.
The narrative of ‘Los Bastardos’ in many ways becomes larger than the sum of its parts. Whilst a writer like Samuel Beckett was seen as hinting at the existential, philosophical alienation and deracination of post-war Europe in ‘Waiting for Godot’, Escalante’s film opens up channels of discussion about the very real human and existential void created by irrational preoccupations in the Western world with issues such as illegal immigration and the notion of the ‘economic migrant’. The United States is so determined to keep Latinos out that it is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on border security and perimeter walls. The inhuman consequences of these policies result in Latin Americans seeking even more dangerous routes, such as through desert, to get across the border leading to tragic consequences for those who perish at the cruel hands of nature.
There is no proper debate about immigration in America or Europe. The real human issues are ignored and immigration is reduced to a merely economic and technical problem – albeit, a very expensive one in terms of the social and financial expenditure required to contain it. The ingenuity of Escalante’s film is that it makes us think about what is happening in front of us. He avoids endowing the film with an explicit social message, but you can’t watch and fully appreciate a film like ‘Los Bastardos’ if it doesn’t make you question why these things happen to people and why it is wrong.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
The government want to introduce mandatory sentences of 25 years for knife crime murders. Is the vulgar corollary to this idea, that this will put the wind up the little shits that carry knives? Knife crime is heinous and ugly, but isn't all murder?
This law defies rationality. So, if someone kicks, bludgeons, suffocates or shoots someone to death will their crime be considered qualititatively less malicious than a knife murder? Will the sociopathic tearway think 'Hang on. Let's not do 'im with a knife 'cos I'll never get out before my 40th birthday'? Well, that's the logic of Jack Staw's suggestion. We are all repelled by knife crime, but even more repellent is a criminal justice system that makes no allowance for personal redemption on the part of those that commit these terrible crimes.
Idiotic, idiotic, idiotic....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hQV0SUWpMSJvJrRkvVpKGidOKiyA
This law defies rationality. So, if someone kicks, bludgeons, suffocates or shoots someone to death will their crime be considered qualititatively less malicious than a knife murder? Will the sociopathic tearway think 'Hang on. Let's not do 'im with a knife 'cos I'll never get out before my 40th birthday'? Well, that's the logic of Jack Staw's suggestion. We are all repelled by knife crime, but even more repellent is a criminal justice system that makes no allowance for personal redemption on the part of those that commit these terrible crimes.
Idiotic, idiotic, idiotic....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hQV0SUWpMSJvJrRkvVpKGidOKiyA
Arrest of Jon Venables
It has just been reported that one of the boys responsible for killing James Bulger has been arrested for breaching the terms of his licence. It sounds so salacious when the press refer to them as the 'Bulger killers', and it's morally wrong that these young men should carry the weight of a terrible act carried out in childhood for the rest of their lives.
I couldn't help but feel revulsion at this news extract:
Trial judge Mr Justice Morland told the pair they had committed a crime of "unparalleled evil and barbarity".
Appalling though these youngsters' crimes were, they clearly had no insight into what they were doing. Pompous judges are always portrayed as the levelling voice of reason, calm and rationality, but to describe the young boys' actions as 'unparalleled evil and brutality' smacks of hysterical hyperbole. Their actions were horrifying precisely because they were carried out by 10 year olds. But what a low point the justice system sunk to by demonising these poor disturbed kids. Now we have ASBOs and curfews in place to demonise the young, as adults now run scared from kids.
It would be a good thing if it were possible for Thompson and Venables to talk as adults about what happened and how they see their actions now, but that is not even a possibility today in our victim-centred culture. Neither these young men, nor the Bulger family will ever have closure in this matter.
I couldn't help but feel revulsion at this news extract:
Trial judge Mr Justice Morland told the pair they had committed a crime of "unparalleled evil and barbarity".
Appalling though these youngsters' crimes were, they clearly had no insight into what they were doing. Pompous judges are always portrayed as the levelling voice of reason, calm and rationality, but to describe the young boys' actions as 'unparalleled evil and brutality' smacks of hysterical hyperbole. Their actions were horrifying precisely because they were carried out by 10 year olds. But what a low point the justice system sunk to by demonising these poor disturbed kids. Now we have ASBOs and curfews in place to demonise the young, as adults now run scared from kids.
It would be a good thing if it were possible for Thompson and Venables to talk as adults about what happened and how they see their actions now, but that is not even a possibility today in our victim-centred culture. Neither these young men, nor the Bulger family will ever have closure in this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)