Tarantino makes his violence comfortable.
Haneke makes his violence uncomfortable.
The former often softens the shock using comedy, whereas the latter hardens it by jarring the safety of fiction with the grit of reality.
What do people think and feel about these two extremes?
that is a good analysis.
shareI think the former is necessary for violence to be entertaining (in the sense of amusing or enjoyable) whereas the latter is useful for giving the audience a sense of perspective or satisfying a curiosity about real life violence.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Thanks. To add, in terms of story purpose, Haneke seems to frustrate our desire for vengeful bloodlust, while Tarantino purges and satisfies it.
But I'd disagree that Haneke is any less skillful, in fact quite the contrary - story violence has been leveraged throughout history as an outlet for our aggressive impulses, but rarely has it been built up only to be resolved by an anti-climax. Haneke said, "If you liked Funny Games, you probably didn't understand it". He has intentionally deprived us of catharsis here as way to highlight the ugly side of violence and our similarly ugly satisfaction when its use is justified.
Funny Games is purposefully unlikeable. The 2007 American remake will likely have been made for easier, subtitle-free digestion.
[deleted]
Sure, the boundaries of a film dictate that there must be a return to reality, but should that mean the unsettling effects of the story should be lost? No aftertaste or remnants?
Also, what was the reason that you think he doesn't deprive us of catharsis? From my recollection of researching Funny Games, the point of the tv remote rewinding is to deny us that moment of catharsis of one of the intruders being shot. This moment is also the only visually explicit violence in the whole film.
[deleted]
I'm hearing several things. One is that you feel dissatisfied with the fact that this movie had an end. Surely, as endings finish the story, you equally have an issue with happy endings too? But, to your credit, I see that you're exploring ways to continue the effects in, for example, viral marketing. This approach to expanding beyond the primary medium is one yet untapped. Taste the carrot and now chase the carrot!
Your measure of Funny Games's aftereffects are based on the film's general popularity. Though I'd argue that this is only one film to deglorify violence, 12 Years A Slave, a far more popular film, does a similar thing. In terms of audience appetite, I think it's far easier to revert to violence than transcend it - far easier to hit back than think back. Hence why action is such a popular genre.
[deleted]
"Tarantino revels in voyeuristic violence. This is why Inglorious Basterds is such a masterpiece".
No, he revels in gratuitous, meaningless, sadistic violence. Which is why Inglorious Basterds is not only a dull and poorly written film, but also a rather repulsive one.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
Firstly, I don't much believe in fallacies like appeal to authority or majority opinion. Secondly, I was talking about IB exclusively, not Tarantino's filmography as a whole (although a strange and gleeful fixation with sadism is a common thread running through most of it).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]