 |
 |
Hi Dan/Rutger, and anyone else. Yes, its very intriguing that even with all the devices, FG still comes off as believable and 'realistic' horror - even when much of the violence is offscreen, as with the killing of the boy. (Also, in Benny's Video we don't see much of what has us so disturbed.) Rutger raises interesting questions of the responsiblity of the audience, but I'm not exactly sure about Haneke giving the audience what it wants. Sure we want to be scared to death when we go see a thriller or horror flick, but I read somewhere that H has more respect for people who walk out of his films than those who stay (can't remember where I read it and I can't remember exactly how he put it). I think what makes FG different from other nouvelle violence films like Pulp Fiction, is that the latter makes us laugh in our discomfort with the violence. PF has very funny moments, FG has none. Of course, in PF we do question why we laugh, but in FG we question why we watch. Thanks for the discussion! cheers patricia >>> Error in line 10 of FILM-PHILOSOPHY.MAILTPL: unknown formatting command <<< -> . .. . : ... .'.. ..,.. <-