Gurcan wrote:
... i saw ``Le temps de loup'' last week and it's not one of the world's
important films. filming in france is killing haneke's talent and one
day he'll realized that.
It's fine that you have an opinion, but
please back it up. If ``Le temps de loup'' is not (as I would argue it is for
numerous and previously stated reasons) one of the world's most important films,
then please argue why it isn't. (This practice of argument, by the way, is at
the center of what philosophy and criticism share.) When you do, then we can
have a discussion about the film's value and importance.
As for filming in France ``killing Haneke's
talent,'' this is a pretty serious claim that, again, has no provided argument
to back it up. How is working in France exactly ``killing'' Haneke's cinema or
talent? Is it one (talent) or the other (cinema) or both? Are his films
shot mostly in France (starting with ``Code Inconnu'' and up to the present with
``Le temps'' and his work-in-progress starring Juliette Binoche and Daniel
Auteuil) lesser in some way than his Austrian-shot films, from ``The Seventh
Continent'' through to ``The Castle''? Do they mark a regression, a dying of an
artistic flame? Where's the evidence for this? Not only do I see none, but just
the opposite: Haneke is one of the few European filmmakers (Winterbottom shares
this with him) who has been able to shift away from his home base and expand his
vocabulary and range of concerns to include all of Europe. As had been Wenders'
ambition for some time, Haneke appears to be taking on all of Europe as a
central concern. He may dismiss this notion in recent interviews (the Oct. issue
of Siught & Sound, for example), but it's dramatically in evidence in both
``Code Inconnu'' and `Le Temps.'' One could even extend it to ``La Pianiste''
with its combination of Austrian setting and music academy with French-speaking
actors, thus universalizing the story beyond Vienna.
I look forward to any arguments expanding
on Gurcan's position.
Robert Koehler
