Whats up with the 'wheres the remote scene'
Whats up with the
"wheres the remote scene" and the film suddenly rewinds and
changes the outcome
It's pretty much the dumbest scene ever put into any movie. I would have been fine with the killers coming out on top, I often like when the bad guys win, but this part and the talking to the camera part just ruined the movie.
The reason the talking to the camera scene sucks, besides the obvious reason of involving the 2nd person POV out of nowhere (this only works if you introduce it closer to the beginning), and the fact that it made the character pretentious and uninteresting when he originally seemed pretty interesting, is that he tells the audience that they are probably voting for the family instead of the killers. Right there the director gave away that the killers will come out on top, so I expected that to happen. Even the kid's death was expected. The first thing that was unexpected was when one of the guys was killed with the shotgun, and the movie started to get interesting for me because I finally thought that maybe the killers wouldn't succeed. But then the incredibly dumb rewind scene ruined that turn in the plot and I was ready to turn it off. I might as well have.
Somebody said that the point of this movie was to frustrate the viewer. If this is the case the director completely succeeded. However, that doesn't make it a good movie. If a director created a movie with the intention to bore or annoy the viewer, I would punch him in the face. It's incredibly pretentious to purposely frustrate, annoy, or bore a viewer just because you have the power to do so.
I liked many aspects of the movie but I think the director's attempts to be clever completely backfired and ruined an otherwise good movie. But maybe that's just me.
It's pretty much the dumbest scene ever put into any movie. I would have been fine with the killers coming out on top, I often like when the bad guys win, but this part and the talking to the camera part just ruined the movie.
Apparently you don't realize that breaking the fourth wall was very much intentional. Directors want to get reactions out of the audience more than take sides (2001: A Space Odyssey is a prime example of that). The fact that you're calling it a dumb scene because you don't believe that fictional characters should be talking to non-fictional viewers is a reaction.
I liked many aspects of the movie but I think the director's attempts to be clever completely backfired and ruined an otherwise good movie.
Who says you're supposed to like the movie? You're not always supposed to like, enjoy, respect, admire, etc. artwork. You're supposed to take it all in. Is this a fantastic movie? I don't think so. Is it a piece of art like anything else? Yes. And the artist just happened to involve the fourth wall in it. I don't think he was necessarily trying to be clever about it and earn points.
This scene literally embodies one of the central messages of the whole film, so if you think it is "stupid" or that it "ruins the atmosphere", you are missing the point of what it is trying to tell you (although admittedly, the remake does a better job of selling this scene).
In the context of the movie, the killer is the all powerful authority that won't let you (the viewer) escape from the violence it forces you to watch. You want the victims to escape, but he won't let it happen.
Haneke tries to make a statement about glorifying violence in media, and how mainstream movies try to sell it as entertainment.
The killer talks to us directly, asks us if we are "enjoying the show", when obviously we shouldn't be. Although, most likely, most of us watch movies like this, just for that reason.
And yes, in a way that means it also criticises itself and the people watching it. That's brilliance, not "stupidity".
This is 1997, I am pretty sure there were worse things out by this time. Come on, he tried to make a point, did it poorly, and now everyone wants to think they didn't waste their time. This results in people calling this movie art because what? One of the characters talked to the camera a few time and magically rewound the scene. It is bad writing, that is all there is to it. If that is the best this entire crew of people could do to break the fourth wall than that is an even bigger case for this being a bad movie.
shareIn the context of the movie, the killer is the all powerful authority that won't let you (the viewer) escape from the violence it forces you to watch. You want the victims to escape, but he won't let it happen.
Haneke tries to make a statement about glorifying violence in media, and how mainstream movies try to sell it as entertainment.
The killer talks to us directly, asks us if we are "enjoying the show", when obviously we shouldn't be. Although, most likely, most of us watch movies like this, just for that reason.
Exactly. This scene is the first truly violent scene we see: the gun going off, the blood spattering, the victim falling. All of the other violence takes place off camera. This type of scene is the glorified violence people pay to see in the movies. After the long, drawn out, "boring" movie up until that point, I would bet many viewers were waiting and hoping for a dramatic twist or shocking scene such as that.
Instead, Haneke teases us with the scene of gore and the success of the victim then immediately erases it. share
....aaaaand another point you 've missed,
Haneke DID introduce 2nd person POV closer to the beginning!
It's just after the dog is dead, when Paul plays "cold", "warm", "warmer" with Anna, at a point he turns to the camera (audience, noone else was out in the garden) and winks.
Check again.
In your sick and twisted mind that was all expected.
share