The Seventh Continent

Review:
For the majority of the films reviewed on this blog, I've tended to shy away from older features or films that there is little to say about (Vantage Point would be a solid example of the later point), so this week's entry (as it appears I am only able to update this on weekly basis so far) will go against the mold. Mind you this is still only a film review (music shall be next); however, the review for this film will make for a nice companion piece to the my last review. Also this film will be in two parts: review and discussion.

Now, the reasoning behind this thought process does not simply begin and end with the fact that both films share the same director, Michael Haneke, nor at the odd camera work presented in both films. The reason this review is placed as a companion to the last is because of the emotional response felt by the viewers at the rather stark imagery presented before them. Of course, one could say that because both share a similar director themes and emotions seem to carry over with each feature; however, one could simply point to the vast and diverse works of directors like Spielberg or even the small one's of people like Gus Van Saint, to see that directors constantly reinvent themselves. With this out of the way, let us move on to the review.

The plot of the film is difficult to describe; however, to describe it I shall try. We begin the film in a simple household, with a seemingly ordinary family. The characters (Georg, Anna, Eva) all live rather ordinary lives without much occurrence...at least it appears that way at first glance. With every exchange, glance, or simple visit we see that the characters of the film oddly out of place in the world. Basically the film follows the lives of these individuals, and without giving away the end (something difficult to do in this review) for several years and takes careful notation of mainly what many would consider rather mundane tasks. However, it should be noted that the last thirty minutes of the film are terrifying and unnerving, but not in the way many (including myself) are accustomed to in film (ex: the brutal attack on a hero by the monster or the evil force succeeding at the end of a film).

The camera work in the film is odd, as it focuses mainly on the objects that the characters interact with. In fact, the audience sees very little of the family; however, in the few scenes we do see with them fully in frame..we are astonished by not only the character's beautiful display of emotional range, but also by the entirety of the environment, which is (for most of the film) only a house. Like his other works, Haneke seems to choose one scene that will stick out in the mind's of his viewers...one that is usually repulsive, terrifying....and yet very human.

The performances are all breathtaking and soul wrenching; however, of all the performances, Birgit Doll, as the mother Anna, demonstrates a sense of humanity not often seen in film. What makes it all the more amazing is how just these three actors are able to carry the film for its entire running-time, without the audience losing interest. This is because we can connect to these characters (maybe not the end) because they do not live extraordinary lives like Wolverine, Indiana Jones, or Luke Sky Walker, but normal lives like you and I.

To conclude.....I admit that in writing this review I have failed in part because it is rather incomplete. By simply judging the technical aspects of the film and not discussing the thematic reasoning and meaning behind much of the film's perplexities, I have left out everything that would make this review whole and why, since viewing the film this past Friday, it has become a far better film. One must understand that many aspects of the film (technical, thematic, plot) are difficult to talk about on an individual basis as they all tie so closely together. Overall it was fantastic, yet unsettling. (stop here and skip to bottom for grade if you do not want the film spoiled)

Discussion:
So...I couldn't just sit there with a half complete review....so here is the second part of it: the discussion of the film. Mind you, this will be rather heavy on spoilers, as this is more of an aid to understanding the film (more for myself than anyone else...as putting it in writing will greatly aid).

It should be noted that the great bulk of this discussion will center around the final forty minutes of the film and what it means in the context of the film. However, before getting there, let us briefly sum up the plot to add points of reference in the discussion

As stated in the review, the film centers around this family that feels rather uncomfortable in modern society. None of the characters seem to enjoy the lives they live, but what they do enjoy is the life they share with one another. Also, as stated the film records mainly mundane details of each person's life and for good reason. It is in these little, yet precise details that we see the foreshadowing of things to come at the film's closing minutes. As routines are forgotten, people forget to feed the fish, dishes are left dirty, silence tends to fill the room...and we realize that this is leading to a rather dismal finish. In the final third of the film, the characters explain to relatives they are "planning"a trip to Australia (i.e. the The Seventh Continent), but in reality are only planning to destroy themselves.What we are forced to witness for the following forty minutes is the family systematically destroy everything they own (and I mean every little thing) and, at the end, themselves.

Now one may ask what the purpose of this relentless destruction is and to that I point towards the cinematography throughout the film. Because we never see the characters truly interact with the world, we only know these characters through their objects. We know what they want, love, do, and how they live through these objects (Georg is a professional because he has a lot of files, are fairly well-off with their money, and eat pretty well. The characters are not destroying these objects for themselves, but for the audience.

In destroying the objects, the characters are killing themselves in the eyes of the audience, which explains for the pain felt by the audience as Eva (the daughter) tears up her pictures or Anna (the mother) breaks her records. By the time the family extinguishes their own life, we are already left empty and hollow by the prior scenes that any more is simply there to complete the story. This is not to say that the final shot of Georg or the "family photo" like image of them laying together is any less disturbing for the viewer, but this helps explain just why the destruction is so thorough in the previous scenes.

So there is the complete review of this fantastic film. It will haunt you and leave hollow, but this only goes to show that even in his first feature, Michael Haneke is a modern master in cinema.

Grade: A

Funny Games

So while on a trip to New York I happened upon on this film (I have been wanting to see it, but it was never playing in a theater near myself), although I really do not know if film is the appropriate title for what I saw fore according to most the purpose of film is to entertain. It appears many felt the same as by the end of the film, many had left the theater, yet this is for later discussion.

However, first let us get to the basics. The film is of course entitled Funny Games and is directed by Michael Haneke (Cache...one of my favorite films of the past several years). It should be noted that while this film is in fact a remake of a foreign film (see every horror flick out right now), there are several things that set it apart from your average remake. First, it is the original director at the helm of this work and, secondly, it is essentially a shot for shot remake, with the only updates stemming from updating some of the technology used in the film (the original was made in 1997). Also, to get this out of the way...I shall try to avoid spoiling the film and will avoid major plot points; however, I will note most technical aspects of the film, which may border on spoiling the film (not the plot).

Let us begin with the technical aspects of the film. The editing is fantastic, as the film gives the sense that the actions happening on screen are occurring in the real time, thus further enveloping the audience by offering a sense of reality. The sparse use of music (aside from the occasional heavy-death-freakout-metal) aids in building the already unbearable tension, as it music can often be used to allow the viewer the chance to escape from the actions taking place on screen. By using very little music, the audience is forced to focus solely on the characters and their actions, thus further entrapping the viewer in this rather terrifying affair.

The cinematography (one of my favorite aspects of film in general) is quite fantastic (as well as inventive) in the film. As in Cache, Haneke uses long and distant shots to display his film, which truly allows the actors the chance to interact with their environments and perform at their best. Also noteworthy, is how the film is rather inventive with its shots. For large portions of the film the camera will focus not on characters, but on the scenery or random objects, which within the context of this film, allows the viewer a glimpse it to just what is cherished by the family involved: the simple and easy life. When juxtaposing the content of the film with a camera style often found in sweeping period pieces (see Atonement), one finds a rather odd conundrum, which can easily be explained simply. This camera style shows us that while war and peace have a place in every person's mind, the horrors found in one's personal life, in the home no less, can often prove to be far more engaging and easy to connect with. *Spoiler*One last note that should be made on the camera work in the film is that while this film is rather grisly and terrifying, very little of the violence is actually presented to the audience. All we are allowed to see is the aftermath for the most part, leaving the audience only their imagination to use. *End Spoiler*

The performances in the film are astounding. Naomi Watts (per usual) gives an amazing performance as Ann; however, I believe that it is Tim Roth (playing George) that truly gets the audience emotionally involved with the family. Every time we are forced to look at the pain and anguish on his face, we are reminded of personal anguish suffered in the past, thus causing the audience to become more invested in the action taking place on screen. Also, it should be noted that Michael Pitt, who plays Paul (the leader of the two torturers), plays one of the more chilling characters to grace the silver screen (yes...beating out Chirrguh from No Country for Old Men).

I guess I should make a small note on the plot of the film. The plot centers around a rather wealthy family being held hostage by two teenagers. Those are the basics and it is rather linear and simple, which, upon further reflection, is rather uncommon in film today. Most films feel the need to make an overly complicated story in order to grab the audience; however, this film does just as well (if not better) with a rather straight forward plot.

So, with the technical aspects fully explored (and remarked upon in a rather positive manner), we can now look at just what makes this film so difficult to rate...much less recommend. One can skip the next two paragraphs to avoid spoiling the film; however, it is safe after that.

One must understand that when going into this film, one should not expect any sort of lightness. From the opening shot to the last several seconds, one is immediately confronted with the fact that this film will only contain fear, pain, anguish, and darkness. There is no hero that saves the day, much less allow the audience feel any sort of retribution from the actions that they have just witnessed. What is worse, is that by breaking the forth wall (uncommon for most media), the audience becomes implicit in the actions taking place on screen, thus forcing part of the blame of the family's pain on the audience. If we were not there watching the film...the characters in the film would be fine and by simply watching the film we are, in a way, supporting the actions performed to the family. As the tagline of the film states "You must admit, you brought this on yourself."

Also implicit in this statement is the fact that we can choose to leave should we feel it to be too much or exploitive. As demonstrated by my fellow movie goers this past Monday, we are really the ones in control, so, in a way, in order for the film to have a happy ending one must leave the theater and imagine one for them self. Even the director admits this as he has stated in previous interviews, "I always say, those who watch the film to the end apparently needed it. Those who leave earlier apparently didn't."

Which brings up the why labeling the film, much less recommending the film is so difficult. This was not a film made to for one to enjoy and be entertained by, but to be inspired to think about violence and how it is often glorified in most media outlets. Also, due to its subject matter and lack of any light it is difficult to simply say to someone: "Hey Funny Games was a great movie and you should watch it!" When the viewer is left feeling hollow at the close of the film one wonders if they should have seen Horton Hears a Who instead; however, that is not an attack on the film. Many films (The Elephant Man, Grave of the Fireflies, City of God) leave the audience in a similar state and are often remembered if only for that reason. Before entering this film, one needs to look at what they feel the purpose of film is, whether it is simply to entertain or to challenge our very beliefs. Of course a film can do both (see City of God), but this film certainly is not one that can.

At the end of the day though...I feel that is a film can make a person feel anything (aside from revulsion like in the case of Date Movie or Norbit) and cause an intelligent discussion, it was worth the experience. Hmm...there we go, the perfect way to describe the film: an experience.

A-