Contemporary World Cinema - Essay Example

Running Head: Contemporary World Cinema Contemporary World Cinema Contemporary World Cinema Introduction In this paper, we aim to conduct a research based comparative analysis between the filmmaking of the Dardenne Brothers and that of Michael Haneke. The paper consists of: Introduction, Background, Comparative Analysis and Conclusion. Both of the Dardennes and Haneke have created several sensational films widely acclaimed all over the world, especially in Europe. Maybe the filmmakers whose works are to be scrutinized in this paper do not make cinema with widespread commercial appeal. However, the artistic value and appeal are unquestionable. Before beginning the main part of the comparative study, it is important to generally assess the working of the two filmmakers. In regards of the Dardenne Brothers, it is widely accepted that most of their films follow a sort of realistic depiction that may eventually drift towards some political implication. In other words, their movies are prone to convey political message. The most important part of this phenomenon is that this message is not conveyed in a planned way. The cocktail of story telling and realism may lead the spectator to wider societal and political inferences. (Bickerton, 2006) Haneke, on the other hand, is known for depicting stereotypical characters time and again. However, such tendencies do not mar his exclusive language of cinema that gives rise to robust flow of thoughts. In words of Grundmann (2007, p.6), this is “cinema of glaciation”. Further, realism in Haneke’s cinema appears in a subtle form where the central character may be a very different kind of person, just the like we find in Benny’s Video (1992). Such sort of realism mixed with a degree of uniqueness and horror adds special dimensions to our general perception (Levinas, 1948) Research Question Compare and contrast the filmmaking of the Dardenne Brothers with those of Michael Haneke. Background European art cinema has a history that can be divided into two major parts. The first part, which spanned over the 1930s/1940s, was dominated by realism. The second part, which spanned over the 1950s / 1960s and beyond, was dominated by modernism. A single, coherent definition for realism is impossible. In general, we can say that the kind of filmmaking where visualization and subject are naturalistic is dominated by realism. Realism based cinema often addresses everyday life. Italian Neo-realism (Neorealismo) emerged during the 1940s. It was a trend rather than a movement. It involved visualization of desperation and poverty in Post War Italy which acquainted the spectator with harsh reality (Shiel, 2006). British Social Realism was derived from Italian Neo-realism, but it developed its own distinct identity by depicting radical, and often political, social positions. From 1945 to 1955, this variety of filmmaking was suppressed by censorship (Lay, 2002). French New Wave cinema was too based on Neo-realism. These films were more unique in the sense of cinematography and structure. The films had limited budget and resources. Strangely, this led to more innovations such as utilizing shopping carts for placing and tracking movie camera shots! Style dominated this version of realism-based cinema (Marie and Neupert, 2003). From the 1950s, modernism began to evolve as a cinematic expression with its naive assumptions and attempt to get the viewer to realize that film can never totally represent or reflect reality; its construct involves selections by the director, producer, editor, etc. The miracle of Neo-realism was thus adapted into the romantic period (1959-1961) followed by established modernism (1962-1966). Style, ornamental depiction and reconstruction of reality dominated the works pertaining to this era of filmmaking. Western Europe and Central Europe were the main areas wherefrom directors like Fillini, Jansco, Kawalerowicz, etc. extensively worked on modernist cinema. Dardenne Brothers and Haneke also belong to this rich and complicated historical legacy of European art cinema. Comparative Analysis While examining the works of Dardenne Brothers, Cooper (2011) has pointed out that the movies created by them have a combined influence of Sartrean and Levinasian perspectives, particularly in regards of their aesthetic dimension. The view is supported further while reading the book Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne edited by Auhanas (2008). In this book, it is almost clearly discernable that the Dardennes are deeply influenced by the Western philosophers of the modern era. Then again quoting from Speck (2008, p. 218), we can say that “perspectival truth, while not the same as metaphysical Truth, does have a truth-value appearing in the perspective. To put it in other words, the value of the “cure” lies in the viewer’s renewed critical stance that arises from the pedagogical initiation of Haneke’s films.” Before we start discussing the similarities and dissimilarities between the filmmaking styles of Dardenne brothers and Haneke directly, an interesting fact about them deserves mention. As students, Jean-Pierre Dardenne studied drama and Luc Dardenne studied philosophy. Haneke studied philosophy, drama, and psychology from the University of Vienna. Hence, in student life, both the movie makers had been exposed to the core ideas of philosophy. The similarity and effect of such academic training is important indeed during direct comparison. The Similar Aspects Dardennes have often aimed to rethink cinema. This complicated phenomenon would not be one sided. Rather, rethinking cinema would be a mutual activity between the filmmakers and the audience. In this context, Cooper (2011, p.79) interestingly states, “In his diary notes on their filmmaking practice, Au dos de nos images, Luc Dardenne makes numerous references to Western philosophers, in addition to literary writers and other filmmakers, all of whose work informs his and his brother Jean-Pierre’s desire radically to rethink cinema.” In this way, the works of the duo are grounded in strong philosophical scaffolding; and hence they venture ahead. Haneke also seeks to embark on a similar activity. He is also very much eager to get engaged in an active exchange of ideas with the audience. In doing this, he often attacks the American way of commercial filmmaking, as we see in Hollywood. He rethinks cinema in a sort of confronting whimsy with the mainstream Hollywood films where he thinks that the audience’s intellectual ability and involvement are drastically undermined. For example, violence in Hollywood films presents itself in the form of a commercial consumable. “His counter-project aims to accord the spectator this space, and to prompt them to use it to consider their own part in the production and consumption of these violent images.” (Wheatley, 2009, p.98) Haneke gives a similar treatment to the topics like sex as well. This is how he also initiates a process of rethinking cinema. Controversy is another similarity between the filmmaking patterns under examination. This controversy is not a part of gimmick, hype, or media coverage. Many intellectuals are there who think that both Dardennes and Haneke are breaking conventions. In the case of Dardenne Brothers, Cooper (2011, p.80) writes about their innovative style that makes their work immediately recognisable and for which critical praise has yet been uneasing.” Similarly, Frey (2010) points out Haneke as “arguably Europe’s most esteemed and most controversial filmmaker.” Both the filmmakers continuously attempt to focus on the discrepancies prevalent in Western Europe, often leading to almost open criticism. Moreover, both of them give importance to realism which is a typical legacy for European cinema. The Dissimilar Aspects Political implications of the works of Dardenne Brothers and Haneke have been time and again laid bare by the film critics and visual art experts. And there is a tendency to associate the Dardenne Brothers with the left-wing school of thought. In contrary, Haneke is categorized as having a right-wing approach. Regarding Dardenne Brothers, Mai (2010, p.53) is eager to find out that “how does their new realism bring their viewer into the ethical and political issues (problems of relation, immigration, and globalization) at the heart of the film?” Besides, Dardenne Brothers’ films are often found to be labour and labourer centric (aggressively addressing social issues like unemployment). Prominent examples include L’Enfant (The Child) (2005) and Rosetta (1999). On the other hand, critics accuse Haneke of using ethnical stereotypes. In this context Burnette (2010, p.86) boldly writes that “his (Haneke’s) famous desire to manipulate the audience overtly can have right-wing implication as well.” However, this sort of alleged right-wing implication cannot be fully justified. But even in that case, Haneke’s socio-political approach and expression are different than those of the Dardennes because Haneke forcefully mixes the elements of reflexive and modernistic style with realism. This may lead to occasional manipulation that we generally do not find in the films of Dardennes. And again, it is doubted that whether such manipulations are intentional or not. Another difference is that of the structure of filmmaking. Firstly, Dardenne Brothers work as a group, so they have a unique scope of internal intellectual exchange. Moreover, they engage the fellow artists, especially the actors, in the process. Haneke prefers to work distinctly, independently and avoids too much involvement of the co-artists. Secondly, the cinematographic structures followed by the duo and Haneke are highly different and sometimes, contradicting. According to Mai (2010, p.ix), “The Dardennes’ films are not so much understood on a symbolic level, through characters, decors, and lighting, as felt on a tactile or emotional level.” In order to detail the effects of everyday life, the duo does never use soundtrack or musical score. However, Haneke has a different approach of creating cinematic realism. The approach involves “visual instability” and “destabilization of the image and its source”. (Brunette, 2010, p.23) Work of sound and camera is simple in Dardennes’ films. The same is rather complicated and sometimes disturbing in Haneke’s films. Further, Dardenne Brothers are prominent realists who are evolving in modernist direction. In that sense, there films are supposed to become more stylistic and ornamentally affective from the viewers’ perspective. But something opposite is happening in Haneke’s case. He is maintaining a more modernist approach towards realism. In this way, although these directors are both related to realism in the context of filmmaking, Haneke has more modernistic position. Conclusion The sphere of cinema in which Dardennes and Haneke have specialized can be generally assumed as to be supplying food for thought. Hence watching these films can be a delightful experience. Comparing and contrasting the filmmaking practices of Dardennes and Haneke, we can say that both have been “known to offer dismal-even nihilistic – perspectives on the current state of society.” (Wheatley, 2009, p.14) However, these globally acclaimed movie makers have unarguably reshaped and rethought cinema as a whole. Their cinematic languages are highly technical in the sense of applying and/or modifying cinematographic and literary theories. Contextually, they have strong theoretical knowledge of philosophy and they know how to apply that. Modern cinema is supposed to focus on new approach and contemporary issues. Both Dardennes and Haneke understand and believe this. And they continuously attempt to show the coldness and confusion prevails in Western society. Reference List Auhanas, J. (. (2008). Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne. Brussels: Editions Luc Pire. Bickerton, E. (2006). Reinventing realism: The art and politics of the Dardenne brothers. Cineaste, 31 (2) , pp. 14-18. Brunette, P. (2010). Michael Haneke. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cooper, S. (2011). Lornas Silence: Sartre and the Dardenne Brothers. In J.-P. Boule, & E. McCaffney, Existentialism and Contemporary Cinema: A Sartrean Perspective (pp. 79-90). New York: Berghahn Books. Frey, M. (2010). Michael Haneke | Senses of Cinema. Available: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2010/great-directors/michael-haneke on November 14, 2011. Grundmann, R. (2007). Auteur de Force: Michael Hanekes Cinema of Glaciation. Cineaste, 32 (2) , pp. 6-14. Kovacx, A.B. (2007). Screening Modernism: European Art Cinema, 1950-1980. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lay, S. (2002). British Social Realism: From Documentary to Brit-Grit. London: Wallflower Press. Levinas, E. (1948). Reality and its shadow. In S. Hand, The Levinas Readers (ed.) (1989) (pp. 129-143). Oxford: Blackwell. Mai, J. (2010). Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Marie, M. and Neupert, R.J. (2003). The French NewWave: An Artistic School. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Speck, O. (2008). The new order: The method of madness in the cinema of Michael Haneke. In R. Thomas, Crime and Madness in Modern Austria: Myth, Metaphor and Cultural Realities (pp. 205-221). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Shiel, M. (2006). Italian Neorealism: Rebuilding the Cinematic City. London: Wallflower Press. Wheatley, C. (2009). Michael Hanekes Cinema: The Ethic of the Image. New York: Berghahn Books. Read More