The Documentary Style of Filming and the Conventions of Realism - Essay Example

Michael Haneke’s Cinematic Approach Haneke’s filmmaking: Realism and aesthetics For an art piece to be realistic sometimes it has to be more real than the reality. Mimicking the reality is not enough, an artwork has to reproduce it. It means returning the facts borrowed from reality and adding qualitative measure of artifice. During this process realism reverts back to the continuity of reality. Andre Bazin calls it breaking the reality through psychological realism. Michael Haneke uses manipulative forces of the mass media that connect with the central theme of his movies. The result is an approach that is counter-cinematic that opposes the rules of realism Haneke is a well-read European intellectual. He has his roots in the theatre and is also proficient in classical music. His musical talent shows in his films too. He was born in 1942 and his career is like an anomaly. He worked in German and Austrian television for 20 years. Then he made his first feature film The Seventh Continent. Since then he has made nine distinctive theatrical films. Michael Haneke uses the technique of staged realism instead of depicting reality in an attempt for developing staged constellations. This magical technique also includes the viewer. His films have a model structure. The purpose of the structure it is to address the viewer as a white Western subject, a person who is guilty in Hanekes opinion (Niessen, 2009). His technique of addressing the viewers is not on an individual basis, he talks about the whole Western society. The film and technique confronts; “…not the individual case but all of us” (Grabner, 2005, p. 33) Michael Haneke’s filming technique usually include characters with abstract white bourgeois names and features. The protagonists are usually portrayed as morally corrupt and self-alienated. Peter Brunette explains this technique in his book Michael Haneke (2010). The alienation from self and others which the modern society is routinely producing and the loss of humanity in a collective basis, the grinding attenuation of human emotion, and the loss of human communication with the technological advancement, all have distorted the relationship between reality and its representation. The reinforcement of this stereotypical image is to make the viewers uncomfortable because they would consider themselves being portrayed in the movie. This is achieved by leaving the matrix open by the film’s abstractions (Niessen, 2009). The small problems that individuals face in his movies are usually representations of larger issues of the Western culture. Hence, the characters become the symbol of Western social issues. Hanekes movies attract wider audiences. Haneke claims that the spectators he intends to sell his movies to are the consumers that seek distraction of aesthetics (Wheatley, 2009). Funny Games marked the emphasis of the movies generic qualities. It is for this reason spectators flocked to watch the spectacle. With this leverage in hand the directors can distort the conventions to a higher degree revealing the inherent flaws in them. The tool of the industry like genre models are used in the movie for deconstructing the system. This deconstruction also includes promotional aspects and the result is unpleasurable movies. These movies confront the viewers by allowing them to participate in its scopophilic act. According to Wheatley (2009) the viewers do not get the chance of negating the scopophilic situation. Haneke uses the unpleasurable experience in his movies to oppose realism and strengthen constructiveness. This is evident by the conflict between Einsteinian and Bazinian theory (Wheatley, 2009). In the history of filmmaking probably no one has self-consciously confronted the limits of realism more than Michael Haneke (Price & Rhodes, 2010). His movies like 71 Fragments of the Chronology of Chance and The Seventh Continent intentionally cross these limits as a necessity for confronting the social reality. To comprehend the theory of film one should note that it does not directly address historical events like Shoah so that its implications are dawned upon the viewers. The focus on medium specificity and realism needs to be included in the equation to be able to understand the theory of film (Aitken, 2006). But Hanekes version of realism is contradictory to the mainstream version. The films relationship to reality in Funny Games explains this. In Funny Games Haneke’s movie falls within the conventional realism. But this reality is not specific to spatial relations or body gestures that are evident in Bazin’s theory of spectatorship that reveals the movement of life. Haneke’s reality draws on both the Einsteinian montage and the classical narrative. Haneke does not mobilize montage techniques. There is a paradox that graphic realism is seldom real. This notion is expressed in Heidi Dawidoff’s study that life is not graphically realistic into the human mind. Humans are always discolouring or colouring the experiences through fantasies, feelings and memories (Black, 2002). In other words pornographic sex is unrealistic. Because it is too physical than the reality. This applies to adult movies as well as on childrens animation. Michael Hanekes style appears as staged realism. This is a cinematography approach that presents diegetic events through overt tactics of stage techniques. Such events are modelled in this way because Haneke wants to connect them with real social issues. Caché (2005) also portrays this connection where on-screen narrative and the viewer’s experience of watching creates that necessary effect which turns the viewer into an active investigator as well as the guilty party in the equation of the plot (Niessen, 2009). Andre Bazin’s documentary mode of filmmaking and Haneke’s staged realism are best portrayed in Caché (2005). But at the same time staging the real killings of animals puts the viewer in a very troubled position. The opening scene of the movie shows a man and a woman having a dialogue. As soon as the viewer gets into the mood of that dialogue the shot is fast forwarded. After this the viewer realizes that he was only watching a videotape along with the films characters. This has been termed as the “ontological shock”1. So every time when the movie shows the same place where the woman and the men had the dialogue, the viewer is perplexed whether it is a part of the main movie or is it the same ‘videotape’. Haneke admits of using this technique on purpose to throw the viewer off-balance so that the habit of sitting in a comfort zone and passively watching a movie is not the case anymore; “Of course I attempt to stir up the viewer’s distrust in the reality value of the mediated images…” (Grabner, 2005. p. 40) Hanekes use of manipulative mass media forces plays out in this movie when Georges is confronted with a repressed childhood experience. This story operates as an allegory for revealing a scandal from French national history. This allegory is crucial to the theme of the movie. The couple in the movie Georges and his wife get secret video recordings of their lives. They also start getting anonymous phone calls and more videos showing fresh images of their house. Later on in the movie it is revealed that this mysterious confrontation is regarding an incident that took place in 1961 when Georges was only six years old. His parents adopted an Algerian orphan, Majid. Georges feels jealous of his new brother and starts telling lies about him. Majid is finally sent to an orphanage. This repression of traumatic childhood memory is an analogy of mainstream French society towards the criminal element that was hidden until the late 1990s. The trial of Maurice Papon bears the same confrontational sent as the mysterious videotapes that the couple in the movie receives. Michael Haneke’s work is philosophical in nature and stands against systematic philosophy. It also has sociological theories of modernity such as George Simmel, Walter Benjamin and Siegfried Kracauer. Hanekes philosophy manifests in 71 Fragments of the Chronology of Chance in a unique way because the movie is considered the last of The Seventh Continent and then continued with Bennys Video (1992). The theme of the movie revolves around chance and fate. The ordinary lives of people are entangled in the curse of fate and chance. Apparently the characters in the movie are unconnected but eventually their paths intersect. The plot builds up towards an incident that happened in a bank. The analogy here is to signify the paradigmatic symbol of corporate capitalism. Just like fate, this symbol unites and rips apart the existence of the characters. The use of stylistic tropes are evident in this movie achieved through frequent blackouts after scenes and sometimes in the middle of them. This technique achieves the effect of alienation through fragmenting the plot. It also mimics the communication breakdown in several personal stories. The hazy world of Haneke’s ethics appears in 71 Fragments of the Chronology of Chance (Devuyst, 2013). The familial glaciation appeared through force in Austria in 2007 after the discovery of the suburban dungeon. A father kept parts of his family for 20 years in that prison. But the audience still remains the central focus of Haneke’s movies. Haneke considers a contemporary cinema viewer as bearing the culpable responsibility (Devuyst et al., 2013). The viewers are influenced by the media they consume and this is a weakness of these spectators in Hanekes analysis of a passive spectator. According to Haneke the trilogy, including the movie 71 Fragments of the Chronology of Chance, meant to reflect on progressive emotional glaciation of Austria. The movie ends with a news bulletin which forms a backdrop to the action in several scenes of Hanekes other movies. The theatrical screenings of this movie through the movie device retains a form of potency in its setting. Probably the bookend scene of his movies benefited a lot from a heightened realism emphasizing the movies proximity to the spectators (Devuyst et al., 2013). It also constructed an experience that seemed very close to the real action. As explained earlier the subjects of Hanekes movies are not individuals but the society on the whole. The movies never depict an incident in isolation. They are yoked together to larger political ethical and social issues. The absolute and murderous frustration portrayed in 71 Fragments do not attempt explicating or achieving psychological insight (Devuyst et al., 2013). Haneke’s movies focus on external depictions. It is why there are so many graphic and violent images but not psychological motivations. It is noteworthy that 71 Fragments is based on true story and Haneke worked backwards from these events to endpoints but this technique does not explain or even seek to acquire complete knowledge of motivations. It offer an investigation into the minute details. These include measured signs of the breakdown of social structures and the revelation about individual emptiness. The White Ribbon (2009) is Haneke’s German language movie as a writer and director. It is a depiction of society and family in northern Germany. The setting takes place in the German village site before World War I. The technique of denying the pleasure is portrayed at a higher level in this move as the viewer leaves cinema with a bitter aftertaste. The movie is two and a half hour long, filmed in black and white collars with hard-hitting dialogues. The dialogues are almost always directed towards the social mess and deceit that Germany was drenched in around the World War I. Putting the viewer in the same uncomfortable position is evident here as the North German village of ‘Eichwalde’ portrays the cold-bloodedness and the spiteful behaviour of its residents. The protagonist of the movie is a German child. The theme progresses as innocent children start to mirror the behaviours of their adults. What they gained from the society is what they give back to the society. They inflict physical pain and oppression on others because they experienced the same. Haneke used another analogy of portraying psychological states of the characters and how they react towards social and moral issues. In an attempt to do so Haneke criticizes the 20th century Protestant way of life where children were punished for any signs of sexual awareness. Any misbehaviour was dealt with severe canning and tying children to the bed. The moralistic preaching that went on with the beating was also graphically portrayed. The pastor in the movie beats his son, Martin, and at the same time warns him about masturbating. He says that it would cause painful sores and eventually kill him. None of Hanekes movies have directly touched the period of the Third Reich (Grundmann, 2010). The White Ribbon never mentions the Third Reich however it is mentioned through rhetorical force. This is also the vexing tension of the movie, an attempt of showcasing something necessarily German. The subject of the movie is Wilhelminian combination of Protestantism, authority and discipline. Haneke does not only remain within strong characterization of protagonists and depicting cultural behaviour, he uses music as a tool for creating this reality (Grundmann, 2010). For instance he uses Martin Luthers Protestant hymn, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” very effectively to create the pertinent climax. The movie shows Protestantism as influencing the dual ideological transgression from the Imperial German culture to a culture of efficiency and fervor. This form of religion secularized the divine law by using a series of paternal systems. These paternal authorities would include the Emperor, pastor and paterfamilias (Grundmann, 2010). They not only impose their authority but they exploit their ranks too. As a result the family and nation turned into a fortress of an unquestionable importance with the divine support. And any sign of rebellion against any form of authority was considered treason. Technically speaking The White Ribbon stands out from Hanekes previous works in its editing work. It was Hanekes intention to adjust the movie to the respective project. According to Haneke; “It was clear that the dialogue seems that the small children, for example, could not be filmed in a long take, because they cannot memorize their lines. We have to do shot/counter shot.” (Grundmann, 2010, p. 602) The critics of Haneke’s technique target his graphic portrayal of social issues in his movies. Haneke feels proud of going against the Hollywood mainstream violent movie techniques. However the critics consider him an anomalous film director. Many of his movies are way too intellectual and self-consciously avant-garde to attract his desired audiences. His viewers usually include people that like violent thrillers. However, Haneke’s movies get too graphic to please the majority of the crowd. These viewers are usually looking for life-affirming content in a foreign language with English subtitles (Brunette, 2010). And then the technique of including radical formal means such as purposefully fragmented and confused narrative confuses them. And the famous technique of using the long take in which nothing happens. Such is the proverbial criticism of this powerful but demanding aesthetical techniques. In summary, Haneke’s technique is based on counter-cinema, which mostly revolves around using film as a tool for revealing the medium’s inherent falsity. His technique is based on bringing up the confrontation with the dominant mainstream image system that he considers pernicious. Therefore to apply this technique he needs to surface the confrontation through dominant forms of representation and perception. And his favourite tool to achieve this is the denial of pleasure. His technique of denying the pleasure is not new. Filmmakers have been using this for many years. But the intention is what differentiates Haneke. He believes that the pleasure driven conventions of mainstream cinema obscure the ethical void that rests in its narrative structures. Godard was different in his technique and had heroism in his work. His technique would create an experience that would radicalize the medium. This purism is nowhere to be found in Haneke’s critical aesthetics. Michael Haneke is a gifted director and screenwriter. The way he carries out his counter cinematic approach agrees with Bazin’s statement that realism can only be attained through artifice. It is for this reason that Haneke rejects psychological realism. His technique of using long takes and deep focus shots have a direct relation with this rejection. In a way his cinematic approach is setting a neo-realistic tradition. Haneke tries to present facts about underexposed traits of reality however his staged constellations constantly move away from the documentary style of filming. And the result is a counter-cinematic style of filmmaking that constantly challenges the conventions of realism. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aitken, I. 2006. Realist film Theory and Cinema. Manchester University Press. Black, J. 2002. The Reality effect. Routledge Ltd. Brunette, P. 2010. Contemporary Film Directors. University of Illinois Press Grabner, F. 2005. “Der Name Der Erbsunde ist Verdrangung’: Ein Gesprach mit Michael Haneke,” in Christian Weekly. Gerhard Larcher and Frans Grabner (eds.), Michael Haneke und seine Filme, Eine Pathologie der Konsumgesellschaft, Marburg, Schuren Verlag, pp. 33-46. Grundmann, R. 2010. A Companion to Michael Haneke. John Wiley and Sons. Devuyst, D., Mccan, B., Hens, L. & Sorfa, D. 2011. The Cinema of Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia. Columbia University Press. Niessen, N. 2009. The staged realism of Michael Haneke’s Caché. Journal of Film Studies. 20(1). pg. 181. Price, B. & Rhodes, J. D. 2010. On Michael Haneke. Wayne State University Press. Wheatley, C. 2009. Michael Hanekes Cinema, The Ethic of The Image. Oxford: Berghahn books. Read More