An Uncertain Relationship to the Instant of their Cultural Production - Essay Example

The Representation of Violence in Michael Hanekes Films Introduction Violence is a worldwide phenomenon that is among the human societies of which contains many intense actions. Violence in cinema is one of the most popular themes that make films more interesting and captivating to the audience or the viewer. They have special effects and with the continued longing of violence by the viewers, there do not seem to be the end of this in sight. It does not seem to be enough that people are often exposed to war, accidents and disasters in the daily news that they watch, furthermore, they have made it their immediate entertainment, as well. The essay will be about Michael Haneke’s Representation of Violence in his films, who is a former literary and film critic. According to Aaron (2007), in most of his life work, he undermines the development of the contemporary society. He has produced the most disturbing films, which contain much violence in the contemporary cinema, and has caused many viewers to feel sick in their stomach after watching them. The essay will be examining the stylistic and technical methods that Haneke uses that are not only his directive characteristics as an auteur, but also examine the typical difference between how he represents violence and how it has an effect on society those movies and that of conventional society. In the films Benny’s Video (Haneke, 1992), Funny Games (1997) and Cache (Haneke, 2005) there is clear evidence of how Haneke represents violence and it is not only self-reflective, but it empowers role of the viewer’s by attracting their imagination. We will also look at how Haneke criticizes the ubiquity of violent in superficial moving images. With Haneke’s production of films that address themes that are considered difficult measured by the commercial cinema standards, which include violence trauma effects, alienation, sexism and racism as made him be labeled as a modernist. Section I In today’s films, it is almost impossible to view the whole film without witnessing violence at least as a side spectacle. The film may be either a horror movie that its focus is violence or just a comedy that needs to add some more laughs in the content; one can argue that all these films do not depict the pain and horrifying reality of violence in the real world. Apparently, the images of bombing in countries such as Libya, Southern Sudan and Iraq or a murder committed in a nearby city that one lives look to be not much of the meaning that one still want to watch a violent movie. In fact, because of the ubiquity of the images that contains violence rarely because the viewers avoid looking at the screen because of shock and terror (Price and Rhodes, 2010). That is because of the continued desensitization to these films, caused by the unvarying, superficial and constant exposure to them by the audience. The focus of the paper being on the representation of violence in Michael Haneke artwork, scholars have written much about him and his representation of violence in his films. In Brian Price and David Rhodes’s introduction of their edited collection of their work about the Haneke presentation of violence, they describe him as one of the most innovative and modern film producers of any time in the history of film (2010). That declaration, usual to lots of auteur-centric publications, is not usual in that such veneration seem; however, it is justifiable in Haneke’s part. Haneke has made provocative films for more than a decade now. Well known for his depiction of violence, the still, camera gaze contemplative, his work is emphasized by a sharp philosophical consciousness. Acknowledged in the first pages of their publication by Price and Rhodes it is possibly tempting then to explicate the trauma of political undertones that are experienced in Haneke’s films through referencing to the period and the time of his birth. That is Austria, 1942, without completely discounting the influence of World War II. Price and Rhodes declare that such a situation offers a quite convenient and perhaps over ascertained context for such cinematic meditations. Prince and Rhodes (2010), instead, located Haneke in a less profound social-historic model, locating his film in an uncertain relationship to the instant of their cultural production. Haneke’s artwork is consubstantial with its era; his works being plunged in the antinomies and the sufferings of the contemporary world and also providing a profound critical interval or remove from the same. Film scholars have tried to examine how Haneke represents physical suffering in his films, paying attention to particular formal techniques, how he positions the audience, the affected role and his reflective nature the violent imagery. Brian Price traces Haneke’s way of his torture presentation that dismantle several structures associated with the act, thus Price suggests that be a repetition in his film work, which implies that it is an ongoing negotiation with the day to day politics (2006). Price and Rhodes argue that what is of much importance is what Haneke’s films do share (2010). That recurrent presence of violence and historic flight clearly denounces the stakes of today’s torture. Violence representation implications in Haneke’s films are also explored by Brunette Peter’s contributions (2010). Peter tries to show how the contemporary film works have promoted confusion between the films real reality and the performance within the film. Therefore, this strategy results with the viewers’ uncertainty about the image’s status. Haneke’s reflective technique of his work makes the spectator to shift their identification with torturer or the victim character in the film. His main aim is to make his audience share the agony with either the film’s characters that is being tortured or being murdered. Peter argues that the film work of Haneke is to complicate the authenticity, which is traditionally tied to violent imagery (2010). Peter concludes by stating that the Haneke’s films have the debatable distinction between imitated violence and its real world meaning. As suggested by Rhodes, Haneke uses long-take place, which is an emphasis not a creation of an encounter with reality, but instead on an obtuse distention of the arbitrate reality of the image (2010). He uses long-take technique to provoke narrative equivocalness and beyond, a skeptical involvement with infatuation value with an image and the audience’s infatuation with attributing images value. It is significant how Haneke makes his audience notice the ongoing desensitization to the rising ubiquity of images that contain violence, which can result in a progressively emotionless and, a society without hope. One can say that this argument is true in the current society, where people live in a global society that is open to crime and wars all over the world, chiefly presented through the cinema. It is of much importance that the current society one is living in to have the ability to show empathy for the daily occurrences, and have a reaction to them in a well-connected, positive and appropriate manner. Moreover, most specific for the events that take place in the developing countries, which include war and high rate of murder crimes. In his film, Haneke tries his best to remind the society to recall about the messages that these violent images portray, regardless the fact that they may not be exposed to them personally. Therefore, to show the efforts of Haneke to remind the society of the impact of being too much exposed to violent images, in this research paper, three of his films are discussed. The technique of Haneke placing the spectators in the accomplice role is among the many techniques that he uses that go against the Hollywood traditions, therefore, evoking one to ask the question of the morality of the images on screen violence. Even though in Hollywood movies or other traditional films, the audience can also be given the accomplice role, most of the time the spectator does not know this fact, and thus, is manipulated through the images they see. However, the films that Haneke produces, he intentionally makes his spectators aware that they are an accomplice, and does so by combination with the on screen bluntly violent images. Thus, it results in a disturbing and uncomfortable feeling for the spectators. A primary instant of this feeling is also found in the Funny Games (1997), whose a family is tortured for no given reason, therefore, causing the spectator to ask about the morality act of violence behind this entertainment. However, according to Aaron (2007), even with all this violence in the films, people love to watch them. Moreover, it is not only the pleasure of witnessing an illicit or gruesome events; also the banality of daily media that revolves around the people’s inclination to sit back and visually get informed or entertained (2007). He continues to say that film like any other visual culture, provides the audience with the pleasure and possibility of viewing things that one is normally not able to see in reality. So it is obvious that films make a spectacle of daily events and turn the spectacular into commonplace content. Films are the ones that often scorn the line that govern real life, may they are moral or mortal represented through its being fictional, as well as a punishment for cruel characters. Aaron suggests that even though films may consist of irregular behavior that it promotes in certain ways; they are harmless because the events are not real, but just fiction (2007). On the other hand, such violence in the film is harmless since they either are categorized or represented as being wrongfully in some ways. Regardless of these facts, Aaron is still not convinced that such films can cause great harm in society. In Specks C. Oliver’s Funny Frames: the Filmic Concepts of Michael Haneke lays down a theoretical approach that examines all Haneke’s technique of shifting frame of reference (2010). Image of shift is introduced by Specks that he identifies as the process by which the spectator is able to make meaning and representation process itself. Specks (2010), considers how Haneke represents violence in his films and highlights how this theme is placed as a burden of the ethical reflection at the same time is involved with the invariably shifting frames of reference. Speck also tries to examine Deleuzian theory traits to those of Haneke cinema work addressing the core components that he uses, which are suicide, madness, alienation and childhood traumas. Speck has done quite an analysis on Haneke’s work that includes examining methods he uses in his films to confront political discussions. Section II Michael Haneke films have been widely known for their capability of shocking and repulsing the audience, which is he has been able to achieve by his ability to involve the audience, thus making them have a new perception of the on-screen images. Furthermore, this reevaluation is one of the major themes to his masterpiece Caché (2005), which is already established in the opening scene of the film. The film is about an intellectual family in Paris that is terrorized with some inscrutable surveillance tapes. The film start by showing the viewer an extended shot of a residential Parisian street accompanied with no important action and dialogue (Weatley, 2011). The still shot scene lasts for more than two minutes with the only having digenetic action of some bikes and pedestrians who are crossing the street, and then the silence is broken by the background conversation between two voices. There is also an inserted scene just like the opening scene of the film during a different time, Haneke returns the spectator to the first shot, and then the picture on the screen starts to rewind, disclosing to the viewers that what they are viewing at on-screen is a video. Also, confirms that the video is similar to that of the character in the film, of which one has just heard the conversation between two voices, are viewing, as well. Because of this one can say that Haneke puts the spectators in the same level as the characters in the film, which both are looking at the same image, the audience and the characters. Weatley (2011) argues that, with this technique, the reality is not only for the characters in the film, but spectators too are involved in the reality. Haneke puts his audience in a close similar position just like the characters on-screen, instead of just letting the spectators observe the images from a distance. As it is common in films, in conventional Hollywood, the audience is brought closer to the show event by making it to their own. The use of violence by Haneke tends to focus on the blunt muteness of its actually happening in the real world. Haneke empowers the viewer’s role by doing this, where he challenges them to engage the image on-screen, and successively evoking the spectator’s feelings that come close to the real experience. The above scene is the first one in the Caché (2005) that makes a powerful statement on how Haneke intends to introduce a personal experience in the film for the viewer (Weatley, 2011). Therefore, when the spectators’ look at these violent images, they will have an experience that is closer to the real event, which means is something that is excruciating, disturbing and painful. Representation of violence is repeated in Benny’s Video. In this video again, the audience is introduced to the first scene where this time is a pig that is being slaughtered. Afterwards, Benny rewinds the video, just the same as in Cashé; the audience is exposed to the same reality as the character, furthermore, putting them in the same position as Benny. Consequently, it causes the spectators to presume the accomplice role in the murders that Benny carries out later in the film. Funny Games have a plot similar to many Hollywood horror movies, which primarily centers on the theme of violence, nevertheless, the difference are not only limited to the violence scenario of hopelessness (Weatley, 2013). It is in which the character that is being tortured has no chance of winning or escaping, but is also evident through techniques and style of Haneke. In an instant, Paul, is a smart leader of a criminal duo, interacts with the viewers directly by asking them questions such as “what chance do you think they have of not dyeing$1 Also, with a mischievous wink into the camera, this indicates that the audience is too taking part in the “funny games.” With this interaction between the characters in the film and the viewer, Haneke is breaking down the wall between the viewer and the characters in the film. The technique used by Haneke does not only show clearly that the viewer is an accomplice, but films over the difference between reality and fiction. In many ways, Funny Games break the conventional Hollywood’s rules of the film, although at the same time precisely pointing out components of their violent content and traditional structure. In a certain scene, when one of the victims being tortured asks why they do not want to shoot them and finish the whole event, the other torturer, Peter, replies, “Do not forget the value of entertainment – we all would be stripped of our pleasure (Weatley, 2013).” He continues saying that they have not yet reached the Hollywood film length yet. Haneke’s another way of bringing the reality of violence to the audience is by rewinding a scene that has previously occurred. At the near end of the film, while the viewer has hope that there may be a positive turning point, and furthermore, the victims’ survival, Anna snaffles the shotgun and immediately shoots Peter, which gives the spectators a reason to celebrate and cheer. Nevertheless, when Peter finds the remote control of the TV, he rewinds the scene that the viewer has just watched to the point where he turns the previous occurrence, quickly snatching the shotgun from the hand of Anna before he gets shot. The way the expectation of a Hollywood solution is first put in front of the audience just to reverse it seconds later, Haneke revokes this in order to torture the viewer just as much as the characters being tortured in the film. In addition, he wants to bring the feeling of the violence in the film closer to the spectators. The ubiquity of images in films can lead the audience to confuse reality and fiction as Haneke warns. A personified instant of this confusion can be seen in Benny’s Video (1992) with the character, Benny. Benny’s dark room that he spends a lot of his time is filled with necessary equipments that are required for watching and making videos. While in his room, he does not go outside to look at the view outside his window, but prefer to watch it on screen through a live camera that he has set up. Thus, apparently here the line between reality and fiction is very indistinct. In the film, the depiction of the screen within a screening technique is quite self-reflective, and thus, brings the question of what is real and that is not real to the audience (Speck, 2010). In turn, it heightens the images’ power, as it is not easy to determine the truth. The question, together with stylistic techniques used by Haneke brings the film much closer to reality than fiction, or in other words, the image becomes reality. An instant of this is seen when Benny kills the girls he brings to his apartment and the viewer can see both the action played out on-screen, also shown screen within a screen (Price, 2006). That is because Benny is filming the event. Shortly after Benny shoots the girl the action vanishes out of the picture, and the viewer only sees the event on the second screen, making it yet more realistic and powerful for the audience. The scene’s power is because it is self-reflective, induced by the blurring of the line between reality and fiction. It is because the viewer is looking at the homemade video that is being filmed from actual life events happening on screen. Being that the scene framing is still, the viewer can see parts of the event, making the complete murdering happen outside the view of the camera. Therefore, the audience is left to speculate how horrific the scene is, as a result, activating the spectator’s fantasy. That is another of Haneke’s technique of empowering the viewer’s role. Traumas that have been found in Haneke’s films can be seen to have been caused by violence crimes. However, one should not confuse this trauma with trauma of typical character encounters in the normal Hollywood films where the character trauma is solved or eliminated by the violent obliteration of the cause of the trauma. For an instant in the film Cashé, the director goes to great length in trying to establish the main character’s innocence, George. Out of jealousy, George being six years caused the removal of a boy with an Algeria origin from the orphanage. He was, however, too young to understand the results of his actions. Conclusion In the submission, when Haneke uses the technique of making his audience imagine the worst scenarios possible in the films, instead of watching easily explainable images relate closer to the spectators’ reality than fiction. Since it is in the mind of the viewers, Haneke accomplishes his mission of undermining the desensitization of images’ violence. An instant of how the ubiquity of film desensitizes society is how Benny acts of violence meaning that he is so separated from reality. In some of Haneke’s characters, they do not personally experience violence; instead, they only see it, therefore, carry out a violent act to know how it would be like (Benny Videos, 1992). Therefore, Weatley (2013) argues that Haneke’s films act as a warning for the impact of the constant presentation of films that are violent in the society, for an instant Hollywood film that results in the desensitization to real violence related to suffering and pain. In the films, Funny Games and Benny’s Video, Haneke represents violence as something that is not essential, but instead ensuing out of childlike boredom and curiosity. Haneke’s idea of violence contradicts representation of violence by Stanley Kubrick, who shows as an intrinsic constituent of human nature. Bibliography Benny’s Video, 1992. Directed by Michael Haneke; Wega Film, DVD Cac hé 2005. [Film drama] Directed by Michael Haneke. Paris: Les Films du Losange. Funny Games 1997. Directed by Michael Haneke. Wega Film, DVD Aaron M., 2007. Ethics and Spectatorship: Response, Responsibility and the Moving Image. Spectatorship: the Power of Looking on. London: Wallflower Press, Pp. 78-123 Peter, B., 2010. Michael Haneke. University of Illinois Press Price, Brian 2006. “Pain and the Limits of Representation.” The Journal of Cinema and Media, 27.2: Pp. 22-29 Price, B., 2010. Pain and the Limitations of Representation: In: B. Price and J. D. Rhodes, Eds, On Michael Haneke. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, Pp. 15-50 Speck O, C., 2010. Funny Frames: the Filmic Concepts of Michael Haneke. New York: Continuum Wheatley, C., 2013. The Ethics of Aggression: Funny Games. Michael Haneke’s Cinema: The Ethics of the Image. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, Pp. 78-112 Weatley, Catherine 2011. Cache (Hidden). Palgrave Macmillan \ Read More