I'm yet to see the original, and I probably won't for some time, since I saw this quite recently.
Ann: LSE
George: EII
Paul: EIE
Peter: IEI
The kid isn't worth typing. You don't really know what he is.
I'm yet to see the original, and I probably won't for some time, since I saw this quite recently.
Ann: LSE
George: EII
Paul: EIE
Peter: IEI
The kid isn't worth typing. You don't really know what he is.
Terrible film. It even failed at being disturbing.
Naomi Watts getting tied up in her underwear was pretty much the main highlight.
el oh elOriginally Posted by discojoe
Was this the movie about the dad who builds houses and the druggy, emo son?
4w3-5w6-8w7
why the fuck do paul and peter look so alike. and someone is missing, according to peter's description. this is fucking annoying
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Paul and Peter are easy to tell apart in the movie.
Understandable. There was zero Fi.
And it was deliberate. The director made this film as a tool. He said "if you walked out of the cinema, you didn't need it; if you stayed, you did". It's basically a social experiment, which shows us that we are so engrossed in cinema violence - we've become so numb about it - that we have lost all sensitivity.
So, in essence, you're wrong when you say that it was meant to be disturbing and tense. Matter of fact is that this was never the original intention of film.
He isn't wrong at all whatsoever. He DID mean it to be disturbing and tense...or else it wouldn't be much of an experiment. Make sense son....MAKE SOME SENSE.
If the experiment was behind the intention of the film's direction, than there would have to be an attempt at disturbing the guinea pigs.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Duh. Who decides what is disturbing? The director? You as the audience? Is disturbing objective? Or was it disturbing to one person and not to another? I didn't find it disturbing; maybe this is why I needed the film. So was the director aiming to make it disturbing? And if you didn't find it disturbing then you needed it?
I think the premise is that if you stayed, then clearly you're so desensitized to displays of gratuitous violence that you need the movie - you need to be, in a sense, punished and awakened to your own desensitization.
Had you left immediately, you're not that desensitized yet and therefore don't need to see the message that Haneke is attempting to convey, which is essentially: you've become sick from the violence of our culture.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
It's less of a message, but the absence of any reason for why this violence takes place. It's (my reading) intended to inspire feelings of repulsion - at the action, but also at yourself for being a 'part' of the action, for being 'audience' to the action and therefore implicit in it (since its performed for you).
There are moments in the movie where the fourth wall is momentarily broken, in the sense that Haneke seems to mock the viewer for hoping for any 'meaningful' resolution, as though 'meaning' would somehow justify and rectify this extraction of entertainment value from senseless violence. The idea is that 'meaning' does not change the nature of the violence committed. And if we find the movie sick, we ourselves (in watching it) are even sicker for 'buying into' the idea that violence can ever be 'entertainment'; can ever produce 'meaning' which we should 'sit it out' for.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
To those Haneke would say, I think, alas. Too late.
In many ways, the movie is a touch on the pretentious side; moreover, it assumes its own effectiveness. I think that's why it's received poor reviews.
The concept is intriguing; the execution of it could not realistically hope to achieve that Haneke may have envisioned for it, for exactly the reason you identified. It was a movie calculated to anticipate audience reaction. Audience reaction often eludes directors, particularly those that want to preach to them.
Last edited by unefille; 09-19-2008 at 12:49 PM.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
E1s solve problems by doing what they think is right. To that extent, Fi works as well as Ti, because they can operate on Fi rules, not just Ti rules. However the E1 focus on placing subjectivities aside in order to produce a 'right' and 'objective' solution I can see clashing with Fi in some circumstances, particularly in a situation with given rules (such as an institution the E1 believes in and wishes to preserve) that require them to act against the Fi-rules; whilst such clashes are much less likely with a Ti-base.
()
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
The only reason I won't say that Funny Games crossed the line is because it had this satirical, almost slapstick quality to it that made it seem more outrageous than disturbing.
A good example of a movie that does cross the line is Wolf Creek.
I think this is a good idea. The fact that you said you are possibly Beta because you like them makes me question your socionics understanding.
Now, what do you think are your options?
Hold up. Surely a Fi base One could believe that their morals were objective. They'd have little knowledge of the Ti approach (obviously because of Ti role), and because of their gut-based energy, come from a thoroughly "this is the way to do it and I'm right because I am" approach.
I was surprised no one actually said anything against this - as if they ignored it - besides Mimosa Pudica saying "Betas are creepy..." for the third time in a row.
FTR, I was half attempting to stir up controversy with that statement.
Honestly though, it wasn't so much seeing the family terrorised that I gained pleasure from; more watching these two very entertaining Betas basically baffle a Delta family. They had no idea what these kids were about; their very ideals (or lack thereof) blew them out of the water. I think it's the principle that I enjoyed (and Pitt's acting), which I noticed as soon as I saw a trailer for it a while ago.
I can understand getting a kind of sick pleasure out of seeing certain types of sadistic imagery, (I think the Hostel and Saw movies are hilarious) but the whole point of Funny Games is to be hateful, and I couldn't derive any pleasure out of seeing these innocent people getting abused in such a nasty way, and I thought the two antagonists were pussies.
Nah, it really isn't, especially since it's coming from Ezra lol. When I read it, of course there was the immediate, ostensible effect (which was calculated on his part), but I then saw past it, to the fact that he was just curiously acknowledging his own dark side and stirring up a little controversy to validate this awareness. If something is sensed peripherally, people will typically do something to bring it into focus; Ezra pulled the typical SeFe bullshit lol.Originally Posted by discojoe
4w3-5w6-8w7
I'm not quite sure you've understood me. Basically, I don't really get any pleasure from seeing these people terrorised; more the way in which they do it; it's so laissez-faire about such a disturbing topic. It's like making a film about Nazis playing around with Jews before they kill them; I wouldn't find it pleasurable at all so much as highly fascinating and compelling. It couldn't be gratuitous like it is in Saw or Hostel (those films are indeed sick and actually very shit, and I derive no pleasure or enjoyment from them); it would have to be masterfully done.
ETA: it may be helpful to know that I myself don't fully understand the sensations or whatever that I derive from this film or any concept like it.
I gathered as much Maybe you should be more direct in your explanation. Don't be afraid to think scary thoughts; I won't call you crazy if you're honest about your feelings, no matter how fucked up they are.Originally Posted by Ezra
4w3-5w6-8w7
i watched this movie last night and i loved it. what a creatively fucked up concept for a film.
i don't know what ann and george's types are but i thought paul was a clear-cut ILE. peter was fairly one-dimensional imo but given his chemistry with paul i could see xEI.
paul was absolutely wonderful though. i can't remember the last time i was this attracted to a fictional character.