Michael Haneke as an Auteur

Michael Haneke as an Auteur

German-born Austrian director Michael Haneke is arguably one of Europe’s most critically acclaimed, yet possibly the most provocative and controversial, filmmakers working in the industry today. His filmic style is unique and consistent, remaining widely recognised for his cinema of discomfort. Haneke repeatedly returns to similar narrative themes based on social and often political contexts consistently challenging audiences to “consider their own responsibility for what they watch” (Brunnette, 2010, 2). In doing so, Haneke has successfully identified himself as one of the most acclaimed, committed auteurs in cinema today.

Haneke’s films are designed specifically to “unsettle and dislocate the spectator” (Sorfa, 2006, 93) he seeks to challenge the viewer, demanding their full attention whilst stretching the borders separating the film from its audience (O’Hehir, 2013). He adopts the technique of withholding information from the viewer as a tool to make the audience think, a technique that purposely opposes to the traditional Hollywood style of filmmaking. Bordwell discusses this type of filmmaking, naming it ‘art-cinema narration’, relying heavily on the way in which the narrative is told, as opposed to the story (Sorfa, 2006).

Whilst “denouncing the manipulative American cinema” (Frey, 2010), Haneke himself does not identify specifically within a particular national cinema. Being born in Germany, Haneke spent majority of his life growing up in Austria (Grundmann, 2010). This however hasn’t halted Haneke’s tendency to analyse German neuroses nor pinning down issues directly related to France, yet he is no foreigner to what he depicts. Identifying as a modern day transnational filmmaker, Haneke explores discourses of unease, hostility, guilt and impasse, which can be recognised on an international scale. These particular themes and filmic techniques are common throughout Haneke’s work, covering more than four languages, allowing society to recognise him as a transnational auteur.

Francois Truffaunt in explaining auteur theory stated, “There are no good and bad movies, only good and bad directors” (Andrews, 2010, 178). His statement relates back to the theories ideology that “the director is the author of a film, the person who gives it any distinctive quality it may have” (Cameron, 1962, 2). The theory expands on the notion that the director has such a distinctive and recognisable style that their fingerprints are left on their work (Sarris, 2004). Haneke’s films primarily encapsulate the notion of violence particularly stemming from repression and/or responsibility, a reoccurring narrative theme allowing for the establishment of Haneke as an auteur. Relying heavily on long shots and long takes accompanied by diegetic sound, Haneke again, approaches his films with a distinctive visual style recognised by film critics and his audience.

Haneke adopts similar contextual themes that reoccur throughout his films. Generally, the narrative themes of the films follow the failings of emotionally supressed individuals and the downfall of middle-class social structures when placed in uneasy and complicating situations (Frey, 2010). The narratives explore or comment on the socio-political difficulties in Europe involving class systems, gender roles and ethnic hierarchies (Frey, 2010). His films adopt the conventional narrative path whilst embracing the French accent as the films start and end abruptly making it difficult to determine the films resolution and the characters’ ultimate motivations and goals (Carozza, 2013). In doing so, Haneke provokes individual interpretation from the audiences, demanding them to ask themselves how they would act if confronted with a similar situation.

Stylistically, “Haneke favours the long take over montage and static shots over camera movement” (Frey, 2010), this alongside the use of long, stationary shots aims to give his films the appearance of real-time. Additionally, he uses these filmic techniques to create an uncomfortable and uneasy viewing for the audience, inviting them to see something that perhaps tells them more about themselves than it does the film (Carozza, 2013). Haneke has successfully established himself as “…an auteur who is not primarily interested in telling a story but, rather, in solving problems. To be precise, Haneke thinks in images to solve a given problem” (Speck, 2010, 6). He successfully reiterates this notion through minimalistic dialogue, rare instances of music unless dietetically motivated and the intensification of foley sounds associated to movement (Coulthard, 2010), demanding the audience to ‘listen’ to the images for clues.

Haneke’s first French-language film, Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys (Michael Haneke, 2000), explores the new waves of immigration in Europe from different points of view. The film follows a fragmented series of connecting stories that intersect in a chance encounter. Ultimately, the film evolves around the discourse of communication or miscommunication, not only between cultures but also between relationships. Haneke explores the repressed fears and anxieties that middle-class societies feel about multiculturalism. An example of this is on the train when a young Arabic man harasses Anne; the discomfort of this situation demands the audience to empathise with the middle-class protagonist. However, Haneke purposely captures the other passengers on the train whom remain frozen in passivity, which ultimately asks the audience to consider their reactions to this, and the reasons for this behaviour.

The film is bookmarked with footage of deaf children communicating with each other through gestures and signs. Although at first sight these images may appear unrelated to the film, these scenes foreground the relation of hearing to understanding; exploring the notion of one’s ability not only to hear silence but also the imperative to listen to it (Coulthard, 2010).

Haneke’s stereotypical filming techniques and use of sound in Code Unknown are repeatedly used throughout the film reminding the audience of his personal filmmaking style. An example that encapsulates these two techniques is Haneke’s use of the stationary shot, capturing Anne ironing in her living room. The scene continues for almost three minutes focusing on Anne as she irons and watches a television screen that is reflected in the window of a bookcase. The scene bears neither dialogue nor music however the audience is captivated by the diegetic sounds of the television and subsequently the domestic abuse in a neighbour’s flat when Anne switches the television off. Haneke’s use of a long take in this scene allows for the audience to carefully observe Anne’s reaction to the sounds of domestic abuse next door. Like a passive bystander, Anne eventually turns on the television again to drown out the screams and continues on with her ironing, leaving the audience in shock to question the notion of responsibility.

Haneke’s common narrative themes encapsulating the downfall of emotionally supressed individuals from middle-class society is truly captured in his 2001 picture, The Piano Teacher (Haneke, 2001). Criticised by some for the films disturbing nature, The Piano Teacher is highly praised by others winning a great number of awards at various film festivals globally. The film is Haneke’s only adaptation of a literary source for film (Chapman, 2013), bringing to life the story of a talented piano teacher, Erika, dealing with the effects of sexual and emotional repression. Staying true to his signature narrative structure, Haneke rejected flashback scenes from the novel (Speck, 2010) instead challenging the audience to fill in the gaps as the film unfolds. Additionally, the film’s finale ends ambiguously successfully achieving Haneke’s “manipulation of a non-redemptive plot” (Hutchinson, 2003).

Although the film’s title, The Piano Teacher, may infer a strong use of music, the film rarely adopts nondiegetic music. Alternatively, true to Haneke’s form the film relies on the diegetic sounds of music as they are played in the scenes by the characters.

True to style, Haneke’s conventional filmic techniques are adopted in the final scene sequence of the film. The sequence continues for almost ninety seconds in three static camera shots employing only foley and diegetic sound. The first is a mid shot of Erika as she emotionally watches her lover, Walter, walk away and suddenly stabbing herself in the shoulder with a large kitchen knife. Haneke then cuts to a wide shot of the auditorium glass doors as the audience observes Erika briskly leaving the building and finally a long shot of the building as Erika walks down the street out of the picture. The scene continues after Erika has left the shot as the films extras continue on with their lives before cutting to the credits. Haneke’s uses this technique to challenge the audience to create their own meaning (Carozza, 2013) and formulate discussion.

Similar to The Piano Teacher, Haneke’s 2005 film, Hidden, aims to illustrate the audiences role as a conceptual tool in understanding his cinema (Speck, 2010). Hidden follows a middle class family and their reaction to receiving a series of menacing surveillance videos and notes from an anonymous person. The film focuses directly on George, whom suspects the perpetrator to be an Algerian man who was adopted briefly as a child by his parents. Keeping to Haneke’s common themes the film explores class systems, multiculturalism, responsibility and above all guilt. Throughout the film Haneke illustrates human behaviour in certain situations insisting the viewer responds and makes judgements on the themes (Carozza, 2013) as an apparatus to create meaning. Much like The Piano Teacher and Code Unknown, the film finale is inconclusive although “in keeping with the expectations the film has set, the final scene is an open ended series of questions and ambiguities” (Carozza, 2013).
Similar to Code Unknown, Hidden, also explores the notion of miscommunication through the form of lies and silenced characters. This is apparent in a scene during the film when George’s wife, Anne, is trying to talk to their son, Pierre, she asks him “why don’t you say anything” with which Pierre replies, “what’s there to say?” There is a sense in his statement and silence that he holds a secret, knowing something that the others do not (Coulthard, 2010). True to his unique style, Haneke resists the use of music in his film, relying on truths to be uncovered from the silence.

The opening and finale sequences that bookend Hidden truly emblematic of Haneke’s work. The five minutes of the film consists of a long shot, filmed by a stationary camera in one single long take. The shot captures what appears to be a contemporary middle-class Parisian neighbourhood. The sequence is only briefly intersected by another shot of a man, who we later learn is George, leaving a house and looking for something. This particular sequence illustrates “the aesthetic and thematic groundwork for the film to follow…” as the picture is suddenly “…revealed to be a recording by a fast-forwarding…” (Speck, 2010, 28). The film ends how it begins, with a four minute static and extended long shot of the front of Pierre’s school which “forces the viewer to reconsider any prior assumptions and deductions about the plot” (Speck, 2010, 29).

Code Unknown, The Piano Teacher and Hidden are just three of Haneke’s distinguishable, thought provoking films. Drawing on themes that he personally identifies with, Haneke continues to create films designed to challenge and divide audiences, forcing them to find meaning within themselves. Haneke’s unique style of filming and strategic use of silence are techniques audiences now come to expect upon viewing one of his films. His portrayal of middle-class society in Europe is a true auteurial signature used to reflect on problems of representation. Tackling issues of racism and class, Haneke goes places other directors will not. Although criticised by some, Haneke is praised by many. Stamping his personality on every piece of his work, Michael Haneke has established himself as one of the most celebrated and acclaimed auteurs in Europe and more recently, the world.

REFERENCE LIST

Andrews, Dale. 2010. Digital Overdrive: Communications & Multimedia Technology 2011. Ontario: Digital Overdrive.

Brunette, Peter. 2010. Contemporary Film Directors: Michael Haneke. United States of America: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Cameron, Ian. 1962. “Film, Directors and Critics.” Movie 2: 1-4. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film/movie/contents/films_directors_and_critics.pdf.

Carozza, John. 2013. “KPB206 International Cinema: Week 4 Lecture Notes: Haneke.” Accessed April 17, 2013. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4699896-dt-content-rid-304519_1/courses/KPB206_13se1/Hidden%20Keynote%203%202013.pdf

Chapman, Mark. 2013. “La Pianiste: Michael Haneke’s Aesthetic of Disavowal.” Bright Lights Film Journal 74. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://brightlightsfilm.com/74/74piano_chapman.php

Coulthard, Lisa. 2010. “Listening to Silence: The Films of Michael Haneke.” Cinephile 6 (1): 19-24. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://www.academia.edu/376209/Listening_to_Silence_the_Films_of_Michael_Haneke

Frey, Mattias. 2010. “Michael Haneke.” Accessed April 17, 2013. http://sensesofcinema.com/2010/great-directors/michael-haneke/

Grundmann, Roy. 2010. A Companion to Michael Haneke. New York: Wiley. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=485672

Hutchinson, Nina. 2003. “Between Action and Repression: The Piano Teacher.” Accessed April 17, 2013. http://sensesofcinema.com/2003/26/michael-haneke/piano_teacher/

O’Hehir, Andrew. 2013. “Michael Haneke: Art doesn’t offer answers, only questions.” Accessed April 17, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/michael_haneke_art_doesn’t_offer_answers_only_questions/

Sarris, Andrew. 2004. “Notes on Auteur Theory in 1962.” In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, 561-564. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sorfa, David. 2006. “Uneasy domesticity in the films of Michael Haneke.” Studies in European Cinema 3 (2): 93-104. Accessed April 17, 2013. doi: 10.1386/seci.3.2.93/1.

Speck, Oliver. 2010. Funny Frames: The Filmic Concepts of Michael Haneke. New York: Continuum International Publishing. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/docDetail.action?docID=10422421

Williams, Craig. 2012. “Forgotten Horrors: The Roots of Michael Haneke’s Immigration Discourse.” Accessed April 17, 2013. http://kubrickontheguillotine.com/2012/12/03/forgotten-horrors-the-roots-of-michael-hanekes-immigration-discourse/