Michael Haneke Doesn't Agree With Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' 

The greatest plot twist in anything I've ever seen it when the camera panned from arthouse auteur Michael Haneke to Office star John Kraskinski. It's very strange seeing them in the same room tbh

Lmao Michael Haneke and John Krasinski

Ha ha. Krasiznki and Apatow are a little out of their league I would say.

The audacity of putting a genius like Haneke in a room with a bunch of poncy Hollywood featherweights and letting him rip

If people had actually seen the movie Haneke mentionned (Nuit et Brouillard or "Night and Fog" by Alain Resnais), they would not say that he is being snobish or anything like that. Whatever Jewish people went through when they were on the verge of being gased is simply impossible to portray. "Night and Fog" is actually a docu-film that is very neutral, and it really goes deep into the viewer emotions rather then spark "ready-to-cook" feelings like suspense. Whatever Jewish people went through, it was definitly not "suspense", it is almost insulting from us to say that we can ever know what they felt. The horror is just unspeakable, like Haneke said.

the rest of the panel are petrified once Hanake is finished talking...squirm central.

I really think people are misinterpreting what Haneke is discussing here. He is not saying that writers and directors should not inject any of their opinions into their films, but that they should try as best they can to present the characters and material as objectively as possible as to not manipulate the viewer’s emotions to believe a certain thing or feel a certain emotion, especially when it comes to complicated or even evil characters or people such as Hitler. He also believes that any film which presents a character or an event such as Hitler or the Holocaust should not be treated as entertainment, because at that point you are creating entertainment out of a vile scenario. This is why he felt it was irresponsible of Spielberg to present the shower scene in Schindler’s List in a “suspenseful” manner, as he put it. Basically, present things realistically, not to get a reaction.

Never thought I'd see Haneke and Apatow on the same panel.

Oh my lord when they turned to John Krasinski!! *Jim looks into the camera worried*

"Funny Games" is meant to show the audience how easily manipulated they get by films, as well as how they glorify violence as a result of that. That's the whole point of the film, it's an anti-manipulation film. It's incredible to me how many people misunderstood that film, I think the point is clearly stated throughout the whole movie in more than obvious ways (the way one of the perpetrators speaks to the camera - that is, to us, the audience, and everything he says).

Michael Haneke stands for the objectivity through his cinema and let's his audience be audience, not letting them get in the shoes of the protagonist through the editing and direction of his films, he makes subjectivity the last thing to happen in his film. That why he's a treasure for standing apart from the crowd of filmmakers.

Wow. Krasinski gets a follow-up question to Haneke. He had to embarass himself.

Haneke talks more like a philosopher

a true filmmaker surrounded by hollywood fools

I would love if they did a 2 hour conversation just about this very subject. It's is not only important but very interesting. I would also love to see a discussion between Haneke and Scorsese, or him and Friedkin.

Here's a more detailed translation (mea culpa if it's not perfect): "Well, first of all, I have to say that I argued with Bernd Eichinger about the film. I think this movie is disgusting. And dumb. For a reason: You can't humanize a figure with that much historical context behind it to start a melodram that might perhaps move some people - but what is being moved? Which emotions are moved why? If you choose such a topic you have to think about it what it means for the spectator. And the question of responsibility not only concerns the responsibility in relation to the subject being treated, but first and foremost the responsibility to the viewer: To what extent do I give the spectator the opportunity to be independent and not manipulated? Responsibility is always a matter of manipulation. The question is, how seriously do I take the viewer as a subject? How much opportunity do I give him/her to be involved in a communication with the work? Am I just postulate my opinion and try to force my opinion on the spectator, or on the contrary, am I taking the spectator seriously and providing him/her with the means of creating and forming their own opinion? That's a fundamental question, wether you're dealing with Hitler or simply an individual who you've written for the script." "Would you make a film about Hitler?" "No." "Why?" "For that reason. Perhaps I'll sit myself into hot water here, but I think a film like Spielberg's about the concentration camp is also wrong. You cannot create a moment of suspense out of whether gas or water will come out of the shower. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach. There's one movie about holocaust - “Nuit et brouillard” by Alain Resnais - which approaches the topic in this way: What's YOUR opinion? You, the spectator? What is your position? As soon as such a subject becomes entertainment, it is, in my opinion, out of discussion."

The Virgin Americans vs the Chad European

Lmao. Haneke among these fools. What the fuck was THR thinking?

When theyasked JIm he should've pull his famous smirck and close up, haha

he seems kinda lost, intellectually speaking, in front of fools like Apatow. But WOW... he is really what people called a wise man. wise wise wise !

krasinski is such a fed

Krasinski, too afraid to speak his mind, agreeing with all sides like a typical Hollywood coward.

This is a total joke, pairing a master like Haneke with wannabes lightweights like Krasiznki and Apatow?

He talks as a writer, which I think is fantastic

Everyone is calling out Krasinski but what about Judd Aptow?? the guy who literally makes the opposite end of cinema to Haneke?

I wonder what Haneke thought of "Son of Saul". That seems like a movie entirely free of cheap audience manipulation.

i can understand why he feels the way he does

Poor Haneke, stuck in an interview with those goofballs. No wonder he couldn't even look at them.

Haneke is right in many ways 'though I don't completely share his opinion because every piece of art, especially film, uses manipulation in different forms. Even Haneke himself does that a lot. And I don't think this is a particularly bad thing if you want your audience to feel a certain way. It depends on your task as a director and the idea behind your picture. Anyway, I disagree that there are topics you shouldn't touch on in cinema. As someone else pointed out in the comment section, film is a very powerful medium, where every filmmaker can bring something new to the table.

Couldn't that argument be extended to cinematic portrayals of pretty much any unpleasant phenomenon? Any film that has murder in it is making entertainment out of the worst thing anyone could do by that definition

Haneke is such a genius. he just operates on another level than most. highly intelligent.

Here after watching Oppenheimer and finding myself going on a rant to my friends on how irresponsible the approach was to arguably the defining turning point of the 20th century and the controversial historical figure that was behind it. I don't think I totally got Haneke's point when I first watched this but apparently it struck a cord with me that I found myself reiterating some of his points years after hearing them first. We're really lucky to have thinkers like him that take the art form that seriously.

Haneke never said some subjects should never be touched in film or art .....the interviewer didnt even understand haneke's answer .....

I worship Haneke, but I completely disagree with him. All art (and movies in particular) are manipulative. I see no problem with it.

All cinema essentially amounts to manipulation so that in that respect Haneke is most definitely correct. There is certainly a coherent logic to what he's saying, and an interesting question concerns the limits of when manipulation becomes exploitation, particularly in films dealing with sensitive subjects, e.g. the Holocaust. Where I think that he is wrong is in his assertion that exploitation is inherently a bad thing. Take Schindler's List: it is undoubtedly a film that is intended for audience consumption. It doesn't really answer any questions. However, insofar that the film is effective cinema, through consuming the horror, through being sickened by the violence, and unnerved by the possibility of violence, the audience comes to a closer understanding of the situation and the surrounding issues. This can be instructive in itself. Films like 12 Years A Slave are also good examples of this even though superficially they arguably amount to torture porn.

People criticizing Haneke's answer probably don't know that he did in fact make a film about Hitler and the Holocaust. THE WHITE RIBBON is set in pre-WWI Germany, but it's about the generation of children brutalized by hierarchies who would later grow up to become Nazis. Haneke's cinema is historical and political, but it's also subtle.

If an artist like Haneke makes a film for us to see, he isn't showing us something he doesn't want us to see. It interests him, and bringing it out for us to bear witness, may allow us to have opinions about it but, the moment it's put in front of us... how is that not a "manipulation"? There may be a viewer who was never interested in a certain topic, then sees a film in which he didn't realize how much he should've been interested in it. How can that happen without the manipulative elements-or craft- of storytelling? Haneke of all artists should know that.

On one hand I agree with him but at the same time that's the whole point of cinema in a way, a film is always just showing real things through the lenses of someone's vision. Let's think of the very violent scene in cachè, there are literally millions of people who went through that in history, and that feeling could never be replicated through film, it's something only people who were physically hurt like that could understand, yet its used in the film for the sake of telling this story (obviously this example is something very specific that has happened in real life, not an actual true story like in the case of shindlers list and downfall, but by the logic presented in the video, you would never be able to tell a true story on film because it will always be manipulated in some way in its presentation and could never replicate what actually happened unless it's real footage, like with night and fog). I completely agree with him on the topic of manipulating the audience though, the film should be constructed in a way to allow the viewer to make his own conclusions on what's being shown, but I don't think it applies to Shindler's List, since what spielberg showed was simply what literally happened, there were times when not gas but water would come out of the shower heads. Now you can argue this is still irresponsible from the filmmaker because the suspense is created from the fact that the audience is aware of the possibility that gas can come out of the shower heads, while the jews did not know that was likely what was going to happen. But you can also argue against that argument by the simple fact that regardless of the effect those scenes have on the audience, they are things that really happened, thus spielberg was just doing what michael haneke said was the correct approach, to simply show and let the audience come to their conclusions, regardless of how obvious spielbergs opinion and intention with the scenes were when you know the context around the film itself.

I do love Michael Haneke, but this is a hypocritical and ignorant comment in and of itself. I appreciate his care level for films covering this subject matter, but he is simply categorizing Schindler's List and films alike as being a form of entertainment, saying that's unfair is a severe understatement. Ruling out Holocaust films or WW2 films also rules out the creation of most all films ever made. Now, I agree that implementing morals or begging questions to make the audience contemplate something rather than simply viewing it and turning it off and forgetting about it is true. I will agree with that. But in that case, aren't history books or autobiographical novels an unspeakable form of manipulation? To a degree? And sure, lets NOT include tension because that's NEVER been an attribute of films to immerse their audiences to a feeling portrayed and depicted as close as possible to REAL historic events. No. Lets NOT utilize a film like Schindler's List grossing 320+ million dollars, or the Pianist (regardless of your views on the film) broadcasting an immersive history lesson for everyone out there to view. And P.S., the film wasn't made without the aided assistance of TRUE survivors. Because Spielberg (even though I don't love him) would nneeevverr do all of the research, subjective and objective, to curate the closest thing to the event, once again, proofed by the actual people, for the film, with a HUGE responsibility on his back. Never.

Haneke made some interesting remarks here, but I think he was being a bit sloppy when talking about his views simply due to the fact that he knew none of these meatheads would actually get into a discussion with him.

Wie vergnüglich die Überforderung in den anderen Gesichtern zu erhaschen, wohl nicht gewohnt geht eine Ansicht/ ein Diskussionsansatz mal etwas tiefer als gewohnt.. Vor allem in den USA ?

This was such a load of moralizing 'holier than thou' bull. By that logic you can't tell stories about any tragic/attrocious historical events. In fact the very act of telling a story is fundementally indefensible and disrespectful, since by that logic dramatization trivializes and disrespects whatever is being represented by its very nature. How many muggings have been a source of suspense in both films and in real life. Will the victim come away unscathed or not? How then, according to Haneke, is one to tell stories? Storytelling is how humans process information. I guarantee that a sense of suspense about whether or not gas would come out of the shower heads was a real part of life for some people in the concentration camps. So I don't see why it shouldn't be part of a story of those events. Not that I'm defending Spielberg, I think he's one of the most overrated two bit directors of all time. That being said, I think Haneke is more interested in moralizing and make Statements with a capital S than storytelling.

Haneke said that you shouldnt force your opinion and emotions on viewer, but i think there is nothing wrong with that. Schindler's List definitely forces strong emotions and doesn't leave room for interpretation, but again there is nothing wrong with that. That film is soooo immersive and has incredible atmosphere and tone. It shocks the audience at times just like Haneke shocks in his films.

I wonder what he thinks of The Pianist

Haneke is a master of film-maming

Dear Lord,everytime when I am listening to Michael Haneke,he makes me believe that he is the smartest man alive. I mean, he is a genius and he is making an amazig movies but come on! When he is in the room,everybody (exept him) seems ... dumb. (i'm sorry for any mistakes,my english is not perfect)

Michael Haneke "A Rare wonder in cinema"

oh my god that's jim from the office

alright, theres clearly some circlejerking going on in the comments

Honestly - as much as I adore Haneke - but in what way can you label Schindler's List as "entertainment"? Makes me wonder if he's even seen the film.

Downfall and Schindler's List are propaganda - Private Ryan as well of course and we had to watch it in school. Sick.

I love Haneke. Such an intelligent and a decent person.

Haneke gave a very intellectual answer. Schindler's List is a Hollywood movie for entertainment, and of course it differs to the perspective of arthouse films having different types of audience.

He's such a hot intellecutal Lad! I would lay down and let him do anything to me, yes sir!!!!

Michael Haneke's statement is literally one of the dumbest comments made by a man who appears to be intelligent. All films are manipulating their audience. The mere art of telling a story cannot be helped but be altered by the storyteller's point of view even if they have none. Filmmakers that trying to be purist are ridiculous. Dude it is what it is. The title of director in and of itself says he is a manipulator of the truth (accurately or inaccurately).

the man who directed funny games talks about letting the viewer form his own oppinion. thats rich

"would you make a film about Hitler?" "No" The White Ribbon: 👀👀👀

Kubrick didn’t agree either.

Say whatever you will, the seventh continent is a crap film… The whole point of the movie was to make audience uncomfortable, that’s fine but At least make them interesting...

Is there someone here who speaks German that could type up a transcript of this? I definitely recognized some words that weren't in the subtitles while he was talking and would love to get a more precise understand of what he's trying to convey.

Haneke wasn't saying that there are some subjects that are off limit. But how you treat those subjects is important, so that you avoid it being an entertainment.

Downfall didn’t create melodrama, it recreated it. Calling upon emotions is not irresponsible, it’s human. Willingness to avoid something like the Schindler’s List showerhead scene simply because it is intense? That is irresponsibility. As for Schindler’s list being entertaining, it is. It’s a film. All forms of presentation art exist to entertain, interest, and intrigue. To do so with history (without compromising accuracy) is good and is what keeps history alive.

This completely reveals how fucking low the american bar is.

Well, he was born in Germany and his father was German; "100%" doesn't really fit. I mean, I don't care, I'm just a double-citizen myself (German/Swiss in my case). But of course Haneke seems much more connected to Austria and has a heavy Austrian accent as well. :)

the scene in Schindler's List where water comes out, not gas... that, to me, is a key to the film. Spielberg is saying; you know what happened, I know what happened, it can't be shown. And that to me is a really really strong way of showing it. It's another way of involving the audience than Haneke's way, where we are sort of turned into unwilling voyeurs (the killing of the girl in Benny's video, Majid's suicide in Caché, Anne's falling apart in Amour); Haneke asks that question, oh you want to see it, do you? do you REALLY want to see it? Are you sure you're ready? Spielberg, on the other hand, says: it wasn't water. You know that. Close your eyes and see it. That involved me to the max at the premiere in NY in '94. But this interview was before Son of Saul

Saying that we shouldn't portray historical events like that out of "reverence", when the people telling the story and most of the extras in the film are either survivors of the Holocaust or their direct descendants, seems to be calling to censor their experience. Film provides a way to empathize with people in such situations, people know they're not literally there (?) and suggesting that it's more "morally pure" to hide history rather than honor its sufferers seems horrific to me and I'm actually depressed at the amount of comments glorifying (and not questioning) Haneke here. His films aren't without "manipulation" either, all films are literally fabrications (that's not inherently negative), and claiming that they're not and he's morally superior as a result is absurd. All of his films are written, directed and edited to provoke specific reactions, just because they're slower and less specific than Hollywood films doesn't mean he's not in control of what happens.

These subtitles are so insccurate

Why did Haneke agreed to do this is a mystery, be in front of fools like Judd Apatow, please. Maybe it was his distribution company, who knows...

Directors/filmmakers are a bit like your children -- each have their own quirks and particulars you love and dislike. To some degree, we've enjoyed films directed everyone on this panel for various reasons. Several of Haneke's films we really tossed our hands up into the air, Funny Games comes to mind. Implausible in our view. The Piano Teacher is another. To say Haneke isn't manipulating the audience is an exaggeration. That's what all filmmakers/directors do. And like everything, some more than others. In general, a great film to us is one we want to watch again. It happens but it's rare. And there isn't one film made by anyone on the panel that falls into that category. Once was enough. ( a personal thing for sure, such is art). So, for all the awards and hype from the so-called experts, that tells you something.

Hanake: “I could never make a film about Hitler, making entertainment out of tragedy is disrespectful.” Me, an american: “Fck it man, Cinema is life, u can make whatever u want cause you’re free to express yo self… bro”😂

i kinda get his point, but his view is a bit drastic in my opinion... i really dont see a film like "schindlers list" as entertainment... yes spielberg plays with the suspense in those chamber scenes, but the people there knew what was going on, so thats probably what they thought in that moment :(

showing you pure violence. And it was your turn to judge it

I do not agree with him. If that's the case, almost every real-life tragic event could not be made into a movie. And all commercial movies can be seen as a form entertainment even Night and Fog which I have not seen myself. I found his opinion too judgmental and not very fair.

Funny, Haneke is one to talk about manipulation when he's one of the most manipulative directors around.

I like his view on things, let the viewer come to their own conclusions on the topic . that's why i don't like movies like Django and inglorious bastards, even though it was comedy

Funny Games, I think, is a real cuestion about violent cinema.

This is what happens when you invite an artist to a room of shallow Hollywood people. And to think these directors were there, because they made "the best Hollywood movies" of the year.

2:43 has he seen shoah?

His opinion is really interesting

haneke is one of the finest directors on this planet WTF is he doing there?!? his answers were perfect though.

Haneke must be so insanely depressed.

Finally, someone who will talk sense.

funny story, this scene Haneke mentions is a core childhood memory of mine because of exactly what he's bringing up. in 2001 I was 7 years old and on summer vacation with my brother and cousin and we decided to watch schindler's list (because we were normal children and that's what normal children do). I honestly remember very little else of the movie, but I remember this scene very vividly, because when it happened I laughed, and my brother spent the rest of the trip telling all the adults how horrible I was for laughing at schindler's list. I don't know if I registered what the subtext was or if I just reacting to the direction, but clearly, Spielberg was using a conventional enough cinematic language (of tension and release) that I understood the purpose of that formulation, even if I misread the narrative intention. I can see how that kind of melodramatic framing, warping a real-life tragedy to extract manipulative emotional reactions from your audience, can seem immoral and irresponsible., twisting the historical context of something horrible to create entertaining, dramatic material. disagree with his point about Downfall though.

yes, but only because Germany still has jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood). nothing to be proud of.

No, then you are born in München and live your life in Austria, plain and simple. In the end that's got nothing to do with nationality.

I'm curious to hear what Haneke's opinion on Jojo Rabbit is.

Alleine die Tatsache, dass sich die Musik von "Schindlers Liste" größter Beliebtheit erfreut, gibt Haneke recht .

lol Haneke is such a treasure

Don't show him Zone of Interest.

krasinskys answering the teacher

I have all the respect in the world for Haneke-I think he’s absolutely brilliant; but I *strongly* disagree with him on this topic. Especially with the “shower scene” in Schindler’s List. That scene isn’t in the film for the purpose of entertainment, it’s there to show you the absolute horror those people experienced. It shows you the psychological torment and hysteria they had to deal with-even with something as mundane as taking a shower. To be fair, I do think that there are flaws with Schindler’s List. I think that although it is a great film, the ending was kind of dumb; And like many people have said - I also think it should’ve ended with Schindler going back home and realizing that he was a pariah for what he did. I think that would have been a much more powerful way of expressing the inhumanity and indifference from those people that were not necessarily responsible for the Holocaust taking place. That would’ve shown how _everyone,_ not just the Nazis, had blood on their hands, and that would’ve shown the wickedness of apathy. But to say that the shower scene was unethical makes no sense to me. Why make a film about the Holocaust, if you’re not going to show just how atrocious life was for people in the concentration camps? More importantly; Watching a scene like the shower scene in Schindler’s List - allows you to generate more empathy for the people that actually experienced that, because you are witnessing what they saw, and therefore feeling as if you were actually experiencing it … And although you can never _truly feel_ the kind of horror they felt - That’s as close as you can get to experiencing-without actually experiencing it. Watching that scene-is absolutely horrific. It’s traumatic; But, it SHOULD BE. And I don’t understand what the point of Art is-if it’s not, to be able to connect with others, and to be able to empathize with them-and their experiences, as best we can.

Funny Games relies on the fact that the spectator is engaged in viewing a film (ie Paul's manipulation of the narrative direction of the film with a TV remote), this helps to move the violence away from an analogous relationship with the "real world" - which is the point that Haneke is speaking to in this clip. Though he does represent brutality in his films, I don't find this to be exploitative, which is what he seems to be accusing Spielberg of - the suspense created by the shower head.

thought job for the translator

The interviewer said "huma-lizing" at first, haha.

Oh no, haneke is dumb

This is weird to me. Haneke constantly tackles traumatic/horrific subject matter in his films and makes it into entertainment.

WHo put these clowns in the same room as Michael Haneke? Also to add this si why Kubrick abandoned his film 'Aryan papers'. He just felt he could not film this subject.

I liked "downfall" maybe describing it as a picture about Hitler is too simplistic?

Downfall was an intriguing and smart that comprehends that to understand something, you have to see all sides unclouded by ignorance. All people are people, saints and sinners. It is important to humanize figures rather than saying they are simply “evil” or “sick” because understanding them actually solves things and progresses our societies in the right direction.

I kinda agree with Him about Schindler's List even if that movie was based on a novel unlike Donwfall that was based on the memoires of one of Hitler's secretary