True, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t succeed, either.

That leaves the underlying level: Haneke’s message movie about our own complicity in violent cinema. For reasons I’ve said a bunch of times elsewhere, this part was a failure. Haneke’s attempt to implicate the audience actually served to distance it, in my opinion.

Furthermore, his awkward attempt at a cinematic experiment also served to undermine the movie’s success at pure suspense.

Just because Haneke succeeded in his mission to make the audience uncomfortable, doesn’t mean he succeeded in making a good or worthwhile film.

I certainly don’t mind being miserable during a film. I would count Requiem for a Dream among my top 10, and you will not find a more miserable cinematic experience than that. The difference here, I think, is when Haneke sets out to make you miserable – not through his story or his characters – but through the act of watching the film itself. For me, it was like the moment with Dorothy pulls back the curtain and reveals the Wizard of Oz sitting at a booth, pulling levers, except that this time the wizard has a knife and he’s sticking you with it.

I have no beef with experimental cinema, either. Koyannisquatsi (yes, I know I spelled that wrong – too lazy to google) was an amazing experience for me. But I have never watched a film before where the experiment was my own misery. Have you ever seen the second Jackass movie (feel free to not admit it if you have), where they have that inflatable punching bag that shoots out of the door when you ring the doorbell, slamming you in the face? You can make a case for that being art, that the person’s reaction (i.e., how pissed they get, what it reveals about their inner psyche, etc.) is part of the work. I feel you have that here. Haneke is specifically and purposefully trading on our misery as part of his ‘art,’ which is why I dislike it so much.

(it is fun to talk about, though, I will readily admit that)

A film making you feel miserable is a triumph in my view. I’ve just been debating with someone about There Will Be Blood, and his argument being that it was not a good film because it was an oppressive and dreary film that left him emotionally flogged. That’s the point of the film right there.

I’ve felt miserable watching The Elephant Man, does that make it a bad film?

The “Dancing partner kicks you in the crotch” comparison gives me the idea that Evan doesn’t want the unexpected, and that there are certain criteria as to what a film should meet. Indeed, it is more experimental, but why does this disqualify it from being a good film? What about the more experimental films of David Lycnh, are they terrible?