Lollivan
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Leoni Haney
Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
Baron Ronan Doyle
After watching Der Siebente Kontinent and Benny's Video in rather rapid succession, it took me an inexplicably long time to get around to this, the third in Michael Haneke's Glaciation Trilogy, the director's exploration of isolation and alienation in modern society.Following the unrelated stories of an array of everyday Austrians, 71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls explores the weeks immediately before a bank shooting that leaves four, including the gunman, dead.A written introduction tells us the eventual outcome of the film's events, leading us immediately to conclude that the climactic crescendo to which we will build is not so much the film's subject as a means by which to explain it. What follows is a ninety minute procession of apparently unrelated stories unfolding before us, detailing the lives of everyday people. From a lonely old man to a couple fostering an aloof child, a border hopping street urchin to an austere and religious security guard and his wife, the film covers many lives and relationships. The transitions between these are marked by a black screen, with occasional footage of news stories interjected throughout. These show us the chaos and anarchy of the characters' world, bitesize glimpses into everyday horrors. Perhaps the only discernible thing connecting them is the mire of insanity which occupies their television screens, something best remembered for later. Each miniature story is compelling and interesting, a fine achievement given the limited screen time each gets with such an array of characters to be explored. Some, of course, engender more interest than others, the old man and student characters two which I found myself particularly drawn to. Haneke, unsurprisingly, constructs long and unconventional shots, beautiful in their individuality. An early morning ritual scene recalls Der Siebente Kontinent, the camera's focus on actions rather than faces an important technique in establishing the life of this particular family. A long and winding scene featuring the elderly man on the phone to his daughter is, though entirely banal and mundane, one of the film's strongest moments, its ability to so simply yet comprehensively detail a character quite wonderful. Though one might argue that the film appears to go in no clear direction for most of its running time, this is a clear part of its slowly unfolding eventual plan. It is only in the last ten minutes of the film that we see anything more than a fly-on-the-wall documentary of regular lives and are introduced to the film's true message: one that is impactful, subtle, and the perfect finale for a trilogy that delightfully explores its chosen theme.Creating portraits of a wide number of characters, each more intimate than many films' main characters, 71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls is a very fine final act in a very fine trilogy. Just as subtle, removed, and non-judgmental as its predecessors, this is a comprehensive and thought-provoking social commentary which will doubtlessly benefit from multiple viewings, perhaps even more so than its cinematic siblings.
cril cril
Hanake's 71 Fragments has been, in my estimate, misunderstood—at least when discussing the final sequence involving Maximillion and the "senseless" murders he commits at the bank. Other people have since commented, the end crime is without motive, "in cold blood"; in other words the work of a psychopathic youngster who has one day suddenly decided to kill a group of people; or the (media-created) "archetypal" teen who after to many bloody films and video games can no longer resist the violent urge these violent images create. What a shallow film this would be if the above were true. Understandably, this is the initial reaction the film produces since there doesn't seem to be any motive whatsoever, but upon closer inspection the motive is unveiled in a most interesting way: it is the motif of the televisions which are transmuted into the Maximillion's motive. There is a constant presence of televisions throughout the film—they're always on in the background,the film begins with a newscast criticizing Clinton (America's golden democrat), etc—and so this constant, this motif, must mean something: but what? Let us consider the television motif in the following way: the "television" is just an extension of the very "technology" which gave it life, and so, that being said, we shouldn't limit ourselves by seeing television as an independent object, but rather a single object in a system of objects. And incidentally it is in the last scene where the film's focus radically shifts from "television" from the whole of technology, and it is in this shifted focus where Hanake reveals the film's significance. The film is a critique of technology; or more specifically, the alienating effects of said technology, including, of course, but not limited to, television. A simple survey of technological interaction in the final scene might help demonstrate this: the boy drives up to an automated fuel dispensary (technology) and finds that it is out of order (if any of the following details are slightly off, please forgive me: it has been a number of months since I last viewed the film), he goes to the ATM machine (tech) and discovers it is out of order, inside a vehicle a driver (tech) begins to honk (tech) incessantly at the boy whose car is occupying the automated fuel machine—let's stop for a moment. It should be clear there is a strong presence of technology here, what might not be clear is how these technologies are alienating Max, or driving him towards his own "end". The phenomena taking place here is similar to that of road rage in that the driver who is honking his horn is honking simply because there are no other options other than using it, and of course, as everyone knows, the very sound is enough to cause somebody to erupt. Unless the person is a complete lunatic, if you bump into somebody on the sidewalk chances are you'll apologize and move past and continue on your way, but in the vehicle no such social nicety exists and so human interaction is reduced to a shrill honk. Inside the bank Max is pushed to the ground as he tries to cut in line so he can pay for his gas, but these dehumanized beings think only of themselves—having already been alienated themselves through technology from their species-being—and act selfishly and cruelly towards Max. What occurs afterwards is the culmination of what can simply be regarded as a "bad day," and personally I can see where this anger comes from. Banks are notoriously stressful, as is driving a vehicle, and while Max's response is anything other than "normal" we can, at the very least, understand why he is acting this way. To say that this crime is unmotivated or senseless is to rob the film of it's meaning. There are people who commit terrible acts without reason, but Max isn't one of them. To believe him so is a failure, in my opinion, to understand the film, which is an honest depiction of the effect technology has on individuals; a failure to sympathize with Max in the exact same fashion those people leading up to the shooting failed to sympathize with him.
gutmann
As I've seen Haneke's movie "Benny's Video" before (with one scene I really cannot recommend to non-hart-hearted people), I was a little bit warned of this director, who really manages to torture his public.You may know his more established movie "Funny Games"; believe me, for a Haneke movie, this is a real Hollywood soap opera!!!The movie seems to start quite calm and there is almost no action in it (which is usually not a good pre-condition for me to cherish a movie); but slightly and subliminal you find yourself confronted with many different curriculum vitae of persons, maybe not like you & me but like many of your elder neighbours and peoples you meet on the streets everyday.I don't want to try to describe, how their life is going, how they've lost their prospects & dreams of their life; but sometime during the movie you might recognize, that one of these persons could be you (maybe in 10 years, after having a job, getting more settled, maybe set up a family etc.) and this is very frightening!To say it shortly: You might get afraid of becoming like them!!!The finish of the movie is very sharp; most of these persons you were "pleased" to get to know during this movie are getting killed by an amok student 2 days before xmas and the only thing I & maybe you could think about that: What a lucky day for them !!!
smakawhat
The movie takes place in our current time even though it is based on a Christmas Eve killing that took place in 1933. More of the same from director Haneke, but this had interesting characters and scenes. The adoptive family was quite good in portraying themselves and the pix up stick convo was actualy kind of neat..Rating 6 out of 10.
