Le Temps du loup

It is funny to me how a lot of people react to this movie. It seems they feel that this movie shows us decadent westerners what living in more impoverished and exploited parts of the globe is like. Well, it's a very fine film, but that certainly not what it's about. To reduce every artistic expression to world affairs is a rather shameless exposition of western self-guilt and political correctness. Now, there is enough to be ashamed about, but why should that always be connected to artistic expressions of western artists. Please stop politicizing everything. Le Temps du Loup is not about the third world, anyone who thinks that third world countries look any thing like what is happening in Haneke's film is out of his/her mind. News flash, people in the third world actually life daily, relatively stable lives, notwithstanding rampant poverty and high levels of violence and unsafety. What we see in Le Temps du Loup is what Hobbes means by "State of Nature", a lawless, non-dominated society. What Haneke shows in minute detail (and in that lies his greatest accomplishment) is that human connection, trust and intimacy is always in some senses based on dominating practices that stabilize the uncertainties and risks of interacting and competing with others in a shared social environment. The ambiguous status of the Koslowski character is a case in point, are his actions justifiable or is he just an exploitative oppressor? Same for the horse, but now in a more confronting way, because the line between fact and fiction is crossed. So Temps du Loup is an analysis of human co-habitation of any human society. Art is not political, what we do with it is.

A French woman (Isabelle Huppert) and her two young children struggle for survival shortly after an unidentified apocalypse. This is a very different sort of post-apocalyptic film--it is very minimalist and dramatic. The most fascinating aspect is that whatever happened to the world is never explained or even discussed by the characters. The only thing they know is that uncontaminated water is scarce and personal belongings are very valuable. They are living in the present, fighting for survival. The characters are often devoid of extreme emotion during the crises they face in the film, so the viewer assumes that whatever happened that changed the world must have been graphic and brutal.

Haneke is an exceptional filmmaker and has quite an eye. The combination of lingering camera-work and lack of score create an uneasy tension. Some might argue that the movie is boring because there isn't much action, but I thought it was visually stunning. The movie attempts to be about post-apocalypse social struggle and power--including conflict between different nationalities and genders--but it could have been more successful in doing this. The acting is outstanding (especially by Huppert and the actress that plays her daughter). Even though she gets co-billing, Beatrice Dalle is only in the film for a bit, but she does have a "Betty Blue"-style freak-out. I recommend this to anyone who likes post-apocalypse movies and is interested in seeing a hauntingly realistic one.

My Rating: 7/10

As a grand fan of Haneke, I went to this film without looking to the critiques. I know that his "German rigidity" can be incomprehensible for the Anglo-Saxon and French point of view. But after one hour, I quited the film, that is one of the worst screenplays that I have ever seen, Haneke's abstraction that works very good in "Die Klavierspielerin" does not work at all in this film. Nearly all of the elements of the story has no context. The plot is more than abstract or far from comprehension, it does not exist. I think I understood what was he trying to do, but I should admit that it is a shame for such a great director. Haneke should have written this screenplay with an amnesia for the basic rules of dramatic construction. There are NOT any explanation of the events in the film. But even Bunuel or Lynch have to explain the events in their films. And they do so, that's why they are great directors. So did Haneke. But how can we explain the passage between the Parisian bourgeoisie and the third world? Haneke's "I do it, and it's OK" is just makes his film unbelievably forced to disturb the public. Haneke used to not to force the spectators to disturb them. That was natural, let's say existential in his films. Please see again "The Seventh Continent", "Benny's Video" or "71 pieces of a hazardous chronology". Those are masterpieces of the contemporary cinema. But "Les temps du loup" is just a complete failure. The fascination of the admirers of this film are astonishing to me. I highly recommend to compare to "German Haneke" with the "French" one. I wish to see a Heneke coming back to his roots in Vienna.

Haneke's nightmare vision of a post-apocalyptic world is darkly atmospheric and beautifully photographed. True, there isn't much of a plot and the pace is slow. The film is primarily a mood piece, but a very good one. Unlike the usual end-of-the-world thriller, the characters aren't facing any ghoulish monsters other than each other. This approach lends a striking realism to the movie.

Some of Haneke's films -- especially "Funny Games" -- are marred by heavy-handed social commentary. Happily, this is not a problem in "Time of the Wolf." One can always read politics into any allegory, but it is quite unnecessary in this film. I neither know nor care whether Haneke had a specific political situation in mind; what matters is that the resulting movie stands on its own as an artistic achievement.

8/10. Recommended for fans of grim, moody films.

If, at the start of Time of the Wolf, you are aware of Michael Haneke's 1997 shocker, Funny Games, you may believe that this film will be treading similar grounds. Opening the film, the 2 point 4 children Laurent family arrive at their holiday shack in the wilderness of an undisclosed location. On entering, they are confronted with a man holding a shotgun towards them (his own family peering from behind him). After demanding that they hand over any goods they have, he shoots the father (Daniel Duval) dead. However, unlike the familial hostages of Funny Games, the remaining Laurent's make their way to a local for help, and the audience is startled by the matriarch, Anne's (Isabelle Huppert), admission that they had buried the father. We are certainly not in the regular world; this place is different, a point that is further exacerbated when Anne is asked if she is aware of what is going on.

Time of the Wolf is unfamiliar territory concerning its central concept of a post-apocalyptic landscape. Whilst the catalyst for this disaster (?) is never revealed, there is no indication of the generic science fiction tropes of disaster. No zombie/alien, or natural catastrophe's are highlighted. The ambiguity of the nature of the devastation creates a tension that is completely absent from the ordinary, explicit films of this nature. As the family trudge their way through the countryside, they cross the distinct furnaces of bonfires, sometimes the only light source in the darkness - at one time the legs of burning cow carcasses protrude from a fire. Their final stop, a building inhabited by "survivors" waiting for a train that may never arrive.

Perhaps Time of the Wolf states more about the consumer society we live in today. The shackles of consumption, and the artefacts of the modern world become useless in this context. Jewels and watches are pointless commodities, whilst lighters, water and clothing are worthy of exchange. Maybe the apocalypse is the result of dwindling resources, a reality that Earth will have to face in the future (perhaps the near), where agriculture, manufacture and natural fuel have all but disappeared. With this lack of resources, comes the desperation of the people, bringing out the worst in humanity. The strong male figures take control, whilst women are often reduced to trading in sex, and are largely marginalised in the fold. Our natural affinity as pack animals falls apart, and xenophobia erupts, targeting anything that might break the monotony and fraught situation.

With a distilled colour pallet, often only lit with fire, and the bleak wilderness of fog, Haneke creates a realistic world, heaving with pain and anxiety. His precise camera movements and compositions frame the disaster as beauty. Time of the Wolf would probably not suit the regular sci-fi frequenter of post-apocalypse, it does not present itself with the same signifiers and does not portray the Hollywood hero or saviour, and it absolutely does not offer the resolution that most would need to be satisfied with. This is the hopelessness of humanity in all of its desperation, with the modern luxuries obliterated, and reduced by the lack of necessities. But with this bleakness comes horror, and the complexities of humanity. It is a hard view, but one that rewards in aesthetics, and the confluence of characters.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com