You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Time of the Wolf

I don’t think I’ve ever applied the term “masterpiece” to a film (other than the classic-film-greatest-hits that everybody calls masterpieces) and the word is so overused I don’t think it has much meaning any more. But I am excited to be able to use it, and mean it, about Time of the Wolf. It is, in my opinion, a perfect film. I’ve never seen any Michael Haneke films before, but I do plan to see them all now. This man is, to use another cliche, an auteur. They don’t come along that often, despite the culture’s obsession with the cult of the director. All directors are not auteurs. They are treated as such, but it takes more than having a handful of films under your belt to really be a filmmaker who has something to say and knows how to say it.

That’s not to say this film is particularly enjoyable. I said in a previous post that you must see it, but I take that back. It’s a very difficult thing to experience, very disturbing and bleak and incredibly slow. But those are also all the things that make the film great. If you’re up for it, if you think you can take it, I highly recommend it. But prepare yourself for a slow and painful ride. A friend told me that Haneke once introduced a film to an audience by saying, “I hope you have a disturbing evening.” That should be the disclaimer for this film as well and, from what I hear, all of his other films.

I’ll be back with more. The long-form holistic review is not, as you may have noticed, my forte’ any more.

Comments are closed.