Time of the Wolf (2004)

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

Drab, pointless, humorless, dreary, are some words that come to mind quickly. The first ten minutes are shock cinema at its finest, but after that it's a more realistic-than-thou, account of an end of the world scenario. What conclusions does it come to? People are mean, racist, xenophobic, and greedy, without social structures to guide them, but maybe, just maybe, if they cling to their humanity and mercy, things could get better, the world can be reborn, etc.The little boy character was trite, running away, at just the right moment when the paced lagged, cus thats what traumatized little boys in these kinds of movies do. There's some nice cinematography, of darkness, with some fires burning, not very subtle symbolism, but nothing in this was. It's less pedantic than "Funny Games", but not as clever. It's bleak, and desperate, and dismal. A live horse is killed on screen, for our viewing pleasure! At least John Waters had his animals f*&$ed before he slaughtered them.Does just being the opposite of the way, Hollywood would film something, make it automatically artful and meaningful? Sure it's more realistic than Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, but it's themes of desperation, human redemption, and survival, are the same. Just less entertaining. A real life disaster, would indeed probably go down with people crowded in barns, hating each other trying to make due, but so what? That's just a premise, not a story. The final scene of the train in motion, suggests, things get better, but as to why is just as mysterious as what caused the catastrophe in the first place. And ultimately, just as purposeful, to begin and end the movie, that's all.This wasn't very original, provocative, or challenging. It's intense at times but mostly lethargic, and begs by its somberness to be taken seriously, without anything at all serious to contribute.

The film is allegorical, and the themes are complex, but if I had to state the theme in a simple sentence it would be something like this: "to keep society together we have to have people who are willing to do unselfish things instead of selfish things." There is more to it, but it is more or less comes to that. This is a laudable effort at sending a positive message, and many people will give the film high marks just because of the attempt. However, it could have been done much more skillfully. We don't really know what is going on through most of the film, and the whole idea does not become apparent until the end. Because of this the majority of the film is confusing, and drags. Even an art film has to maintain your interest and this one does so only in a very minimal way. While watching it on video, more than once I wanted to simply end off, but the people I was watching with felt they had invested enough in the film to want to see how and if it resolved. Even so, everyone was getting up a lot, looking for food in the fridge and checking their cell phones while the film was going. The concept is also not fully developed. They are in a bad part of the country where civilization has broken down. They are waiting for a train (salvation). But where is this train going to take them exactly? Why did they suddenly end up in this situation? A good allegory would answer these questions within the structure of the allegory, yet in this film we have to ignore these and other questions in order for the film to work. Isabelle Huppert, as usual, does a terrific job. The other actors do well also but Isabelle stands out. The last 5 min of the film are the best and are probably worth suffering through the first 108, at least I thought so. But that is a matter of opinion and different people will have more or less patience with the film than I did. The consensus of the group I watched it with was it wasn't worth it. I gave the film 4 stars, mainly for making the effort.

Following an unnamed disaster, a mother and her two kids joins a group of people hoping for a train to come by at a station. That's the extent of the plot in this film.I was bored out of my skull.I've seen some indulgent "art" films, but this is one of the best examples I've seen. Five minute shot of family chewing on cookies, five minute single take of the family walking along the road and five minute shot of a burning building...on and on.One can make a point about seeing beauty in everyday "things"...yes, but after an hour and forty minutes of it, all I saw was gray. Performances were good, but everything was so stripped down and bare that I just couldn't connect with any of the characters.Ending was sort of an interesting one, but it is basically a slight escalation in the continuously desolate situation the characters are faced with. Nothing is resolved, and the desolation and despair will continue on.It has some interesting views on society and human nature, but again, so few and far between that whatever message this film tries to make falls to pieces.