aarosedi
Mr. Michael Haneke begs the audience to start asking the important questions.The film begins with a text of a news item involving a bank shooting incident in Vienna a day before Christmas eve 1993 that left three people dead with the 19-year-old assailant later found to have shot himself nearby. What then follows is a series news broadcasts interspersed with scenes involving seemingly random characters while they go through their day-to-day existence: a Romanian refugee who illegally entered Austria seeking asylum, a soldier, an armored van security guard, a college student, a couple having trying to adopt a kid, and elderly man and his bank employee daughter. The film is, as the title indicates (and I'll take the filmmaker's word on that), there are a total of "71 fragments" divided into segments that are separated by almost three seconds of black frames. I actually took trouble counting those (because I don't have a life) and found out that--The different characters are shown going through mundane activities throughout the film and it gives the viewers an insight to human behaviour and the dynamic between the characters whose connection to the other charcters are more evident than some. They are also seen to be watching these same news broadcasts in their respective environments apart from the segments that solely featured these news items being played on-screen, which in a way connects almost every person in this film. Mr. Haneke has a style all to his own. He's a master in evoking fright without necessarily having to show much, this will be apparent near the end of the film, the Haneke genius I'd say, just as gruesome. This is not one of his best work but it stands out on its own for the always-relevant commentary that he wishes to expound.The narrative that Mr. Haneke wanted to express could only be realized through a closer scrutiny of the various fragments which eventually points to a far greater tragedy, and he also throws in a fair warning as well. The same thing could also can be said regarding the conflicts around the world. We see the news on TV, the horrific images, the drama, yet something is lacking. What were the events that led up to the tragic outcome that we all get to witness on the screen? Clearly, there are some people who know more than others and the news reporters seem not to be able to get to those people for some reason or another, it is this incompleteness that kind of detaches us, the viewers, from the horror, and there are people taking advantage of other people's silence and rendering them just as complicit to those acts of violence. My rating: A-minus.
ellkew
I saw this film last night and I found it very inspirational. I adore Haneke and the subject matter he chooses. For me this was completely gripping from the beginning. I loved the clarity of the scenes and the honest depiction of the various characters was chilling in parts. There is so much packed in this film I came away full of ideas. Two scenes stick in my head. The first is a scene at a kitchen table where a man tells a woman he loves her. I found it very realistic and its portrayal of this married couple was for me brutal but unflinching in its directness about the lives that we lead and the cages we build for ourselves. The second scene is an amazing shot of a character playing table tennis against an automatic opponent. It's a great shot. It's a shot that says so much. As it continues we as a viewer concentrate more on the character's face and what is written on it. Pain, anguish, fear and despair. A man so locked onto a path that he realises (perhaps in this scene) he is no longer able to return to normality. I waited for him to become exhausted but he never does and Haneke cuts the scene with him still playing, hoping perhaps the machine will break but not able to control what now controls him. As far as I know he may have gone on for hours more. A superb insight into a character's psyche encapsulated in one shot. A shocking ending rounds off a well constructed film that tries to explain why some of these events happen and does so in a thought-provoking way. There is never a dull moment in this film and I would recommend it to anyone as essential viewing. The film speaks for itself.
khosravim
A Sample film in 90's about violence and how it improves. Pazzle-like narration with 71 episodes, shows us a story about the history of violence. "71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls" has all the signs of a film which could be made in 90's. Haneke is one of the contemporary filmmaker who use the violence scenes to show us how this huge question (why violence?) has no straight answer. 71... is almost look like another haneke's famous film (Code unknown,2000) which both of them are narrating unfinished stories of some journeys. Unexpected final scenes and also, unexpected shocking shots are two icons in this film like another Haneke's films. Haneke's style is like the way Robert bresson made films. Bresson's cinematograph and also Hitchcock's suspense are affected in his cinema. His cinema invites us to watch untold stories about complicated questions of contemporary world.
