The Seventh Continent (1989) User Reviews

Emotionally shattering real-life horror

[gray4 · 8/10 · 16 March 2004]

A powerful, disturbing film, shot in a highly idiosyncratic style. Michael Haneke's dissection of Austrian alienation is astonishingly effective. The style is, for the first part of the film, full of such close-ups that we don't see the characters' faces for nearly half an hour, but we share with them their view of the breakfast cereals, shoes and shopping. It should be boring, but is instead gripping, a quiet build-up to the prosaic horrors to come.

It is hard to comment without revealing some of these horrors, but the overall effect is shattering, tolerable only because Haneke avoids any real involvement with the characters and their motivations. With hindsight this is a weakness, and I reached the end of the film with the feeling 'what was that all about?'. But it is a film to reflect on, unlike any other that I have seen. Don't miss it - unless you are feeling depressed!

Grading Haneke

[Bill-276 · 7/10 · 31 March 2011]

It's very tough assigning grades or "stars" to the films of Michael Haneke. He tends to trap his audiences within the context of the films themselves, which makes any judgment of the film a reflection of the viewer on his or herself. This is very difficult to do as a director, and very uncomfortable for Haneke's audiences--and Haneke wouldn't have it any other way.

That said, this is my 4th Haneke film, and I was impressed to see the vision, style and moral perspective Haneke HAMMERS his audiences with as vividly present in "The Seventh Continent", as all of the films I've seen Haneke has released since. However, once again, as fascinated as I am personally by Haneke's style and efficiency, "The Seventh Continent" is another Haneke film that is difficult to recommend to what I would consider a normal functioning adult.

I don't doubt that the story told in "The Seventh Continent" could happen. I don't doubt that it did happen very similarly to the way it was presented. What I take issue with is that it comes off as a stinging rebuke of the monotony of modern middle-class life (television's influence, etc...), when more likely, what happened to the family the story is based on was probably caused by something more tangible and less speculative. But even if that wasn't the case with the family the story is based on, the presentation of the fictional family in this particular film is intended to assign blame. And the daily mundane and boring rituals of a typical modern family (even monogamous marital sex) are clearly guilty in this film. And I don't think I personally agree with Haneke's assessment on this issue. (But that's between me and Mr. Haneke ;) )

My recommendation for now is to avoid Haneke's early work in general (maybe up to "The Piano Teacher"). It's not that there isn't much social value in Haneke's early films, it's that Haneke tends to focus on the EXTREME fringes of the human condition in his early work where insanity, mental instability, sociopaths and psychopaths are always going to linger. No amount of cultural change or faults addressing modern suburban middle class existence (or upper class apathy and ennui) is going to change that fact.

The ending and central themes of the film did remind me in a lot of ways (and it's been mentioned here as well) of Todd Hayne's brilliantly dark existential drama "Safe" (Julianne Moore, 1995). And though "The Seventh Continent" came out before "Safe", I would highly recommend "Safe" over "The Seventh Continent". As for Haneke, I would recommend "The Piano Teacher" or "The White Ribbon" as the more evolved director starts to catch his stride. Because Michael Haneke has SOME stride!

Whatever

[K-nightt · 8/10 · 10 October 2009]

I think that many people will be able to identify with this film. As always, I made a point of knowing virtually nothing about it before I saw it, and I'd recommend doing the same. If you know about the plot beforehand, the impact will be markedly ruined. The first thought that came to mind after the first few sequences was "they haven't shown anyone's face yet".. I guess that's the point. If you are reading this, then you most likely are not starving, and are amongst the rich 1 billion of the world. So the actions portrayed initially in this middle class existence needn't any face, as they pertain to all of us, we the regurgitators of human aspirations (weird phrasing). We don't have a face, as there is nothing to tell us apart from the next person. Anyway, it's absurd to think that the mental process that took over the family is considered an exception, but the fact that it is only highlights how sick our society is, refusing to remodel this cataclysmic and decerebrate way of being. I was affected by the subsequent events that transpired, and one particular scene still haunts me in a vicious way, although it cannot be mentioned here... suffice to say it broke free from a certain degree of apathy shown by the main characters throughout, revealing the desperate and twisted cry of raw emotion that can exude from even the most planned chaos. Watch it all the way through, it is meant to bore you for a while, it wouldn't be the same if it didn't.

Burns its way into your psyche

[howard.schumann · 25 August 2003]

Arguably, no greater cinematic interpreter of alienation exists in the world today than Austrian director Michael Haneke. Haneke shows us characters whose response to the world around them has deadened, people who have forgotten how to feel, how to love, how to care. The Seventh Continent, the first film of the trilogy that, with Benny's Video (1992) and 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994), depicts what Haneke has called "my country's emotional glaciation." Based on a true story of the disintegration of a middle class Austrian family, the film has little plot, only incident and observation. Divided into three parts and shot in episodic fragments, as in his 2002 film Code Unknown, each fragment is tenuously connected by fadeouts in which scenes start and end abruptly. A mood of banality is established early in an extended sequence in which a car moves through a car wash showing all the details of detergent sprays, high-pressure washers, and rotating brushes. At the end of the car wash is a travel poster beckoning tourists to visit Australia with a peaceful scene of sand and water, a motif that is repeated periodically during the film.

The Schobers, husband George (Dieter Berner), wife Anna (Birgit Doll), and daughter Eva (Leni Tanzer), are the happily married family living next door. George is an engineer and Anna an optician. Eva is a bright child of about eight with deep, expressive eyes. The family moves through their morning ritual with precision -- brushing their teeth, feeding the fish, and eating breakfast with little conversation or emotional interaction. The camera avoids their faces, focusing on mundane objects such as a bowl of cereal, an alarm clock, a fish tank, a package of congealed broccoli. This preoccupation with objects underscores the lack of connection between the characters and the things they have acquired. We get our first hint that something is not right when Eva pretends to her teacher that she has lost her eyesight. Anna questions her about the incident, promising not to harm her if she tells the truth but, when Eva admits to the lie, suddenly slaps her across the face ignoring the fact that she is a very troubled little girl. It is from here that the cracks begin to widen.

Depicting ritualistic actions like counting of money at a supermarket, the distractions of television, the meaninglessness of work, the film reflects the powerlessness and isolation of people in modern society. Haneke chronicles a family enslaved to the structures they have created, operating in a morass of emotional vacuity. The first hour may seem slow but it builds considerable tension until it reaches a shattering climax. Little by little the family disengages. George quits his job and writes letters to his parents hinting of something dark about to happen. In the absence of a spiritual core, without the possibility of meaningful action, the family sinks deeper into an abyss, unraveling and discarding the tightly woven structures of their life. Similar in theme to Todd Haynes' 1995 film Safe but with three times the power, The Seventh Continent is a ruthlessly intelligent film that burns its way into your psyche, leaving an indelible mark that will forever haunt your dreams.

Another brick in the inhumanity

[przgzr · 10/10 · 31 October 2004]

Disturbing and shocking?

No. If movies like "Freaks" and "Ecstasy" long ago, and "Color of Night", "Basic Instinct", "Pretty Baby", even "My Life As A Dog", "A Wicker Man" or "Crazy" sometimes get described as disturbing or shocking, this one is far, far beyond. I just don't know the word strong enough.

This is most depressive movie ever made, I'm sure, not because I saw all of them, but I just can't imagine anything being more depressive. It should be strongly forbidden for suicidal persons, cause an army of psychiatrists couldn't prevent taking their lives.

It can't be compared to Greek tragedies, because Greeks had God's will or human wickedness that make tragic events happen. In "Seventh Continent" the tragedy comes from inside. The characters aren't really dying. They weren't alive at all. They had no more life inside than a dishwasher or coffee machine. They just do what they are supposed to, and repeat it day after day. Androids in "Blade Runner" are far more human, even the robot in "Lost in Space" serial is. They have no trouble to commit suicide because, being a machine, they have no survival instinct.

Pasolini's "Salo" is a disturbing movie, but not close to Sade's book that inspired it. Pasolini was interested in politics and homosexuality and omitted most of other contents. Even so, "Salo" is full of violence, torturing, sexuality, sadism. Though far from what we consider normal and acceptable, it still has feelings and passion. There is no violence, sexuality or passion in "Seventh Continent", because a machine can't have or show them. Even killing the pets isn't a violent act, it is equal to combing hair or closing the door. No feelings. Something that has to be done.

Haneke has made more movies and characters like these. Benny in "Benny's Video" has also no feelings (something between autistic and psychopath), but he still explores. Even murder, though heartless, cruel and pointless, is a part of exploring life and it's possibilities, and still leaves a possibility for a life (a kind of hope for Benny and human civilization itself). Characters in "Seventh Continent" went further: they came to the end of exploring and they found nothing. They are not alive and human any more even to be evil. They realized how pointless is their existence. They (adults) have more experience than Benny and they found that they have nothing more to look for or to expect. And with machine perfection they terminate they existence. Not violently, immediately as humans would do - by weapons, bomb that would destroy every trace of their lives. They are not human enough even to die as humans. Compare it to your computer: you click turning off, all the running programs will be terminated, then Windows save its settings and slowly fade away. And at the end there is nothing left. Only what has been left on hard disc. Complete perfection of inhumanity. Only traces will exist in administrations - school, police, job, insurance... Nothing related to humans.

Watch this movie if you have a chance. But be sure to have an infusion of Prozac on stand-by.

Art at its best

[GrumpyDwarf · 10/10 · 6 March 2004]

Der Siebent Kontinent is a film you should watch. It is not pleasant neither does Michael Haneke uses any tricks in order to even interest you about the characters or their lives. Yet, it is as powerful as an atomic bomb during peace time. It is LOUD and its message (which is whatever you want it to be) is right in your face.

It is amazing how a masterpiece needs no soundtrack, fancy camera work or explicit and extended dialogs.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. The screenings are rare and no personal editions on VHS or DVD exist as far as I am aware. Many will recognize the "Piano Teacher" approach to directing but, this is as powerful as it can get. One of the finest examples of style not overlapping form.

Treat yourself with this lesson. Watch it if you can. Specially if you experienced depression at a given time in your life.

Powerful, terrible, and profoundly disturbing

[tomgillespie2002 · 9/10 · 18 December 2011]

A middle-class family, consisting of father Georg (Dieter Berner), mother Anna (Birgit Doll), and young daughter Evi (Leni Tanzer) live out their routine daily lives in apparent discomfort. The film is split into three sections - 1987, 1988, and 1989. The first two years, we are given an insight into their thinking as Anna narrates letters written to her parents. We witness the mundaneness of their lives in scenes showing them eating breakfast, at work, going through a car wash, driving in their car. They are trapped by their repetitive surroundings in an unavoidable consumerist world. The third section sees the parents quitting their jobs, buying power tools, and emptying their bank accounts. They tell people they're going to Australia, only they plan to destroy their home and kill themselves. Haneke is the master of the cold and the uncomfortable. This was his debut feature, only he seemed to have already mastered this skill. In his later films, we witness brutal animal slaughter in Benny's Video (1992), genital mutilation in The Piano Teacher (2001), and possibly the most shocking suicide ever depicted on film in his masterpiece Hidden (2005). In The Seventh Continent, we know what is coming. It is laid out quite early in the film. When it comes, it is every bit as unpleasant as you would hope it wouldn't be. Haneke doesn't need blood or dramatic music. Instead he just lets us hear the last gargled breaths, taking place off-camera, of someone taken an overdose of pills. Powerful, terrible and profoundly disturbing. Haneke, in my opinion, is the world's greatest living director. Granted, the likes of Godard and Herzog are still making films, but their heyday was in the 1960's and 70's respectively. Haneke is in his prime, and their is no-one is making more skillful films. He based The Seventh Continent on a newspaper article he read about a family that committed suicide in a similar fashion (as we learn over the end credits), and uses it as a commentary on a world obsessed with formality. This is certainly not an enjoyable film, but it is one that will linger with me for a long time, which is similar to the effect Hidden had on me. It will occasionally test your patience (scenes are repeated and their are long periods without dialogue), but its power is undeniable. An assured debut.

A bleak, passive-horror. A challenging meditation on the hopelessness of the Western bourgeoisie.

[danieljfenner · 10/10 · 26 June 2015]

It's 1989. As the Cold War was taking its last desperate gasps of air, filled with the debris of that crumbling wall, a demure, isolated and all-too-familiar middle-class family sits at their breakfast table in Austria as they continue to perform their meandering daily activities. Is this a better life? Is this what the Western, free-market promised? Just a bunch of junk they don't need, depressing karaoke television and convenience food? Did this family miss the comfort of Communism? We don't know, but without getting all Fight Club about it, Michael Haneke's debut, The Seventh Continent displays the bourgeois misery that serves as the pilot light of the ensuing self-destruction of Western civilization. With his cold-clinical style using diegetic sound and long takes that challenge our patience, Haneke brings us something more sobering and nihilistic than anything that David Fincher and Chuck Palahniuk could brainstorm.

What makes this film so effective is the vicarious nature of the narrative. These people did what I did in the last week and will probably do again tomorrow. We dine with them, we shower with them. We see ourselves in them. While they are economically stable, they seem to have lost their souls. In typical Haneke fashion, he dissects the ordinary family and isolates their experiences to capture their emptiness. He brings out the themes that we would see in Funny Games and Time of The Wolf. The emasculated, apathetic father, the mother whose emotions are on the edge, as we see when she is going through the car wash that reminds her of the accident they saw in the rain. It's a Kafka tale with no transformation. Nearly a decade later, the US took a crack at this theme with the Oscar-sweeping American Beauty. With that film, Lester Burnham gave the viewer a glimpse into the emotional failure of the American Dream. Yet Lester took charge and gave himself what he wanted. As he defied the control of his wife and shed responsibility, it became the ultimate Men's Rights battle-cry. And as with other American suburban satires, like Happiness, there is still a degree of mythology. Life can be that bad for some people, but not for every member of one family. It comes off as a sort of misery-porn. But Haneke does not allow the audience to have what it wants. He wants to probe us and make us question our priorities and collective reality. There is no dream. No fantasy, because what their wasted potential as humans is too depressing to think about. No escape. Or maybe there is, but what is the cost of that escape?

Without giving too much away, there is a climactic sequence in which the family puts their priorities to the test by destroying their property. What about the record collection? Is that the husband's or the wife's? Is there a feminist subtext behind a woman destroying a man's record collection?

And finally, as far as destruction goes, I will say, that the fish tank scene in this film far exceeds the potency of the Martin Riggs "MINEY MO!" from Lethal Weapon 2.

.....Also from 1989.....(scratching chin)

Not enjoyable, yet manages to affect the viewer.

[Alocirp · 6/10 · 25 October 2007]

I went into this film with very high expectations. Unfortunately, I can't say that it lived up to them. The first hour is incredibly dull, as we watch an upper middle-class family lifelessly perform mundane tasks (take a shower, eat breakfast, tie shoes, etc.). I failed to sympathize with any of the characters, and some scenes dragged on so long that I found my mind wandering. I generally don't mind long takes, and even in other films by the same director (Funny Games, Benny's Video, etc.) thought they were used extremely well. However, here they were simply tedious.

The film wasn't totally a let down however; far from it. The last 45 minutes really picks up intensity and re-grabs the viewer's interest. I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, but the scene in which the family destroys their own house and possessions is extremely well done. The ending is bleak and depressingly powerful, and I realized that it wouldn't have worked without the boring first hour. But that doesn't change the fact that it was boring.

Overall, I had trouble giving this film a number rating, but I guess it would be somewhere around a 6/10. I think it's possible that that number would change on a second viewing, but to be honest, I doubt I would ever want to watch this film again.

The Seventh Continent

[oOoBarracuda · 10/10 · 24 October 2017]

From my introduction to Michael Haneke through his 1997 film, Funny Games, I knew he shared an important quality with one of my favorite filmmakers. Like David Lynch, Michael Haneke doesn't care if the audience is comfortable while watching his films. Haneke extends his scenes past the point where the audience watching thinks is necessary, creating a hypnotic trance that one is unable to look away from. This ability of Haneke's to espouse the audience's attention forces the viewer to become an active participant in his films and thrusts us into an often much-needed self-examination. Haneke's feature film debut, The Seventh Continent takes an in-depth look at the lives of a family chained by the shackles of their expected existence willing to go to extreme measures to escape the monotonous confines of their daily existence.

The long takes Haneke favors throughout The Seventh Continent, introduce the audience to a young family living in Europe that live in precisely the way that is expected of them. Georg Schober (Dieter Berner) works diligently at his career, always placing himself in the best possible position to advance through promotions and better situate himself in his profession. Anna Schober (Birgit Doll), an optometrist, steadfastly maintains her family's home, dutifully completing all the tasks and errands to keep the everyday lives of her family running. Anna is also reacting to the death of a parent, which has devastated her brother, assuming the role of the strong focused sibling taxed with the burden of maintaining her parents' business. The youngest member of the family, Evi, fills her time coloring pictures, doing her homework, and occasionally causing mischief at school by feigning blindness. Neither Georg's career advancements, Anna's mourning, nor Evi's misbehavior is consequential to the story--they are simply moments that happen in each of their lives and fills their days. This is precisely Haneke's point; most of what we do in our lives are mundane activities which fill our time until we die. Whether it be a scene filmed in real time at a car wash or listening to someone relay a story during an eye exam, Haneke gives us these moments in as similar a way as they actually occur, removing all sense of grandiose filmmaking, forcing the audience to see themselves in the lives of those depicted on screen. It's hypnotizing they way we can scoff at collective suicide, yet through watching the events that lead up to the act come to understand the universality of the expectations we adhere to. Every move is repetitive, the same food is served every day at breakfast, the same pommel horse is jumped over in gym class, the same filling station is visited when the car is low on fuel. We often live our lives thinking of the future, fooling ourselves into believing that the monotony we serve daily is crucial to our growth until we are shocked to learn that the future we have been striving towards has become the past. We get so lost in the day-to-day that we need Haneke to make clear that the way we actually live our lives doesn't make all that much sense once analyzed.

The cold emotionless state maintained in the Schober home is sobering to watch. No amount of intimacy brings the family closer together. Even after making love, Georg and Anna immediately return to the distance between each other that fills their days. Not only does one hardly see any affection between the members of the Schober family, but we also rarely see them enjoy conversations with each other. The cold, detached atmosphere isn't confined to their home, either. Each time they exchange currency for a service, the audience is afforded a glimpse into the lives of everyone they interact with, each doing their job or performing a service while all vitality seems to have been drained from their being. Through the entire runtime of The Seventh Continent, we don't see a single meaningful human connection. There is even a scene in which a man recently released from his employment with Georg, returns for his things and isn't given a single embrace of encouragement or a kind word. His appearance disrupts the work because he is unexpected, further cementing Haneke's notion that our lives are simply made up of a series of repeated actions, and we are stricken by the break from routine when interrupted. Despite the lack of compassionate connectivity, I would argue that Haneke's feature is one of the most humanistic films I have recently seen, because it gives hope to our existence and alerts us to think critically about our society.

Existential

[Polaris_DiB · 6/10 · 19 March 2007]

Haneke's first film I can only describe this way: existential as as all hell.

Consisting of individual palette's of moments in a family's life, it is the story about disenfranchised and disaffected people who make the ultimate decision: not just to kill themselves, nay, but to completely destroy their identity.

I personally can't help but laugh at myself, because of all things that happens in this movie the part that disturbs me the most is the tearing up of the little girl's artwork. Everything else seems to be okay, even the death of the fish, but it's the artwork that affected me. I think that's because of all the things this movie showed them destroying, the artwork was the only thing they created, and in a sense it's the true identity of any of the characters. Everything else, the money, the wealth, the tools, the house, even themselves, seems in some way superficial, but the fact that they went to the lengths of removing pictures, photos, and paintings actually gets to me. Isn't that weird? Anyway, this movie is pretty interesting. I really like the compositions, especially how the faces of the characters aren't shown as much as usual. This movie really expresses the feeling that these people are defined by their possessions and actions, not by their faces or personality. It's really not that difficult to feel for and understand them.

Unfortunately, the movie ruins much of its message with those scrolling intertitles at the end. Honestly, that information almost undermines the whole concept of the movie.

--PolarisDiB

This film builds and builds until...

[mikeyjwill · 9/10 · 16 October 2020]

Never have I seen a movie quite like this. It's what I would call a slow burn with a turtle added in to that burn. I give it a solid 9 as it all comes together in the last 5 minutes albeit be prepared to watch a feel good movie after. This is not a feel good movie however, more of an experience much like "A Space Odyssey" or "Requiem for a dream" not to be viewed but to be experienced.

Another "Feel Good" Film From Michael Haneke...

[EVOL666 · 7/10 · 26 June 2006]

As anyone who is familiar with Haneke's work is aware, he's the director of such cheerful joy-fests as FUNNY GAMES and BENNY'S VIDEO. THE SEVENTH CONTINENT is the third of Haneke's films that I've seen, and I feel much the same about it as his other films. They all tend to be "strong", but in a detached and cold way that makes the unfolding events have less impact than if the characters in the film would have been more "human"...

The film centers around a family who are caught up in the day-to-day routines of an upper-middle-class life. A good portion of the film is focused on the family's (mother, father, and daughter) routines, as opposed to the family itself. We get multiple scenes of eating where the focus is on the monotony of the experience - not on the characters themselves. Several scenes of going to the car-wash, highlighting the mechanisms of the car-wash itself as opposed the people in the vehicle. As the film goes on, we find that the family has grown tired of their useless and repetitive existence and decide to leave it behind...

Yet again, Haneke delves into material such as alienation, hopelessness, anti-socialism - dark territory that seems to be his forte. But as with his other films - this one too left something to be desired from me. I couldn't "connect" with any of the characters involved, so their final bleak outcome had little impact on me. The film was also FAR too long and could have been summed up about 30 minutes earlier. I understand that the repetitive scenes were made to show the mind-frame of the characters and to build suspense for the closing scenes, but I felt like it was being beaten over my head at a certain point. The performances were all decent - but again - this film wasn't so much about the specific characters, but about their lack of any real "characterization". Recommended for those that like down-beat films, or are fans of Haneke's other works - others will find it either too much of a downer, or too boring to be of any worth...7/10

A drawn-out tale of unwarranted and unexplainable tragedy

[svescapekey · 3/10 · 29 February 2020]

Unnecessarily long and repetitive scenes intended to convey the boredom of the middle class Austrian family are undoubtedly a brilliant exhibition of cinematic art, but to me they only underline the totally unbelievable premise of the film. There was simply no reason for this family to be in despair: the man had a good white collar job and was recognized by his employer, the wife had a responsible entrepreneurial position and the daughter, while sometimes bizarre, was hardly a reason for her parents' perceived hopelessness. A man and a wife who are able to function effectively in every day life for the period of the film, three years, with no apparent psychoses, are not likely to engage in the incredible acts leading to the dramatic climax. The technical aspects of the film were interesting: short scenes, some without apparent relevance (the daughter's itch) with relatively long pauses between; the acting was a bit mechanical, sort of robotic, but that was undoubtedly intentional to convey the nihilistic mood of the protagonists. I didn't think the movie was worth watching, but most critics disagree, so if you enjoy this type of movie, then it is definitely for you.

a controlled freak-out

[kentos · 13 August 2002]

Having spent a couple years now browsing thru IMDb, this is the first film I've seen that actually motivated me to leave a comment. I've seen 3 other (more recent) movies by Haneke: "Funny Games," "Code Unknown," and "The Piano Teacher." All of them disturbed me in their own special way--a feeling that I obviously don't mind getting from a film. "The 7th Continent," though, really blew me away in ways that I find difficult but necessary to describe.

This was Haneke's first theatrical film & apparently based on a true story--although I'm always skeptical of such disclaimers (the same was said about "Picnic at Hanging Rock," another great creepy film). It's divided into 3 parts: 1987, 1988, and 1989. Many scenes repeat themselves, and we get a clear sense that the family (dad, mom, daughter) is going through the motions of modern life. The banalities have a bizarre and uneasy edge to them, though, that really piles up by the time Part 3 arrives. All I have to say about the last 40 minutes is: OH MY GOD! I thought Gaspar Noe's "I Can't Sleep" (?) had an excruciating buildup, but that one (with all its explicitness) can't hold a candle to the amount of emotional and physical devastation packed into the conclusion of "Continent."

Fans of Haneke's later work should definitely check this one out to see the origin of his trademarks: no music score, seemingly pointless scenes that linger (often with little or no dialogue), off-putting camera angles (we sometimes see only the actors' hands or feet). While these techniques aren't always successful in his films ("Code" had some interminable moments), they all come together seamlessly in "Continent." A superb work!

What happens when people are dead from the inside?

[julian_abadia · 9/10 · 27 June 2012]

I saw this movie recently and it blew my mind. The long shots, showing the mundane aspects of life. The camera aiming at the actions rather than the characters, symbolizing the every day ordeal of a conformist life. The eternal agony of a family, who slowly tears apart from everything that connects them with the world.

This is not a pleasant movie to watch. It's sad, bleak, disturbing and angry; and Haneke doesn't make it easier to the viewers. He presents life as it is, without any dramatization; and what it strikes me the most is the pace in which he presents it. The characters doesn't shout (they speak every once in a while), fight or cry their hearts out; they just keep on doing the same things they do every day. However, as you watch closer, you sense that something is completely wrong.

To me this is as an existential film as you can get. The world is there: raw, unsympathetic and indifferent. Everything happens without a reason, without hope; and the character's lack of desire to confront the nothingness of an empty life is the central theme of this movie.

"What happens when people are dead from the inside?" That's what I asked myself after watching this cold, cynical, gem of a movie. Can be someone dead from the inside and alive from the outside?. If so, could that person communicate with any other person? How can we avoid the meaningless things in life? Should we fight them back or surrender to them? Watch this movie and then you may find the answers to those questions..... or may be not. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!. Avoid watching it if you're a bit depressed. This movie is bleak and challenging as hell.

Haunting tale not to be missed..

[smakawhat · 8/10 · 12 May 2000]

This underapreciated and much unheard film deals with the life of a typical family that takes a dramatic turn in their history.

Scenes cut to black. There is little dialogue. But the scenes create an intense paranoia and huge sense of aprehension as you sit back wondering what is going to happen. Awesome directing technique in creating two different worlds. One that is everyday and normal, the other frightningly disturbing.

A hand reaches for a hammer, and chooses a different one. A man in a junk yard drives his car towards his daughter. The sound of a mother gasping for air. A fish tank is destroyed. All these scenes which are so simple (even some of them not seen) and so BRILLIANT that they convey a sense of a anxiety and horror even though there are actions of ordinary people.

I just saw this at a special screening of Austrian director Michael Haneke's work. They are showing a trilogy of his best work and I can't wait to see "Benny's video" and "71 Fragments of a chronology of Chance".

If you ever do hear of this film (THe seventh continent) DON'T MISS IT you will NEVER see another film like it.

Rating 8 out of 10.

Der Siebente Kontinent: Both Fascinating and Disturbing

[imagiking · 9/10 · 24 January 2010]

Der Siebente Kontinent, the first film from the now famed and respected writer/director Michael Haneke, exploring the implications of the mundanity of upper-middle class life, is both fascinating and disturbing.

The film is the story of Georg, Anna and Eva, a small family living in an upper middle class world. Georg is working his way up in the professional world, Anna co-owns an opticians with her emotionally volatile brother, and Eva is a somewhat troublesome schoolgirl.

As the film begins, we are given an insight into the life of this family, the perfunctory drollness with which they carry out the banal tasks of everyday life mingling with the silence and lack of communication between them to create a portrait of a life not lived. Haneke focuses the camera on the table during breakfast, giving us no view of faces, suggesting that the material things in life like food are more important to this family than each other. The emphasis placed on their cursory interactions forms the basis of Haneke's message, showing us the austerity of these people. The image of Australia is used to represent the titular "seventh continent", the family's desire to reach this idyllic world the driving force of the film. The film relies heavily on silence and long unmoving shots, much of its running time focused on static scenes of the family at breakfast, watching television, and performing other routine tasks. This forms the basis for what we are about to see, the unfolding plot both shocking and thought-provoking.

Simplistic in its approach, Der Siebente Kontinent effectively displays the flaws of a materialistic and money driven world, and the consequences these flaws have upon the lives of ordinary people. Owing much to the camera angles and editing, it is an interesting and engaging look at the modern world and its impact on its inhabitants. A powerful debut film, it lays the foundations for the acclaim and success Haneke now enjoys.

Great debut about a shocking exit

[Field78 · 8/10 · 6 June 2014]

Michael Haneke is the man for movies that document humanity and human relations (but mostly lack thereof) with disturbing precision, and make the viewers increasingly uncomfortable as he takes them through the darkest parts of the human psyche. His movies like Caché (Hidden) and Das Weisse Band (The White Ribbon) have been called 'psychological horror' due to their unrelenting talent to unearth the worst characteristics of humanity and evoke a maximum of psychological unease with a minimum of tricks and gimmicks. A self-proclaimed opponent of movies that are merely entertainment, Haneke is very critical of Hollywood films which, he feels, force their truth upon the viewer. Now you don't have to agree with the artist to enjoy his work (I don't think it's coincidence that about 2/3 of the IMDb top 250 consists of Hollywood movies), but Haneke's movies sure lack an absolute truth that we as a viewer have to find ourselves. His movies make us think, disturb, repulse and otherwise engage us, provide no easy answers and leave room for multiple interpretations, which is one hallmark of great cinema (nothing wrong with good entertainment, though).

Haneke's cinematic debut already contains the building blocks that are the foundation of much of his later work: people seemingly normal on the surface, but largely dysfunctional on the inside; tensions between family members; long, static camera shots without music, which register events rather than manipulate them. He introduces us to an average family in a rich Western country (which happens to be Austria). The father, mother and daughter seem to lead a perfectly normal life, although we get the feeling from the start that most of this life exists of tedious and joyless repetition of mundane acts, such as dressing, making coffee, working and cooking. There is not much that gives their life a little more color, even watching television or taking the daughter to bed seems like a chore in an endless routine. Haneke uses voice-overs from the parents to illustrate that they have no material shortages or other reason to be unhappy, but the images superimposed on it tell a different story. It is in the subtlety of these scenes that Haneke shows his craftsmanship; he does not manipulate, nothing is said aloud, but we connect with these people anyway, understanding why the daughter fakes blindness because she is lonely and craves attention, or why the mother suddenly starts crying for no apparent reason, and the husband doesn't bother to find out because he knows the source of the pain all too well. When the family finally witnesses an accident with fatal outcome, the audience is being prepared for the solution they have found.

Also infamous are the sudden emotional outbursts between all the serene calmness. The second half is a prime example of this effective contradiction. The family has finally decided how to escape their personal hell, so they calmly arrange all their affairs and have one last copious meal. It is particularly gut-wrenching to see how they then start tearing down their place and destroying almost everything they collected throughout their lives, as if to say that their lives have been so meaningless that they simply want nothing to remain of it. Rarely was there a more visceral and effective way to show a character's self-chosen descent into oblivion. Haneke manages to leave the mother and child with a shred of humanity, though: the daughter crying in agony over the death of her beloved fish, and the mother tearfully preparing to take a fatal overdose, but resolutely forcing the pills in her mouth anyway are profoundly heart-breaking. However, the uncompromising horror of a completely vanished will to live becomes apparent as the father calmly listens to his wife gasping and choking to death, and, in what almost seems a mockery of his daily professional routine, makes a calm and systematic note of his wife's and daughter's death on the wall, before dying himself. The final text that reveals this story to be based on actual events delivers a final blow by showing that this story is no mere product of a writer's imagination, but a grim reality.

Haneke's distant way of filming has become his trademark. Most of the time he reduces scenes to the bare essence, letting the calm determination and efficiency of the characters tell the story or unfold the horror while the audience observes; at other times he draws attention to things by purposely NOT showing them, or merely suggesting them. It is amazing how he manages to have images and scenes stick with us without showing anything actually explicit or shocking. It is his way to force the audience to think, identify and draw its own conclusions. I myself had mixed feelings about the characters, feeling both sympathy for their situation, yet at the same time I couldn't help wondering why they didn't try to actively make something of their unhappy life, instead of waiting for life to happen. He leaves it up to us to decide whether these characters are victims of a hollowed-out Western lifestyle that forces its people into an empty existence of consumerism, or whether they are pathetic people that simply miss some basic human talent to be happy. Haneke is not the one for easy answers, only tough questions.

A disturbing study of modern life.

[fred-83 · 7/10 · 1 April 2000]

Includes minor spoilers. A chilling movie. Very sparsely directed, some very sophisticated cross-cutting and offbeat rythm. It manages to create a sense of unease although were actually only watching very ordinary day-to-day actions. The juxtapositioning of the eye examination and polishing of an eye-glass is one of those unnerving scenes. And when you know this is based on a true story it´s even more disturbing. I can´t help but draw parallells to Cronenberg´s CRASH, and some of JG Ballards other fiction, and although I like CRASH I wish Cronenberg could have been a bit more structurally daring like this one. Like Hanekes "Funny Games", this movie doesn´t provide any easy answers. A disturbing study of modern life.

Less is more

[brandonpartin · 9/10 · 20 February 2024]

This film is really the definition of less is more.

A film that tells a story in a simple yet impactful way.

Full disclosure, This is my first viewing of a Michael Haneke and had no idea this was one of his first feature length films.

The story basically centers around a family that gets caught up in their mundane life, really becoming numb to reality.

The cinematography of this film is very unique, most of the time it is centered around objects in the world rather than framing the people in particular.

It shows the detachment of this family, how they really aren't the focal point of their lives.

The ending leaves on a very tragic note, that implies more of what happens than it shows or tells.

It's not for everybody, due to its fragmented style of filmmaking but it tells a compelling story nonetheless.

?

[forgions · 6/10 · 25 May 2008]

This movie is not so bad. I rented it because I was intrigued by the conceptual gloom it promised. But the actions of the family are not committed wholeheartedly, the mother is reluctant to follow through, indicating a hidden normalcy to the characters. The suicide is referenced in voice-over letters and in explanations as to how it "should" be done before it actually is done, (e.g. the father breaking down a shelf and telling his wife, who is drawn into the room and bewildered by the scene, "it is best if we do it systematically"). I felt that it would have been stronger if the family had not referenced it, but had just done it in an organic, fluid and uncompromising manner. When the characters have lines foreshadowing their suicide, it gives it a predictability as banal as the bureaucratic world the family is abandoning. I haven't seen any of Michael Haneke's other movies, but he seems like a very deliberate, intellect-wielding director. Sort of like a contemporary Godard, although he had to break from Godard in order to replace him. I was watching this with a friend, who said, "I feel like he is making a clear-cut argument." I felt the same way. Although I am not opposed to this way of approaching film-making, it detracts from the characters, because they become tools of the director's thesis rather than living, emotion-showing individuals. This movie is not disturbing, it isn't depressing, it's just a point of view, cut and dry. I did like one thing about this movie- the way that it was shot. It has a photographic crispness to it.

Disturbing games

[asda-man · 9/10 · 15 February 2014]

I saw this one last night and was extremely disturbed. This has got to be one of the most depressing films ever made.

It's slow to start off with, but I was never bored, however perhaps this is down to me being a huge fan of Michael Haneke and knowing the outcome (which I stupidly read by mistake).

I felt immersed in the mundane and bleak lives of the family and by the second half I was completely hooked. The film is incredibly cold, distant and unsentimental which makes the tragic second half even more painful to watch. There are some extremely powerful and disturbing images which almost made me cry (something I hardly ever do in a film.) This is powerful, heart-breaking cinema which is magnificently directed and acted. Chills shot up my spine at the end and I went to bed feeling shaken and appalled. Don't touch this film if you're a manic depressive, but please do touch it if you like powerful, brave and disturbing film-making.

A shocking descent....

[tim-764-291856 · 7/10 · 27 March 2012]

My three previous forays into Austrian director Michael Haneke's dark world - The Piano Teacher, Funny Games & White Ribbon - I found to be just a little bit sadistic and nasty, almost for the sake of it.

Why then, would I want to buy his ten-disc Collection, starting with this, his first feature? Wasn't that just rubbing my nose in it? It was cheap, that's why! And, good old curiosity.

The other reviewer certainly goes to some lengths to describe the ins and outs, so I won't. I basically agree but can pare my thoughts back to a few lines.

After the monotonous rituals of daily life, which are sort of compelling, as not only are they part of the ongoing story but show us another country and twenty odd years ago, so culture comparisons are interesting and inevitable. I don't know whether it was me, or intentional, but the destruction in the latter part seemed to take exactly as long as the film had taken to construct it, thus far. Whilst these scenes are unfolding, we don't see any faces, though we know which family member is doing it. It's almost so alien and anonymous, the ripping, smashing etc could have been done by the production assistants.

It is also the unfolding expectation that things are going to get worse, but by how much, we just don't know. That makes it all the more uncomfortable.

From the basis of adapting a true story, it's a well crafted and put together movie. I found the cut-offs, where the screen went blank at unexpected times a bit annoying, but I'm sure that was intentional, to induce a level of unease. The gaps went on for too long, also to be comfortable - all the same length but to the point where you wonder if the disc's sticking; again to create tension in the viewer.

I can't see how it could be improved but it certainly won't be very many people's cup of tea. If you found it enjoyable, someone might say that you were maladjusted yourself, too. On the strength of this one DVD, the rest of the box set looks enticing.....

Not a very good film-spoiler alert?

[kiljoy78 · 2/10 · 6 April 2007]

I put a question mark after spoiler alert because the fact that they off themselves in the end wasn't particularly shocking. I am quite shocked with the positive reviews this film received. I did not find it particularly disturbing or all that depressing, what I mostly found it was boring. There was no real character development, nor narrative development. I think their suicide speaks to inner torment of people who are equally sad and bored in their life, sadly I'm relatively happy, so I means little to me. The acting performances did not solicit any emotion from me, which I don't think is the fault of the actors, but I think it is what the director asked for in the piece. It was very absurd, but there is humor at the heart of absurdity, not torment. Why,simply because absurdity lacks the ability to solicit emotions from others in a vacuum of characters. when someone crushes a milk carton you don't grieve the milk carton unless you can anthropomorphize (msp) it in some way and these characters weren't; they were empty. There was no conflict. the sole redeeming quality I enjoyed about the film is the way it removed the veneer of eroticism and beauty from violence, and made it trite, which it is. This movie, however, stands far below Cache and Code Unknown in the haneke repertoire.