71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A food for thought
renelsonantonius25 September 2008
Before Austrian film director Michael Haneke got well-recognized and –appreciated in the international film circuit with such films as "Code Unknown", "Time of the Wolf" and "The Piano Teacher" (all of which were made in France and shown in Cannes), he already made his mark with a number of films made in his native Austria, one of which is this film called "71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance"(1994). This work is the third installment in the director's "glaciation trilogy" (the other two being "The Seventh Continent" and "Benny's Video"), thus called because of the central theme of the fine line between barbarism and civility in modern urban life being completely, hopelessly blurred. The "barrier" has been broken, so to speak.

As the title suggests, the film consists of 71 "fragments" or vignettes, seemingly random, unrelated and mundane, of various characters going through the motions and vagaries of daily existence in urban Austria. But one can sense that this only seems to be so, as the film's prologue suggests that this is the event that will loom over the succeeding "fragments". And that is, the 1993 Christmas Eve reckless shooting done by a 19-year-old student named only as Maximillian B. inside a bank and on the streets, before eventually shooting himself—one that is purportedly based on a real-life incident.

No explanations or back-stories are provided to the characters and their situations being shown "episodically" on the screen (a Romanian boy refugee, a bank delivery man, an old pensioner, a childless couple and, of course, the student himself). More often than not, a specific fragment is abruptly interrupted or ended by a black fade-out (an alienating technique Haneke once again utilized in the equally visceral and demanding "Code Unknown"). Some fragments happen for not more than a minute, while some last for as long as five or even eight minutes (notably the scene where the student practices ping-pong tennis facing an automated opponent and the scene where the old pensioner argues with his daughter over the phone, both of which vividly displaying a whole gamut of simmering emotions without ever resorting to histrionics). Even reinforcing the clinical, cold approach—for which Haneke is really known—is the utter lack of an accompanying soundtrack and the wordlessness of some scenes.

The sense of dread is punctuated by the ever-present television (as is the case in the two other films in the trilogy), from where a specific world news is being broadcast (like the ethnic war in Somalia and the child abuse charges against pop star Michael Jackson). This is as if to suggest that the looming event foreboded at the film's start is itself to become a subject of a TV news coverage which, albeit small in scale when compared to the news indicated above, is nevertheless not without a lasting cost to the human lives involved, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Having said this, how has the line separating civility and barbarism come to be completely violated in this thought-provoking film?

The trigger shooting perpetrated by the young student, which serves to be the film's denouement, appears to have been done for no apparent reason at all. It's senseless killing in its purest meaning (which arguably is the underlying essence of the middle-class family's suicide in "The Seventh Continent" and the teenage boy's videotaped murder of the girl in "Benny's Video"). And this is what makes the act all the more chilling. It's as if to suggest that such a self-destructive act is inherent in everyone of us, if not what makes up our essence, waiting only to be brought to the surface by a seemingly random and inconsequential spate of events (in "71 Fragments'" case, it's to be rooted in the student's lack of enough cash to pay for his car gas).

And when the "event" does finally happen, rather than to serve as an important food-for-thought, it's sadly reduced to no more than a piece of media sensation, regarded as the hot "news of the day", focusing more on "what" happened than on "why" did it happen. The alarming incident thus becomes another piece of media entertainment, to be savored by mass consumers who always crave for what is sensational and controversial, without ever thinking of its deep-rooted incitations and implications. (This is a thought which Haneke is to delve full-blown in "Funny Games", both the Austrian and American versions, though I really prefer the first one.)

If in Polish auteur Krzysztof Kieslowski's world, chance incidents and fateful encounters are all part of a grand design to convey deep layers of human emotional truths (like in the truly majestic "Three Colors" trilogy), in Haneke's (or at least in the world of "71 Fragments"), such randomness is to be put in order by an inherent barbarism that's only barely creeping out of the human psyche.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Challenges everything you thought about film narrative
KnightsofNi1114 November 2011
If you're looking for something happy, uplifting, and fun then steer clear of this movie. If you're looking for something easy and simple then steer clear of this movie. If you're looking for something that you can watch with half a brain then avoid this movie like the plague. 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is an experimental film from visionary mastermind Michael Haneke. The film is 71 different scenes that highlight small tidbits of the lives a seemingly random collection of people. News clips of war and Michael Jackson are spliced into the film as well, creating a disjointed and difficult narrative that in some ways all ties together, but in other ways stays loose and frivolous. The interpretation of this kind of narrative style is at the viewers discretion.

If you're at all familiar with Haneke's work then you'll know not to expect anything straightforward going into this film. If you go into this film knowing nothing about Haneke then may God have mercy on your soul. Not really, just be prepared. This is not an easy film to follow being that there seems to not be much to follow. The majority of the film spends its time laying down the various puzzle pieces with very little rhyme or reason to the distribution of the pieces. Towards the end of the film the pieces begin coming together for a fairly anticlimactic ending that reflects the perpetual sadness of a world full of violence, hardship, neglect, and hatred. You'll never miss Haneke's macabre cynicism in any of this films, and especially not this one.

It's difficult for me to form a steadfast opinion on this film because it is so out there and so difficult to fully comprehend. As always, I respect Michael Haneke for the being the true genius he is. He's created something wholly original and intuitive here, I just can't quite place what it is. There are a lot of lines going in different directions here and they never seem quite seem to meet up. This film challenges the ideas of your typical film narrative and I have to give it kudos for taking such risks and ending up with something that works more or less. 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance isn't a film you just watch, it's something you experience.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
My spoilers, I should say, are pretty much spoiled by the film's opening scrawl
zetes25 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This strikes me as Haneke's least successful film. Still, it's more than worthwhile, and I would still nearly call it great. Several different, seemingly random stories are mixed together. We watch vignettes of varying length. Among them are the stories of a homeless Romanian boy who has illegally crossed into Austria, a lovingly married couple adopting a new foster child, another married couple at odds with each other, an old man starved for attention, and a group of frustrated college students. We are told at the beginning that one of these students will murder three people at a bank, and we immediately realize that at least some of the other people we have met will be at that bank. I'm not sure how I feel about this technique; I'm certainly a bit conflicted. And I'm not 100% sure what I'm supposed to get out of this all. I guess it's always worth being reminded of the unpredictability of life and that at any moment we could disappear from this Earth. Interspersed between the various stories there also appear long clips of the evening news, where various atrocities and tragedies are reported in a manner that desensitizes its audience to them. And the climactic event pops up right alongside them. Which of course reminds us also that these atrocities happen to real people, a fact that's so easily forgotten when watching the 10 o'clock news. Structurally, the film is brilliant. It is similar to what Altman was doing with Nashville. Haneke would improve upon this film with Code Unknown, which stands as my favorite of his films and perhaps as my favorite film of the current decade.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Elephant by Haneke
khosravim10 June 2007
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.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Haneke has an amazing clarity about people's alienation
braugen1 July 2003
This film is the last in Michael Haneke's trilogy about alienation called "Vergletscherung die Gefühle", and it ends in a violent climax which is a result of the previous fragments that Haneke presents to us. In this film Haneke developed a style that is very reminiscient of his 2000 film "Code Inconnu". It features rather short episodes, and within each episode there is scarcely editing or camera movement. Each episode is divided by a second's black screen, and Haneke often interrupts and ends the episode in the middle of a person's sentence. This is a very economical style of filmmaking, and it certainly demands a lot of the viewers, because you only get the information you really need to connect this episode thematically to the others. Because this is a thematic film, and it is a brilliant, stylish, ice-cold half-misanthropic study of people's lack of ability to perform tender acts with each other. I have never seen people make love in a film by Haneke, except for the masochistic and sad attempts in "La Pianiste". Rather, Haneke shows his characters in situations where they are tired, fed up, irritated or full of hate; quite ordinary human emotions. You cannot blame Haneke for not being a positive director, for he is the only filmmaker working today who can portray and observe his characters so coldly and so unpassionately. And his project seems to be to expose our lack of love and passion for each other, but most of all our lack of ability to tell it as it is. Speak to each other and solve everything, seems to be Haneke's advice, without him really giving it. I never seem to like Haneke's characters, and that is a good thing really. Like fellow German-speaking directors Herzog and Fassbinder, Haneke seems a bit misanthropic in his characteristics. Too many directors try too hard to give characters sympathetic traits, and you just lose interest in the story. "71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls" is quite an achievement in filmmaking, and it is a film that will stick with me forever. I will never forget because I never knew why (the incident at the end). That is how I will remember this film, and how many times in real life is "why" the only question never answered?
61 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not top-tier Haneke
asda-man24 July 2018
As a massive Haneke fan, 71 Fragments and Time of the Wolf were the only films of his I had left to see. I ticked 71 Fragments off last night and was left feeling slightly underwhelmed. It isn't a bad film or anything, it's just very pedestrian for Michael. It lacks the emotional power of The Seventh Continent, the shock of Benny's Video and the technical skill of Code Unknown, yet it resembles all three. If those three films had a hideously depressing threesome, then 71 Fragments would probably be its mediocre child.

Thankfully it's not as horrifyingly boring as The Castle or the second half of Benny's Video, even though the plot description sounds like it could be. It follows about four unrelated characters going about their everyday business. There's a ping ponging student, a stowaway boy, a depressed couple and a lonely Granddad. Haneke gives us very brief snapshots of their lives which is reminiscent of Code Unknown and Happy End, although not as focused or engaging. I didn't find any of it boring, just a little bit repetitive. The ending also isn't as shocking as it would like to think it is.

So in the end, it's a well-made little film which some interesting themes and the odd great scene, however it's not worth going out of your way to find. To my mind, Haneke's greatest films are: Amour, The Piano Teacher and Hidden.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Powerful and uncompromising
ellkew29 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Techno-Capitalist Critique
carlin_rilkoff28 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Hanake's 71 Fragments has been, in my estimate, misunderstood—at least when discussing the final sequence involving Maximillion and the "senseless" murders he commits at the bank. Other people have since commented, the end crime is without motive, "in cold blood"; in other words the work of a psychopathic youngster who has one day suddenly decided to kill a group of people; or the (media-created) "archetypal" teen who after to many bloody films and video games can no longer resist the violent urge these violent images create. What a shallow film this would be if the above were true. Understandably, this is the initial reaction the film produces since there doesn't seem to be any motive whatsoever, but upon closer inspection the motive is unveiled in a most interesting way: it is the motif of the televisions which are transmuted into the Maximillion's motive.

There is a constant presence of televisions throughout the film—they're always on in the background,the film begins with a newscast criticizing Clinton (America's golden democrat), etc—and so this constant, this motif, must mean something: but what? Let us consider the television motif in the following way: the "television" is just an extension of the very "technology" which gave it life, and so, that being said, we shouldn't limit ourselves by seeing television as an independent object, but rather a single object in a system of objects. And incidentally it is in the last scene where the film's focus radically shifts from "television" from the whole of technology, and it is in this shifted focus where Hanake reveals the film's significance. The film is a critique of technology; or more specifically, the alienating effects of said technology, including, of course, but not limited to, television.

A simple survey of technological interaction in the final scene might help demonstrate this: the boy drives up to an automated fuel dispensary (technology) and finds that it is out of order (if any of the following details are slightly off, please forgive me: it has been a number of months since I last viewed the film), he goes to the ATM machine (tech) and discovers it is out of order, inside a vehicle a driver (tech) begins to honk (tech) incessantly at the boy whose car is occupying the automated fuel machine—let's stop for a moment. It should be clear there is a strong presence of technology here, what might not be clear is how these technologies are alienating Max, or driving him towards his own "end". The phenomena taking place here is similar to that of road rage in that the driver who is honking his horn is honking simply because there are no other options other than using it, and of course, as everyone knows, the very sound is enough to cause somebody to erupt. Unless the person is a complete lunatic, if you bump into somebody on the sidewalk chances are you'll apologize and move past and continue on your way, but in the vehicle no such social nicety exists and so human interaction is reduced to a shrill honk. Inside the bank Max is pushed to the ground as he tries to cut in line so he can pay for his gas, but these dehumanized beings think only of themselves—having already been alienated themselves through technology from their species-being—and act selfishly and cruelly towards Max. What occurs afterwards is the culmination of what can simply be regarded as a "bad day," and personally I can see where this anger comes from. Banks are notoriously stressful, as is driving a vehicle, and while Max's response is anything other than "normal" we can, at the very least, understand why he is acting this way. To say that this crime is unmotivated or senseless is to rob the film of it's meaning. There are people who commit terrible acts without reason, but Max isn't one of them. To believe him so is a failure, in my opinion, to understand the film, which is an honest depiction of the effect technology has on individuals; a failure to sympathize with Max in the exact same fashion those people leading up to the shooting failed to sympathize with him.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls: Impactful, Subtle, and the Perfect Finale
imagiking29 August 2010
After watching Der Siebente Kontinent and Benny's Video in rather rapid succession, it took me an inexplicably long time to get around to this, the third in Michael Haneke's Glaciation Trilogy, the director's exploration of isolation and alienation in modern society.

Following the unrelated stories of an array of everyday Austrians, 71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls explores the weeks immediately before a bank shooting that leaves four, including the gunman, dead.

A written introduction tells us the eventual outcome of the film's events, leading us immediately to conclude that the climactic crescendo to which we will build is not so much the film's subject as a means by which to explain it. What follows is a ninety minute procession of apparently unrelated stories unfolding before us, detailing the lives of everyday people. From a lonely old man to a couple fostering an aloof child, a border hopping street urchin to an austere and religious security guard and his wife, the film covers many lives and relationships. The transitions between these are marked by a black screen, with occasional footage of news stories interjected throughout. These show us the chaos and anarchy of the characters' world, bitesize glimpses into everyday horrors. Perhaps the only discernible thing connecting them is the mire of insanity which occupies their television screens, something best remembered for later. Each miniature story is compelling and interesting, a fine achievement given the limited screen time each gets with such an array of characters to be explored. Some, of course, engender more interest than others, the old man and student characters two which I found myself particularly drawn to. Haneke, unsurprisingly, constructs long and unconventional shots, beautiful in their individuality. An early morning ritual scene recalls Der Siebente Kontinent, the camera's focus on actions rather than faces an important technique in establishing the life of this particular family. A long and winding scene featuring the elderly man on the phone to his daughter is, though entirely banal and mundane, one of the film's strongest moments, its ability to so simply yet comprehensively detail a character quite wonderful. Though one might argue that the film appears to go in no clear direction for most of its running time, this is a clear part of its slowly unfolding eventual plan. It is only in the last ten minutes of the film that we see anything more than a fly-on-the-wall documentary of regular lives and are introduced to the film's true message: one that is impactful, subtle, and the perfect finale for a trilogy that delightfully explores its chosen theme.

Creating portraits of a wide number of characters, each more intimate than many films' main characters, 71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls is a very fine final act in a very fine trilogy. Just as subtle, removed, and non-judgmental as its predecessors, this is a comprehensive and thought-provoking social commentary which will doubtlessly benefit from multiple viewings, perhaps even more so than its cinematic siblings.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why is non-participation on the Pascal's wager an automatic "no" bet?
aarosedi16 February 2018
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.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
not bad..
smakawhat14 May 2000
The movie takes place in our current time even though it is based on a Christmas Eve killing that took place in 1933. More of the same from director Haneke, but this had interesting characters and scenes. The adoptive family was quite good in portraying themselves and the pix up stick convo was actualy kind of neat..

Rating 6 out of 10.
5 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Forces us to think about the violence we see every day
Victoria-28 February 1999
An excellent movie that took my breath away. Haneke forces us to view television like we view film. He has no answers but throws us many questions. One of many things this movie shows us is how we stop to listen to the violence the news presents for us every day. We has almost come to the point that we need the films storytelling to get involved, but even then do we act?
19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
GOOD
meesvanoosten3629 August 2023
I must say that I really enjoyed this movie. The subtle exploration of the character in very personal en realistic scenes were executed in the perfect cinematic way (framing, staging, blocking, pacing, editing). The way Haneke used (the lack of) cohesive plot really caught my attention and made me excited about how the story was going to unfold. Though the end was a bit unsatisfying for me. I wasn't drawn enough to the characters to experience a emotional climax through any strong perspective from a character arc. I understanded the thematic exploration but found the climax a bit underwhelming. I'll defintely rewatch to get a hold of more missed details which might immerse me more than my first viewing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
My least favorite Haneke perhaps
Horst_In_Translation15 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It is a tough choice between "Das Schloß" and "71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls" although I have not seen most of his non-German works. This movie here is over 20 years old and the last and weakest chapter from a trilogy of films that Haneke made about violence, young delinquents and young victims (the first). His film here also has lots of social commentary, mostly about the War in Kosovo, which was a big subject at that time. The acting is strong as usual, especially from the old guy, in Haneke's films, but somehow his bleak and atmospheric approach (the one he always has) did not really do too much for me here. I wasn't particularly interested in the characters and I did not really care enough for them to be really sad at the end I guess. But it is also Haneke's usual strategy to go out with an unhappy end and that is not a problem at all. it actually gives several of his works a more realistic and authentic touch.

This movie here is the only one from the trilogy that was not submitted by Austria to the Oscars, so it is fitting I guess that there were no further installments and that Haneke pursued a career about French-language films too. The first 75 minutes of "71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance" just weren't good enough to sit through and watch the thrilling last 15 minutes. Also the way Haneke divided the film into fragments with brief black-screens as intermissions did not add too much for me. I personally hoped (and thought from the IMDb rating) that this would be a better film. I do not recommend watching it. Thumbs down. Quite a shame as I quite like the filmmaker's approach and totally enjoyed several of his more recent works.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Humans as Commodities?
alexanderlavin17 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is for me the most challenging of all the Haneke films, even more so than the similarly-structured Code Unknown.

After a few viewings, though, I get the impression that most of the film is spent observing the processes by which human beings (our work, home life, and beliefs) are rendered commodities that serve the juggernaut of Western Capitalism (Haneke implicitly gives us permission to assign society itself a characterization, since all of his films feature an oppressive social milieu that itself acts as a character).

Some characters become commodities successfully, but lose some of their identities in doing so. Other characters cannot be capitalized upon, fail as commodities, and are thusly rejected by the juggernaut or voluntarily remove themselves from it.

And in the end, television processes the whirlwind of senseless violence that ends the narrative proper into a "consumable" (Haneke uses a translation of this word in speaking about how television renders human experience) little nugget of infotainment squeezed between other already-digested "fragment" events.

My favorite moment in perhaps any of Haneke's films is the credit sequence, played out over traffic sounds but no music, where a young refugee from Hungary (himself becoming "cargo") rides on the back of a freight truck along a highway into the vortex of Vienna amidst other industrious motorists. The the long, calm shot ends as the truck drives past bright McDonald's and Coca-cola signs, welcoming us into the land of image and consumption.

So anyway, I could be totally missing the point of this movie, but based on my familiarity with the Haneke universe, this is how it strikes me.

Long Live Cinema
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Genius
jimeneznitay22 November 2019
As opposed to some people, I found this film very fun to watch. It just has three overly long scenes: The guy practicing ping-pong, the old man talking on the phone and the man bleeding. All other scenes are entertaining to watch due to various reasons, such as good dialogue and beautiful imagery. Even though the scenes are unrelated, you can tell that there's a sense of unity, and the end connects it in a genius way with splendid shots. This was my favorite from the director's glaciation trilogy, and I can't wait to watch more films by him.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the most unsettling movies I've ever seen!
gutmann21 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
As I've seen Haneke's movie "Benny's Video" before (with one scene I really cannot recommend to non-hart-hearted people), I was a little bit warned of this director, who really manages to torture his public.

You may know his more established movie "Funny Games"; believe me, for a Haneke movie, this is a real Hollywood soap opera!!!

The movie seems to start quite calm and there is almost no action in it (which is usually not a good pre-condition for me to cherish a movie); but slightly and subliminal you find yourself confronted with many different curriculum vitae of persons, maybe not like you & me but like many of your elder neighbours and peoples you meet on the streets everyday.

I don't want to try to describe, how their life is going, how they've lost their prospects & dreams of their life; but sometime during the movie you might recognize, that one of these persons could be you (maybe in 10 years, after having a job, getting more settled, maybe set up a family etc.) and this is very frightening!

To say it shortly: You might get afraid of becoming like them!!!

The finish of the movie is very sharp; most of these persons you were "pleased" to get to know during this movie are getting killed by an amok student 2 days before xmas and the only thing I & maybe you could think about that: What a lucky day for them !!!
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I'll never play table tennis again
D Throat10 February 1999
A fine movie that explores the lives of many strangers in Austria that are connected by the same thing: all their lives are pointless and meaningless. Though the pace is slow all the scenes work to the conclusion that is the only solution to break the deadlock. A thought-provoking film.
14 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Too experimental.
Kdosda_Hegen9 June 2021
It follows the lives of several characters through tons of short fragments. For the vast majority of the film the characters are not connected to each other, but when they finally have a connection it isn't really important, because it could've just been any other people and nothing would have changed. I do like that it shows the news broadcasting so we know how the average people viewed these events, but the film also gives us a detailed look in how everything happened, so we can now compare. I think the idea of both showing both inside events and them being broadcasted is truly good and unique, but the daily life fragments of the victims before the incident is not interesting nor is it important to know, really. I do like that it makes it look like an unsolved mystery through broadcasts, but it also completely ruins the ambiguity since we saw how it happened.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Perfect Movie
socrates415 January 2019
71 FRAGMENTS OF A CHRONOLOGY OF CHANCE is the final installment of Michael Haneke's brilliant "glaciation trilogy," which started with THE SEVENTH CONTINENT and BENNY'S VIDEO, each one being better than the last.

The story is told in fragments, telling the stories of several unconnected character, with a few frames of black between each scene, until the final magnificent scene in which it all comes together in the best way imaginable. Forget about AMORES PERROS, this is the film to watch. The story is so unique and almost seems boring before you realize it is the complete opposite of that. Only Haneke could have pulled it off. He took a big risk with this one and it really paid off. Michael Haneke truly is a master of his craft, and this is his masterpiece. Highly recommend.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Glacier Trilogy
g-8962225 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The last book in the Glacier trilogy, what makes me feel shudder is not the last few minutes of juvenile impulsive killing, but the daily life of ordinary people who have been paving the way before. People live like ants in reinforced concrete urban forests, without goals, without feelings, just alive. Some shots can make people cold to the bottom of my heart. This director is too cruel, true cruelty, he should be praised, let us see and look down on ourselves. Everyone passes through the world and has come and gone in a hurry. This is just 71 pieces of the chronicle of opportunity.

Alas, after reading the Glacier Trilogy, Not Dead or Seriously Injured: Part One: Chilling. Part 2: Thriller. Part three: sadness.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mesmerizing, but.....
Hitchcoc20 March 2023
I sort of knew what I was getting into from a couple of brief commentaries. This is one of those films where the director throws it all at you, and you take it in. It is about impressions of a world that pulls the happiness from our souls. It is quite cynical in its delivery. The thing is that people keep going because that's what human beings do. The tired, sad old man has lost his connections and hostility is what is left to speak, so there is no hope for retrieval. The subway boy gets by until he can't keep going, when fatigue, starvation, and another tomorrow of simple survival sends him looking for mercy. Of course, there is war all around. I'd forgotten the conflict that was on fire, with snipers blasting away at random citizens. There are also couples who can't love any more, but hang on. I can't even say they are hoping. Quite the film, though I don't feel as well as I did before seeing it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Similar to Code Unknown, but not quite as good
williambertram12 December 2022
A very early Haneke that is quite similar to Code Unknown, a collection of incomplete vignettes. Again, here, it's all about scene design, and we can see even in 1994 Haneke was one of the best at it.

The scene with the middle-aged couple eating dinner made me wonder, again, if men and women are actually ever happy living together, or whether it's more about finding ways to tolerate each other for some deeper fulfillment. The film doesn't even attempt to answer this question, which makes me feel a little better not knowing it myself. I'm almost 51, so maybe I'll never know the answer, but scenes like this can only be described as distinctly Haneke. I don't know what he's like in person, but the more of his movies I watch, the more I wonder if the character Antlers Holst from Nope is based on him, or possibly Ingmar Bergman.

Code Unknown is the better of the two films, mostly because of Juliette Binoche, but both are definitely worth watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
random rundown ran numb?
ThurstonHunger13 December 2009
I was drawn to the film by the "experimental" description, but it ends up being sort of a raw film verite crossed with a hand-held documentary in a fiction film. Perhaps its thesis is that the unnatural workings of civilization lead to crime being natural.

But then there's Michael Jackson, inserted twice through entertainment news clips to reinforce the notion that our environment produces us and not vice versa? Add in several long uncut scenes (the film prides itself on unique if not entirely absent editing, hence the Chance nature), and this is a tough watch for me, at least these days. One of the long cuts, the father/grandfather conversation was surely supposed to help us sympathize with alienation in the old-is-obsolete culture. The ping-pong practice? Well, I guess that is repetition of tasks and specialization reduced to meaningless. These thoughts are strictly afterthoughts, during the film both scenes were less readily endured.

Honestly, I think I would review films differently without kids and thus having more time. And this one might benefit from a hearty discussion with friends, or seeing it in a festival format with the director (who was the reason I stumbled across this film). But I'd skip it if given a second chance.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Too pointless for its own good
CineCritic251718 December 2008
I don't mind a piece of cinema which leaves it all, and I mean all, to the viewer to make something of it, but some hidden point(s) to it, would be nice, no matter how deeply buried they are.

This is a movie without a story, without a discernible point and without any entertainment value. What it shows are seemingly random events leading towards a climatic point in time and leave it to a Buddhist to decide whether or not coincidence has anything to do with it.

After 40 minutes into it, I couldn't take it any longer and proceeded the film at 4 speed while I entertained my cat with a loss string hanging from my sweater. It was obviously having a better time than I was.

Only recommended to those who've set out to watch the complete oeuvre of this film making genius which is Michael Haneke.
12 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed