Voto:
This film is one of the most distressing I have ever seen; the almost absent soundtrack, the skill of the actors... conveys what a film of this kind should convey: the overwhelming feeling of being pierced by the blade of nightmare, of finding oneself blindly groping in the dark...
However, I believe the choice of Naomi Watts is not random... the entire film is indeed an open critique of modern youth nihilism, and the tools that cause it, influencing young people: in reality, it is a true critique of the ultraviolence market born in the U.S.A.
The extreme symbol of marketing and production, favored by young people right after the PlayStation, is indeed cinema: obviously, everything that does not require activity, effort, and is passive, is liked by the young. Thus, cinema (or rather, a certain kind of cinema) becomes a breeding ground for violence in society; and the symbol of violent, horror cinema, sickeningly popular among American teenagers and beyond, is the recent wave of remakes of Japanese horror films, often and willingly starring Watts (starting from the cult trash film for teens, "The Ring," which essentially launched the genre to the peak of success).
The director thus wanted the protagonist of this critique film to be the symbol-protagonist of those very films, which is indeed Naomi, subjecting her to the "consequences," in the youth audience, of those same films: and the consequences are that this continuous recycling of violence and sex thrown in front of young eyes makes them take everything as a game, a film - it ends up that compassion becomes a memory and nihilism and lack of morality become the religions of the new generation. It ends up that the murder of a family becomes a sort of PlayStation game, something daily, natural, entertaining: perhaps the only thing still "forbidden," the only touch of adrenaline and excitement, the last prohibition to break.
Moreover, Haneke continually reminds us, through the two psychopathic youths (just two rich boys who are bored) that this is not a film, and that in the end it is us, the viewers, who choose what to see and therefore what to show our children, and he shows us not a film... but a piece of social reality: Haneke accuses us of being those who accept anything with their heads down, he accuses us of being the accomplices of the two youths' crime.
He reminds us that it is not a film, and that the notion of film as "something that leaves no trace" is purely idiotic, and that instead every film can influence reality because it can psychologically influence the viewer...
And Haneke demonstrates how fragile the boundary between reality and film can be, and shows us the consequences by hitting rewind and making us understand that in reality, in the world outside the cinema, there are no happy endings, there is no way to escape. And by rewinding the film, Haneke shows us how the young person wants the game to end, he shows us how the video game ends in reality... Because despite being influenced by them, the director reminds us that life is not a film...
This makes it clear that this remake is not at all a commercial trick by the director, who wants to make a living in the States... but rather an act of accusation.
Nevertheless, I believe that the association with A Clockwork Orange, assuming it is just a gimmick by the Italian producers, is perfectly in line with the director's intentions: although it has nothing to do with it, Kubrick's film is indeed a symbol among young people, and the association with "Arancia" plus Watts’ presence will undoubtedly draw many to the theaters. Assuming they understand the message, of course...
The only thing that seriously surprised me is that Watts agreed to participate: directing this film amounts to admitting to having made stupid and harmful films...
