I'm crazy about Kafka. THE TRIAL is my favorite by Welles, and Juracek's homage Joseph KILLIAN is brilliant as well. So the thought of Haneke directing The Castle seemed like a promising idea. And he gets some of it right. The story is very faithful... obviously certain omissions are necessary, but the gist of it is there, and the scenes generally play out as they do in the novel. The long scenes juxtaposed with abrupt time cuts do a good job of evoking the unusual rhythms of Kafka. And Haneke knows better than to try to make K. an entirely sympathetic character. But it doesn't feel quite right. I have mixed feelings about the aesthetic. The drab palette is appropriate, but I couldn't help thinking that black and white would have suited the material better. And the voice-over felt entirely unnecessary to me. The novel is told in the third person voice, but it feels first person. Having some narrator chime in every few minutes didn't add anything. And it just didn't seem absurd enough. Perhaps it's a book that doesn't condense well, because you don't get the sense of K.'s epic, labyrinthine struggle. But it's a good effort.
17 Reviews
But what she said...
lastliberal25 July 2010
This film is certainly not for everyone. Maybe for Haneke completists only.
It is based on one of Franz Kafka's three novels, and it can basically be described as a satirization of bureaucracy.
K (Ulrich Mühe - Georg in Funny Games) arrives for a job and is met with resistance. The next day two assistants arrive (one is Artur (Peter from Funny Games). K spends most of his time trying to get into the castle to do the work he was hired to do, but it seems he isn't needed.
He takes up with Frieda (Susanne Lothar - Anna from Funny Games, and the midwife in The White Ribbon).
From here it is surreal and confusing. He bounces from official to official never really getting anywhere.
Haneke and Kafka were made for each other.
It is based on one of Franz Kafka's three novels, and it can basically be described as a satirization of bureaucracy.
K (Ulrich Mühe - Georg in Funny Games) arrives for a job and is met with resistance. The next day two assistants arrive (one is Artur (Peter from Funny Games). K spends most of his time trying to get into the castle to do the work he was hired to do, but it seems he isn't needed.
He takes up with Frieda (Susanne Lothar - Anna from Funny Games, and the midwife in The White Ribbon).
From here it is surreal and confusing. He bounces from official to official never really getting anywhere.
Haneke and Kafka were made for each other.
Quite a Challenge
Hitchcoc7 April 2017
This, apparently was made for TV by Michael Haneke. After having seen "The Trial" and read pretty much all the works of Kafka, one comes to expect something. Unlike the former, the protagonist is given many options, but never seems as confused as Joseph K was. He seems to feel that his job as a land surveyor trumps virtually anything, even though he is obviously not wanted. He will betray, barge in on, and do anything with the strange people he encounters, including marrying one of them, to get to that Castle. But as is the case with the existentialists, his path is as much a part of the thing, cold and dank and full of trauma, as ever actually reaching the Castle. And, why should such a place need a surveyor anyway. This is a nightmare come to life. He meets his assistants, a couple of twin "boys" and they have no surveying equipment. They have no knowledge of surveying, and yet off they go. Or sort of. It is an endless tromp through snow and buildings and meetings with obstructionists. And so it goes.
Michael Haneke illustrates Franz Kafka's manuscript for the novel bearing the same name, in his film 'Das Schloss'.
vicentiugarbacea5 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Michael Haneke illustrates Franz Kafka's manuscript for the novel bearing the same name, in his film 'Das Schloss'. We can call it a cinematic rendition of the plot. The film begins with the scene of K. entering the door of the inn, which commences with the still image of a mountain village posted on the door. Consequently the film ends unexpectedly in the middle of a scene which presents K. walking to the horse stables waiting to find Gerstäcker's mother reading. It's like you read a text and you stop where it stops. This illusion is perfectly staged by Haneke.
However, it is a film and not a novel. You cannot control the point where you would like to stop. You cannot read again a paragraph; everything is rendered linearly, in a narrative form. Basically, in this instance the film as a medium encompasses the novel. It would feel inappropriate to say just that about this film.
What is remarkable in Haneke's work is the way he recreates the absurd universe of Franz Kafka: by using long static shots, lack of conversation, abrupt ending of scenes and arranging all narrative elements to express in every moment a state of insecure and temporary state of facts.
The image is outstanding in terms of expressiveness, at least. There are lots of nuances of blue and brown and the light is used very carefully to create special types of dark settings resembling Rembrandt's paintings.
The actors' performance must be highly credited, especially in the case of Ulrich Mühe and Sussane Lothar who are playing K. and Frieda, respectively.
If making films is about relying on other artistic forms, especially on the novel and if you believe in the concepts of mimetic and cathartic art, then at least you have to come up with something outstanding in these terms. Michael Haneke manages to do this because his very own approach of film-making.
However, it is a film and not a novel. You cannot control the point where you would like to stop. You cannot read again a paragraph; everything is rendered linearly, in a narrative form. Basically, in this instance the film as a medium encompasses the novel. It would feel inappropriate to say just that about this film.
What is remarkable in Haneke's work is the way he recreates the absurd universe of Franz Kafka: by using long static shots, lack of conversation, abrupt ending of scenes and arranging all narrative elements to express in every moment a state of insecure and temporary state of facts.
The image is outstanding in terms of expressiveness, at least. There are lots of nuances of blue and brown and the light is used very carefully to create special types of dark settings resembling Rembrandt's paintings.
The actors' performance must be highly credited, especially in the case of Ulrich Mühe and Sussane Lothar who are playing K. and Frieda, respectively.
If making films is about relying on other artistic forms, especially on the novel and if you believe in the concepts of mimetic and cathartic art, then at least you have to come up with something outstanding in these terms. Michael Haneke manages to do this because his very own approach of film-making.
For a conventional screen adaption this is as good as it gets
Thom-Peters22 September 2022
Kafka's novel doesn't have much of a story. A movie that tries to tell this strange, deceptive and repetitive tale is bound to frustrate and annoy its audience. As this is a very famous piece of literature, three state-sponsored TV stations from Austra, Germany and France decided to give it another try, as part of the obligations from their - in the mid 1990s still officially relevant - educational mandate.
Haneke's film remains close to the source material, while still staying somewhat watchable, for most of the time. That's not a small achievement. This is a deliberate literary adaptation, a not too obtrusive narrator adds the sound of Kafka's writing, which is an essential feature. The color scheme that's mostly close to black and white, but not everywhere, is an interesting decision. The art direction is okay. The cast is of course top-notch. The storyline is what it is, not great, not annoying, and there is most certainly no deep hidden meaning to discover.
Kafka himself didn't have access to some divine wisdoms and truths. He described a worldview, a sentiment, created a melody that was very influential in the 1950s to 1970s. Haneke's film does the best it can to bring it to the small screen.
Kafka didn't know how to finish his novel. It's been said that he was considering to just kill K. Off. But that would have been a boring cheat, Kafka accepting his own defeat. Therefore his novel stayed "fragmentary" and was published as such two years after his death. This film ends EXACTLY like his script - not the printed book - ends. It's a surprising and funny moment.
Today, of course, the logical ending seems to be obvious: If everything is lies within lies, people pretending to be from the castle are most likely not from the castle. So when K. Finally gets a coach "to the castle" - he ends up in another village. Fixed it. Once you know the melody, it's easy to do a Kafka. 6/10.
Haneke's film remains close to the source material, while still staying somewhat watchable, for most of the time. That's not a small achievement. This is a deliberate literary adaptation, a not too obtrusive narrator adds the sound of Kafka's writing, which is an essential feature. The color scheme that's mostly close to black and white, but not everywhere, is an interesting decision. The art direction is okay. The cast is of course top-notch. The storyline is what it is, not great, not annoying, and there is most certainly no deep hidden meaning to discover.
Kafka himself didn't have access to some divine wisdoms and truths. He described a worldview, a sentiment, created a melody that was very influential in the 1950s to 1970s. Haneke's film does the best it can to bring it to the small screen.
Kafka didn't know how to finish his novel. It's been said that he was considering to just kill K. Off. But that would have been a boring cheat, Kafka accepting his own defeat. Therefore his novel stayed "fragmentary" and was published as such two years after his death. This film ends EXACTLY like his script - not the printed book - ends. It's a surprising and funny moment.
Today, of course, the logical ending seems to be obvious: If everything is lies within lies, people pretending to be from the castle are most likely not from the castle. So when K. Finally gets a coach "to the castle" - he ends up in another village. Fixed it. Once you know the melody, it's easy to do a Kafka. 6/10.
Narration
boblipton22 June 2020
Michael Haneke adapts Kafka's incomplete novel about a land surveyor -- Ulrich Mühe. He's assigned to a small town dominated by a castle, where there lives a very important man named Klamm, whom no one ever sees. Mühe's services are neither needed nor wanted, but the immense and inert bureaucracy of the unnamed country keep him trapped there.... or perhaps, it's hinted, he's using that torpor to his own ends, to remain in a situation where he has no responsibilities, and gets to torment his fellow man and woman.
This was Haneke's breakout year; FUNNY GAMES hit the big screen about the time this hit the small one. Like that movie, this one is funny, but not in the least humorous; everyone suffers, and everyone deserves it. About half of the movie has Udo Samel reading from Kafka's while the action and dialogye go on. His unemotional reading lend a measure of contempt.
This was Haneke's breakout year; FUNNY GAMES hit the big screen about the time this hit the small one. Like that movie, this one is funny, but not in the least humorous; everyone suffers, and everyone deserves it. About half of the movie has Udo Samel reading from Kafka's while the action and dialogye go on. His unemotional reading lend a measure of contempt.
Beautiful, yet rushed and incomplete
idonotexist14 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie begins confusing, it doesn't clear itself up much after 2 hours. And then it ends. With no real explanation or closure. In fact it is very annoying how it cuts to credits seemingly mid story, because the story is good!
The movie is an euphemism for bureaucracy with elements of corruption (you grease me i'll grease you) but it really is mostly a literal tale of a dystopian location and culture. Herr land surveyor arrives at a frozen town, presumably at a valley close to a castle where all the important folks are. Some of them come to the town but leave abruptly and without notice. After realizing nobody there is set up for him, he dedicates his time in the town trying to meet any of the castle folk as they are the only ones in position of power and able to render him aid in his job function. Fair enough.
But what irks me is that K the surveyor acts as if to intentionally annoy people and do his best not to fit in. He is like that 50 year old rebel who goes to a foreign place and completely ignores the local culture.
As such you cannot feel sorry for him nor fault the system like some other viewers do. I have to disagree with people saying this is a parody of government because K himself is the main root of his problems. Yet, near the end, apparently the problems he created become his tasks to solve with lucrative rewards promised.
This is a good movie that just ends too soon. So many elements demand closure it will leave you annoyed at the end.
The movie is an euphemism for bureaucracy with elements of corruption (you grease me i'll grease you) but it really is mostly a literal tale of a dystopian location and culture. Herr land surveyor arrives at a frozen town, presumably at a valley close to a castle where all the important folks are. Some of them come to the town but leave abruptly and without notice. After realizing nobody there is set up for him, he dedicates his time in the town trying to meet any of the castle folk as they are the only ones in position of power and able to render him aid in his job function. Fair enough.
But what irks me is that K the surveyor acts as if to intentionally annoy people and do his best not to fit in. He is like that 50 year old rebel who goes to a foreign place and completely ignores the local culture.
As such you cannot feel sorry for him nor fault the system like some other viewers do. I have to disagree with people saying this is a parody of government because K himself is the main root of his problems. Yet, near the end, apparently the problems he created become his tasks to solve with lucrative rewards promised.
This is a good movie that just ends too soon. So many elements demand closure it will leave you annoyed at the end.
Intriguing yet boring
wumbi3 November 2021
What saves this movie from being a complete nutjob is Heneke's great directing and his linear storytelling. That being said there isn't a clear narrative and it is utterly pointless. I usually hate narration in movies, in this particular case the narration is holding the movie together and pulling you back into the movie when the characters seems to be wandering around haphazardly. To top it all off there's no ending or resolution and that makes it even more pointless. Still I find myself enjoying this offbeat and absurd movie.
Atmospheric trip
maraaa_13 December 2019
I must confess: I've never read a book written by Kafka. But after seeing this (TV) movie I directly started searching up information about him, and yes, also bought the book.
Haneke is incredible when it comes to creating an atmosphere in his movies. Especially when it comes to creating a certain feeling of 'alienation' (it's called 'vervreemding' in my native language). 'Das Weisse Band' is an example of that, but also 'Das Schloss'. The narrator and long black pauses, ...
Haneke is incredible when it comes to creating an atmosphere in his movies. Especially when it comes to creating a certain feeling of 'alienation' (it's called 'vervreemding' in my native language). 'Das Weisse Band' is an example of that, but also 'Das Schloss'. The narrator and long black pauses, ...
Heavy material, not for everybody (including me)
Horst_In_Translation9 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Das Schloß" or "The Castle" is a German/Austrian co-production from almost 20 years ago and writer and director Michael Haneke made this one the very same year he released the original "Funny Games". For this one here, he adapted the work of famous author Franz Kafka and I guess this is also the main problem I had with this one. The material just wasn't interesting enough to me. I quite like some of Haneke's other stuff, but this one not so much. He cast many people that also appeared in other works of his, such as lead actor Ulrich Mühe, Susanne Lothar and Frank Giering, sadly all of them dies untimely deaths. "The Castle" is a television production that runs for over 2 hours and I cannot deny it dragged on many occasions.
I think the acting and direction in here is pretty good, as usual with Haneke/Mühe etc. but the base material just did not do too much for me. I was very bored by the story and the massive runtime certainly did not help at all. It is a very bleak and atmospheric watch as you are used to if you have seen some of Haneke's other works, but this alone cannot make up for all the other flaws in this film. I personally do not recommend checking it out unless you are a huge fan of Kafka's work, this one here or just in general. Everybody else should stay away. Thumbs down.
I think the acting and direction in here is pretty good, as usual with Haneke/Mühe etc. but the base material just did not do too much for me. I was very bored by the story and the massive runtime certainly did not help at all. It is a very bleak and atmospheric watch as you are used to if you have seen some of Haneke's other works, but this alone cannot make up for all the other flaws in this film. I personally do not recommend checking it out unless you are a huge fan of Kafka's work, this one here or just in general. Everybody else should stay away. Thumbs down.
An unfinished film adapted from an unfinished novel
rstout352629 May 2013
The scenes generally play out as they do in the novel, including the gaps from the novel, Haneke's view of Kafka's satirisation of bureaucracy. In 'Das Schloss' Kafka is at his usual absurd and pessimistic yet still very realistic idea of the world and the state. Themes and archetypes of alienation, physical and psychological brutality, parent–child conflict, characters on a terrifying quest, and mystical transformations. In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterised by what has been called the existential attitude, or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. This is the film of the unfinished novel. It expertly captures the abject, horrifyingly ridiculous, paranoia existentialist view of Kafka. A land surveyor named 'K' is invited to the Castle to do some work for a Count, but when he arrives at a Village where he finds that nobody is expecting him. K's attempts to get into the Castle are as unsuccessful as his attempt to settle into the local village. Greeted but not welcomed by a collective reluctance from the villagers, who with a systematic inefficiency prevent him from any prospects of even approaching the castle. The harder the stubborn K tries, the more he moves from his goals. You never see either the Count or indeed The Castle. The whole series of events is shot during winter with a grainy effect - possibly as a result of a TV transfer to DVD. The film was originally made for Austrian TV. The film ends as the book does - unfinished. The late Ulrich Mühe and Sussane Lothar are exceptional. With respect to perhaps Orson Welles, this film could not be made by mainstream Hollywood - they wouldn't know what to do with it! Although the film is certainly not for everyone, perhaps for Haneke fans only.
Utter Claptrap Don't Bother
imdb-390-59368627 December 2015
I really like Amour and White Ribbon but this is utter claptrap. So boring and such a dull story line which abruptly ends without any conclusion. Visually it's a bore. Hitchcock would have called this "Photographs of people talking". The film is heavy on dialogue. There was little point in making this into a film as 99% of the information is given through dialogue and narration and the story might as well have been a radio play. Don't waste 2 hours of your life.
So if it is supposed to be some poetic reflection on life or a particular issue then it needs to be clearer. In my opinion a film should be understandable in its own right. If I need to read Kafka in order to watch the film, then that is a failure in my opinion.
So if it is supposed to be some poetic reflection on life or a particular issue then it needs to be clearer. In my opinion a film should be understandable in its own right. If I need to read Kafka in order to watch the film, then that is a failure in my opinion.
Brilliant...
merva_somer11 March 2004
A land surveyor,K.,is invited to the Castle to do some work for the Count,but when he arrives at the Village,he finds that nobody is expecting him.K.'s attempts to get into the Castle are as unsuccessful as his attempt to settle into the local village.He is greeted by a compact reluctance from the villagers,who with a systematic inefficiency prevent him from any prospects of even approaching the castle.The harder the stubborn K.,tries,the farther he moves from his goals.The impenetrable,seemingly haphazard but strangulating bureaucracy of the castle hinders the clarification of his social and existential situation.K. remains what he was on the day of his arrival:a stranger who is barely tolerated...Haneke's film version of Kafka's famous unfinished novel is an unusually faithful and highly successful literary adaptation.Kafka is,with his absurd,pessimistic yet still very realistic idea of the world,a sort of soulmate of Haneke's.
Extremely Unusual
michaelf12 February 1999
So boring
squilookle26 October 2020
I decided to watch this as it was free with my Curzon membership and I have appreciated some of Haneke's other films, like Funny Games (original) and Hidden. This, however, was extremely, mind-numbingly dull. I enjoy experimental, artistic films; I seek them out rather than Hollywood blockbusters. I understand the fact that it is based on Kafka (some of which I have also read any enjoyed) and is a satire on bureaucracy. But this just dragged on and on and on. I couldn't wait for it to end and wondered why I had wasted these two hours of my life! The only plus point is that I learned the German word for Land Surveyor (Landvermesser). One to avoid unless you have A LOT of patience.
Keeping up with the dialectics of Kafkaesque absurdity
jgcorrea19 April 2021
Unfinished works give rise to conjecture. How would Kafka intend to end this novel? Did he get tired of it? Did he avoid concocting an ending? K, a professional surveyor, arrives in a village during a winter storm. He is summoned by a Count whose castle overlooks that village. As might be expected in any Kafka story, K will not find the earl or perform any specific work. The castle of the title is not what you would expect, it is certainly not what the disappointed K expected to see, it is not even an old fortress or a new mansion, but a shady complex of countless small buildings close to each other. Swarms of crows circulate around the tower. It is clear that K's presence in the village is the result of a bureaucratic error. A surveyor had actually been requested by the Count some time ago, but the order had been canceled long before. Only Kafka would be able to explain why K does not leave the village - and only he would know how (or if) he intended to finish this unfinished masterpiece.
Kafka meets Haneke. This is going to hurt.
gbk200121 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Kafka meets Haneke aka: a match made in heaven or a recipe for disaster? A dangerous combination, methinks, with one aim: to make the reader/viewer experience the pain associated with living into a tyrannical society ruled by ultra-bureaucracy. A society where humans live-survive by digging deep into their reserves of distrust, hatred and despise for their fellow human beings. The main objective being self preservation. Kafka related his own take on such reality, and Haneke tranported it onto the screen. Both of them were very successful. The result is exactly what was intended: a painful, slow, frustrating, hair pulling experience.
K., a land surveyor, arrives at the village he has been assigned to. He goes into an inn looking for shelter for the night. He enquires about the man in charge at "The Castle". He is immediately met with suspicion by the locals. Or rather, he is met with indifference from the drinkers and with suspicion by an official who introduces himself as the castellan son, who wakes him up, asks about his whereabouts, decides that K. Must be a liar or a trump and immediately reaches for the phone to find out. Initially the person at the other end of the line seems to confirm his suspicion but a second call confirms the new arrival's account. And now it is the new arrival's turn to make threats, promising his would-be-tormentor that he "will deal with him in the morning".
We can sense the castellan son initial satisfaction for having unmasked an impostor, after the first phone call. His anticipation to unleash his authority, while he congratulates himself with the bystandanders about the accuracy of his first assessment. But: is he happy for having being successful in his prompt reporting of an illegal intruder, a success that can only be beneficial for him (self preservation again), or is he just a miserable sadist? We sense his disappointment when the second phone call frustrates his fun - just as he is walking towards the sleeping impostor, brimming with excitement.
The scene is set. In this village people don't trust each other. They don't like new comers. They don't want the balance of their world to be upset in any way. Why?
We can only try to guess the answer, because, as it becomes more and more evident as events unfold, there is no answer, or rather: the answer, if there is one, is irrelevant. The motives behind human behaviour in a claustrophobic, asphyxiating reality, becomes irrelevant. Motives do not count. To avoid being crushed in this minefield of diffidence/distrust/cruelty one cannot waste time and energy psychoanalysing or double-guessing what the drivers behind everybody else's behaviuor are. Everybody else has the potential for being an attacker, an enemy, a threat. Therefore the emphasis must be on self preservation. What counts is what one does, how one responds to the constant threats, how one reacts to them, anticipates them, pre-empts them. How one avoids acting in a way that may result into something bad happening to oneself.
There is no hiding. The threat is always present, it can come from anywhere. The castellan son, the local teacher, one's own lover. It's almost impossible to know who our friends are, because friendship can turn into betrayal very quickly.
K.'s attempts to get in touch with the authorities at the Castle to start his assignment are frustrated by delays, contradicting information, unavoidable detours. He goes to the bar, meets Frieda who proudly reveals to be Klamm's mistress. When someone comes in looking for K. Frieda hides him under the bar and when asked if she has seen him she denies it. And that is the beginning of a tumultuous love story. After a night of passion when they "breathe as one" they start planning their rest of their lives together.
Are they moving too fast? Love at first sight? Maybe - in a different book (and movie). Because for Kafka - and Handle - time does not abide by conventional rules. He plays with time, stretches it and freeze it at will. Things can happen really, really, really slowly, so slowly that they may never happen at all. Or they can happen very quickly, almost instantly. This is a world where time moves fast or slow according to the rhythm of the Castle.
The way time - and things in general - work in a village overseen by the Castle is explained by an official that K. Meets in the official's bedroom: decisions can take time. They can take a long time. For example, the land surveyor job is the result of a game of Chinese whispers that might have started in the labyrinth of the castle offices, with someone saying a land surveyor was needed. By the time a decision was made, and a land surveyor was assigned to the village, nobody remembers why a land surveyor was needed. The officer explains that careers are made or destroyed not through logical planning, but rather by being at the right place at the right time, a chance encounter with someone with authority, a fleeting glance, a nod. Making the most of that instant would achieve instantly what months of questions, queueing, planning would never achieve.
In the Castle things do not happen in the name of logic. It's the other way round: logic is appended to actions, activities, decisions - afterwords. Logic is an inconvenience, a chore, a label that needs to be stuck to things after they happen. As in the scene where K. Is told that the Castle is happy with the job that the land surveyor has done so far. Even if he hasn't done any surveying. But then someone else tells K. That he can be a genitor at the local school instead. Which one is it? Is the land surveyor doing a good land surveying job? Or does he need to become a genitor?
Frieda is quick to like the genitor option as it would mean them fitting into the society as organised by the Castle, so they can get married. She explains that she was happy before, being Klamm's mistress, working at the bar, fitting into schemes. She can only stay with K. If he complies, or if he accepts to run away with her to France or Spain. There is no option of a middle way. No point in forcing the land surveyor route as Frieda knows that that route may never happen. But K. Is not happy with it. He left everything to be land surveyor and he won't accept a compromise. Frieda abandons him. At the drop of a hat. As quickly as she had committed to becoming his wife.
My rating: 9/10. A very good effort from Master Haneke for what must have stood as an extraordinary challenge. Maybe not quite as frustrating, painful, hair-pulling when compared to the book. Probably not a bad thing after all. Or is it?
K., a land surveyor, arrives at the village he has been assigned to. He goes into an inn looking for shelter for the night. He enquires about the man in charge at "The Castle". He is immediately met with suspicion by the locals. Or rather, he is met with indifference from the drinkers and with suspicion by an official who introduces himself as the castellan son, who wakes him up, asks about his whereabouts, decides that K. Must be a liar or a trump and immediately reaches for the phone to find out. Initially the person at the other end of the line seems to confirm his suspicion but a second call confirms the new arrival's account. And now it is the new arrival's turn to make threats, promising his would-be-tormentor that he "will deal with him in the morning".
We can sense the castellan son initial satisfaction for having unmasked an impostor, after the first phone call. His anticipation to unleash his authority, while he congratulates himself with the bystandanders about the accuracy of his first assessment. But: is he happy for having being successful in his prompt reporting of an illegal intruder, a success that can only be beneficial for him (self preservation again), or is he just a miserable sadist? We sense his disappointment when the second phone call frustrates his fun - just as he is walking towards the sleeping impostor, brimming with excitement.
The scene is set. In this village people don't trust each other. They don't like new comers. They don't want the balance of their world to be upset in any way. Why?
We can only try to guess the answer, because, as it becomes more and more evident as events unfold, there is no answer, or rather: the answer, if there is one, is irrelevant. The motives behind human behaviour in a claustrophobic, asphyxiating reality, becomes irrelevant. Motives do not count. To avoid being crushed in this minefield of diffidence/distrust/cruelty one cannot waste time and energy psychoanalysing or double-guessing what the drivers behind everybody else's behaviuor are. Everybody else has the potential for being an attacker, an enemy, a threat. Therefore the emphasis must be on self preservation. What counts is what one does, how one responds to the constant threats, how one reacts to them, anticipates them, pre-empts them. How one avoids acting in a way that may result into something bad happening to oneself.
There is no hiding. The threat is always present, it can come from anywhere. The castellan son, the local teacher, one's own lover. It's almost impossible to know who our friends are, because friendship can turn into betrayal very quickly.
K.'s attempts to get in touch with the authorities at the Castle to start his assignment are frustrated by delays, contradicting information, unavoidable detours. He goes to the bar, meets Frieda who proudly reveals to be Klamm's mistress. When someone comes in looking for K. Frieda hides him under the bar and when asked if she has seen him she denies it. And that is the beginning of a tumultuous love story. After a night of passion when they "breathe as one" they start planning their rest of their lives together.
Are they moving too fast? Love at first sight? Maybe - in a different book (and movie). Because for Kafka - and Handle - time does not abide by conventional rules. He plays with time, stretches it and freeze it at will. Things can happen really, really, really slowly, so slowly that they may never happen at all. Or they can happen very quickly, almost instantly. This is a world where time moves fast or slow according to the rhythm of the Castle.
The way time - and things in general - work in a village overseen by the Castle is explained by an official that K. Meets in the official's bedroom: decisions can take time. They can take a long time. For example, the land surveyor job is the result of a game of Chinese whispers that might have started in the labyrinth of the castle offices, with someone saying a land surveyor was needed. By the time a decision was made, and a land surveyor was assigned to the village, nobody remembers why a land surveyor was needed. The officer explains that careers are made or destroyed not through logical planning, but rather by being at the right place at the right time, a chance encounter with someone with authority, a fleeting glance, a nod. Making the most of that instant would achieve instantly what months of questions, queueing, planning would never achieve.
In the Castle things do not happen in the name of logic. It's the other way round: logic is appended to actions, activities, decisions - afterwords. Logic is an inconvenience, a chore, a label that needs to be stuck to things after they happen. As in the scene where K. Is told that the Castle is happy with the job that the land surveyor has done so far. Even if he hasn't done any surveying. But then someone else tells K. That he can be a genitor at the local school instead. Which one is it? Is the land surveyor doing a good land surveying job? Or does he need to become a genitor?
Frieda is quick to like the genitor option as it would mean them fitting into the society as organised by the Castle, so they can get married. She explains that she was happy before, being Klamm's mistress, working at the bar, fitting into schemes. She can only stay with K. If he complies, or if he accepts to run away with her to France or Spain. There is no option of a middle way. No point in forcing the land surveyor route as Frieda knows that that route may never happen. But K. Is not happy with it. He left everything to be land surveyor and he won't accept a compromise. Frieda abandons him. At the drop of a hat. As quickly as she had committed to becoming his wife.
My rating: 9/10. A very good effort from Master Haneke for what must have stood as an extraordinary challenge. Maybe not quite as frustrating, painful, hair-pulling when compared to the book. Probably not a bad thing after all. Or is it?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
