Yes I have and loved it. I do think Haneke consistently works with the horror genre but inverts, internalises and intellectualises it to take it to another level altogether. One of the primary reasons why his films are so disturbing and unsettling is because they are structured as films with an absent centre, as it were. None of his films allow the viewer to rationalise horror, identify its source or establish a cause-effect relationship, which would have restored a semblance of order at the end. One is thrust in the middle of endless, subterranean violence (more potent because it lacks the familiar signs of violence) repeatedly and given absolutely no clues about why and how it came to be so. Haneke's is an aesthetic of assault, so erudite and so cerebral, that his films end up being the very opposite of the horrific - deeply humanist and life affirming. But, one needs to go through the assault to reach there. And the humanism does not emerge from some sort of belief in/message about an inherent human goodness, but from the space that he allows the viewer to ramble in. Haneke allows the viewer to bring the humanity into the films because he/she cannot dismiss Erika, in The Piano Teacher, as a freak or condemn the man (who fights with the Pole and saves Benny from self-immolation) in Time of the Wolf for his apparent racism. In an infinitely mediated world of representations (television is a recurrent motif in his films), the borderlines between all categories that ensure a rational order become indistinct, and collapse. We are both witness and victim, consumer and interpreter, listener and storyteller. However, the "story" that emerges, may or may not be Haneke's, and it is hardly surprising in the case of a director whose overwhelming concern has been the very notion of spectation.

I am in a ranting mood with regard to Haneke, so please bear with me 

M