RSS 2.0Funny Games (US version, 2007)
Funny Games is about two preppy young men who psychologically and physically terrorize an upper class family in their home. This is the Americanized version of the 1997 film. Although artistic and well crafted, the film is about as unpleasant as the countless number of torture porn movies that are manufactured these days. The irony about Funny Games is not that it isn’t funny but that the joke is on the audience and the director, Michael Haneke, is the only one who’s laughing.
Traditionally, I would start with the positive aspects to film. Here, I won’t since the only aspect to this film worth praising is the technical finesse of Haneke. Everything else is insulting to the highest degree. The two villains played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are soft-spoken sociopaths who glee when they see this husband (Tim Roth) and wife (Naomi Watts) suffer. No explanation is given as to why they do these horrific acts. When confronted about their motives, the two creeps spew nothing but lies. Even Freddy Kruger has more of an origin story than these guys.
The true horror to this movie, however, is the Tim Roth character. Having him in this particular role might have been a miscast. No fault of Tim Roth, but I’m so accustomed to seeing him play the hard-as-nails antihero, that I just couldn’t accept him in this really, really, REALLY pathetic role.
Like originally stated, the technical aspects are near flawless. All the actors do fine work and Haneke takes bold moves at keeping the suspense level high by never rushing into the next scene. However, Haneke demands a lot from his audience. Not only does he want you to go along with the slow pace, but he wants you to spend time with these repulsive characters.
Yet, something even worse happens. The film goes even further and purposely insults the audience at the end, by giving a satisfying resolution and then snatching it away. It’s like giving a homeless guy a sandwich and then telling him it’s made of dog excrement.
Michael Haneke is a very provocative director who shuns mainstream conventions. He doesn’t illustrate his thesis, but allows ambiguity for the viewer so they may provide their own answers. This is refreshing, only when you aren’t being insulted at the same time. Cache’, a much better and intriguing film, shows that Haneke is one of those elite filmmakers who can create suspense with minimal resources. Go watch that movie instead.
I’m sure some high brow film critics will praise the boldness of Funny Games. But hey, if Marcel Duchamp can win accolades by submitting a urinal at an art exhibition, anything is possible.
Jose (41 posts)Illustrator from Ann Arbor, MI Favorite Directors: Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino, and Christopher Nolan. http://www.jtungol.com
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I do not agree at all. Funny Games is a masterpiece! and even so is this remake this is one of Hanekes best films, that focuses on mocking the use of violence in most Hollywood films (hence the use of rewinding). However, since this is a take to take remake of the original Austrian film, it seems rather redundant. This film is so eerie in its common exposure of violence. It is in no way insulting at all… Please note this film is officially called ‘Funny Games US’
Comment by Arjan — Sun July 13, 2008 @ 12:01This film is going to divide. Check out the 65-65 ratio at Rotten Tomatoes.
I’ve heard that argument made about how this film is a statement on violence in the media but there are other movies that do that as well. Natural Born Killers comes to mind. Sure, Oliver Stone’s picture focuses more on the desensitization of violence so the comparison a little off the mark, but still, Stone’s over-the-top satirical style makes his message clearer than Haneke’s. Haneke’s deliberate and careful storytelling fogs up any kind of thesis he presents.
Comment by Jose — Sun July 13, 2008 @ 16:00Must say that I have not seen the US version of this, only the ‘original’ version. Which made me sick to my stomach for about a week and is at the same time one of the best films I have ever seen.
Comment by mariken — Tue July 15, 2008 @ 23:42I actually think Jose, that the revulsion you are feeling is the right response to this film. Because for me it’s goal was to confront the audience with it’s reaction to violence. Usually when you see a film, the character inflicting the violence is some kind of badass that is quite likable in a way or so evil that his/her inevitable demise can be rejoiced over. But here one can not do anything other than identify with the victims. And that thing we’re feeling, watching them, thinking: this should not happen to them, is actually “this should never happen to me”. By making the viewer identify with the people who are suffering, Haneke makes us think about our role in the process.
***WARNING***SPOILER AHEAD***
Therefore by adding the perfect ‘heroine takes charge’ hollywood moment and then snatching it away, Haneke makes us exame our point of view towards violence. Because you were cheering when the moment happend, weren’t you? I know I was. And when that moment was taken from me, I realised that I divided the world (and movies) in to acceptable and unacceptable violence, when really there is only one kind.
For me it was the same thing that happend in A Clockwork Orange, when the main character does a little tapdance while forcefully kicking a man in the head. Or the rape from C’est arrive pres de chez vous. On both occasions I had been laughing or snickering throughout the film, until then. Because then I felt: wait a minute, this is not funny. And maybe, if this is not funny, all the horrible stuff I saw before was not all that amusing either.
More to the point, when at the end of the film Haneke comes up with the little monologue about paralel universes and everything having several endings, so it is up to you to choose the one you like, I found myself choosing the unhappy ending, realism over victory, defeat over hope. But I also felt a smarter, sadder and wiser person for doing so. And that made me gratefull to Haneke, even if I slept uneasy for a few nights, not being able to get the unpleasantness off my retinas.
I saw the us version of this film tonight and i dont care what any sad bastard says…. this film has to be the worst film i have ever seen, i feel like breaking it so that nobody else in the video shop can be caught for such a stupid, plotless film! i am very suprised that tim roth even read past the first two lines of this script let alone acted i the thing! and as for the director, no wonder i never heard of him before with shit like this he is making. the voilence could be overlooked if there was even a plot to the film or even an ending…. i have to say i will NEVER rent a movie from that director again. and anybody that praises this movie is an idiot and leaves themselves exposed to be seen as the true freaks they realy are.
Comment by Robert — Mon August 18, 2008 @ 0:51@ Robert: either that, or you are a Jean Claude VanDamme-loving dimwit who is unable to grasp what the director is actually saying.
Comment by Mariken — Wed August 20, 2008 @ 21:13See! This film really brightens things up.
Comment by Jose — Fri August 22, 2008 @ 4:32@ Jose:
Comment by Mariken — Fri August 22, 2008 @ 21:14