Funny games even though starts a little slow is really quite captivating. The performances were strong and had me hooked until the morning after when they return. The movie insists upon itself, the Director adds elements that aren't necessary trying to make an artistic film while forgetting what makes thriller films great. Once Peter is killed the ending gets wrecked by the stupid rewind. That seriously alone made this film fall flat at the slow. Funny games was scary or at least thrilling because of the realism inside it and to me, In my opinion bringing back peter after he was shot and killed ruined what might have been a great film.
416 Reviews
Suffering? You ain't seen nothing yet...
Jonny_Numb17 June 2008
I watched this year's remake of "Funny Games" prior to the original, simply because its sick-with-irony trailer got me extremely curious. Granted, this goes against my usual process of viewing a remake's precursor prior to the remake itself, but I couldn't help myself. By the end, I was astonished by writer-director Michael Haneke's audacity in telling a macabre home-invasion story devoid of Hollywood glamour, humor, and mercy–remake or no, it's still one of the ballsiest exercises in visceral, reality-based horror ever released by a major studio.
So, when I decided to give the original "Funny Games" a spin (mere days after my viewing of American version), I was filled with presupposition toward how much I would appreciate the original (with the twists of Haneke's shot-for-shot remake still mapped out in my mind)–similar to a sadistic "bet" our captors make with their prey, I was wondering if this earlier, German-language version would survive on its own terms. And, while each version is practically identical (save for some subtle nuances in the performances, the slightly varied location design, and–of course–the spoken language), both quite miraculously carry the same visceral, jaw-dropping sucker-punches as the other. Unlike the much-derided American remakes of "The Vanishing" and "Les Diaboliques," Haneke sees no need to let either culture off the hook, especially when each has its own prominent history of violence, on- and off-camera.
Ironically, the references to metalhead couch potatoes Beavis and Butt-Head probably seemed like an incendiary bitch-slap to the passive glamorization of American filmed violence in the 1997 version, but there is an even stronger sense of irony when the MTV-hosted duo are referenced in the remake–on the shores that birthed them, and the cult following of Generation Y-ers that has accumulated in the years since the show's cancellation (a sure sign that our passivity, if anything, is more pronounced now). It's subtle observations like this that give both versions of "Funny Games" an added resonance.
If anything takes some getting used to in the 1997 film, it's the general unfamiliarity of the cast. After seeing a collection of familiar performers run through Haneke's horrifying 2008 experiment, the German cast begins with a studied approach to the performances that eventually loosens into hysteria and desperation that is just as convincing as their remake counterparts. It is truly stunning how Haneke mines the same static framing and intense performances to ends that are equally effective in both films (even knowing the outcome of a protracted long take following a pivotal off-screen event, I found the experience just as emotionally agonizing to witness).
While it may seem hypocritical to "side" with Haneke (at least in the context his film creates), especially when I patronize (and am prone to enjoying) films that frequently downplay the reality of human suffering, the effect in both versions of "Funny Games" is undeniably powerful–these are difficult, ugly, and emotionally draining films crafted with undeniable (and remarkably subtle) purpose. If there's any catharsis to be had from them, it will be in the introspection and assessment of your own attitudes toward violence.
So, when I decided to give the original "Funny Games" a spin (mere days after my viewing of American version), I was filled with presupposition toward how much I would appreciate the original (with the twists of Haneke's shot-for-shot remake still mapped out in my mind)–similar to a sadistic "bet" our captors make with their prey, I was wondering if this earlier, German-language version would survive on its own terms. And, while each version is practically identical (save for some subtle nuances in the performances, the slightly varied location design, and–of course–the spoken language), both quite miraculously carry the same visceral, jaw-dropping sucker-punches as the other. Unlike the much-derided American remakes of "The Vanishing" and "Les Diaboliques," Haneke sees no need to let either culture off the hook, especially when each has its own prominent history of violence, on- and off-camera.
Ironically, the references to metalhead couch potatoes Beavis and Butt-Head probably seemed like an incendiary bitch-slap to the passive glamorization of American filmed violence in the 1997 version, but there is an even stronger sense of irony when the MTV-hosted duo are referenced in the remake–on the shores that birthed them, and the cult following of Generation Y-ers that has accumulated in the years since the show's cancellation (a sure sign that our passivity, if anything, is more pronounced now). It's subtle observations like this that give both versions of "Funny Games" an added resonance.
If anything takes some getting used to in the 1997 film, it's the general unfamiliarity of the cast. After seeing a collection of familiar performers run through Haneke's horrifying 2008 experiment, the German cast begins with a studied approach to the performances that eventually loosens into hysteria and desperation that is just as convincing as their remake counterparts. It is truly stunning how Haneke mines the same static framing and intense performances to ends that are equally effective in both films (even knowing the outcome of a protracted long take following a pivotal off-screen event, I found the experience just as emotionally agonizing to witness).
While it may seem hypocritical to "side" with Haneke (at least in the context his film creates), especially when I patronize (and am prone to enjoying) films that frequently downplay the reality of human suffering, the effect in both versions of "Funny Games" is undeniably powerful–these are difficult, ugly, and emotionally draining films crafted with undeniable (and remarkably subtle) purpose. If there's any catharsis to be had from them, it will be in the introspection and assessment of your own attitudes toward violence.
Why Are You Watching This?
Jeremy-48 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike my other reviews that have been about the films themselves, this will describe the effect it had on me. Just to clarify, I am an 18-year-old Brit who has seen more than his fair share of violent films, and I thought I could take the content of this one.
When I noticed in a listing magazine that Funny Games was being shown, I looked forward to it. I had heard that it was a film about the corrosive nature of movie violence, and contained many unpleasant sequences. This is, of course, the other reason I wanted to see it, the reason I did not admit to myself: I wanted to see the violence.
As I was watching the film, I found some of the scenes unpleasant, and understood and agreed with the moral subtext. I wondered in my mind during the commercial breaks who would play the leads in an American remake of the film. It was only towards the end that it occured to me that no-one was going to survive, and that my boredom during long, uneventful shots was partly because I wanted something violent to occur. As the deafening thrash metal played over the end credits, and Paul's empty smile gazed at me, it finally dawned on me what was happening. I did not find the violence in Funny Games repulsive because I have myself become desensitized to it. That is the genius of Haneke. If you decide to walk out of the cinema/turn off your TV/press stop on your VCR, you will have lost the game of Chicken that not only Haneke, but also Peter and Paul are playing with you. You will probably get out unscathed and you will know your limits. If you decide to stay to the end, you win the game, but at what cost? If, like me, you did find such suffering and humiliation intolerable, is that not more disturbing than any violent act you can possibly imagine?
That night, I couldn't sleep.
When I noticed in a listing magazine that Funny Games was being shown, I looked forward to it. I had heard that it was a film about the corrosive nature of movie violence, and contained many unpleasant sequences. This is, of course, the other reason I wanted to see it, the reason I did not admit to myself: I wanted to see the violence.
As I was watching the film, I found some of the scenes unpleasant, and understood and agreed with the moral subtext. I wondered in my mind during the commercial breaks who would play the leads in an American remake of the film. It was only towards the end that it occured to me that no-one was going to survive, and that my boredom during long, uneventful shots was partly because I wanted something violent to occur. As the deafening thrash metal played over the end credits, and Paul's empty smile gazed at me, it finally dawned on me what was happening. I did not find the violence in Funny Games repulsive because I have myself become desensitized to it. That is the genius of Haneke. If you decide to walk out of the cinema/turn off your TV/press stop on your VCR, you will have lost the game of Chicken that not only Haneke, but also Peter and Paul are playing with you. You will probably get out unscathed and you will know your limits. If you decide to stay to the end, you win the game, but at what cost? If, like me, you did find such suffering and humiliation intolerable, is that not more disturbing than any violent act you can possibly imagine?
That night, I couldn't sleep.
One of the most gripping films about the dark side of human nature
gogoschka-115 July 2014
This is one of those I nearly didn't watch (I thought it would be pseudo-intellectual drivel about the evil nature of video games) - I'm very glad I got over myself and finally did watch it one day. What an amazingly done film! I've never seen such great acting in a German language movie (the film is Austrian - just to be precise); the script is full of surprises and the whole film has a tightness that is very rare; every little detail is in the right place.
Michael Haneke always likes to challenge his audience, but even among his more controversial films 'Funny Games' stands out. The story follows the logic of a nightmare; uneasy tension gives way to unreal horror as you stare in disbelief at what's happening on screen. This is one of the most gripping films about the dark side of human nature I have ever seen; pure cinematic entertainment and yet it goes beyond that (and stays with you long after you've finished watching). A masterpiece – 10 stars out of 10.
Favorite Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054200841/
Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/
Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
Michael Haneke always likes to challenge his audience, but even among his more controversial films 'Funny Games' stands out. The story follows the logic of a nightmare; uneasy tension gives way to unreal horror as you stare in disbelief at what's happening on screen. This is one of the most gripping films about the dark side of human nature I have ever seen; pure cinematic entertainment and yet it goes beyond that (and stays with you long after you've finished watching). A masterpiece – 10 stars out of 10.
Favorite Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054200841/
Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/
Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
unsettling, gripping movie
Flador19 January 2004
SPOILER: Okay... I just read most of the 144 user reviews.... Basically I wanted to make up my mind about this film, a film that is a very heavy load.
I've seen this movie 5 years ago, the good thing is most of the time you forget about (having seen) it but now and then you recall it. I can understand that many people hate this film, it is not nice to watch, the more when you see it in a theatre where the only chance to break its spell is leaving the theatre. Regardless if you leave or stay and watch it leave it beats you one way or the other. I fully agree with many other reviewers that I have no idea whom I should recommend it too. I am tempted to watch it a second time but didn't make it happen in 5 years.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is an excellent movie. It is also very disturbing and upsetting, I can't think of the right mood to watch it cause it'll take you down. And I think here is where the movie polarises. If, after watching, you find yourself deducting some message in the violence, and perhaps rethink violence - in both real life and movies - you will, well, also will have found some reason for this movies existence, if not - and it might be better if one does not - you will join in the 'crappiest movie ever chorus'.
I do however want to point out some achievement of this production:
*) The movie catches the audience in theatre. *) It does shock the audience but most of the violence is off-screen. You see more people dying in many fast-driven action movies. Only here you care. There is minor suspense, but I, personally, wouldn't put it into that category. (But then I am no horror/shocker/suspense fan and can easily err here) *) It's hard to compare it with any other movie (that I have seen). I am not sure if this is an achievement, but it's outstanding.
The reason I think Haneke made this movie. or, what I deducted from it is how far away violence and death are in our everyday lives today. While Hollywood - and other film productions serve them daily right in our living room, we hardly notice them anymore. Violence also sells movies, and we're meanwhile pretty used to that. Haneke also serves violence, and he dishes it next-door. He turns into a moral figure that asks the audience if they want more (after all me and you consume it every day) - and while HERE we want to say 'no please stop' he doesn't do our silent bidding. He pushes us down the drain, forcing us to deal with aspects of the violence we don't (want to) see. He even goes one step further. He offers us a 'good' ending, a payback that would make it easier for us to bear the movie, only to snatch it back and rip us of any cheerful emotion, telling us like 'no, sorry, here it doesn't work that way'.
I also read reviews mentioning the unsatisfying (often used, cliche) end. One more time Haneke manages to disappoint us, so far we were driven and didn't know what would happen, what to expect.
Only in the ending, we see it coming, and so it ends, obviously similar to many other movies. We're back standard movie stuff, the arc bent and the connection made.
"Funny games" is everything else but the title. Perhaps it refers to the funny games built on standard film violence in everyday movies. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps Haneke wants to stress that violence is a bad thing. Perhaps he's just sick.
One thing for sure, regardless if you like it, don't care, or hate it. You might have seen something somewhat like it, but nothing similar.
If you hate shockers, don't watch it. It will only be torture. If you love suspense, sorry, only very little gore here.
If you plan to watch it, calculate a few hours before you will manage to put your head to rest.
And don't watch it it personal crisis.
This movie will make you feel bad. If you watch it in a cinema, just look around. You're not alone with this feeling.
I've seen this movie 5 years ago, the good thing is most of the time you forget about (having seen) it but now and then you recall it. I can understand that many people hate this film, it is not nice to watch, the more when you see it in a theatre where the only chance to break its spell is leaving the theatre. Regardless if you leave or stay and watch it leave it beats you one way or the other. I fully agree with many other reviewers that I have no idea whom I should recommend it too. I am tempted to watch it a second time but didn't make it happen in 5 years.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is an excellent movie. It is also very disturbing and upsetting, I can't think of the right mood to watch it cause it'll take you down. And I think here is where the movie polarises. If, after watching, you find yourself deducting some message in the violence, and perhaps rethink violence - in both real life and movies - you will, well, also will have found some reason for this movies existence, if not - and it might be better if one does not - you will join in the 'crappiest movie ever chorus'.
I do however want to point out some achievement of this production:
*) The movie catches the audience in theatre. *) It does shock the audience but most of the violence is off-screen. You see more people dying in many fast-driven action movies. Only here you care. There is minor suspense, but I, personally, wouldn't put it into that category. (But then I am no horror/shocker/suspense fan and can easily err here) *) It's hard to compare it with any other movie (that I have seen). I am not sure if this is an achievement, but it's outstanding.
The reason I think Haneke made this movie. or, what I deducted from it is how far away violence and death are in our everyday lives today. While Hollywood - and other film productions serve them daily right in our living room, we hardly notice them anymore. Violence also sells movies, and we're meanwhile pretty used to that. Haneke also serves violence, and he dishes it next-door. He turns into a moral figure that asks the audience if they want more (after all me and you consume it every day) - and while HERE we want to say 'no please stop' he doesn't do our silent bidding. He pushes us down the drain, forcing us to deal with aspects of the violence we don't (want to) see. He even goes one step further. He offers us a 'good' ending, a payback that would make it easier for us to bear the movie, only to snatch it back and rip us of any cheerful emotion, telling us like 'no, sorry, here it doesn't work that way'.
I also read reviews mentioning the unsatisfying (often used, cliche) end. One more time Haneke manages to disappoint us, so far we were driven and didn't know what would happen, what to expect.
Only in the ending, we see it coming, and so it ends, obviously similar to many other movies. We're back standard movie stuff, the arc bent and the connection made.
"Funny games" is everything else but the title. Perhaps it refers to the funny games built on standard film violence in everyday movies. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps Haneke wants to stress that violence is a bad thing. Perhaps he's just sick.
One thing for sure, regardless if you like it, don't care, or hate it. You might have seen something somewhat like it, but nothing similar.
If you hate shockers, don't watch it. It will only be torture. If you love suspense, sorry, only very little gore here.
If you plan to watch it, calculate a few hours before you will manage to put your head to rest.
And don't watch it it personal crisis.
This movie will make you feel bad. If you watch it in a cinema, just look around. You're not alone with this feeling.
ah well, screw it
JonathanRimorin23 May 2003
I saw this movie again last night, for the third time, and once again had to keep watching each torturous minute until its chilling end. Going through the comments index, I see the expected responses: it was boring: it was pointless: it was too long: it's a satire: the games aren't actually that funny: it involved the audience in a neato way: it's nothing new: it's been done before. So I here offer an interpretation to add to the cacophany of reactions that FUNNY GAMES seem to engender.
What this movie reminds me of is the Book of Job, in the Bible, where God and Satan decide for their own amusement to torture this guy Job, killing his family, racking him with boils, and various other divine amusements. While watching this movie last night, I thought of another reference, this time from "King Lear": "Like flies to wanton schoolboys are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." What this movie does is challenge the audience's own involvement in visual narrative -- usually, we watch movies from somewhere on-high and omniscient; we're invisible but we see all; we're voyeurs, just like God. In Haneke's film, we identify not with the victims but with the all-powerful killers as they set about their funny games. The two polite young men are performing their entertainments for us, the viewers; they're slaking our bloodthirst, our desire for gory spectacle - - after all, isn't this why we watch movies like this in the first place? Haneke, however, doesn't play the usual evasions; he makes explicit the audience's participation in violence; and he forces upon us the need to take responsibility for it.
I find this fascinating. I also find the negative comments here fascinating as well -- "not violent enough!" "the victims deserve to die..." "all the violence is off-screen..." "no gore at all, 'LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT' did it first, with more blood...." etc. as being inadvertantly revealing of those viewers' psyche. I especially love the comment made by that one Viking guy, who writes that Haneke's film has "no point," and goes on to say "...I just hope those people break into MY house, so I can break them in two!"
I think Haneke made his point.
What this movie reminds me of is the Book of Job, in the Bible, where God and Satan decide for their own amusement to torture this guy Job, killing his family, racking him with boils, and various other divine amusements. While watching this movie last night, I thought of another reference, this time from "King Lear": "Like flies to wanton schoolboys are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." What this movie does is challenge the audience's own involvement in visual narrative -- usually, we watch movies from somewhere on-high and omniscient; we're invisible but we see all; we're voyeurs, just like God. In Haneke's film, we identify not with the victims but with the all-powerful killers as they set about their funny games. The two polite young men are performing their entertainments for us, the viewers; they're slaking our bloodthirst, our desire for gory spectacle - - after all, isn't this why we watch movies like this in the first place? Haneke, however, doesn't play the usual evasions; he makes explicit the audience's participation in violence; and he forces upon us the need to take responsibility for it.
I find this fascinating. I also find the negative comments here fascinating as well -- "not violent enough!" "the victims deserve to die..." "all the violence is off-screen..." "no gore at all, 'LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT' did it first, with more blood...." etc. as being inadvertantly revealing of those viewers' psyche. I especially love the comment made by that one Viking guy, who writes that Haneke's film has "no point," and goes on to say "...I just hope those people break into MY house, so I can break them in two!"
I think Haneke made his point.
Thought Provoking or Condescending?
graham_52510 January 2009
I think there is a valid argument to make that the universal visceral impact that Funny Games has on audiences undermines the very thesis of its director Michael Haneke. I use the word thesis very deliberately because Funny Games is an intellectual academic statement. Plainly it is not an entertainment movie but I don't consider it to be an art film either. Haneke intended it to be neither in my opinion. I think he intended it as an assault on both Hollywood and the audience. It's the cinematic equivalent of punk. Rock music against rock music. This is an analogy Haneke draws the audience to himself by overriding the classical music Anna and Georg are listening to with some extreme punk music on the sound track. We are left in doubt that the world of Funny Games belongs to Peter and Paul. Anna and Georg and their bourgeois taste in music are treated with utter contempt before Peter and Paul even appear on the screen.
Getting back to my original point: I think there are two parts to Haneke's thesis. The first is that Hollywood has commodified and sanitised violence and turned it into thrilling entertainment. Hollywood violence doesn't show the reality of violence or its consequences on those it is inflicted on. The second part of his thesis is that Hollywood's portrayal of violence has dehumanised and inured the audience and reduced their capacity for empathy and sensitivity. I fully agree with the first part of his thesis. The problem is most people do. I think you would be hard pushed to find any reasonably intelligent, educated person who doesn't agree with Haneke in this regard. Anyone who doesn't isn't going to be enlightened by watching Funny Games. On this point I can't help feeling that he preaching to the converted.
It's the second part of his thesis that he inadvertently undermines. Haneke set out very deliberately to make violence real again so that the audience feels it in their gut. Funny Games isn't real violence though. It's still just a film. However it is a film that manages to make a huge impact on an audience well accustomed to watching violence on the screen. This clearly indicates to me that audiences are smart enough and sensitive enough to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood trite and a convincing portrayal of violence. You could argue that Haneke had to resort to making such an extreme film to have the intended impact on an audience dulled by years of cinematic violence. However Funny Games isn't actually that violent. Compared to the average Arnold Swarzenegger movie it's actually quite tame in both the quantity of violence and how graphically it's portrayed. What makes Funny Games so disturbing is the emotional content in the impact and consequences of the violence on the victims. This is effectively contrasted with the casual approach, understated sadism and emotional shallowness of the perpetrators. If audiences were as lacking in sensitivity as I think Haneke is suggesting then surely Funny Games would have simply have been accepted as another piece of horror entertainment.
Haneke said something along the lines that anyone who stops watching before the end doesn't need Funny Games, anyone who watches it to the end does need it. This strikes me as thoroughly arrogant and is quite wrong in my opinion. Nothing can be implied about anyone who watches it to the end and there is no such thing as a film that an audience needs. Funny Games is a superb piece of cinema and there is no doubt that Haneke was fully successful in what he set out to achieve. However what exactly is it that Haneke thinks that the audience needs from it? As I said earlier most of the audience already understands the point he is making about Hollywood. It seems to me that Haneke is trying to shame the audience into realising how immoral they are for watching violent films. I fundamentally disagree with him if this is his intention. Personally I have no problem with the cartoon violence of Hollywood for the very reason that it is lacking in any real emotional content. It would seem that Haneke not only has a problem with the cartoon violence in films but with actual cartoons. Both Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead are referenced in Funny Games. If Haneke is seriously suggesting that Tom and Jerry cartoons are a moral problem then he is beyond ridiculous.
Having said all this I still give Funny Games a 10 out of 10. Whether we agree with Haneke or not he made us react, think, defend and argue. He also made a truly remarkable film with some of the most heart breaking and profound acting I have ever seen. Funny Games a deeply intelligent film and I don't doubt Haneke's total sincerity and moral integrity. I just don't necessarily agree with him.
Getting back to my original point: I think there are two parts to Haneke's thesis. The first is that Hollywood has commodified and sanitised violence and turned it into thrilling entertainment. Hollywood violence doesn't show the reality of violence or its consequences on those it is inflicted on. The second part of his thesis is that Hollywood's portrayal of violence has dehumanised and inured the audience and reduced their capacity for empathy and sensitivity. I fully agree with the first part of his thesis. The problem is most people do. I think you would be hard pushed to find any reasonably intelligent, educated person who doesn't agree with Haneke in this regard. Anyone who doesn't isn't going to be enlightened by watching Funny Games. On this point I can't help feeling that he preaching to the converted.
It's the second part of his thesis that he inadvertently undermines. Haneke set out very deliberately to make violence real again so that the audience feels it in their gut. Funny Games isn't real violence though. It's still just a film. However it is a film that manages to make a huge impact on an audience well accustomed to watching violence on the screen. This clearly indicates to me that audiences are smart enough and sensitive enough to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood trite and a convincing portrayal of violence. You could argue that Haneke had to resort to making such an extreme film to have the intended impact on an audience dulled by years of cinematic violence. However Funny Games isn't actually that violent. Compared to the average Arnold Swarzenegger movie it's actually quite tame in both the quantity of violence and how graphically it's portrayed. What makes Funny Games so disturbing is the emotional content in the impact and consequences of the violence on the victims. This is effectively contrasted with the casual approach, understated sadism and emotional shallowness of the perpetrators. If audiences were as lacking in sensitivity as I think Haneke is suggesting then surely Funny Games would have simply have been accepted as another piece of horror entertainment.
Haneke said something along the lines that anyone who stops watching before the end doesn't need Funny Games, anyone who watches it to the end does need it. This strikes me as thoroughly arrogant and is quite wrong in my opinion. Nothing can be implied about anyone who watches it to the end and there is no such thing as a film that an audience needs. Funny Games is a superb piece of cinema and there is no doubt that Haneke was fully successful in what he set out to achieve. However what exactly is it that Haneke thinks that the audience needs from it? As I said earlier most of the audience already understands the point he is making about Hollywood. It seems to me that Haneke is trying to shame the audience into realising how immoral they are for watching violent films. I fundamentally disagree with him if this is his intention. Personally I have no problem with the cartoon violence of Hollywood for the very reason that it is lacking in any real emotional content. It would seem that Haneke not only has a problem with the cartoon violence in films but with actual cartoons. Both Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead are referenced in Funny Games. If Haneke is seriously suggesting that Tom and Jerry cartoons are a moral problem then he is beyond ridiculous.
Having said all this I still give Funny Games a 10 out of 10. Whether we agree with Haneke or not he made us react, think, defend and argue. He also made a truly remarkable film with some of the most heart breaking and profound acting I have ever seen. Funny Games a deeply intelligent film and I don't doubt Haneke's total sincerity and moral integrity. I just don't necessarily agree with him.
George: Why are you doing this to us? Paul: Why not?
Galina_movie_fan7 August 2007
Watching "Funny Games" (1997) directed by Michael Haneke for the first time was an unforgettable visceral experience. It was the horror that really scared, devastated, and stayed with me long after the final scene was over. I can't easily recall another movie that made me go through the same emotions as the innocent victims in the movie did, to feel the same helplessness, hopelessness, despair, humiliation, and horror. I could not stop thinking of how illusory and fragile nature of happiness and safety is and how easy it is to shatter and destroy them. Is it a blessing or curse not to know what lies ahead and not be able to change the future? It's been several years since I saw the film but it still makes me shiver just to think about it.
"Funny Games" can be first mistaken for yet another conventional thriller where the good guys always win in the end and the evil is punished. Wrong, not by Haneke. He shocks you, he hits you in the gut, and then, he shocks you again. Haneke's is a true horror for his monsters don't look like the creatures from hell. No, "they are among us", they are nice and polite, well read, shy and ironic, they have the names from the new Testament, Paul and Peter, they talk with the soft refined voices but they are monsters nevertheless who have no regard for a human life and who want to play their sadistic funny games to the extreme.
"Funny Games" is a controversial film and I've read many reviews and comments that call it "a failure", accusing the film and its creator of not having said anything new or original on the connected subjects of violence, the media, and voyeuristic audience. It may not be a new or original subject Haneke dissects in his film but how he did it, his matter-of fact approach to the material and the seemingly unemotional manner affected me deeply, and I don't think I would ever forget this film.
"Funny Games" can be first mistaken for yet another conventional thriller where the good guys always win in the end and the evil is punished. Wrong, not by Haneke. He shocks you, he hits you in the gut, and then, he shocks you again. Haneke's is a true horror for his monsters don't look like the creatures from hell. No, "they are among us", they are nice and polite, well read, shy and ironic, they have the names from the new Testament, Paul and Peter, they talk with the soft refined voices but they are monsters nevertheless who have no regard for a human life and who want to play their sadistic funny games to the extreme.
"Funny Games" is a controversial film and I've read many reviews and comments that call it "a failure", accusing the film and its creator of not having said anything new or original on the connected subjects of violence, the media, and voyeuristic audience. It may not be a new or original subject Haneke dissects in his film but how he did it, his matter-of fact approach to the material and the seemingly unemotional manner affected me deeply, and I don't think I would ever forget this film.
Muddled Dialectic
japs4 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Funny Games was certainly thought-provoking. Haneke seems to have enough knowledge of film to infuse this movie (and most of his films to be honest) with a whole range of plays on established conventions within the thriller genre. And these on the whole worked quite well. I found the intellectual argument he puts forward less convincing though.
It appears his view is that we are all advocates of violence. The 'rewind' scene sets up the conventional retribution that normally proceeds the kidnap and torture sequences (see Straw Dogs etc). He doesn't allow us that outlet however, although he draws attention to it, thereby allowing us to examine that desire further. And the conclusion, one can draw. Yes, we call for acts of wanton violence to be administered upon arbiters of violent acts. There is a further link, I feel, he is trying to make from this position and that is this desire to see violence administered is somehow responsible for the violent world we live in. (There is, of course, another line of argument running through the film about the true visceral nature of violence but that's for another post)
I don't feel this is credible however. When a cinema audience calls for blood in a movie, I feel it is from a position of being completely aware that the narrative they are viewing is an artifice. People aren't going to be really killed. Hence, they can observe the violence being carried out in a 'comic' manner (bad guys getting shot in Westerns without a bullet hole appearing etc) and not have their disbelief in the fantasy world of the film suspended. This isn't misleading I feel, and doesn't inure people to the reality of how brutal and ugly real violence is. After all if one takes that approach then one can argue that Tom and Jerry cartoons suffer from the same problem.
I think where he may have a point, is in the manipulation of actual real-life events to make them less unsettling to an audience. I'm thinking of the Western news reports of Iraq, where disturbing footage of atrocities are cut so the Western viewer doesn't become upset or disturbed about what they're watching. This DOES desensitise the viewer to what war is about because the fact/fiction boundary has been crossed and we can't fall back on the intellectual safety nets I talked about earlier. And why is that a bad thing? Because our government is committing these acts and we have a duty to see the full horror of what they are doing in our name.
Any thoughts?
It appears his view is that we are all advocates of violence. The 'rewind' scene sets up the conventional retribution that normally proceeds the kidnap and torture sequences (see Straw Dogs etc). He doesn't allow us that outlet however, although he draws attention to it, thereby allowing us to examine that desire further. And the conclusion, one can draw. Yes, we call for acts of wanton violence to be administered upon arbiters of violent acts. There is a further link, I feel, he is trying to make from this position and that is this desire to see violence administered is somehow responsible for the violent world we live in. (There is, of course, another line of argument running through the film about the true visceral nature of violence but that's for another post)
I don't feel this is credible however. When a cinema audience calls for blood in a movie, I feel it is from a position of being completely aware that the narrative they are viewing is an artifice. People aren't going to be really killed. Hence, they can observe the violence being carried out in a 'comic' manner (bad guys getting shot in Westerns without a bullet hole appearing etc) and not have their disbelief in the fantasy world of the film suspended. This isn't misleading I feel, and doesn't inure people to the reality of how brutal and ugly real violence is. After all if one takes that approach then one can argue that Tom and Jerry cartoons suffer from the same problem.
I think where he may have a point, is in the manipulation of actual real-life events to make them less unsettling to an audience. I'm thinking of the Western news reports of Iraq, where disturbing footage of atrocities are cut so the Western viewer doesn't become upset or disturbed about what they're watching. This DOES desensitise the viewer to what war is about because the fact/fiction boundary has been crossed and we can't fall back on the intellectual safety nets I talked about earlier. And why is that a bad thing? Because our government is committing these acts and we have a duty to see the full horror of what they are doing in our name.
Any thoughts?
Genius
Danny_G1318 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Psychological horror masterpiece presses all the right buttons to disturb at an epidermal level.
On the surface of this movie, the mere plot about two psychopaths terrorising a family doesn't seem to be particularly interesting, or critically, original either. Indeed, the fact that the entire story takes place in pretty much one place would suggest it might struggle to capture the viewer's attention, certainly for its duration.
However, the simple combination of the mechanics of the performances, the script and the general tension make this story work outstandingly well; indeed, its isolated feel simply adds to the overall claustrophobia.
Peter and Paul are two apparently genial young men, who show up at the isolated boathouse of Anna and Georg, a mature couple with a child, who are all taking a couple of weeks holiday.
When Peter seems to be making a nuisance of himself, Anna starts to lose her patience with him. Paul then arrives on the scene and before long it has converted from an underbelly of irritation to outright intimidation, followed by crude violence.
It is extremely hard to sum this movie up without making it sound like a highly unoriginal piece of cinema, but there can be no question it is anything but.
The script is simply incredible; the overtone of terror slowly creeps up on the viewer, and on Anna and Georg, with more than a dose of psychological manipulation. Almost by pretending they are doing nothing wrong, with more than a hint of cordiality along the way, the two perpetrators manage to inflict a disturbing level of fear upon the family, and yet it is the most subtle form of assault.
Rather than constant threats, the two act like dinner guests who just happen to be terrifying the heck out of their hosts.
When things go further, and violence joins in, it takes the trauma to a new level, as it is gritty horror rather than a splatterfest. These are two psychos who take intimidation, violence, and all round fear to a thoroughly psychological pane.
The movie is also laced with some deliciously dark humour, with a few addresses to camera by Paul, who steps out of the character and joins the viewer on occasion. Absolutely marvellous.
However, it cannot be forgotten that the performances all round are simply outstanding. Each actor plays their part to perfection, and hats off to all - the victims were especially convincingly terrified, and the perpetrators frighteningly cool.
Haneke, the director, delivered a masterpiece with this. It's not conventional, doesn't end traditionally, and makes superb use of direction to construct an honestly masterful affair.
Highly recommended, but it should be noted it's not for everyone.
On the surface of this movie, the mere plot about two psychopaths terrorising a family doesn't seem to be particularly interesting, or critically, original either. Indeed, the fact that the entire story takes place in pretty much one place would suggest it might struggle to capture the viewer's attention, certainly for its duration.
However, the simple combination of the mechanics of the performances, the script and the general tension make this story work outstandingly well; indeed, its isolated feel simply adds to the overall claustrophobia.
Peter and Paul are two apparently genial young men, who show up at the isolated boathouse of Anna and Georg, a mature couple with a child, who are all taking a couple of weeks holiday.
When Peter seems to be making a nuisance of himself, Anna starts to lose her patience with him. Paul then arrives on the scene and before long it has converted from an underbelly of irritation to outright intimidation, followed by crude violence.
It is extremely hard to sum this movie up without making it sound like a highly unoriginal piece of cinema, but there can be no question it is anything but.
The script is simply incredible; the overtone of terror slowly creeps up on the viewer, and on Anna and Georg, with more than a dose of psychological manipulation. Almost by pretending they are doing nothing wrong, with more than a hint of cordiality along the way, the two perpetrators manage to inflict a disturbing level of fear upon the family, and yet it is the most subtle form of assault.
Rather than constant threats, the two act like dinner guests who just happen to be terrifying the heck out of their hosts.
When things go further, and violence joins in, it takes the trauma to a new level, as it is gritty horror rather than a splatterfest. These are two psychos who take intimidation, violence, and all round fear to a thoroughly psychological pane.
The movie is also laced with some deliciously dark humour, with a few addresses to camera by Paul, who steps out of the character and joins the viewer on occasion. Absolutely marvellous.
However, it cannot be forgotten that the performances all round are simply outstanding. Each actor plays their part to perfection, and hats off to all - the victims were especially convincingly terrified, and the perpetrators frighteningly cool.
Haneke, the director, delivered a masterpiece with this. It's not conventional, doesn't end traditionally, and makes superb use of direction to construct an honestly masterful affair.
Highly recommended, but it should be noted it's not for everyone.
a great thriller... as long as you ignore the director's pretensions
claudemercure15 March 2009
In this cross between Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf and A Clockwork Orange, two insolent young psychopaths torment a vacationing family.
It was hard to organize my thoughts on this movie, never mind rating it. As a thriller, this is a tense, well-acted, and relentless experience, marred only by a contrived sequence two-thirds through in which characters behave in unbelievably stupid fashion. However, said sequence is preceded by an incredibly effective ten-minute take. Unusually lengthy takes are often deemed self-indulgent, but this one is anything but.
As an ideological statement, though, this film is a failure. And there is no doubt that writer-director Michael Haneke is trying to make a statement. By having one of the psychos address the camera a few times, saying things to the effect that they have to give the viewers their money's worth, Haneke is essentially wagging his finger at anyone who has ever enjoyed the portrayal of violence in a film. This theme is certainly open to debate, but the problem is that Haneke expresses it in such a condescending way. His harrowing treatment of violence already serves as an excellent counterpoint to other films that glamorize it. There was no need to then leave viewers feeling as though they'd just been lectured by a stern parent.
The last time a filmmaker made me angry, it was when I saw Independence Day, and it was for the same reason. In both cases, the writer and the director display contempt by assuming their audiences are idiots. My anger didn't really ignite, though, until I watched a short interview with Haneke on the DVD. It made me never want to see another one of his films. The man is disgustingly full of himself.
So why the relatively high rating? Because as pretentious and self-important as Haneke is, he is also very talented. The movie is very effective on an emotional level, and it's possible to watch it while ignoring the director's wrong-headed decisions.
It was hard to organize my thoughts on this movie, never mind rating it. As a thriller, this is a tense, well-acted, and relentless experience, marred only by a contrived sequence two-thirds through in which characters behave in unbelievably stupid fashion. However, said sequence is preceded by an incredibly effective ten-minute take. Unusually lengthy takes are often deemed self-indulgent, but this one is anything but.
As an ideological statement, though, this film is a failure. And there is no doubt that writer-director Michael Haneke is trying to make a statement. By having one of the psychos address the camera a few times, saying things to the effect that they have to give the viewers their money's worth, Haneke is essentially wagging his finger at anyone who has ever enjoyed the portrayal of violence in a film. This theme is certainly open to debate, but the problem is that Haneke expresses it in such a condescending way. His harrowing treatment of violence already serves as an excellent counterpoint to other films that glamorize it. There was no need to then leave viewers feeling as though they'd just been lectured by a stern parent.
The last time a filmmaker made me angry, it was when I saw Independence Day, and it was for the same reason. In both cases, the writer and the director display contempt by assuming their audiences are idiots. My anger didn't really ignite, though, until I watched a short interview with Haneke on the DVD. It made me never want to see another one of his films. The man is disgustingly full of himself.
So why the relatively high rating? Because as pretentious and self-important as Haneke is, he is also very talented. The movie is very effective on an emotional level, and it's possible to watch it while ignoring the director's wrong-headed decisions.
Gut-wrenching horror
Renaldo Matlin14 March 2002
As opposed to Oliver Stone's speculative box office hit NATURAL BORN KILLERS, that actually made us laugh and thus destroyed the whole threat of violence, Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES turns the art of cinema into a loaded gun. The movie hits you below the waist time after time, until you feel as helpless and molested as the characters on-screen. And thus Haneke's point that "violence is bad" is made terribly clear.
Not an easy task, but Haneke pulled it off like there was no tomorrow, and for that he deserves our praise in a time when violence is synonymous with entertainment.
See FUNNY GAMES - if you dare!
Not an easy task, but Haneke pulled it off like there was no tomorrow, and for that he deserves our praise in a time when violence is synonymous with entertainment.
See FUNNY GAMES - if you dare!
Horror games.
DukeEman16 February 2003
This haunting piece of violent cinema, (and all of it happens off screen!), is the type of film that would have definitely converted Alex (Malcolm McDowell) from CLOCKWORK ORANGE, into a civilised citizen. The pain and agony of the victims has you scratching at the exit doors but you can't get out because for some reason you want to sit through to the very end, maybe hoping to get a revenge scenario to occur. Michael Haneke does not give us that pleasure. This film is bleak. Right down the line. It is frightening and very uncomfortable to watch.
Worn-out themes hidden behind a veil of flashy, pretentious direction.
capkronos22 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This supposedly shocking, humorless and grim thriller is about an affluent couple (Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Muhe) and their young son, whose attempt at a peaceful retreat is turned into a nightmare. While vacationing at a remote and (so they think) ultra-secure lakeside home, the family is tormented by two clean-cut young men who initially stop by to borrow a few eggs, then won't leave. They try to provoke violence, break the dad's leg with a golf club, kill their dog, make the mother strip and lie about being gay, having horrible childhoods and being drug addicts for a motive (although it's made quite clear that they don't have or necessarily need one). When asked why, one says "Why not?" and it's all for "entertainment value."
The commentary here, I suppose, is to illustrate that society is often pointlessly brutal and sadistic, and there's no real way to pinpoint an exact cause for the increasing violence in the world. Apparently the director is also doing some finger pointing of his own toward "desensitized" audiences who enjoy lapping up simulated violence in their popular entertainment, as well as those who tune into the nightly news to get the scoop on all the real-life horror stories taking place. In taking on this kind of material, Haneke creates the exact kind of film he is demonizing, which will make this a tough sell to certain people. Who doesn't look at the car accident site while they're passing by hoping to see what happened to the poor sucker involved in the wreck? Who doesn't see a violent scenario playing out in a film or on a TV show and stop to take a look? Most of us do... In my estimation, it's completely natural and healthy to fill one's morbid curiosity about the darker aspects of life and death via film, art and music. I'm not entirely sure what the point is in making us feel bad or guilty about it. If the director is simply wondering why violence and horror are so appealing to the masses, then his film completely lacks any insight, depth or psychological credibility when it comes to that topic.
There's some flashy direction, but unfortunately, a lot of it just doesn't work... like long, unbroken takes that seem to go on for hours and a character who talks to the camera ("Is that enough?") and then grabs a remote and rewinds the movie after something doesn't go his way. This was an official selection at Cannes and has a fan following, but I found it unpleasant, pretentious and downright boring at times, and it's nothing that numerous other films didn't already do (and do better) in the early 1970s.
The commentary here, I suppose, is to illustrate that society is often pointlessly brutal and sadistic, and there's no real way to pinpoint an exact cause for the increasing violence in the world. Apparently the director is also doing some finger pointing of his own toward "desensitized" audiences who enjoy lapping up simulated violence in their popular entertainment, as well as those who tune into the nightly news to get the scoop on all the real-life horror stories taking place. In taking on this kind of material, Haneke creates the exact kind of film he is demonizing, which will make this a tough sell to certain people. Who doesn't look at the car accident site while they're passing by hoping to see what happened to the poor sucker involved in the wreck? Who doesn't see a violent scenario playing out in a film or on a TV show and stop to take a look? Most of us do... In my estimation, it's completely natural and healthy to fill one's morbid curiosity about the darker aspects of life and death via film, art and music. I'm not entirely sure what the point is in making us feel bad or guilty about it. If the director is simply wondering why violence and horror are so appealing to the masses, then his film completely lacks any insight, depth or psychological credibility when it comes to that topic.
There's some flashy direction, but unfortunately, a lot of it just doesn't work... like long, unbroken takes that seem to go on for hours and a character who talks to the camera ("Is that enough?") and then grabs a remote and rewinds the movie after something doesn't go his way. This was an official selection at Cannes and has a fan following, but I found it unpleasant, pretentious and downright boring at times, and it's nothing that numerous other films didn't already do (and do better) in the early 1970s.
Strangely captivating...
dan_kenyon25 May 2003
First things first, Michael Haneke HATES Quentin Tarantino's films. He hates the way violence and death are shown as being 'cool' - Cool gangsters executing their enemies whilst saying cool lines (And you will know, that my name is the Lord! etc,etc)with a cool song playing in the background. This is not how violence is in the real world, violence is a horrible fact of life, not a glamourous thing for youths to copy, and I think Haneke intended Funny Games to show it how it really is. I watched Funny Games without the slightest clue what the film was about, so I just had to sit back and take it as it comes. At first, I wasn't too impressed. I thought the scenes were too long and dragged out, yet at the same time, I felt a strange feeling of suspense. The incredibly long camera shots leave you that bored, that you think "Something bad is going to happen soon, I can tell...". The suspense also lasts right through the film 'til the very end. You don't want to watch it, but at the same time, you feel hypnotised by it.
I will not detail any events of the film, to save spoiling the atmosphere, but I will note one thing that people tend to be confused about:- "Why did the family let them into the house in the first place?" The two characters of Peter and Paul are let to walk all over the family because of one flaw in the bourgios psyche - 'The more polite a person is, the better a person they are.' This absurd way of thinking is played on by Peter and Paul and they obviously score, plus 'getting into the house without breaking in' is also one of their 'games'.For those who haven't seen the film, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for a night in with the parents/girlfriend, but I definitely would for people who want to see the difference between death and Tarantino-glam. Prepare for a highly suspenseful yet sickeningly violent, non-Hollywood, edge-of-the-seat piece of art. 8/10
I will not detail any events of the film, to save spoiling the atmosphere, but I will note one thing that people tend to be confused about:- "Why did the family let them into the house in the first place?" The two characters of Peter and Paul are let to walk all over the family because of one flaw in the bourgios psyche - 'The more polite a person is, the better a person they are.' This absurd way of thinking is played on by Peter and Paul and they obviously score, plus 'getting into the house without breaking in' is also one of their 'games'.For those who haven't seen the film, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for a night in with the parents/girlfriend, but I definitely would for people who want to see the difference between death and Tarantino-glam. Prepare for a highly suspenseful yet sickeningly violent, non-Hollywood, edge-of-the-seat piece of art. 8/10
Disturbing and uncomfortable, but a masterpiece!
tankjonah25 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Michael Haneke's film Funny Games is far from an enjoyable movie as the family are tortured and humiliated in a frighteningly realistic manner. However, as an exploration of cinema violence, subversion of the conventions of the thriller/horror genre and the role of audience as voyeurs complicit in the actions on screen, this is a masterpiece. Almost all of the violence and humiliation inflicted on the family is off screen, the agonizing cries of the victims are horrible enough.
The plot is simple. A wealthy family (Susanne Lothar as mother, Ulrich Muhe as father and Stefan Clapcynski as 8 year old son) arrive at their secluded holiday home. Soon after, a young man (Frank Giering), seemingly a friend of the neighbour, arrives asking to borrow some eggs. When he is soon joined by his friend (Arno Frisch, who played Benny in Haneke's earlier film) the two attack and terrorize the family.
Frisch and Giering treat the situation as a game with rules that should be followed. Hence, after Giering wrongly shoots Clapynski who should (according to the rules) have been left alive after being counted in, not out, the two men briefly leave. Refreshingly, it is Muhe who breaks down sobbing uncontrollably after his son's death and it is his wife who comforts him, rather than the reverse as the convention of the genre so often dictates. Throughout the film Haneke revisits his theme of the audience as voyeurs by having Frisch speak directly to the camera (i.e. at us). This may disconcert some, but it is here that the film identifies itself more as an essay on the thriller/horror genre and its conventions, than as violent spectacle for the masses to lap up. Indeed, the majority of the violence is off screen further subverting expectations of audiences desensitized to accepting periodic killings in many a Hollywood thriller. Frisch asks us what he should do in certain situations. He also asks us who we bet on to survive. We're all rooting for the family he tells us. Indeed, given the conventions of the genre we should expect them to survive.
The most unexpected, unusual, audacious and possibly groundbreaking moment in the film totally evidences the fictional construction of film, here explored in a different way to say, Bande a Part (Godard, 1965). Here, Lothar manages to snatch the rifle and blow Giering away. Frisch then confiscates the rifle, pushes her aside and then screams for the location of the remote. When he locates it, he rewinds what we have just seen, bringing Giering back to life and preceding to thwart Lothar's effort. This scene may be interpreted in several ways. For the briefest of moments the audience is given what they want to see - the convention of the genre is fulfilled - before Haneke audaciously and cruelly says sorry, screw you and your expectations of the genre. That the film had effectively been thwarting audience expectation throughout, can be evidenced by the fact that when I saw the film various audience members cheered when Lothar killed Giering. Stunned silence and nervous laughter followed Frisch's action with the remote. The scene may also be interpreted as titillation (indeed it is the most explicitly violent moment in the film) which erodes the film's point about violence in film being used as gratuitous entertainment (a view I don't espouse). Finally the scene may also be read as a further point about thwarting expectations that we've all acquired by watching thrillers. Haneke's interest in subverting convention can also be seen via the relationship depicted between the two killers. Frisch often refers to Giering as "Fatty" much to the latter's annoyance. This is another means to cue audience expectation. So often, as in Scream (Craven, 1996) for instance, killers working together can become their own worst enemies, ultimately leading to their downfall. Here Giering's displeasure doesn't lead to the two turning on each other, further subverting the expectations and hopes of an audience accustomed to 'the wicked being punished.' Indeed, Haneke refuses to give the audience any simple reason for the behaviour of the killers. Unlike, the multitude of Hollywood thrillers where the killer is revealed to have a history grounded in psychological or sociological disturbance, drug abuse or poverty, Frisch and Giering's characters clearly do not fit into such simple and naïve categorisations. Indeed, throughout Funny Games both killers are referred to as Beavis, Butthead, John, Paul etc, presumably to present them as diverse and non-classifiable. Both are articulate and polite, neither is looking for their next fix and neither are poverty stricken. Rather than depicting the killers as the 'other' Haneke presents them as white, middle class, well dressed and intelligent. The only recent Hollywood film that springs to mind which draws such a complex and disturbing killer is Se7en (Fincher, 1995). Ironically, the denouement in that film dared to subvert expectations and yet (its predictability not withstanding) is considered by some critics to be a weakness.
The performances in Funny Games are excellent; Lothar and Muhe particularly stand out. Haneke has created a brilliant, audacious film which is a must see for any serious film buff interested in a commentary on film violence and its effects. The film will invariably stimulate discussion and/or argument amongst its viewers.
The plot is simple. A wealthy family (Susanne Lothar as mother, Ulrich Muhe as father and Stefan Clapcynski as 8 year old son) arrive at their secluded holiday home. Soon after, a young man (Frank Giering), seemingly a friend of the neighbour, arrives asking to borrow some eggs. When he is soon joined by his friend (Arno Frisch, who played Benny in Haneke's earlier film) the two attack and terrorize the family.
Frisch and Giering treat the situation as a game with rules that should be followed. Hence, after Giering wrongly shoots Clapynski who should (according to the rules) have been left alive after being counted in, not out, the two men briefly leave. Refreshingly, it is Muhe who breaks down sobbing uncontrollably after his son's death and it is his wife who comforts him, rather than the reverse as the convention of the genre so often dictates. Throughout the film Haneke revisits his theme of the audience as voyeurs by having Frisch speak directly to the camera (i.e. at us). This may disconcert some, but it is here that the film identifies itself more as an essay on the thriller/horror genre and its conventions, than as violent spectacle for the masses to lap up. Indeed, the majority of the violence is off screen further subverting expectations of audiences desensitized to accepting periodic killings in many a Hollywood thriller. Frisch asks us what he should do in certain situations. He also asks us who we bet on to survive. We're all rooting for the family he tells us. Indeed, given the conventions of the genre we should expect them to survive.
The most unexpected, unusual, audacious and possibly groundbreaking moment in the film totally evidences the fictional construction of film, here explored in a different way to say, Bande a Part (Godard, 1965). Here, Lothar manages to snatch the rifle and blow Giering away. Frisch then confiscates the rifle, pushes her aside and then screams for the location of the remote. When he locates it, he rewinds what we have just seen, bringing Giering back to life and preceding to thwart Lothar's effort. This scene may be interpreted in several ways. For the briefest of moments the audience is given what they want to see - the convention of the genre is fulfilled - before Haneke audaciously and cruelly says sorry, screw you and your expectations of the genre. That the film had effectively been thwarting audience expectation throughout, can be evidenced by the fact that when I saw the film various audience members cheered when Lothar killed Giering. Stunned silence and nervous laughter followed Frisch's action with the remote. The scene may also be interpreted as titillation (indeed it is the most explicitly violent moment in the film) which erodes the film's point about violence in film being used as gratuitous entertainment (a view I don't espouse). Finally the scene may also be read as a further point about thwarting expectations that we've all acquired by watching thrillers. Haneke's interest in subverting convention can also be seen via the relationship depicted between the two killers. Frisch often refers to Giering as "Fatty" much to the latter's annoyance. This is another means to cue audience expectation. So often, as in Scream (Craven, 1996) for instance, killers working together can become their own worst enemies, ultimately leading to their downfall. Here Giering's displeasure doesn't lead to the two turning on each other, further subverting the expectations and hopes of an audience accustomed to 'the wicked being punished.' Indeed, Haneke refuses to give the audience any simple reason for the behaviour of the killers. Unlike, the multitude of Hollywood thrillers where the killer is revealed to have a history grounded in psychological or sociological disturbance, drug abuse or poverty, Frisch and Giering's characters clearly do not fit into such simple and naïve categorisations. Indeed, throughout Funny Games both killers are referred to as Beavis, Butthead, John, Paul etc, presumably to present them as diverse and non-classifiable. Both are articulate and polite, neither is looking for their next fix and neither are poverty stricken. Rather than depicting the killers as the 'other' Haneke presents them as white, middle class, well dressed and intelligent. The only recent Hollywood film that springs to mind which draws such a complex and disturbing killer is Se7en (Fincher, 1995). Ironically, the denouement in that film dared to subvert expectations and yet (its predictability not withstanding) is considered by some critics to be a weakness.
The performances in Funny Games are excellent; Lothar and Muhe particularly stand out. Haneke has created a brilliant, audacious film which is a must see for any serious film buff interested in a commentary on film violence and its effects. The film will invariably stimulate discussion and/or argument amongst its viewers.
Two realities put into one
deus178924 February 2008
Mr Haneke seems to love observing family member characters dealing with extreme situations. On one hand we have a typical family which one could call civilized, and on the other hand two young violent sadists. The two worlds are opposed to each other, but then in reality they meet everyday in every part of the world. Their difference is the difference of classical music and black metal (both musical styles can be listened in this movie)...But yet, what is the difference of a normal humorous pretty bomber pilot with Paul and Fatty? They both guarantee a fatal sadistic without hope end. Maybe some people have these realities inside them too. Yet Mr Haneke did not present the beauty of violence as Hollywood movies would (mainstream or Tarantino), nor he directed an hymn to violence as it is clearly seen in "Clockwork orange". The "normal" watcher sympathizes the normal family. On the contrary in real life situation, maybe reading through a newspaper or watching TV, he would feel sympathy for them for 5 minutes. The power of "evil" is presented unquestionable. No hope can survive, even time rewinds and cannot beat the violent (re)actions of these young monsters. The personalities of Paul and Fatty are very interesting as in the end they express some questionable pseydophilosophies. What's their difference again with Nazis and current aggressive wars? Maybe this is a reference to Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux"... The movie can also be seen through the "shocking effect" theory. We question the strength of the family especially father’s protectiveness, but we miss the point that in reality people with normal lifes become easily victims, one can say they are conformists. The shock is less intense for a person who lives an abnormal life and is ready to protest against violence... The actors perform excellently. One must be ready for a "disturbing" movie no happy end, no cheap Hollywood violin music, no Deus ex machina, but as it was written above this is an every day incident...We cannot expect from people who are hypnotized all their lifes by "happy endings and superheroes" to credit this movie.
It may be the most disturbingly realistic horror film ever!
Nightman8521 March 2008
An absolutely merciless horror thriller from Austria, Funny Games is an unforgettable tale of nerve-wracking suspense.
A quiet family on vacation at their lake house is menaced by two mysterious yet clean-cut young men, who turn out to be some very sadistic killers.
Funny Games is anything but its title. This film is one completely intense ride that recalls some of the most brutal home-invasion horror films of the 70's. However, unlike most tales of madness and torture Funny Games is a story that's played out in such a realistic nature. If it were a true story re-enactment of a real crime, it wouldn't surprise me. In fact that would be about the only way that this unsettling shocker could have had a bigger impact. There are moments of incredible suspense in this film and such an atmosphere of overwhelming tension that it becomes almost unbearable at times. The film has some off-beat moments of cheeky dark humor with our villains, they refer to each other by cartoon character names and there's one particularly memorable twist involving a remote control that reverses the film! Michael Haneke's direction is very simplistic, there is no music score and the camera work is generally basic (one tense shot lasting nearly ten minutes). This however adds all the most to the film's chilling feeling of realism.
The strong performances of the cast add all the more to the believability. Susanne Lothar is outstanding as the terrorized housewife and mother. Arno Frisch is effectively creepy as the calm madman who torments the family. The supporting performances of Ulrich Muhe, Frank Giering, and young Stefan Clapczynski are also dynamic.
Over all, Funny Games is one stunning horror film. Not only does it have a unique feel and tons of tension - it's an absolutely unforgettable experience.
Michael Haneke remade this film for the US in 2008.
*** 1/2 out of ****
A quiet family on vacation at their lake house is menaced by two mysterious yet clean-cut young men, who turn out to be some very sadistic killers.
Funny Games is anything but its title. This film is one completely intense ride that recalls some of the most brutal home-invasion horror films of the 70's. However, unlike most tales of madness and torture Funny Games is a story that's played out in such a realistic nature. If it were a true story re-enactment of a real crime, it wouldn't surprise me. In fact that would be about the only way that this unsettling shocker could have had a bigger impact. There are moments of incredible suspense in this film and such an atmosphere of overwhelming tension that it becomes almost unbearable at times. The film has some off-beat moments of cheeky dark humor with our villains, they refer to each other by cartoon character names and there's one particularly memorable twist involving a remote control that reverses the film! Michael Haneke's direction is very simplistic, there is no music score and the camera work is generally basic (one tense shot lasting nearly ten minutes). This however adds all the most to the film's chilling feeling of realism.
The strong performances of the cast add all the more to the believability. Susanne Lothar is outstanding as the terrorized housewife and mother. Arno Frisch is effectively creepy as the calm madman who torments the family. The supporting performances of Ulrich Muhe, Frank Giering, and young Stefan Clapczynski are also dynamic.
Over all, Funny Games is one stunning horror film. Not only does it have a unique feel and tons of tension - it's an absolutely unforgettable experience.
Michael Haneke remade this film for the US in 2008.
*** 1/2 out of ****
Art house 101 for ignorant elitist nilhists who evidently are cinematically sheltered
Meven_Stoffat24 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A little over a month ago, I saw a film called "Devil". In it, a group of people are stuck in an elevator that has come to a dead stop, presumably because the presence of the devil is in with them. Throughout the movie, the people act dumb and just stand there wondering what to do, as opposed to actually doing anything, getting slaughtered one by one. They just START to act towards the end, and that's mainly when we find out who the Devil in question is.
If you're following me, you should have a similar idea of what Funny Games is like.
A family of 3 go on vacation to a nearby lake. They're a perfectly happy family, or so it seems. That is until the backstreet boys... whoops, I mean two boys visit them and they're all nice. Apparently the ma has had enough of them, and even getting the pop to remove them won't work. How do they respond? Whacking him in the leg. WITH A GOLF CLUB.
The dad COULD respond by fighting back. Instead, he just moans and groans and hugs his leg because he's so scared he's going to get killed by the evil golf club of doom. I will also point out that there are 2 bags worth of golf clubs, but the wife is dumb enough not to GRAB ONE AND USE IT AS DEFENSE.
Throughout all this pointless time of fourth wall breaking and pretentiousness, the family could be responding by fighting back, but no, all they can do is weep and moan at the evil golf club of doom. The wife is forced to strip down and the son is blasted away with a shot gun, all because they couldn't do anything to defend themselves.
Oh, but then the two creeps leave for a short period of time. Good, they can do something to defend themselves, right? Like, grab one of the kitchen knives, create a barricade,or best of all, GET IN THE CAR AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE, right? No. NO. Capital N, Capital O.
Instead they spend what seems like an hour blowdrying a phone. When they can use it, instead of saying something like "911, police!!! Two crazy teenagers are invading our home!!! Please get to (address) as soon as possible!!!", they spend what seems like an eternity shouting "HELLO???? HELLO????" into the phone. And because of it, when the two psychos come back, it's back to the game.
Oh, I will give the mom credit for manning up and grabbing the gun!!! Oh wait, she only shot one of them and because she apparently, for unknown reasons to the viewer, can't shoot the other, the other grabs a remote and rewinds it. I KID YOU NOT.
I could go on and on, but I'm just getting angry about it. I, for once, am getting tired of movies where a group of people is terrorized and they aren't smart enough to defend themselves. Apparently this was the intention of Haneke, as he usually beats his viewer over the head with the theme because we're too dumb and can only watch a simplified story. Either way, avoid this trash. The only thing more terrifying than two teenage boys terrorizing a family with a golf club is a house full of morons who aren't smart enough to defend themselves.
If you're following me, you should have a similar idea of what Funny Games is like.
A family of 3 go on vacation to a nearby lake. They're a perfectly happy family, or so it seems. That is until the backstreet boys... whoops, I mean two boys visit them and they're all nice. Apparently the ma has had enough of them, and even getting the pop to remove them won't work. How do they respond? Whacking him in the leg. WITH A GOLF CLUB.
The dad COULD respond by fighting back. Instead, he just moans and groans and hugs his leg because he's so scared he's going to get killed by the evil golf club of doom. I will also point out that there are 2 bags worth of golf clubs, but the wife is dumb enough not to GRAB ONE AND USE IT AS DEFENSE.
Throughout all this pointless time of fourth wall breaking and pretentiousness, the family could be responding by fighting back, but no, all they can do is weep and moan at the evil golf club of doom. The wife is forced to strip down and the son is blasted away with a shot gun, all because they couldn't do anything to defend themselves.
Oh, but then the two creeps leave for a short period of time. Good, they can do something to defend themselves, right? Like, grab one of the kitchen knives, create a barricade,or best of all, GET IN THE CAR AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE, right? No. NO. Capital N, Capital O.
Instead they spend what seems like an hour blowdrying a phone. When they can use it, instead of saying something like "911, police!!! Two crazy teenagers are invading our home!!! Please get to (address) as soon as possible!!!", they spend what seems like an eternity shouting "HELLO???? HELLO????" into the phone. And because of it, when the two psychos come back, it's back to the game.
Oh, I will give the mom credit for manning up and grabbing the gun!!! Oh wait, she only shot one of them and because she apparently, for unknown reasons to the viewer, can't shoot the other, the other grabs a remote and rewinds it. I KID YOU NOT.
I could go on and on, but I'm just getting angry about it. I, for once, am getting tired of movies where a group of people is terrorized and they aren't smart enough to defend themselves. Apparently this was the intention of Haneke, as he usually beats his viewer over the head with the theme because we're too dumb and can only watch a simplified story. Either way, avoid this trash. The only thing more terrifying than two teenage boys terrorizing a family with a golf club is a house full of morons who aren't smart enough to defend themselves.
An interesting experiment, but a not entirely successful one.
BA_Harrison20 February 2012
A stereotypical home-invasion horror will simultaneously entertain and anger its audience by having its helpless victims subjected to sickening acts of violence and humiliation, before delivering a satisfyingly cathartic finale in which the survivors exact a fitting revenge on their tormentors.
Director Michael Haneke is clearly not a supporter of such emotionally manipulative and patently unrealistic movie-making ploys and uses Funny Games to voice his concerns about the exploitative use of violence in cinema: he betrays those viewers who have come to expect a happy ending from such fare by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall, having his psychopaths communicate directly with the viewer (making them guilty of complicity), and eventually allowing the antagonists to alter the outcome of the film in their favour.
Haneke's use of meta cinema to try and subvert the viewer's expectations is an undeniably brave move, but I cannot help feel that it doesn't succeed as well as intended; this could be because there just isn't enough of this self-reflexivity to allow the viewer become comfortable with the concept, but if I were to be brutally honest, I reckon it's because it's simply not handled with the level of finesse required.
6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
Director Michael Haneke is clearly not a supporter of such emotionally manipulative and patently unrealistic movie-making ploys and uses Funny Games to voice his concerns about the exploitative use of violence in cinema: he betrays those viewers who have come to expect a happy ending from such fare by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall, having his psychopaths communicate directly with the viewer (making them guilty of complicity), and eventually allowing the antagonists to alter the outcome of the film in their favour.
Haneke's use of meta cinema to try and subvert the viewer's expectations is an undeniably brave move, but I cannot help feel that it doesn't succeed as well as intended; this could be because there just isn't enough of this self-reflexivity to allow the viewer become comfortable with the concept, but if I were to be brutally honest, I reckon it's because it's simply not handled with the level of finesse required.
6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
The Game is being played on you
rserrano18 August 2004
This is not so much a movie as it is about the experience of watching movies and what it says about our fears and desires. There are two basic reasons for watching a movie from the classic "home invasion" genre. One is to be entertained and the other is to somehow rid ourselves of our fears by facing them in a low risk way. In both cases it is the director who is piling the "funny games" on us, with our compliance.
Notice that the poster for this movie shows a frightening image reflected in an eye. It is as though that eye is a window into the inner psyche and that the camera is peering into our fears.
In the case of entertainment, this can only work if we are so scared out of our wits that we forget whatever else was worrying us in our everyday life and thereby see it in perspective. There are however conventions that are required for making this work. The source of the fear [ie. the bad guys] must get what's coming to them and there must be a happy ending. Notice your reaction when you get neither. The remote trick pulls back the satisfaction of revenge and the ending makes it clear that the fear not only hasn't gone away but instead must be relived again and again!
Arno Frisch [the skinny bad guy] can be viewed as the director who periodically peers at us thru the camera, smirks and reminds us that we are watching a movie, and reveals to us the funny games that he and other directors play on us at our insistence.
Notice that the poster for this movie shows a frightening image reflected in an eye. It is as though that eye is a window into the inner psyche and that the camera is peering into our fears.
In the case of entertainment, this can only work if we are so scared out of our wits that we forget whatever else was worrying us in our everyday life and thereby see it in perspective. There are however conventions that are required for making this work. The source of the fear [ie. the bad guys] must get what's coming to them and there must be a happy ending. Notice your reaction when you get neither. The remote trick pulls back the satisfaction of revenge and the ending makes it clear that the fear not only hasn't gone away but instead must be relived again and again!
Arno Frisch [the skinny bad guy] can be viewed as the director who periodically peers at us thru the camera, smirks and reminds us that we are watching a movie, and reveals to us the funny games that he and other directors play on us at our insistence.
A Masterpiece of Sadism, Alienation and Cruelty
claudio_carvalho27 December 2008
Georg (Ulrich Mühe), Anna (Susanne Lothar), their young son Georgie and their dog Rolfi travel in vacation with their sailboat to spend a couple of weeks in their lakeside cottage. When they arrive, they ask their neighbors and friends Fred (Christoph Bantzer) and Eva (Monika Zallinger) if they could help them to put the boat in the water and they note that the couple has guests and an unusual behavior. While Georg and his son are in the lake outfitting the boat, Anna is in the kitchen preparing steaks. Out of the blue, a well-educated young man wearing white gloves named Peter (Frank Giering) knocks on the door asking four eggs for Eva; he accidentally breaks the eggs and asks for another four. Sooner his arrogant partner Paul (Arno Frisch) joins him and Anna asks them to leave her house. When her husband and her son arrive from the lake, Georg is hit on his knee by Paul with a golf club and the family is imprisoned by the strangers that start to play a sick and sadistic deadly game along the night with the defenseless family.
"Funny Game" is the movie that made Michael Haneke worldwide known and certainly is ahead of time and a masterpiece of sadism, alienation and cruelty. I believe "Funny Games" in the late 90's had the same impact of "A Clockwork Orange" in the early 70's, and I recall how disturbed I was after watching this impressive movie. The sick violence of Paul and Peter is free, and the Brazilian title is perfect and even more appropriate for this movie. The performances are stunning, giving full credibility to the plot. The last time I saw this movie was on 18 December 2000, and I have just watched it again to compare with the unnecessary American version. The most amazing is that eleven years after the release, the impact of "Funny Game" is reduced, showing how the world violence increased along the last decade and how we get used to abuse and destruction. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Violência Gratuita" ("Free Violence")
"Funny Game" is the movie that made Michael Haneke worldwide known and certainly is ahead of time and a masterpiece of sadism, alienation and cruelty. I believe "Funny Games" in the late 90's had the same impact of "A Clockwork Orange" in the early 70's, and I recall how disturbed I was after watching this impressive movie. The sick violence of Paul and Peter is free, and the Brazilian title is perfect and even more appropriate for this movie. The performances are stunning, giving full credibility to the plot. The last time I saw this movie was on 18 December 2000, and I have just watched it again to compare with the unnecessary American version. The most amazing is that eleven years after the release, the impact of "Funny Game" is reduced, showing how the world violence increased along the last decade and how we get used to abuse and destruction. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Violência Gratuita" ("Free Violence")
Moderately Effective as Absurdist Drama
alpha60-211 October 1999
I found it difficult to read Funny Games as 'questioning the role of screen violence' as it had been billed but it worked quite well as an absurdist drama on sadism with its surreal and pointless torture reminiscent of the works of sadism's namesake De Sade, the element of complete control over the victims final moments being as important as the violence itself - on this level it is pure poetry, especially in the coda scene where the cyclical nature of duo's 'games' is shown. In relation to the lure and power of screen violence however, even for this particularly squeamish viewer, no depths are plumbed.
Nasty puritanical film, disguised as being Progressive
Bloomer4 October 1999
I saw this excruciatingly didactic flick at the 1998 Sydney Film Festival, and to say it made me mad is the understatement of the century! I would hardly describe it as a thriller or horror film, since these are the genres it seeks to deride; it's more a puritanical lecture than anything else.
What's going on in 'Funny Games'? Rich family goes to holiday house. Rich family is imprisoned, beaten, tortured and then some by contrived baddies devoid of any motive. These things are depicted graphically and usually in whatever is the most visceral fashion that the director feels he can get them across, with a particular emphasis on the lack of motive or happy closures, or any kind of relief for the audience. Now, toss in Postmodern self-referential stuff like having the killers wink at the camera (at US!!! OH MY GOD!!!) and talking about the audience getting enough entertainment - eg 'we'll keep beating em up cos there hasn't been a feature film's worth of violence yet' - blah blah blah, to say that we, all of the audience, are complicit in this violence, and you have a conservative faux-intellectual's fantasy.
The drawn out articulation of Funny Games' ideas is so blatant and methodological, that all I feel is this film's contempt for myself, and any other viewer who doesn't buy said ideas. And heck, probably just for the average cinemagoer who might see films to experience all kinds of feelings! It's getting up on a soapbox to attack what it would like to think of as gratuitously violent exploitation films, yet is itself an exploitation film in the worst sense. This film would have you believe that so-called 'motiveless' killings really are 100 percent motiveless. And if it's so progressive, why does it associate classical music exclusively with the family and extreme heavy metal with the bad guys? At every level, Funny Games likes to set up what it sees as high culture versus low culture in general (classical versus rock being just one instance) then says that all this low culture is junk culture and tied in with all this excessive violence that the film wants us to question in the cinema. Totally regressive!
It is probably also a film that's both hypocritical and preaching to the converted at once. As mentioned at the start, I saw this at the 1998 Sydney Film festival. Now, I know a lot of the people there wouldn't give a horror film, for instance, the time of day, believing that the genre was inherently inferior. Yet these same people were content to watch the didactic sadism of Funny Games, knowing that it's directed by an intellectual Austrian and will pat them on the back in the end and reinforce their viewpoint, which is that horror/violence in cinema is trash. I love horror films, and I think there's infinitely more humanism in feeling the fears they can elicit, in confronting your mortality, and in their sincerity and imagination, than in the one-note lecture and violence of 'Funny Games'.
I gave Funny Games my BLACK HOLE award for the film at that festival which SUCKED the most!!
What's going on in 'Funny Games'? Rich family goes to holiday house. Rich family is imprisoned, beaten, tortured and then some by contrived baddies devoid of any motive. These things are depicted graphically and usually in whatever is the most visceral fashion that the director feels he can get them across, with a particular emphasis on the lack of motive or happy closures, or any kind of relief for the audience. Now, toss in Postmodern self-referential stuff like having the killers wink at the camera (at US!!! OH MY GOD!!!) and talking about the audience getting enough entertainment - eg 'we'll keep beating em up cos there hasn't been a feature film's worth of violence yet' - blah blah blah, to say that we, all of the audience, are complicit in this violence, and you have a conservative faux-intellectual's fantasy.
The drawn out articulation of Funny Games' ideas is so blatant and methodological, that all I feel is this film's contempt for myself, and any other viewer who doesn't buy said ideas. And heck, probably just for the average cinemagoer who might see films to experience all kinds of feelings! It's getting up on a soapbox to attack what it would like to think of as gratuitously violent exploitation films, yet is itself an exploitation film in the worst sense. This film would have you believe that so-called 'motiveless' killings really are 100 percent motiveless. And if it's so progressive, why does it associate classical music exclusively with the family and extreme heavy metal with the bad guys? At every level, Funny Games likes to set up what it sees as high culture versus low culture in general (classical versus rock being just one instance) then says that all this low culture is junk culture and tied in with all this excessive violence that the film wants us to question in the cinema. Totally regressive!
It is probably also a film that's both hypocritical and preaching to the converted at once. As mentioned at the start, I saw this at the 1998 Sydney Film festival. Now, I know a lot of the people there wouldn't give a horror film, for instance, the time of day, believing that the genre was inherently inferior. Yet these same people were content to watch the didactic sadism of Funny Games, knowing that it's directed by an intellectual Austrian and will pat them on the back in the end and reinforce their viewpoint, which is that horror/violence in cinema is trash. I love horror films, and I think there's infinitely more humanism in feeling the fears they can elicit, in confronting your mortality, and in their sincerity and imagination, than in the one-note lecture and violence of 'Funny Games'.
I gave Funny Games my BLACK HOLE award for the film at that festival which SUCKED the most!!
Phony-baloney provocateur
matt-2015 June 1999
A pair of polite, bland-ish German teenagers encounter a woman, her husband and son in a remote lakeside cottage, then spend the night terrorizing them with "funny games." The set-up is identical to that of Elia Kazan's THE VISITORS, both versions of DESPERATE HOURS, and many other claustrophobic thrillers; but the feeling of the picture is that of a hundred-minute-long extended dance remix of the ear-slicing in RESERVOIR DOGS. The writer-director Michael Haneke has one ace up his sleeve: the handsomer of the two sociopaths is given asides to the camera, on the order of, "You are on their side, aren't you?"
The point of all this, apparently, is that the audience is implicated in the action, because we, as pop-culture consumers, consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment. But there's a flaw in Haneke's logic: the only time we consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment is in recondite European art films like I STAND ALONE, MAN BITES DOG, and FUNNY GAMES.
This is the kind of picture that gets bluenose types all huffy, and prone to pronouncements on the order of, "This is the most repellent movie ever made!" I'll stay off that high horse--but I will say, a few hours after seeing the picture, that there is something singularly loathsome in the hypocrisy of Haneke's coating a suspenseless piece of fictional snuff porn in the sanctimony of its being a Statement on Violence and Media. Haneke makes the victims as dull and uncharacterized as the victors; removes just about any plausible means of escape or table-turning; and subtracts any reason for us to care about the outcome, except our desire not to witness hideous suffering. What's left--an orgy of S&M-like abuse--certainly does make the audience squirm. But so what? So would a videotape of anonymous torture, or the capture and abuse of an animal. FUNNY GAMES doesn't exist on a political or philosophical level (like I STAND ALONE); its attempts at mordant humor are collegiate (unlike MAN BITES DOG); it certainly doesn't hold up a mirror to a junk-food culture (like NATURAL BORN KILLERS). It's a wallow. And you know what side the filmmakers are on when one of the sadists terrifies a little kid by slipping on a CD in a neighbor's house the kid has escaped to, and the music is that well-known favorite of middle-aged bourgeois people on vacation...John Zorn and the Naked City.
This kind of Extreme Cinema has worked much better when practiced by artists in totally disreputable sub-pulp forms--like Lucio Fulci and Ruggero Deodato, whose sometimes almost unwatchable films engage in a spiritual wrestling match between the desire to go to the limits, and the conscience that watches over the mayhem. I was shocked to discover that Haneke is nearly sixty--this picture has the sensibility of a kid turned on by the autopsy pictures at Amok Books. As he sticks bamboo under our fingernails, your mind is so unoccupied it asks other questions. Like: Why would any sane family entertain for a minute two young strangers wearing fingerprint-proof gloves in the middle of summer? And: Is the actress playing the mother this terrible because no one else would take such a degrading role?
The point of all this, apparently, is that the audience is implicated in the action, because we, as pop-culture consumers, consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment. But there's a flaw in Haneke's logic: the only time we consume torture and protracted murder as entertainment is in recondite European art films like I STAND ALONE, MAN BITES DOG, and FUNNY GAMES.
This is the kind of picture that gets bluenose types all huffy, and prone to pronouncements on the order of, "This is the most repellent movie ever made!" I'll stay off that high horse--but I will say, a few hours after seeing the picture, that there is something singularly loathsome in the hypocrisy of Haneke's coating a suspenseless piece of fictional snuff porn in the sanctimony of its being a Statement on Violence and Media. Haneke makes the victims as dull and uncharacterized as the victors; removes just about any plausible means of escape or table-turning; and subtracts any reason for us to care about the outcome, except our desire not to witness hideous suffering. What's left--an orgy of S&M-like abuse--certainly does make the audience squirm. But so what? So would a videotape of anonymous torture, or the capture and abuse of an animal. FUNNY GAMES doesn't exist on a political or philosophical level (like I STAND ALONE); its attempts at mordant humor are collegiate (unlike MAN BITES DOG); it certainly doesn't hold up a mirror to a junk-food culture (like NATURAL BORN KILLERS). It's a wallow. And you know what side the filmmakers are on when one of the sadists terrifies a little kid by slipping on a CD in a neighbor's house the kid has escaped to, and the music is that well-known favorite of middle-aged bourgeois people on vacation...John Zorn and the Naked City.
This kind of Extreme Cinema has worked much better when practiced by artists in totally disreputable sub-pulp forms--like Lucio Fulci and Ruggero Deodato, whose sometimes almost unwatchable films engage in a spiritual wrestling match between the desire to go to the limits, and the conscience that watches over the mayhem. I was shocked to discover that Haneke is nearly sixty--this picture has the sensibility of a kid turned on by the autopsy pictures at Amok Books. As he sticks bamboo under our fingernails, your mind is so unoccupied it asks other questions. Like: Why would any sane family entertain for a minute two young strangers wearing fingerprint-proof gloves in the middle of summer? And: Is the actress playing the mother this terrible because no one else would take such a degrading role?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
