The secondary screening will be Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES US (2007). Considered by some to be a brilliant treatise on violence, media, and entertainment and others as intolerable cruelty, FUNNY GAMES is shocking and cerebral. The film delves into the inherent blood lust of the cinema and reflects the spectators own perverse desires to see violence. In many ways Haneke's film has been seen as a critique of violence in American cinema, which is ironic considering this a shot for shot remake of his original FUNNY GAMES (1997). An interesting possibility for analysis might be too look at the FUNNY GAMES as a European Art Film and THE STRANGERS (Bertino, 2008) as both have similar content, yet remarkably different form. As far as remaking his own film, Haneke is in good company. Alfred Hitchcock remade himself in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934 and 1956). Evoking numerous films and stories of violence Haneke touches on everything from Tom and Jerry cartoons to the famous Leopold and Loeb case.Suggested Supplemental Screenings: ROPE (Hitchcock, 1948), COMPULSION (Fleischer, 1959), SWOON (Kalin, 1992). All based on the media sensation and murders of the Leopold and Loeb case. These films, like FUNNY GAMES, perhaps link sexual desires, especially repressed desires, to violent and destructive behavior.
I thought that funny games was a spectacular movie. It was said in class that a review said that Haneke hated us. Well honestly I wish that more directors hated me because this movie is unlike anything that I have ever seen before. I have already added this to a short list of effective horror movies. It is truly intense, AND it isn't really gory, which makes it more gory. It is our own sick minds that fill in the events that occur off screen. The only instance of gore is when the hero shoots the antagonist in the chest, but that is quickly rewinded, which was awesome.
ReplyDeleteEvery time that the villain would look into the camera, the movie would get that much more scary and bizarre. I loved how every time that there was hope, it would quickly be taken away. Every time the movie would get to the point where you would expect the good guys to win a little, they would miss their opportunity, screw it up, and be thrown into a further personal hell.
Back to the villains. Someone, although I forget who, says that villains without motives are the scariest, and that is absolutely true. They never give away why they do it, there is no grand reason, they just enjoy it.
Additionally, credit must be paid to the way Watts dies. She just dies when they pushed her off the boat. We feel almost disappointed (I wasn't, I thought it was satisfying). We want a huge climax, but there isn't one. We wan't her to defeat her captives with the knife, which was set up at the beginning, but they just take that from her and then they dump her off the side of the boat. It does have the classic ending where the same thing starts to happen all over again.
The movie seems very realistic even as it bends what movies are like. It is just really awesome.
I found Heneke's Funny Games an impressively strategic thriller that toyed with our expectations and reactions drilled into us from years of conventional Hollywood horror movies. Michael Pitt was an awesomely creepy yet smart protaonist/villain who played the director of this world perfectly. When he first breaks the 4th wall, asking "you're still cheering for them?" almost pathetically, was when I fully embraced the lack of hope or a "bruce willis" as someone said in class. They would kill the whole family and get away with it no maatter how often Heneke teased us and with whatever device. The aggressive music ontop of the classical was the first instance of parody/hilarity in the film and in retrospect after watching was perfect. I did really enjoy this satirical look at violence and saddism and found it smart, funny, and entertaining. The offscreen violence is chilling but I think more it allows the spectator an outlet to detach from these villains actions and think about what the film is actually trying to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteFunny Games
ReplyDeleteI thought that this movie was really disturbing, but really well made. The way the story developed was simple a family going to their vacation home are met by some very unexpected guests. I can understand why you recommended “The Strangers” to go along with this film because it shows the same helplessness found when psychopaths are able to terrorize you and your family. “The Strangers” used a lot of the same elements like having it take place at night when no one would be on the street and having it in a sort of deserted part of town because everyone is at their own homes and they do not interact a lot with the other people in the town besides when the family comes to visit on the boat, and there was nothing the woman could have said or done to make the situation better because he would either have killed her or dragged the other family into their killing spree and I think she knew that.
I really liked the way the director used off screen action. With little boy when they are playing cat in the bag and with the man with the game the loving wife. I liked it because this trick in cinema allows the audience to imagine for themselves what they could be doing, but not knowing makes it even harder for them to grasp the severity so we as an audience way be even more hurt because it could be a number of different things occurring off screen.
I also liked the murderers appearance. I liked that they were pretty preppy boys, because it makes the both the characters and the audience trust them when they first walk into the story. Unfortunately I saw the trailer before watching the film so I knew they were the killers from the beginning but if I had not seen that then I would have been totally surprised by what they were. Also I liked that they wore white gloves. I don’t really know why but I would think it is because they have no shame in what they are doing and so in their minds they think that there hands are clean from everything they do even these vicious and violent murders.
My favorite scene of the whole film is the wide shot that goes on forever. I mean the shot alone is beautiful especially the first time you see it. With the blood on the wall and the mother bent over it makes you want to cry for her or with her. It is so intense for the audience to experience. I like the fact that the director knows that there is no reason to show every single thing that takes place visually the sound is all he needs and he remains on the wide which shows the most intense image of all.
The only thing I didn’t like about the movie was the weird music in the car on the drive over I did not understand the point of it and I feel like everything in a movie should have a purpose, but all in all it was really well developed and well crafted.
I am not a lover of horror/thriller films. I never was one to run to movie theaters to see the latest Saw or Halloween gore-fest (I now realize that my dislike for horror films may be a problem in this class). This is probably why I loved Funny Games so much. The focus of the film is not the death and gore, it is the game. Haneke is brilliant at playing with his audience, which is why it is easy to understand why a reviewer would say that he “hates” us. I do not think it is a hate for the audience, quite the contrary he challenges his audiences to look beyond normal film conventions that have been ingrained in us since the first time we saw a Disney film. Haneke never lets his audience rest from the game. The film starts as a playful game of guess-the-song between George and Anne and it never stops.
ReplyDeleteHaneke makes a point to deprive his audience of the information they so desperately crave. Why do Pau and Peter do this? Why this neighborhood? Why this family? Why the games if all they want is to kill? The second Haneke gives anything to the audience, he rips it away from them just as quickly. Haneke is playing the same sadistic game with his audience that Paul and Peter play with their unsuspecting families.
Also, and this is a bit off topic, who invites two strange boys INTO their house? Even if you know them as the neighbor’s caddies, you don’t let them inside let alone play with your expensive golf clubs. Clearly none of those families have ever lived outside of a gated community. Just saying,
Paul is definitely my favorite character. His dry humor and winks to the audience make him the perfect narrator. My favorite aspect, however, is his inner control freak. He manages to manipulate not only these brain-damaged families (come on, these people have to have at least one friend who got robbed), but also Peter. And the second something doesn’t fall into his perfect plan, he kills someone one. Seems fair. Georgie and Anne broke the rules of the game, so someone had to die. At least Paul is consistent.
I have to give kudos to Anne for fighting back as well, but I still can’t get over the fact that she let two strange (because they are creepy) men into her house with her small child.
I love the lack of gore in this film. When Georgie finds his dead neighbors and we never actually know what happened to them, my mind literally started jumping from one possible death scenario to the next. Each scenario becoming more gruesome than the last. This is one of those horror films that I wouldn’t mind a prequel or sequel to, unlike the entire Saw series.
I guess congratulations are in order. Haneke set out to make a film that would shock audiences as well as force them to admit to their own love of violence. And he did an amazing job.
While “Funny Games” was definitely one of the most psychologically chilling film I have ever watched, I really enjoyed the deliberate crafting of this movie (as evidenced by the shot-for-shot remake) and the subsequent commentary that director Michael Haneke has to offer on American cinema. All of the clichés and taboos that have shaped most American horror/thriller movies are completely exposed and discarded. For example, a close up of a knife falling into the boat at the beginning of the movie suggests that it will at some point prove to be critical in assisting the protagonist later on in the film. However, while Ann does find this knife at the end of the movie and even begins to try and cut the bindings on her hands and feet, the two killers see her doing this and take the knife away from her. Also, it is taboo in American cinema to kill a child, but this is precisely what happens; what’s more, young George is actually the first out of the family to go (besides the dog which is a whole other taboo by itself). I also liked how when Ann is able to grab the gun and shoot one of the killers (which is what the audience has been waiting and hoping for), the other killer is able to “rewind” the scene with a remote control and prevent Ann from grabbing the gun. Finally, Ann’s death is extremely anticlimactic: after spending nearly 2 hours sympathizing with her, the two killers simply push her off the boat to drown. We don’t even get to see her drown! The deliberate abandonment of settling for clichés gave, for me at least, a much more realistic feel to a hostage situation (except of course for the rewind scene, which I think Haneke used as if to say, “I know what you want and you aren’t going to get it.”)
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that I thought really made this movie chilling was the absolute psychotic portrayal of the two killers who at one point force Ann to strip naked after covering her son’s head with a pillowcase in order to, as they say, “preserve moral decency.” But perhaps the most terrifying part of this movie was that all of the violence was off-screen. Thus, the audience is forced to rely on their fears to create their own mental images.
Funny Games to me is such a well constructed film. Opening very lightly on this opera guessing-game, WASP-y family, we are quickly thrust into the disjointed world of the film when the title card and "theme" music starts to blare. We know right from the get-go that this will be a film filled with juxtaposition and disruption of expectations. Firstly, our "bad guys" are dressed all in white, a color traditionally reserved for the pure and innocent. They are polite, charming, Aryan--the ideal WASP youth--though slightly off-kilter. And yet, they turn on this family for seemingly no reason other than a dispute over broken eggs and a slap in the face. This calls into question the "value of entertainment." What do we as the audience accept as justifiable reason for attack in our thrillers? Films like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer have somewhat of a catalyst; the victims are not really good people. Halloween, Friday the 13th and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are on the surface unmotivated, but we know they're crazy and scary looking right from the beginning, so it's okay. But there is something about these two "regular" boys that just doesn't fit. I also love how long the periods of heightened tension with no violence are drawn out. These huge swaths of time are truly more anxiety inducing than any violence every could be. One example is the scene where they force Watts to undress. Because nudity is about to be pulled into it, we assume that they will harm her sexually or rape her, when ultimately they just humiliate her. While we wait for the action to transpire though, we are on the edge of our seats.
ReplyDeleteThe last comment I'm going to make is about Haneke's defiance of the taboo of killing of animals and children. Everyone in the family dies in the film, including the dog, but the only dead bodies we actually see (aside from the temporarily shot Peter) are the dog and the two children (Georgie and Jenny, his neighbor friend). While we are led to believe the neighbor adults have been killed, we never see their bodies, nor do we see George after he has been shot. Since animal and child death in films seem to be the most emotionally provoking, I found this extremely interesting in a film where I didn't find myself emotionally connected to anyone.
Funny Games does such a great job of manipulating the audience I couldn't tell who was being tortured throughout the movie, me or the family. Granted, a man hit me in the kneecap with a golf club prior to me seeing it, but that's neither here nor there. The entire I felt so helpless, and I felt like Paul and Peter knew it. I loved how the entire film play with the horror film convention, and did things I had never seen before, that made the film even better! The movie felt so violent, and graphic, yet they didn’t show anything. This left the violence up to my imagination, which made it so much worse. Paul and Peter, the two antagonists, seemed like such different villains. They were polite, nice, and hardly intimidating. It seemed like at any moment it would be no problem for Anne and George to overpower them. They hardly had any weapons, just a simple golf club. This added to the frustration Haneke builds throughout the entire movie, where escape seems so close, only to have it snatched away. He goes so far as to let Paul and Peter leave and say their goodbyes, which gave me such a feeling of relief, yet at the same time such a strong urgency, because I knew it couldn’t be over. Then, the final straw, where Anne gets the gun and shoots Peter, Haneke completely takes you out of the film and rewinds the movie, which I thought was brilliant. I feel like all of Haneke’s nods to the audience, like Paul addressing the camera were supposed to take me out of the film, but I felt more engrossed. I felt like I was a participant in what was going on, and there was nothing I could do to save any of the characters. We knew from the beginning they were all going to die, but we, as an audience, don’t want to accept that, so we’re willing to stick with the characters the entire time. He casts Naomi Watts, who makes for a perfect femme fatale type heroine. We believe if any of these characters will survive, it will be her. But in the end she is killed rather nonchalantly, you hardly even see it. Haneke takes all our expectations as viewers and flips them around. It is, as the name of the movie implies, just a funny game. All these things made this movie so unique for me, and kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. Not what I would call a “fun” movie, but definitely engrossing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, sorry for the late post. Second, YES FUNNY GAMES.
ReplyDeleteAwesome, awesome movie. It was a pain to get through though. I was literally dying in my seat. I never, never talk back to movies. I think it's ridiculous, and this is the 1st time I've ever literally screamed at the characters to KILL HIM! because they were driving me crazy.
There are certain types of movies that take me a while to internalize and realize that "it was actually, really good". Funny Games was definitely one of these. And just to give you a framework, Mulholland Dr. falls in this category too.
I think it's funny (no pun intended) how the one of the biggest points of the movie is to "take you out of the action" with the Brechtian Outs, talking into the camera and the technical conventions they use, like the rewind. Yet I was still so immersed in the story and concerned about the well-being of the characters. That dichotomy and contrast is what made this movie so genius, I think.
The off-screen violence is great. It keeps you on your feet because you're listening to these horrible sounds and watching the killer making a sandwich incredibly chill. It's the most horrible and greatest thing ever.
I cried, laughed and sweat a little bit.
It was interesting how the supposed protagonists of FUNNY GAMES were such unrelateable (stock?) characters--the man and woman were almost perfect prototypes of a husband/father and wife/mother, to the point of being annoying to watch for their lagging reaction and persistent passivity.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where the comment "Haneke hates us" comes from, however. The film wasn't as visually unappealing as it could have been; it wasn't difficult to watch; it was actually aesthetically appealing, with a good-looking cast (can we deny it, with Michael Pitt?), nice scenery/surroundings, and pleasant colors (the complete opposite of I Stand Alone). Maybe if the protagonists are meant to represent "us," the audience, and the violence of the film is supposed to represent the possible violence which Haneke directs at us--then the comment could make sense.
The first time that I viewed Haneke’s 2007 version of “Funny Games,” I remember feeling extremely frustrated with the film – most notably I was infuriated with the “rewind” of Tubby’s death towards the end. I thought that the film was intentionally trying to get that type of reaction from me, and so the experience of watching it would become a sort of punishment. And due to its sole purpose of “punishing” me, I had then believed it was, I rejected any real merit of the film. It felt like Haneke was playing a game with me, and the general audience, for kicks – and as I write this I’m realizing all sorts of sadistic undertones if this was his intention. I’ve heard directors comment time and time again about how they really try to develop a film for the audience; that they disagree with the practice of “talking down” to the audience and, subsequently, occupying a sort of “God-like” power with the film’s world. I had felt that this was perhaps untrue of Haneke. However, this viewing allowed me to open my mind and reflect more on what Haneke is doing in the film, as well as his intention. I came out of the screening much more perceptive, and astonished, of Haneke’s technique – the limited editing, the deliberate focus on objects that define the film’s mood (such as the egg falling on the floor), the chained camera (unable to follow these characters in all their movements), the closed-in environment (a microcosm of sorts). And I was especially in awe with the presence Haneke occupied in the film – for instance, the manner in which he does not show the death of “George Jr.”. I don’t believe, now, that Haneke was out to torture the audience and achieve for some of gratification from our horror, a “mental masturbation” of sorts, but instead attempting to involve us in the film…demonstrating just how complacent we are in this situation and perhaps exposing a certain subconscious violence-lust on our behalf. At the end of the film, we can’t help but feel that we’ve, personally, been through this transcendent event – ourselves as powerless as Anne and George. We are accomplices and victims. And I feel that by the film’s end you’re supposed to have this contradictory sensation of horror and gratitude that entails you to see the world differently.
ReplyDeleteFunny Games
ReplyDeleteAnn and Georgie are able to pick up on Fred's distress when he is with Paul, but George fails to notice any of their peculiar behavior until it is way too late. On top of that he doesn't trust his wife, who probably shouldn't have to explain herself when she was so adamant about ejecting Paul and Peter. Ann noticed something strange about them, by the way that they kept stalling and buying time, by breaking the eggs, and borrowing the golf club. Ann knows they are up to something when Peter knocks the phone into the sink. George really should have trusted his wife more, and this lead me to not feel for him as much. But his lack of trust in his wife lead to his leg getting broken, and he had no chance to fight back with his leg so severely injured. I also thought the scene where Georgie climbs the gate was a little confusing and it took me a while to realize that he decided to double back and go to the neighbor's house. That was an a strange decision, I felt that myself at 10 years old would not have been so dumb. I was also wondering why the Farber's didn't have a house phone or some other phone in the house. It is supposed to be evident that they have killed the neighbors next door and will continue the cycle at the next house. I was wondering why no one heard any of the gun shots, or suspected anything of the two very peculiar men. I liked the film over all, but there were a lot of peculiar things that took me out of the story at times.
Though in many ways Funny Games exemplifies a cinema of alienation and distancing of the observer, I felt immersed in the action and in George and Anne’s world, making this film more terrifying to me than even the goriest of thrillers. The violence is more implicit than graphic, which places responsibility on the viewer to fill in the gaps and determine what is actually happening. The real-time takes, such as the long shot of Anne struggling to stand up in the living room, give the viewer a chance to concoct a plan of escape. Consequently, I have never been more frustrated while watching a film; I constantly speculated to myself why Anne wouldn’t just grab a golf club or why George wouldn’t hold a knife while home alone. I became so aggravated at the family’s seeming unwillingness to fight back that I almost could not wait for them to just die and be put out of their misery—the same misery that I felt as a helpless observer. However, Haneke cleverly does not allow us to merely sit back and wait for the end credits. We are constantly hit with curveballs that defy all of our expectations, such as the taboo move of killing the child first. One line stated when Paul and Peter are in the boat at the end of the film perfectly captures the workings of human psychology: “But of course, all these predictions are lies to avoid panic.” My screening group can attest that I was “panicking” throughout the entire film, as I sat at the edge of my seat and covered my face with my hands. My persistent (and sometimes vocal) suggestions to the characters were indeed coping mechanisms in dealing with my frustrations, and may have worked if Haneke had not so deliberately toyed with my expectations. Funny Games is like no other film I have ever seen, and I am more than impressed at Haneke’s ability to instill true fear in a not-so-distant observer.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very first 60 seconds of Haneke's "Funny Games" you can tell this isn't going to be just another horror thriller. Haneke toys with his audience in a way most directors wouldn't even think to. Even in the opening scenes he's forcing his audience to engage with the film; to ask questions; to be on edge; to anticipate what's coming next. Why IS Uncle Fred acting so strange? Who are these two 20-somethings asking-- demanding eggs? And just why the hell are they so (eerily) polite?
ReplyDeleteThings I loved: Peter and Paul, or is it Beavis and Butthead?-- No, Pete and Tubbs-- Eh, I dunno. Their chemistry was perfect. Both characters had a simliar demeanor, but very unique personalities. Michael Pitt is clearly the the brains behind the operation. His disturbing calm is what brings the chilling effect to the film. The character has an ability to make even the most polite request sound absolutely sinister. His counterpart, Brady Corbet, plays the faithful companion. However, from the moment he is introduced to the audience it is clear that he is no mere obedient henchman. His canny is on display as he "accidentally" knocks Naomi Watt's phone into a sink filled with water. He plays the simpleton all too well, leading the audience to conclude (even from the beginning) that this character is much more clever than he lets on.
Breaking the 4th plane worked for me in this film. When Michael Pitt first looks into the camera, teasing the audience about happy endings and "plausible plot development" I had to laugh. Genius on Haneke's part.
Things I couldn't stand: That stupid little boy! He had escaped! Why is he running to dead Uncle Fred's house? Just hop over the fence and keep going! Run little, Georgie, run!
Naomi Watts giving herself back to the monsters! COME ON. Really? Really?
Nobody brought the cellphone charger inside? Really? Really?
All in all I loved this film. I definitely will be recommending it to my fellow film fanatics.