Funny Games

[jmt225]

A while back, either Jake or Sam created a thread in the Bar Room about the movie Funny Games. So, knowing they had some good taste in film, I decided to go to Youtube and check out the trailer. And what I saw was one of the most well put together trailers I've ever seen, so I went ahead bought the DVD. I'm going to post the trailer below, and just so you know... there are countless SPOILERS in this post after the trailer. So, if you haven't seen the film, you have been forewarned.

[youtube]Ec-70W_K77U[/youtube]

Now on to my thoughts about the film.

I honestly don't think I've ever been more infuriated with a movie in my entire life. This film pissed me off so badly... I just can't put it into words.

The "breaking the 4th Wall" and Rewind scene were so fucking unnecessary and ruined the entire movie for me. And please don't start this "I don't get it" crap, because trust me... I get it. The movie's message is to mock the viewer for actually enjoying the darkness of the film. It's basically to make you feel like crap for liking horror movies. And to me, that’s complete bullshit.

The thing that pisses me off the most though is that this film could've easily been one of the best horror movies I’ve ever seen if the hack director didn't want to be so "artsy". Seriously, take out the "breaking the 4th Wall" crap and the rewind scene, SHOW the violence and Naomi Watts nude, and keep the "Bad Guys win" ending, and you have a fantastic, fun fucking movie.

But instead, the movie ended up being crap. And it's such a shame, too, because I feel the actors WONDERFUL performances in this film were wasted by the lame ass fucking message. Seriously... I would honestly claim that Michael Pitt's performance in this film was better then Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight; I would really believe that if the movie was actually a movie, instead of a two hour message about the horror genre.

Also, Naomi Watts couldn't have put on a better performance, either. She was unbelievable in this. And it all gets completely fucking wasted.

The first time I watched it, I thought maybe we were just in Paul's head and that this was a film about some kind of metal illness, but after watching it a second time, there's no doubt that the only purpose the writer/director had was to make people feel guilty for liking horror movies, and to piss you off for either enjoying/rooting for the bad guys, or getting your hope's up for Watts to somehow make it out alive, just to take it away from you. What a fucking pretentious jackoff he is for that, honest to God.

For those of you who've seen it, how do you feel about that so called "message" the director was trying to shove down our throats? Did you actually dig the way the Paul character “broke the 4th Wall” and all that other stuff, or do you agree with me?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

For those of you who've seen it, how do you feel about that so called "message" the director was trying to shove down our throats? Did you actually dig the way the Paul character “broke the 4th Wall” and all that other stuff, or do you agree with me?

What reasons do you have for thinking that Michaels Haneke's intention was to make fans of horror films feel guilty? The reason I ask this is because, if you see his other films (e.g., Cache and The Piano Teacher), then you will no doubt come to realize that he appeals to the baser interests of his audience in a manner that is in no way condescending.

Personally, what I thought Haneke attacked in this film (and his original Funny Games, of which the film in question is a virtual shot-for-shot remake of) was the poetic justice that mass audiences expect in the films that they watch. More than anything else (especially in America), films/movies serve as a form of escapist entertainment wherein the concept of poetic justice (or karma in its everyday meaning), for lack of better words, runs rampant. The most popular films today tend to be those in which there is a clear distinction between right and wrong and in which the protagonist always does right and prospers while those who antagonize him/her always do wrong and founder. Furthermore, even in those films which may not conform to this simple paradigm, it is almost always the case that: a) the protagonist is an anti-hero, in that, despite his/her actions, he/she is still portrayed in some manner so as to make the audience sympathize with him/her; or b) the protagonist, despite wrongdoing, is so much less reprehensible than his/her antagonists that it makes him/her seem salvageable even if this ultimately may not be the case.

However, with Funny Games, Haneke pretty much gives this paradigm and its variants the middle finger; the film depicts the harassment and torture of a family by a couple of boys who are undeniable psychopaths. Furthermore, we, as an audience, are given no reason as to why this family is being treated the way they are, save for the possibility that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And, to make matters even worse, Haneke makes it (through his own intervention as the director) so that there can be no sense of what we would call justice (i.e., the tormentors being arrested or killed and the family being able to go on with their lives as normal).

Ultimately, this is the message I got from the film.

 

[Silence]

Agreed, jmt. Te movie was just so aggrevating. I was psyched abot the movie and had full belief that Naomi Watts could put on a great peformance, which she did, but overall the movie was terrible.

I found so many of the scenes to be useless, and many others to be plain stupid. I praise their attempt at something different, but in the end it was not good.

 

[Khalifa]

i must agree. i read the back of the dvd and it looked pretty good. i was like ok i am in for a good one but then i saw it and i was like wtf. to me this had potential to be a great film but as i msut agree so many useless scenes

 

[Silence]

Useless is an understatement about many of those scenes. Not only that, but some scenes were way too long. Honestly, how long did we have to watch them ride in the boat before pushing Naomi? Really?

 

[jmt225]

What reasons do you have for thinking that Michaels Haneke's intention was to make fans of horror films feel guilty? The reason I ask this is because, if you see his other films (e.g., Cache and The Piano Teacher), then you will no doubt come to realize that he appeals to the baser interests of his audience in a manner that is in no way condescending.

I actually haven't seen any of Michaels Haneke's other work. And unless you can convince me other wise by getting this bitter taste out of my mouth for what he did with this film, AND what makes his other pictures worth seeing, then I most likely won't ever go out of my way to see any of his other directorial efforts.

Now on to your question... after I watch a movie that gets any kind of emotion out of me, I like to read up on it and also read other people's opinions on it (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB messageboards, ect.), and there are a lot of people with the same opinion as mine. And the way I came to that opinion was first seeing how Paul (Michael Pitt) addressed the audience the second time (the first was when he looked into the camera while Naomi Watts was looking for the dog, as I’m sure you already know), and the other was obviously the rewind scene.

See, I just got the feeling that he was using Paul to toy with us; that it was all just one big joke and we, the audience, were stupid for paying our money to watch this and that we are terrible people for enjoying such a product. And what really set me off, was when I was looking for information on the movie, I came across something where Michaels Haneke was, basically, I felt, criticizing American people for enjoying films like this and how it was so important to get this film made in America because the "message" is more suitable for people like us. And that just rubs me the wrong fucking way. Because, okay.. first of all, our most violent/sexual movies do better in Europe then they do in the States. That is a fact. And then second of all, to me that comes off as so condescending and 'holier than thou' that it touches a nerve, because as I said my first post... this movie had so much potential to be a masterpiece. But instead, I just felt like I wasted my money. And reading comments like that from the director, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Personally, what I thought Haneke attacked in this film (and his original Funny Games, of which the film in question is a virtual shot-for-shot remake of) was the poetic justice that mass audiences expect in the films that they watch. More than anything else (especially in America), films/movies serve as a form of escapist entertainment wherein the concept of poetic justice (or karma in its everyday meaning), for lack of better words, runs rampant. The most popular films today tend to be those in which there is a clear distinction between right and wrong and in which the protagonist always does right and prospers while those who antagonize him/her always do wrong and founder. Furthermore, even in those films which may not conform to this simple paradigm, it is almost always the case that: a) the protagonist is an anti-hero, in that, despite his/her actions, he/she is still portrayed in some manner so as to make the audience sympathize with him/her; or b) the protagonist, despite wrongdoing, is so much less reprehensible than his/her antagonists that it makes him/her seem salvageable even if this ultimately may not be the case.

However, with Funny Games, Haneke pretty much gives this paradigm and its variants the middle finger; the film depicts the harassment and torture of a family by a couple of boys who are undeniable psychopaths. Furthermore, we, as an audience, are given no reason as to why this family is being treated the way they are, save for the possibility that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And, to make matters even worse, Haneke makes it (through his own intervention as the director) so that there can be no sense of what we would call justice (i.e., the tormentors being arrested or killed and the family being able to go on with their lives as normal).

Ultimately, this is the message I got from the film.

What you're saying makes sense, but I still feel that all that could've been done without the Rewind scene and the breaking the 4th wall crap, AND while also showing the violence and the nudity. But since it was done with those scenes and without the violence and what not, I have the feeling I have about the movie.

Personally, and I don't feel bad for it... I was rooting for the bad guys. Those were a couple of funny motherfuckers. And quite frankly, Tim Roth was a pussy, and Naomi Watts was a bit of a bitch. The kid was the only one with any balls, and I would've felt bad he died at first, but then I would remember that it makes the pussy and the bitch sad, so that in turn makes me happy.

In real life, it would be a completely different story of course, but the in world of cinema, I just want to be entertained. It's there's a message to go with it, fine, but at least entertain me. And what kills me is that Haneke obviously has a knack for funny/sick/entertaining dialogue, and he was blessed to work with some wonderful actors, and just threw it all away for what I felt was a shitty message.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I actually haven't seen any of Michaels Haneke's other work. And unless you can convince me other wise by getting this bitter taste out of my mouth for what he did with this film, AND what makes his other pictures worth seeing, then I most likely won't ever go out of my way to see any of his other directorial efforts.

Now on to your question... after I watch a movie that gets any kind of emotion out of me, I like to read up on it and also read other people's opinions on it (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB messageboards, ect.), and there are a lot of people with the same opinion as mine. And the way I came to that opinion was first seeing how Paul (Michael Pitt) addressed the audience the second time (the first was when he looked into the camera while Naomi Watts was looking for the dog, as I’m sure you already know), and the other was obviously the rewind scene.

See, I just got the feeling that he was using Paul to toy with us; that it was all just one big joke and we, the audience, were stupid for paying our money to watch this and that we are terrible people for enjoying such a product. And what really set me off, was when I was looking for information on the movie, I came across something where Michaels Haneke was, basically, I felt, criticizing American people for enjoying films like this and how it was so important to get this film made in America because the "message" is more suitable for people like us. And that just rubs me the wrong fucking way. Because, okay.. first of all, our most violent/sexual movies do better in Europe then they do in the States. That is a fact. And then second of all, to me that comes off as so condescending and 'holier than thou' that it touches a nerve, because as I said my first post... this movie had so much potential to be a masterpiece. But instead, I just felt like I wasted my money. And reading comments like that from the director, it just doesn't sit well with me.

You make good points about this film that many people do share, as you say. As you no doubt have been able to tell from reading about him, Haneke is an extremely polarizing filmmaker.

I am not going to wax on about how great he is and, as people on IMDB are wont to do, tell you to stick to your "popcorn and eye candy" movies (your favorite author is Bret Easton Ellis, and he is my favorite author as well...that tells me right off the bat that you have great literary and artistic taste). Doing this would just be down right pretentious, because you came away from the film and interpreted the film in a way that is no less consistent with the film than the interpretation I gave.

However, I really hope this doesn't make you shy away from Haneke's other films. I can understand being a little bit peeved by what he said regarding American films, but it is important to remember that these comments were directed at the film industry and not at American itself (and, I personally think he makes a very valid point in describing American cinema as "barrel-down").

If you have netflix, I would recommend seeing The Piano Teacher, and going from there if you are not turned off by it...it is based off of a book by Elfriede Jelinek (a Nobel laureate) and is very similar, in my opinion, to Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie in its thematic content. While I would warn you that it is not for the squeamish, knowing you like Bret Easton Ellis makes this a point that isn't really relevant.

What you're saying makes sense, but I still feel that all that could've been done without the Rewind scene and the breaking the 4th wall crap, AND while also showing the violence and the nudity. But since it was done with those scenes and without the violence and what not, I have the feeling I have about the movie.

Personally, and I don't feel bad for it... I was rooting for the bad guys. Those were a couple of funny motherfuckers. And quite frankly, Tim Roth was a pussy, and Naomi Watts was a bit of a bitch. The kid was the only one with any balls, and I would've felt bad he died at first, but then I would remember that it makes the pussy and the bitch sad, so that in turn makes me happy.

In real life, it would be a completely different story of course, but the in world of cinema, I just want to be entertained. It's there's a message to go with it, fine, but at least entertain me. And what kills me is that Haneke obviously has a knack for funny/sick/entertaining dialogue, and he was blessed to work with some wonderful actors, and just threw it all away for what I felt was a shitty message.

As I said above, all very valid points that are consistent with the film.