Funny Games (2007)
June 23rd 2008 02:30
German writer/director Michael Haneke made the original Funny Games eleven years ago. I saw it in 1998, didn’t like it at all and gave it a scathing review in Sydney street-press magazine Revolver (now called The Brag), spouting vitriolic statements such as “Haneke thinks he’s being very clever with his so-called art critique on the state of violence and bourgeois manners, but in reality all he’s created is a thoroughly intolerant and inexplicable film that fails to deliver whatever message he’s hidden under all the smugness and arrogance.” In the same review I described Haneke as a “self-styled executioner of convention” and I questioned why audiences should have to endure naturalistic and protracted ugliness so that we can question the attitude of cinema violence as entertainment.
Naomi Watts as Ann
Tim Roth as George
Michael Pitt as Paul
Brady Corbet as Peter
A terrified Georgie (Devon Gearhart) is approached by Paul
I failed to let my wife and her girlfriend know about the nature of the movie and they came out of the screening a little shell-shocked, but impressed (was I wrong to do that?) As the lights came up in the auditorium another older woman in the audience shouted out words to the effect of “That film was sick, no wonder we have so much violence in our society! The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves!” Hmmm, was I that person ten years ago? I don’t think so. I understood Haneke’s reasoning, but didn’t appreciate his vision. This time his cinematic sensibilities didn’t grate on me. I’m glad he remade the movie, because it forced me to re-evaluate my initial criticism.
Paul and Peter discuss movies, fiction and black holes
Here's the oddly "sensational" trailer:
And for comparison, here's the trailer to the original 1997 version:
| 89 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
It's funny how time can change our perspective so much. I was thinking only this morning about the strangely extensive list of things I once hated, only to discover, quite shockingly, that I actually loved them. I'm not sure if you are aware of my love of Sex and the City, but that started out as loathing. Likewise my love of Michael Buble, two-minute noodles and Stanley Kubrick.
Which leads me to say, does that picture of Michael Pitt remind you of Malcolm McDowell?
Michaelie
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Michaelie, yes, it's an interesting one; as you mature your attitude changes and thus some things you really enjoyed ten years earlier you find yourself with less tolerance now, and vice versa, some things you couldn't stand you find yourself endeared to. Speaking of Michael Buble, I have a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction story that happened to me Friday night: I was DJing at Opera Bar and Michael Buble was there drinking with some friends (but not his gf Emily Blunt). when he was outside having a cigarette I approached him and said "Hi Michael, I'm not acually familiar with your music, but I think your girlfriend rocks!" He laughed. "Is she travelling with you?" I asked. "No, she's working on The Wolf Man at the moment", he replied, "The Benicio Del Toro flick?" I said breathlessly. "Yeah". "Wow, I love horror movies too, I didn't know she was co-starring in that!" then he pulled out his mobile, promptly called her and said to her "Hi monkey, I've got this good-looking guy with me who's just told me he doesn't really know my music, but that my girlfriend rocks! Here I'll hand you over to him." and he hands me his mobile and I'm chatting with Emily Blunt, who I have a school boy crush on!!! The first thing I said something like "If I wasn't married and you weren't dating Michael Buble I'd be getting your phone number!" and she laughed and said something like "Yes, I think we should run off together and elope!" Totally surreal few minutes ... It still feels like a dream.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I saw him in concert the other week, he's very good and very funny. And I very much like Emily blunt too, apart from being insanely jealous of her. Amidst the total shit of The Devil Wears Prada, it was only her and Meryl Streep who did anything worth watching.
That pic really reminded me of A Clockwork Orange, and this:
Good work on all fronts, Bryn.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
PS The Emily Blunt story is fantatsic, I know how much you think of her!!
PPS Fantastic review, Bryn.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
You know how much I love the original and by the sounds of thing this one delivers the same punch, albeit with an english soundtrack.
I can't imagine liking thsi more than teh original, but I will give it a chance now that I've recovered from your aversion to the source.
I'm not normally a Naomi Watts fan but I will enjoy seeing her put through unbearable torment. Yep I'm the type of sadistic voyuer this remake is aimed at...but you already knew that.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
However the film looks like a clone of itself.
Comment by Anonymous
K~
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
the German guy does look scarier, I must admit, although there is something very creepy about the boyish looks of the two in the American remake, which yes, is a clone, but a very well made one. I'm sure the argument about why did the director bother (he wanted Americans to see what he had to say, and so had to make it in English) will come to the fore.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by ozzywood
This is bizarre. I have changed since I saw the original - but in the opposite direction.
Thank you for a great review, because it set me thinking about my views on cinema back then and now!
I LOVED the original and thought it was one of the most intelligent and though-provoking movies I'd ever seen.
Today - without having seen the remake - my thinking about movies is very different.
When you want to make a philosophical statement, you respect the format you do this in. THE SIMPSONS has always done this perfectly.
It goes against reason to do this in the format of a mass medium such as film but in a language different from the viewers of the medium. Essentially that is what the story of FUNNY GAMES does: it directs itself to a cinema audience, but tells the audience they're idiots. Not a good way to get a point across.
All storytelling has its own emotional logic and deliberately frustrating audiences has something arrogant and perverted in my view.
In all cultures, stories fulfill an emotional and psychological need. Filmmakers who deny an audience this by turning what is inherently an EMOTIONAL format (film) into an INTELLECTUAL one, should be doing something else. Write books, give lectures, go in politics.
When I watched the original, I didn't realise the film was preaching to the converted, because I was a convert.
I'm afraid the remake does the same, why in my view it defeats the purpose.
Karel
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Curiously at the end of my review for the original version I said that Haneke should be writing books, not making movies. I really felt he was intellectualising "horror" cinema beyond the pale ... I'm still rather curious about why I'm so more tolerant of what is essentially exactly the same film and attitude. Your point about an inherently emotional format being turned on its head into an intellectual one is right on the money.
Cheers for the comments!