Jason KingFunny Games ($0-)
September 3rd 2008 22:47
Funny Games ($0-)
Warning: Contains spoilers, my vented rage at this film and a couple of swear words!!
Firstly, my apologies for not being online for a while - I am on annual leave from my full time job and am also house sitting the neighbors house and young puppy (who is absolutely gorgeous and has me contemplating dognapping young Troy). He is like small child and I am going to bed late, waking early and stressing about everything pup related. But I love it so much you may expect a solely "Troy" based photographic expo and article in coming days.
In 1997, writer-director Michael Haneke (CACHE) made the controversial Austrian thriller, FUNNY GAMES, about two young men who terrorize a family on vacation. A decade later, Haneke was convinced by producer Chris Coen to bring the story to America, filming a nearly word-for-word, shot-for-shot English-language version, even re-creating the locations and sets as obsessively as possible. Shortly after Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth), and Georgie (Devon Gearhart) arrive in their country home, Peter (Brady Corbet), an eerily polite young man dressed all in white, including odd white gloves, appears on the doorstep, asking Ann if he can borrow some eggs for their neighbor. Peter is joined by Paul (Michael Pitt), and the Leopold-and-Loeb-like duo are soon doing horrible things to Ann, George, and Georgie, torturing them both physically and psychologically (nearly all the violence occurs off-screen), for no apparent reason other than they can, referring to the whole thing as a game. And the biggest game of all is whether the family will be alive at the end. FUNNY GAMES is an intense experience, driven by Haneke's careful manipulation of both the film itself and the audience. He's trying to shake up the viewer, even having Paul address the audience directly several times, with Paul fully aware of what he is doing and how the audience is most likely responding. And in one unforgettable scene, Haneke pulls the cathartic rug right out from under the viewer, playing with the actual medium of cinema in an infuriating and ingenious way. Roth, Watts & Gearhart give outstanding performances as the victims, matched by Pitt and Corbet's deeply unsettling creepiness. Just as Peter and Paul (who also call themselves Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butt-Head) alternate between calm and violent, the soundtrack alternates between classical music by Handel, Mozart, and others and hardcore punk from John Zorn and Naked City.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is one of the most repulsive and despicable films ever made and the first film I nearly walked out on in close to 36yrs of film watching. Why make something this emotionally violent? I actually felt sick to my stomach a few times. I truly love Micheal Pitt and think he is a brilliant actor and one of the best of this generation but when an actor agrees to play a psychopath that can physically and emotionally torture a 10yr old child and make jokes when the same child is shot in the head with a shot gun then I am sorry - you have lost my support and become an A Class Loser. I have read that the director simply wants to make a point about violence in movies. He basically is stating that people that enjoy the violence are sick. If that's your goal then good for you - you asshole - what does it make you when you make something like this?
I believe the public likes to see the violence when it is overplayed, when it's horror schlock that you know is fictional - but this is too real and cuts to the bone. It's like The Strangers but on crack and not for show - they are just there because they find it fun to torture and kill rich people and their children like they were playing a PS3. And I am sick that the films of late glorify the killer. Of course you want to see the good guy have a moment for themselves and gain some form of revenge - this is what we like to view - the adversity faced in their trying times and how they overcome it and triumph in the face of pure evil. I don't want to view the bad guys always winning - what does that teach anyone. Sure, in real life, bad guys win - look at the WTC - but this is real life - I don't need it thrust in my face for my escapism. What's next for Haneke and Pitt - make a movie where Pitt gets to gamble with concentration camp lives while swilling top shelf red wine and laughing. It was just not a film for me.
I literally walked out as the credits started outraged at this film and as a director he has obviously succeeded in bringing out an emotional response from his art form, but I would slap this man in the face if he ever stood in front of me, is this the emotional response a director wants from a viewer?
But my emotional response aside, ignoring the plot, the production qualities are awesome, this, as you know, is a remake and brilliantly done on a frame by frame basis. Every actor in the film is sensational and I can see another academy nomination for Watts out of this one. Devon Gearhart played the part too good for me - I wanted to walk out because I did not want to see him hurt. I expect his break is about to happen and get ready folks - I think he will be around for a long time - remember the name and I said it first, this kid will go far in film. Cute, can act and draws the viewer in. Pitt's acting was psychotic, but no stretch for his acting ability, he just had to be polite the whole time while doing hideous things.
Most of the violence happens off screen but it makes no difference, it might as well have been happening to yourself.
This film was just not my cup of tea and trust me, I love serial killer fiction. One of my email addresses is still patrickbateman@... (he is the American Psycho), I also have read all of Denins Cooper's books and he is one sick twisted asshole. But for some reason this film went from great fiction to personal in a second. It was up there for me with a film like Salo, you torture a kid and you lose my support or want to watch. I do think this is something that film school kids will lap up and claim to be the best thing ever made until something else new and innovative comes out. But for me - repulsive and hated it. I tried and tried on my enraged drive home from the screening to come up with a score for this film but I was just too repulsed, how could I give even a $1- score for something in my mind I would banish from the realms of filmdom. For this reason I think this film is worth $0-. Did this effect me too much? Is there some deep, dark seated thing from my childhood that turned this into a trauma for me? Who knows, points to the director for achieving his goal.
Warning: Contains spoilers, my vented rage at this film and a couple of swear words!!
Firstly, my apologies for not being online for a while - I am on annual leave from my full time job and am also house sitting the neighbors house and young puppy (who is absolutely gorgeous and has me contemplating dognapping young Troy). He is like small child and I am going to bed late, waking early and stressing about everything pup related. But I love it so much you may expect a solely "Troy" based photographic expo and article in coming days.
In 1997, writer-director Michael Haneke (CACHE) made the controversial Austrian thriller, FUNNY GAMES, about two young men who terrorize a family on vacation. A decade later, Haneke was convinced by producer Chris Coen to bring the story to America, filming a nearly word-for-word, shot-for-shot English-language version, even re-creating the locations and sets as obsessively as possible. Shortly after Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth), and Georgie (Devon Gearhart) arrive in their country home, Peter (Brady Corbet), an eerily polite young man dressed all in white, including odd white gloves, appears on the doorstep, asking Ann if he can borrow some eggs for their neighbor. Peter is joined by Paul (Michael Pitt), and the Leopold-and-Loeb-like duo are soon doing horrible things to Ann, George, and Georgie, torturing them both physically and psychologically (nearly all the violence occurs off-screen), for no apparent reason other than they can, referring to the whole thing as a game. And the biggest game of all is whether the family will be alive at the end. FUNNY GAMES is an intense experience, driven by Haneke's careful manipulation of both the film itself and the audience. He's trying to shake up the viewer, even having Paul address the audience directly several times, with Paul fully aware of what he is doing and how the audience is most likely responding. And in one unforgettable scene, Haneke pulls the cathartic rug right out from under the viewer, playing with the actual medium of cinema in an infuriating and ingenious way. Roth, Watts & Gearhart give outstanding performances as the victims, matched by Pitt and Corbet's deeply unsettling creepiness. Just as Peter and Paul (who also call themselves Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butt-Head) alternate between calm and violent, the soundtrack alternates between classical music by Handel, Mozart, and others and hardcore punk from John Zorn and Naked City.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is one of the most repulsive and despicable films ever made and the first film I nearly walked out on in close to 36yrs of film watching. Why make something this emotionally violent? I actually felt sick to my stomach a few times. I truly love Micheal Pitt and think he is a brilliant actor and one of the best of this generation but when an actor agrees to play a psychopath that can physically and emotionally torture a 10yr old child and make jokes when the same child is shot in the head with a shot gun then I am sorry - you have lost my support and become an A Class Loser. I have read that the director simply wants to make a point about violence in movies. He basically is stating that people that enjoy the violence are sick. If that's your goal then good for you - you asshole - what does it make you when you make something like this?
I believe the public likes to see the violence when it is overplayed, when it's horror schlock that you know is fictional - but this is too real and cuts to the bone. It's like The Strangers but on crack and not for show - they are just there because they find it fun to torture and kill rich people and their children like they were playing a PS3. And I am sick that the films of late glorify the killer. Of course you want to see the good guy have a moment for themselves and gain some form of revenge - this is what we like to view - the adversity faced in their trying times and how they overcome it and triumph in the face of pure evil. I don't want to view the bad guys always winning - what does that teach anyone. Sure, in real life, bad guys win - look at the WTC - but this is real life - I don't need it thrust in my face for my escapism. What's next for Haneke and Pitt - make a movie where Pitt gets to gamble with concentration camp lives while swilling top shelf red wine and laughing. It was just not a film for me.
I literally walked out as the credits started outraged at this film and as a director he has obviously succeeded in bringing out an emotional response from his art form, but I would slap this man in the face if he ever stood in front of me, is this the emotional response a director wants from a viewer?
But my emotional response aside, ignoring the plot, the production qualities are awesome, this, as you know, is a remake and brilliantly done on a frame by frame basis. Every actor in the film is sensational and I can see another academy nomination for Watts out of this one. Devon Gearhart played the part too good for me - I wanted to walk out because I did not want to see him hurt. I expect his break is about to happen and get ready folks - I think he will be around for a long time - remember the name and I said it first, this kid will go far in film. Cute, can act and draws the viewer in. Pitt's acting was psychotic, but no stretch for his acting ability, he just had to be polite the whole time while doing hideous things.
Most of the violence happens off screen but it makes no difference, it might as well have been happening to yourself.
This film was just not my cup of tea and trust me, I love serial killer fiction. One of my email addresses is still patrickbateman@... (he is the American Psycho), I also have read all of Denins Cooper's books and he is one sick twisted asshole. But for some reason this film went from great fiction to personal in a second. It was up there for me with a film like Salo, you torture a kid and you lose my support or want to watch. I do think this is something that film school kids will lap up and claim to be the best thing ever made until something else new and innovative comes out. But for me - repulsive and hated it. I tried and tried on my enraged drive home from the screening to come up with a score for this film but I was just too repulsed, how could I give even a $1- score for something in my mind I would banish from the realms of filmdom. For this reason I think this film is worth $0-. Did this effect me too much? Is there some deep, dark seated thing from my childhood that turned this into a trauma for me? Who knows, points to the director for achieving his goal.
| 95 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I absolutely love the original Austrian made Funny Games but fail to see the point in a shot for shot remake. Sounds like he has managed to still toy with his audience and put there love of serial killer films back in their lap.
Few films have effected me so powerfully and I found the approach very original in a world with an endless stream of Hannibal Lecter fantasies. Its a movie that follows through on its dark promises and revels in twisting the audience.
I probably wont see the remake, though Michael Pitt and Tim Roth are great it seems redundant.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
For me the kid was one of pivotal things that seperated the film from traditional US killer films.
While US films shy away from children in horror films as anything more than a device we know will never be followed through on, here evil has no mercy for the young, which ofcourse is the point of unforgivable violence. ([I]You really should have put a spoiler warning in the review when you revealed the childs fate because it is met with disbelief initially because of how audiences have been conditioned)
The thing I hate the most is when the kid saves the day or takes on the adults and wins. This film clearly shows the tacky manipulation that having a child in the equation brings to regular screenplays as a device for suspense and empathy...
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
your review reminds me a little of my own review of the original when I saw that and reviewed it for Revolver magazine ten years ago.
I reviewed the remake Your text goes hereif you're at all intrigued.
The curious thing is after ten years, watching the - as you said virtually shot-for-shot - remake I've "warmed" for want of a better word to Haneke's deeply manipulative statement.
What becomes apparent from your review (and my own opinion of ten years ago) is you've kind of missed the point. Sure, it's a very arrogant point of view, but the point of it is to get the reaction that you've displayed. He wants anger and dispair, because it is anger and dispair he has felt with the portrayal of violence and violation in, particularly, American exploitation-styled movies.
He was disappointed that not many Americans saw his original German language version, so he remade it specifically for American audiences (even with Watts and Roth doing American accents), but ironically, and this is very ironic, it didn't do well at the American box office. They missed the point.
Part of the reason you probably reacted the way you did, was also due to the very high production values and the acting.
Personally if a movie can have that kind of pronounced effect on an audience I have to take my hat off to the filmmaker. Movies are meant to be escapism, sure, but they are also a reflection. What makes horror movies - and Funny Games is most definitely a horror movie - so important (and this is something which I think is partially lost in the current climate of over-saturation of modern horror movie releases) is that they should be designed to take an audience outside of their comfort zone. They should be able to create a truly palpable experience in fear and/or revulsion in order to purge one's one inner demons/fears/horrors ...
I must say, I found it peturbing that you used American Psycho as an example of loving serial killer fiction. Have you ever read the novel??! I can't understand you being so vitriolic about this movie and yet champion American Psycho (admittedly the movie adaptation quashed the graphic misanthropy in favour of heightening the descent into insanity).
Without wanting to offend your sensibilities, but your review of Funny Games, in its own way, highlights more about your own moral boundaries than it does at trying to understand the true significance of the horror movie genre.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Thanks for your comment and the link.
I don't think I have missed the point though - I clearly give kudos to him for achieving his goal - I just hated what he did. Yes he got his reaction and he did it well but it doesn't change my point of view on the film - it was unnecessary. He got his reaction to the point I probably won't watch his films again, great art house work but won't get many viewings. Where as you have spent a lot of time writing reviews and great ones at that, I have spent my life growing up working in cinemas and I see all films from a "bums on seats" perspective and by what I like and how a film makes me react. It may be about my boundaries - but that's the joy of this being my review - it is about my point of view at this point of my life - I absolutely loathed what this film is about and this is my way of saying it. I am not hear to analyze the horror genre, I am here to write down the reactions I have to films. Overly, I don't care about the significance of horror genres, I care about expressing my views on the film I have viewed.
I think what the film does it does great - it is just not for me. I saw what he was doing by making the film - I just don't care. People aren't entering a film to get a point - they want entertainment - this is not entertainment, it's sick - but like I said, this is my opinion at this point of my life, if, in ten years I view it again, I might appreciate it for more than how it made me feel. But at this point I can't.
I have read American Psycho - about 15yrs ago and at the time, that was how I felt about that and it's stayed with me - I will read it again now as I am curious as to how I would feel about this now.
I appreciate the your comments and glad to receive them.
Thanks
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
there is of course an ongoing universal argument over cinema as "art vs. entertainment" ... and that angle will be forever discussed by the artistes and the financiers among us ...
I'm not criticising your opinion, apologies if you perceived it as such. Obviously each person's blog is a direct outlet for their own opinion, and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
So you feel you did get the point, just hated it. Fair enough. I'm assuming you never saw the original. Do you think your opinion would've been the same as it is now?
What I do love about movies is the concept that one person's art is another person's trash. One kind of audience will find a certain type of movie utterly unnecessary (for me that's the Adam Sandler comedy LOL), while another, like yourself, will find the dark-as-coal/evil wins horror movie unnecessary.
I actually appreciated - the twisted person that I am - a level of black humour, albeit pitch-black, within Funny Games this time round. I viewed it as a savage satire.
I haven't seen The Strangers yet, but I see you gave it $14 ... surely there must be strong comparisons that can be made between these two movies. I haven't read your Strangers review (I plan to see it in the next few days, if it's still running), but I would assume then that it has an upbeat ending, and is by no means as inherently malicious or bitter as Funny Games ... That was a rhetorical statement, so please don't give away the ending!
The more I think about it I don't think Haneke necessarily achieved his goal, he only confused the issue further. I'm not a fan of his work myself, but curiously I found myself more "entertained" by his second version of Funny Games than any of his previous films.
Go figure.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Did not take as a criticism or, if did, more in a debate kind of way.
I never did see the original and cannot say how I would feel about it. Knowing me, if I saw it back then I probably would have loved it, but now, I just can't.
In regards to Strangers - very similar and the major difference in the film I suppose was that there is no abused child. It is also a much more commercial film that does have the jump out of your seat scariness that I enjoy - nothing has made me jump out of my seat for ages.
I am glad you enjoyed it and that is what is enjoyable about doing this writing - everyone has a different opinion - hey - my favorite film is Titanic and I get bagged for it all the time. LOL
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Titanic, huh?
[long pause]
The Descent?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am not a fan of the black soulless tragic endings in films.
Most people go to see a film to ride the emotional roller coaster and for a while exchange their own problems for the ones on the screen. Pointless cruelty often sends the viewer out with more mental burdens than they came with. The real world is tragic enough.
So I don't think I will be going to see this.
Comment by David L
Funny Games, is a movie designed to expand your perception of the film going experience, and showcase the ongoing hypocrisy exhibited by the general public when selecting films to view.
Audiences these days shell out money to go and "enjoy" films such as Hostel, Saw, the Strangers, movies with sadistic violence in general. What Haneke is trying to point out here is that people do not realize what it is they are going to see/ "enjoy".
To show these events as they realistically would happen; to go to such lengths; to PUT YOU THROUGH the experience to such an extent is to make you realize that you should not view these things as entertainment, because not only do they give people false perceptions about violence, they present such storytelling devices as games. Hence the title is ironic, 'funny games'.
In reality the violence that we enjoy would not be sugar coated, or as Haneke would exclaim Fun and Games.
The film clearly shows this through the constant breaking of the fourth wall, specifically the scene in which pitt questions the audience directly why they are not rooting for the family to die...that is infact what you paid for isn't it?
You (general public) saw the trailer, you saw the actors in the list, you went in and knew it was about a family being subjected to awful things. But you still went, and why? because its a movie, and movies are supposed to entertain right?
Funny games, in essense, is arguably an entertaining film.
What do you define as entertaining. Why do we go to the cinema in the first place? To experience emotions and the go to places that we could not (or in this case, would not) want to go.
Funny games makes us FEEL IT completely, through its intiricate structure. It's shot design is near perfect for its intent (argue this). But more on the shot for shot thing in a moment. This film takes that in it's stride but simultaneously flips it on its head, it's entertaining in the worst kind of way, the point is that no matter how much you do not want to be there, it is a narrative and it uses the conventions of a hollywood film to keep you there.
It's not real. we now it's not real. but we get the feeling that this kind of thing occurs...and that is what frightens us, this could happen to any of us, and why? well the fact that we never find out ;makes it more clear to the viewer the point of the film.
We paid to see people get tortured, that is all we are getting. but we are not getting the fun and games, we are getting reality. The excrutiating long shots, the lack of breathing space, the confinement, the pain and suffering its all there.
Sorry to blab on and on, but this film really opened my perceptions of the film experience. I have seen the original since, and do believe that the american film is far more powerful and relevent.
Haneke has stated numerous times that his original intent was to film in america, but could not get a budget because of the subject matter. The film itself is meant to be a commentary on american movies portrayal of violence. The original included, and both serve this purpose ; and this alsos work with foreign horror (which is more hard like this film- well in comparison to what sells in the states), but it is primarily in the states that the Horror is misunderstood.
Its INCREADIBLY more relevent today, since the advent of torture porn. Hostel and the saw franchise earn enormous amounts of cash, and people love those films. They love to be entertained by fake violence, but they don't realize how real these acts are, because they are in movies it means it's not real.
It's no wonder you felt like walking out. In my session people were crying and walking out left right and center. I saw this in the state theater and it was filled to the rafters, and beyond the above a pin drop could be heard.
But on to why i was truly compelled to write in:
A zero is ridiculous Jason. complete and utter ludicrous.
You have not given any score for any technical aspects. The film was shot so well originally, it only needed a language change. Thats why it hits so hard. shots and angles used (it's not completely identical though). It's incredibly well directed.
And Tim Roth and naomi watts were so incredible that at least 1 dollar should be awarded. The film rests apon the performances, and these are standouts.
I just think it's a little unfair is all.
I just read over my little (massive) speal. and I just want to re iterate, that this is not an attack on you...I'm still reading and writing on here right? Love the site and all. I just had such a huge reaction to this picture that i NEEDED to tell you.
It's the film you like only as you have leave the theater.
Haneke had this great quote that sums up everything neatly:
"If you were one of those that walked out of the film, than obviously this film is not for you" (paraphrased).
Have a week Jason.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Yes, have seen the Orphanage - loved it and bought a copy - they lent the mask from Orphanage to The Strangers. And I own a copy of The Descent - liked it lots but the similarly named minimally similar book by Jeff Long is like 2000000000000000000 times better. It's the modern day Journey to the Centre of the Earth and he followed it up with another brilliant book aptly named The Ascent.
Morgan McAvoy Murphy Pitt Jnr the 3rd - I hate you!! Hahahahahahaha. And you will no doubt write for once in your life an extremely positive review of it to boot.
Damo - yay you - glad someone agrees with me. Lol.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I do appreciate your comment though and it would be a boring world if we all agreed.
Rotten Tomatoes gives this film 50% on the tomatometer and this is appropriate. You will either love it or hate it. And I definitely HATE IT. I will not award one dollar to this film because I think all prints should be burnt.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I loathed 300 for similar reasons.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by David L
By the way Jason, you should check out the trailer for Zack and Miri make a porno. I think that is a film that deserves a write up on your main page.
Have a week.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Damo - weird - I loved 300 but everyone has things they hate for their reasons.
Tracy - good luck - hope u like it!
David - there is no better forum, that's one of the reasons I am here but the main reason is to express my thoughts on film so I can get them out of my head, when you get to watch close to 10000 films you don't want your thoughts stuck in your head forever, I just don't have the room. People can agree or disagree, I support this and think things would be boring if we all agreed. My tastes in film are extremely unique. I will watch Zack & Miri trailer. One question though - what does "Have a Week" mean - that's twice you have written it now.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by David L
I just think its a more interesting sign off than what other people use. And saying have a day doesn't have the same ring to it.*
Btw have you read the reviews for the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, you might have a heart attack, I nearly did.
Heres the link if you haven't..
Really Long Link
I was absolutely horrified reading that. I know you love Harry Potter like I do, so I thought you might want to read them.
Have a day.
*yeah It really doesn't.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by David L
It's interesting to read these considering the recent push back of the release. For reshoots it seems.
The trailer was great.
I hope for the best as well.
Anyway it's still early days...
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
I am also in the same camp as johndoe and bryn - I thought that 'Hidden' was definitely his best film, as for Funny Games, John Doe originally leant it to me and I went in having absolutely no knowledge of the film and was taken right to my breaking point. I have no desire though to see it again - ironically enough I own it for some reason even though i'll probably never be able to make myself sit through it a second time
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Thanks Shaun!