Funny Games

[Damned Martian]

FUNNY GAMES (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119167)

http://www.shadowchaser.force9.co.uk/01-dvd_f-l/funny_games/funny_games_cover_01r1.jpg


This is one of the most disturbing films i've ever seen. The plot is quite simple to explain: a couple of psychos kidnap a family, and they say them one thing: "At the end of the day, you'll be dead. If you survive, you can go".

The main thing about this film is not exactly this plot. It's the way it is shooted. There are lots of violence, physical and psychollogical, but you hardly see any violence on screen. 90% of it happens out of image, you can just hear it. Or there is a elypsis in the narration. But this doesn't make it less hard to watch, because your imagination is widely enough to fill the blanks.

*STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT*

And the most disturbing, and what makes it completely different from any other movie, is that in several times, the psychos talk directly to you, the audience. And they imply you in what they're doing. And they acuse you to be the responsible of what they're doing.

This kinda reminds me the typical explanation of teh quantical reality: the cat in the box. There's a cat in a box, and this box has a mechanism with a lethal gas. There's exactly 50% of probability that the gas will be freed. There's no cameras in the box, and nothing to watch inside. How would you know if the cat is still alive or not? Opening it and seeing it by yourself. Till that moment, the cat is neither dead nor alive. It's you, the external spectator, who creates that reality.

This movie works the same: if you're disgusted, turn it off. They will be still there. It's you, the spectator who is watching their torture, who makes them suffer. If you weren't watching, if you wouldn't want to watch it, then they wouldn't be suffering.

Don't know if i've gone a bit nuts here, but i think it's an interesting point to discuss: whether or not you really have the responsability of the violence.

*YOU CAN READ AGAIN*

It's normal that while and after seeing this movie, you feel disgusted. If not, you'd really need a doctor! It's this the feeling that Michael Haneke wanted to create: the disgust about violence, that violence that is cheaply and continuously served to us as if it were normal, interesting, cool or even funny. What our society has to understand is that violence is NOT a funny game.


Anyway: Has anyone seen this film? What did you thought about it?

[Psychocandy]

I bought this on DVD a few weeks ago after having caught about ten minutes of it on TV. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but will post my opinion soon as I do. From what I saw on the TV it looked extremenly dark and disturbing.

[Deckard]

As I said in the "Foreign recommendations" thread this is one of finest thrillers I have ever seen.


Very deliberate pacing makes you anxious, the films plot is rivetting and the performances are chillingly real. The textured script provides food for thought and intelligent questions about violence and its repoccusions.


A true must see foreign delight.


PS If you dig this Micheal Haneke's THE PIANO TEACHER is also very interesting.........cant wait to see the directors latest an Apocalyptic thriller that premiered at Canne this year.

[Damned Martian]

Originally posted by Deckard
PS If you dig this Micheal Haneke's THE PIANO TEACHER is also very interesting.........cant wait to see the directors latest an Apocalyptic thriller that premiered at Canne this year. I've seen it, but although very good (7.5/10), it wasn't near as great as this one IMO. I'm also looking forward to his last film, although i've heard that it's a bit irregular, and not as complete as his other work, but interesting though.

I'd recommend you CODE INCONNU, another good film of Haneke, with Juliette Binoche. It's a more social drama, also with a deep thinkful message.

[Ren Hoek]

Yeah, damned martian, I guess you created this thread just to piss me off. ;) Methinks I'm supposed to give some valid reasons why I hate this movie, provoke a constructive and thought-provoking discussion yalla yalla blah blah.... Okay, let's give it a try (though I'm more tempted to say "FUNNY GAMES is bollocky shite", then slap a 1/10 rating on it, and leave this topic behind me)...


*****a very SPOILER-ific rant/critique*****


First of all, FUNNY GAMES is based on a somehow tired premise. Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, The Last House on the Left, Natural Born Killers, and other (superior) movies have - more or less successfully - tried to discuss the issue of domestic and/or media-provoked violence. However, contrary to FUNNY GAMES, the protagonistes in above-mentioned films have a story to tell (well, maybe not The Last House on the Left), and give us a reason why we, the audience, are supposed to hate (the killers) or keep our fingers crossed for them (the family). To be quite frank, I didn't give a rat's arse about the decadent couple, the faceless son (appropriately hidden under a sack for most of the running time), and the killers' motives are virtually non-existent. They just seem to be two spoilt kids in search for some brainless, sadistic fun.

"But they're psychos, they don't need a motivation!", you might say. Well, if the two killers were indeed psychos, I wouldn't care about the motive. But Haneke constantly tries to give hints what might have ruined these young men's minds and drove them into madness. Is it our society's desire for novel forms of entertainment (therefore the title FUNNY GAMES and the killers' obsession to kill off the family in the most playful and cruel way) which has a bad influence on them? Is their "sexual disorientation" to blame for their brutal behaviour? (the homosexual subtext is not exactly subtle) Either way, Haneke's portrayal of his two protagonists is just another proof for the ultra-conservative ethics the director tries to defend in most of his films. Or is it, once again, television and other media the director tries to accuse of being responsible for the moral downfall of our civilisation? Like in Benny's Video (in which a young teen kills his girlfriend with a bolt gun after becoming obsessed with a home video in which a pig is killed the same way), Haneke places a strong emphasis on the presence of a telly in the room, once showing it covered with blood in an unedited, 10minutes long shot (hint, hint!). He employs this stylistic device a second time when he lets one of the killers rewind the events which caused his partner's death. So what does Haneke want to imply? That TV violence isn't real but leads young, innocent minds to the belief that they can imitate the things they see on screen without any consequences? This is my conclusion, and if there's only a wee bit of truth in it, than the director's moral values are nothing but conservative, corrupt, and reactionary if you ask me.

And what's the whole deal with this talking-into-the-camera monologues? The first effect it had on me was "Oh, apparently the director wants me to identify with the killers" since it's always the smart, witty bloke who addresses us directly, and never his dim, fat buddy. The other effect was that it took me out of the movie. As I've said earlier, I couldn't care less for the characters right from the beginning, yet was somehow interested what the killers were up to. However, being constantly asked by this arrogant prick if I'm enjoying his "funny games" made me even more aware of the fact that nothing I saw on my TV screen was real but just a lousy, pseudo-intellectual flick. The audience is losing its interest? Hey, let's address them directly and thus add a new, interesting dimension to the film's generic plot! The plot reaches an interesting twist? Now let's just rewind the whole scenario because this is an art-house movie and there's no place for excitement in art-house movies! (spoken with my tongue firmly placed in cheek) The games our killers are playing become tiresome? Hey, let's simply remind the audience that they are not supposed to enjoy what they see on screen! Damn, does the director honestly think that pissing off the viewer by blaming him for an interest in the controversial elements in his work makes his movie any more interesting? The violence in FUNNY GAMES is certainly not some kind of Pulp Fiction/John Woo violence which is used in a cool, stylish way... and yes, Mr. Haneke, I think even the average Joe Shmoe understands that without your protagonist's irritating and distracting in-your-face comments. It's not like you're trying to sell your message in a very subtle way :rolleyes:


I'm off to watch telly. Hope I don't fall back into my blood-thirsty mood afterwards :p

[Damned Martian]

Originally posted by RenHoek
First of all, FUNNY GAMES is based on a somehow tired premise. Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, The Last House on the Left, Natural Born Killers, and other (superior) movies have - more or less successfully - tried to discuss the issue of domestic and/or media-provoked violence. The question that other films had talked about violence doesn't mean we don't need to still talk about it, since our society is becoming each day more violent.

However, contrary to FUNNY GAMES, the protagonistes in above-mentioned films have a story to tell (well, maybe not The Last House on the Left), and give us a reason why we, the audience, are supposed to hate (the killers) or keep our fingers crossed for them (the family). To be quite frank, I didn't give a rat's arse about the decadent couple, the faceless son (appropriately hidden under a sack for most of the running time), and the killers' motives are virtually non-existent. They just seem to be two spoilt kids in search for some brainless, sadistic fun. Well, I did feel interested by this completely average family, and more since they were such tortured. You know, people use to identify themselves with the victims (psychological remark here from a Psychology student). And the only story it needs is what it's told. What do you want? Trapped or something? Other story would have unfocused the movie from its point, making it just another typical thriller about family vs psycho.

"But they're psychos, they don't need a motivation!", you might say. Well, if the two killers were indeed psychos, I wouldn't care about the motive. But Haneke constantly tries to give hints what might have ruined these young men's minds and drove them into madness. Is it our society's desire for novel forms of entertainment (therefore the title FUNNY GAMES and the killers' obsession to kill off the family in the most playful and cruel way) which has a bad influence on them? Is their "sexual disorientation" to blame for their brutal behaviour? (the homosexual subtext is not exactly subtle) Yes, they are psychos. All the stuff you say is not oriented in that way. That's just another play with the family. They don't have any motive, and if they have, you wouldn't know it. The best proof of this is the concrete scene in which the mother asks them directly why are they doing this. The answer? The killer tells them 3 or 4 different explanations laughing of them, telling them that it would be nice for them to know why, that they would be more relaxed if they know they are just in front of two kids influenced by mass media... but they aren't. And all that stuff in which they refer to each other as Beavis-Butthead and other tv names is just to play with the family's acknowledge of them. You fear more what you don't understand, because what you don't understand you can't control or predict.
Either way, Haneke's portrayal of his two protagonists is just another proof for the ultra-conservative ethics the director tries to defend in most of his films. Or is it, once again, television and other media the director tries to accuse of being responsible for the moral downfall of our civilisation? Like in Benny's Video (in which a young teen kills his girlfriend with a bolt gun after becoming obsessed with a home video in which a pig is killed the same way), Haneke places a strong emphasis on the presence of a telly in the room, once showing it covered with blood in an unedited, 10minutes long shot (hint, hint!). He employs this stylistic device a second time when he lets one of the killers rewind the events which caused his partner's death. So what does Haneke want to imply? That TV violence isn't real but leads young, innocent minds to the belief that they can imitate the things they see on screen without any consequences? This is my conclusion, and if there's only a wee bit of truth in it, than the director's moral values are nothing but conservative, corrupt, and reactionary if you ask me. I can't understand why do you say that a person who tries to offer a message against violence, and how we see violence as free fun, is reactionary. I guess Kubrick is just another fascist bastard, isn't he?:rolleyes:
Anyway, the rewind thing is not because of what you say. It's because two things:
1) The family can't win, and less if they use violence in that process. If they use violence, he would be saying that some kind of violence is good, thus contradicting himself. And for the good of the message, the killers have to win, since he invoques us to be identify with them (later i will talk about it more).
2) The family (and the audience) has to feel really helpless, hopeless, frustrated. Not only this makes us identify more with the family, it also makes us really long the happy ending and makes us hate even more the two invincible psychos. And this is necessary for... (explanation later)

And what's the whole deal with this talking-into-the-camera monologues? The first effect it had on me was "Oh, apparently the director wants me to identify with the killers" since it's always the smart, witty bloke who addresses us directly, and never his dim, fat buddy. The other effect was that it took me out of the movie. As I've said earlier, I couldn't care less for the characters right from the beginning, yet was somehow interested what the killers were up to. However, being constantly asked by this arrogant prick if I'm enjoying his "funny games" made me even more aware of the fact that nothing I saw on my TV screen was real but just a lousy, pseudo-intellectual flick. The audience is losing its interest? Hey, let's address them directly and thus add a new, interesting dimension to the film's generic plot! The plot reaches an interesting twist? Now let's just rewind the whole scenario because this is an art-house movie and there's no place for excitement in art-house movies! (spoken with my tongue firmly placed in cheek) The games our killers are playing become tiresome? Hey, let's simply remind the audience that they are not supposed to enjoy what they see on screen! Damn, does the director honestly think that pissing off the viewer by blaming him for an interest in the controversial elements in his work makes his movie any more interesting?
The direct speech to the audience is COMPLETELY NECESSARY. Not only it makes the movie completely original (this is secondary). We have identify ourselves with the family, cause it's the natural option. But we're seeing how two guys torture them. Why? Of course, you'd say now "But i can turn off my tv anytime i want, cause this shit doesn't deserve my attention". Oh, well, do it! Who cares? ;) The reason why it's the "smart, witty bloke" who talks to us it's just because he's clearly the boss of the two. He's also the one who talks more to the family, so he's suposed to be the main character in the couple. As simple as that. The reason why this "prick" talks to us is called "cognitive disonance". I'll tell you: it happens when a contradictory information is offered to us. We feel identified with the family, but the killer insist in treating us as if we were identified with him. This makes us not only identify more with the family, but also reject every simpathy that the killer could have created (after all, he seems to be very kind and manner even being a sadistic son of a bitch), and thus every act he does. It also creates us the feeling that in some way, we could have been attracted by the violence. The same violence that we always watch and don't judge, the same violence that we find even funny (this is the correct pill to take after seeing Very Bad Things, a movie made with the only purpose of finding violence funny: THAT'S reactionary!), the same violence that look so cool with other directors. Is that theere are some kinds of good, cool, funny, innofensive violence? And here comes when everyone says "I don't need anyone to tell me that this violence is bad, because this is real and the other is clearly fake". And i could ask you if faking something makes it just less violent. But I won't. I'll ask you: what violence? Do we SEE violence in this movie? 90% of the violence happens off-shoot, and we only hear it, and imagine it. Why? Because the movie isn't made for SEEING violence, it's made for REJECTING violence. So we're prevented to be just a simple stalker of a gore film. Haneke doesn't offer us the image of the violence we have to reject, cause it would be contradictory: this isn't ACO!:p By all this artefacts (artsy? like if that was an insult!), he injects us the right amount of conscience to see violence without any dress, in its crude depth, with its real implications of pain, suffering, disgust and nonsense. This is more than a bashing of media. This is a bashing of ourselves. Or haven't we all been attracted any time by some violent act? Haven't we thought about anything violent? Well: think not only twice, but 100 times before.

The violence in FUNNY GAMES is certainly not some kind of Pulp Fiction/John Woo violence which is used in a cool, stylish way... and yes, Mr. Haneke, I think even the average Joe Shmoe understands that without your protagonist's irritating and distracting in-your-face comments. It's not like you're trying to sell your message in a very subtle way :rolleyes: Since when subtlety is necessary to make a good movie? Aren't you a lover of NBK? That's not much subtle, either...

[Damned Martian]

Oh! I forgot to say that, as a matter of fact, i didn't see anything in your review that implied such a low grade, and a 2nd position in your worst list. After all, you have just said that the movie is unoriginal and too redundant in its message, and that you weren't implied with the characters. I saw your critic like a 3/10 or so...

[chasingbanky]

I was just about to start a topic about this flick... My cousin's friend is in love wit this movie says it's his favorite, but he's russian so he has totally different taste then i, So i was wondering about some american's opinions.

[Damned Martian]

bump



I'd want to see more schmoes' opinions on this film.

[phelonious]

Michael Haneke definately has a little intellect, it comes through in spades. It's a great film, although I wouldn't place it on any of my favorite lists.

There definately is a subliminal kind of complicitiy involved with violent films. Take KILL BILL or THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Even though one would say they don't enjoy violence, how much do we anticipate the gore and the blood letting? Especially, in FUNNY GAMES where all the violence happens off screen, those moments feel really left out. Why?

SPOILERS!

I remember two great scenes: When she escapes the house and makes it to the roadway. And she sees a car approaching. She's testing her luck. Choosing. She lets the first one past because it could be the killers...

But it doesn't matter which car she chooses, she could let fifty cars go by... the two killers are in every single one of them, they are simply teasing her with hope. Funny game.

And also, the scene when they're rowing across on the lake. I read a review where the critic mentioned they were discusing Tarkovsky's solyaris. And he took this to mean that they were self-aware. They were knew they were simply imaginary characters in a film and that there was an audience out there watching and cheering them on.

[notchreturns]

Funny Games is one of the most disturbing films I've ever come across. It's also quite the brillany, nasty, tense and well-acted films of the past couple years. Definitely not for the weak of heart, or the folk who like everything nice and dandy. It's tough to watch, challenges the viewer and toys withyour every emotion...

9/10 and not to be missed if ya ask me.

The "rewind" scene was just mindblowing and insane. One of the few moments watching a film where I've just thought to myself... "what the fuck?!"

[palmer]

i went round my friends house a year or to and asked him to put the most disturbing film he had on. he put funny games on, and i think i'd agree.

i think the film is great (8/10), the way in which no music is used really makes it feel like it is never ending, and also brings up many social questions you need to ask yourself whilst watching ( one of them, why am i continuing watching this )

this flick really hit me hard and its definatly an essential watch

[Hannibal21]

FUNNY GAMES
Starring: Susanne Lothar (Anna), Ulrich Muhe (Georg), Arno Frisch (Paul), Frank Giering (Peter)
I just watched this for the first time..............and I soooo regret it. Well, not really...just sort of. Tis a great thriller, one of the better ones to come out in the 90's, with fantastic acting and a tight script to boot. The study of the two psychos in this film was just plain spine tingling and each time they spoke to the "audience", I just tremble with every possible fear you can possibly imagine. This tops my list as one of the most disturbing and chilling films..........EVER! The way it plays with the audiences' heads, the brutality of the film and the disturbing aftermaths were all just too much for me at times. Great, terrifying thriller, but not one I would like to watch again. 8.5/10