Funny Games-violence and the media

[silentasylum]

I just saw this movie (the foreign version) and I was confused by it. I guess, the filmmaker is saying something about violence in media, but I don't know if I agree with the point he is trying to make. he is commenting on the violence in films, but it's as if he is saying that if we took out violence from films it would end all violence. I don't think that's true. when I'm stressed a good horror movie seems to help.

***MINOR SPOILER***

he was also commenting on how only in real life do people escape and become heroes, this is the explanation for the remote control scene. the killer is able to go back and fix it in the film, which is being portrayed as real life, but asking you not to take it as if it's real life, got that?

do you think the film is right about people overcoming the odds? can anyone think of a time when someone has overcome the odds to become a hero? or does that shit only happen in movies?

also, think of how boring movies would be minus the horror and action/adventure movies.

It does show something I have never seen before so it did engage me even during those long intense moments after the killers had left. However, for a movie that pokes fun at Hollywood conventions it's funny how it overlooked the 'killers popping up after they just left' cliche.

I'm not sure if the filmmaker is being honest. it seems like it's a film that tries to glorify this kind of thing.

that's the impression I got

[SkyNet]

I have only seen the remake version, but I did love it.

I loved the concept that:

Spoiler:

The viewer is in control of the movie, we, as the viewer of the movie, have the power to stop this family from being tortured.. all we have to do is turn off the movie!

I thought that was absolutely genius!

I haven't seen the original, perhaps I should give it a rent.

[jaw2929]

I loved the remake as well. Brutal fucking horror! I've not seen the original one, but I heard the remake was a shot-for-shot exact remake of the original, with the same director.... Just more known/Hollywood actors. Great stuff!

[Badbird]

I put this at number one on my all time worst/most hated movie list. I think its "message" is complete bullshit and that Haneke is a self righteous, smug, condescending douche-bag.

If you would have caught me a few years ago, I could have gone on an epic rant about this pile of shit, but I'm just not in the moment anymore. All you need to know is that Haneke himself said the movie was designed to "punish" audiences, specifically American audiences, for enjoying violence as entertainment. And to that, I give him a big Fuck You.

[WormMagic]

Originally Posted by silentasylum

I just saw this movie (the foreign version) and I was confused by it. I guess, the filmmaker is saying something about violence in media, but I don't know if I agree with the point he is trying to make. he is commenting on the violence in films, but it's as if he is saying that if we took out violence from films it would end all violence. I don't think that's true. when I'm stressed a good horror movie seems to help.

***MINOR SPOILER***

he was also commenting on how only in real life do people escape and become heroes, this is the explanation for the remote control scene. the killer is able to go back and fix it in the film, which is being portrayed as real life, but asking you not to take it as if it's real life, got that?

do you think the film is right about people overcoming the odds? can anyone think of a time when someone has overcome the odds to become a hero? or does that shit only happen in movies?

also, think of how boring movies would be minus the horror and action/adventure movies.

It does show something I have never seen before so it did engage me even during those long intense moments after the killers had left. However, for a movie that pokes fun at Hollywood conventions it's funny how it overlooked the 'killers popping up after they just left' cliche.

I'm not sure if the filmmaker is being honest. it seems like it's a film that tries to glorify this kind of thing.

that's the impression I got

Spoiler:

I don't think he's commenting on violence in the media. I think he's pointing out how general audiences want to see violence on film and he refuses to satisfy them through on screen kills as well as ignoring the cliche ending. The only on screen piece of violence is the one the audience is hoping for, which is then rewinded and taken away from us. I don't see where you get the media theory from. I dont think the film ever intends to say that removing violence from film would do so in real life.


Also, I think he's doing the opposite in terms of your real life theory. I think his point is that in real life these situations turn out for the worse. That the family would more than likely die and not survive. The film toys with the audience in making you think that the protagonists have a chance when they really don't. The flim comments on the audience and their need to see violence on film, which is deemed okay as long as everything turns out for the better. The message being that audiences justify their love for violence on film by getting what they want in the end, which overlooks the crucial point- the violent mindset of the viewer. The film refuses to give into it.

The scene in which the intruders leave is crucial in the sense that the audience becomes frustrated by how slowly paced it is and how the characters do very little to escape over the amount of time they have, but in reality it's all worthless. The movie is just messing with you. Perfect example is the knife on the boat. The film gives you a sense of hope and then just tosses it away. As Skynet said, the only way to stop the torture is to stop the film.

I LOVE funny games.

[WormMagic]

double post

[echo_bravo]

Its a very mean spirited film and I can understand how someone would hate it but I LOVED Funny Games. I esp like the remake because of Michael Pitt. Him and his sidekick were actually really funny in the film (being all polite while being absolute psychopaths)

[ilovemovies]

Originally Posted by Badbird

I put this at number one on my all time worst/most hated movie list. I think its "message" is complete bullshit and that Haneke is a self righteous, smug, condescending douche-bag.

If you would have caught me a few years ago, I could have gone on an epic rant about this pile of shit, but I'm just not in the moment anymore. All you need to know is that Haneke himself said the movie was designed to "punish" audiences, specifically American audiences, for enjoying violence as entertainment. And to that, I give him a big Fuck You.

I understand that is how the movie is intended on by it's filmmaker and I agree with you on Heneke. But that's not how I took the movie at all. At least not the remake, which is the only one I saw.

I was actually chuckling the whole way through the movie. I mean, I don't understand how this movie wasn't intended to make you laugh since Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett were practically winking at the camera the entire movie.


The infamous rewind scene, in fact, is one of the funniest scenes in the movie. And I loved the final shot on Pitt's face.

So yes, Heneke is a major douchebag who needs to fuck off. But I can still enjoy the movie how I see it even if it's not at all what the director intended.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by ilovemovies

I was actually chuckling the whole way through the movie. I mean, I don't understand how this movie wasn't intended to make you laugh since Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett were practically winking at the camera the entire movie.

That's probably what I hate about it most: the implication by Haneke that "This is what you want. right?" All we want is bloodlust, and by god, Haneke was going to give it, right down to the final wink at the very end before they tortured and killed the next family (I've only seen the original, but they are essentially identical from what I've read).

[silentasylum]

I just remembered one scene that does make fun of the killers coming back. the lady asks them why they came back. I think it's Paul that says 'we're not at feature film length yet' so this could be interpreted as that. I thought the filmmaker was pointing out that his film was struggling to get to that length. that's what the long takes were for but I think I may be wrong on that one.

but I still did not like the idea of using a movie to make a statement about violence in the media or in movies

I also found the two serial killer characters to be really annoying

[Miles the Slasher]

I've seen both versions and I can say that it is a shot-for-shot remake. Despite Watts' reputation as a great actress—and she very much is—I preferred the German version to the American. The acting seemed more dramatic and all fronts. And I liked the killers better.

As far as the real intent of the film goes, I have heard that Michael Haneke did intend it as a slap in the face to horror fans, but I think that's a bunch of self-righteous bullshit. He/they just came up with a clever idea and decided to take a "damn the horror fans" stance in order to validate its existence. Personally, I think the guy got off on it. So much so, that he made it twice. Did it stop Germany from making violent horror films? Not even in the slightest. So why make it again? Oh, yeah, he liked doing it. The guy has avoided violence in film his whole career and then he finally gets a taste of it and he ends up liking it.

My thoughts on the film are: that it's a clever idea, and it does have enough dark humor in it to keep the most deranged mind laughing. And it's well acted—in both versions, but the German film is better. All in all, I think the whole thing is kind of funny.