Funny Games (2008)

[Watashi]

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/184/funnygameslh0.jpg (http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2007/09/funnygames2.jpg)

Trailer (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wip/us/med/funnygames/funny_games_tlr1_qt_700.mov)

I finally saw the trailer before Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, and I must say no matter how the film turns out, it is a greatly edited trailer. I actually have more interest in seeing the remake than Haneke's original.

This film is going to bomb so badly though. They should have released the trailer in front of Saw and other similar films if they really want to market it.

[eternity]

All I can ask is...Why?

[Watashi]

All I can ask is...Why?

For people like me who had no interest in seeing the original?

[Rowland]

They should have released the trailer in front of Saw and other similar films if they really want to market it.The trailer plays it up as a black comedy though, which basically kills the premise of the movie. Super lame.

[eternity]

The trailer plays it up as a black comedy though, which basically kills the premise of the movie. Super lame.Yeah, but since this is Haneke's sort of re-do, he may be making it into a black comedy. I didn't like the original, actually, I hated it, so it could be an improvement. I doubt it, though.

[Silencio]

Yeah, but since this is Haneke's sort of re-do, he may be making it into a black comedy. I didn't like the original, actually, I hated it, so it could be an improvement. I doubt it, though.The films are exactly the same. The only difference being language and actors. So the reviews/early word say.

[eternity]

The films are exactly the same. The only difference being language and actors. So the reviews/early word say.Wow, this really was a pointless remake then.

[Silencio]

Wow, this really was a pointless remake then.We'll see how the film does with American audiences, then we can judge its full potency.

[eternity]

We'll see how the film does with American audiences, then we can judge its full potency.A tad bit under 5 million domestic.

[Boner M]

For people like me who had no interest in seeing the original?
Why so much interest in the remake over the original if they're both the same film? Plus I remember you saying that you hate Michael Pitt.

[Watashi]

Why so much interest in the remake over the original if they're both the same film? Plus I remember you saying that you hate Michael Pitt.

I do, but just call it my jaded American bias, I would rather see Haneke's Americanized version over the foreign original.

[MadMan]

I really have no desire to see this or the original. I may view Cache as its at my local video store though.

[number8]

We'll see how the film does with American audiences, then we can judge its full potency.

I still can't get over the fact that this movie is a deliberate weapon. I don't think I can get behind a movie that was made for the purpose of malice.

[NickGlass]

The films are exactly the same. The only difference being language and actors. So the reviews/early word say.

And cellphones. Don't forget cellphones.

[Ezee E]

The trailer is mega-inspired by A Clockwork Orange's trailer

[ledfloyd]

have any of you guys read the haneke article in the new york times magazine a month or so ago? it was pretty awesome, and he talked about why he wanted to remake it.

[MadMan]

Yeah after watching the trailer there's no way in hell I'm watching this movie. I have a good feeling that this and the original would make me want to seek out Haneke and punch him in the face.

[Ezee E]

Yeah after watching the trailer there's no way in hell I'm watching this movie. I have a good feeling that this and the original would make me want to seek out Haneke and punch him in the face.
Have you seen the original?

[MadMan]

Have you seen the original?I already noted that I hadn't seen the original.

Despite my original post I may gave Funny Games a chance. But having read the synopsis for it I can't help but have a sinking feeling that I will hate it. If I even remotely like it I'll eat my words and check out the remake (if I get to the original in time-I may have to finally break down and get Netflix to see it).

[Ezee E]

I already noted that I hadn't seen the original.

Despite my original post I may gave Funny Games a chance. But having read the synopsis for it I can't help but have a sinking feeling that I will hate it. If I even remotely like it I'll eat my words and check out the remake (if I get to the original in time-I may have to finally break down and get Netflix to see it).
It's definitely worth a look. His message is pretty silly, but luckily, Haneke is pretty damn skilled behind the camera. I intend on seeing all his movies by the time the remake comes out. I have yet to see a bad movie from him.

[MadMan]

As I said earlier I'm more interested in seeing Cache. I may do that sometime this month, provided I have time amongst the many papers I have to write.

[NickGlass]

The trailer is mega-inspired by A Clockwork Orange's trailer

That's odd, since Haneke frequently criticizes Kubrick's film.

[Ezee E]

That's odd, since Haneke frequently criticizes Kubrick's film.
Perhaps. Check out the trailers though.

Another strange thing is that they both seem to have similar approaches to their films.

[Rowland]

That's odd, since Haneke frequently criticizes Kubrick's film.And despite all of Haneke's efforts, the same criticisms that many apply to A Clockwork Orange are applicable to Funny Games.

[Melville]

And despite all of Haneke's efforts, the same criticisms that many apply to A Clockwork Orange are applicable to Funny Games.
I read an interview with Haneke where he said that he had learned from Kubrick's mistakes, and that people would not root for the villains in Funny Games. (Presumably that interview was posted at the old website, so you've probably already read it.) That view seems pretty naive to me; I'm sure lots of people would idolize the villains in Funny Games just as much as they did Alex in A Clockwork Orange, regardless of all the metatextual trickery.

[Ezee E]

I read an interview with Haneke where he said that he had learned from Kubrick's mistakes, and that people would not root for the villains in Funny Games. (Presumably that interview was posted at the old website, so you've probably already read it.) That view seems pretty naive to me; I'm sure lots of people would idolize the villains in Funny Games just as much as they did Alex in A Clockwork Orange, regardless of all the metatextual trickery.
Plus, the villains in Funny Games were presented as such. If the movie focused on them instead of the family, things may have been different.

[Grouchy]

have any of you guys read the haneke article in the new york times magazine a month or so ago? it was pretty awesome, and he talked about why he wanted to remake it.
Link? I'm very curious as to why is he doing a shot-by-shot remake of his own movie. I love Funny Games, but so far I don't know why should I watch this new version except maybe for the actors.

If it's to shock American morons who won't watch it in German, then I'd say that's a lot of money wasted that could be used to feed starving children or something. Or to hire a sniper to kill Robert Redford.

[MadMan]

Link? I'm very curious as to why is he doing a shot-by-shot remake of his own movie. I love Funny Games, but so far I don't know why should I watch this new version except maybe for the actors.

If it's to shock American morons who won't watch it in German, then I'd say that's a lot of money wasted that could be used to feed starving children or something. Or to hire a sniper to kill Robert Redford.Hey now I happen to like Robert Redford as an actor :| :P

[Grouchy]

Hey now I happen to like Robert Redford as an actor :| :P
Heh. I like him as an actor too, but he needs to stop doing anything else. Lions for Lambs looks awful.

[MadMan]

Heh. I like him as an actor too, but he needs to stop doing anything else. Lions for Lambs looks awful.Touche. And I agree that Lions for Lambs looks lame. Too bad considering how good the cast for it is.

[Ezee E]

There's a Restricted Trailer that has catered to the more demented hopes of moviegoers. It kinda sucks, and reveals too much.

[ledfloyd]

There's a Restricted Trailer that has catered to the more demented hopes of moviegoers. It kinda sucks, and reveals too much.
i dunno, i'm kind of hoping that trailer draws in the saw crowd. and they get fucked with.

[Rowland]

i dunno, i'm kind of hoping that trailer draws in the saw crowd. and they get fucked with.They won't get drawn in.

And it is that exact attitude that I dislike about this movie and its supporters. Besides, it's squarely aimed at anyone who watches it, not just people who enjoy sadism. As long as you are watching it, you are being implicated. Blech.

[ledfloyd]

They won't get drawn in.

And it is that exact attitude that I dislike about this movie and its supporters. Besides, it's squarely aimed at anyone who watches it, not just people who enjoy sadism. As long as you are watching it, you are being implicated. Blech.
i dunno. i like it. i mean, the film is an attack on the sadistic nature of alot of hollywood films. the point of the film is to expose that. i don't see what's wrong with the attitude.

[Rowland]

i dunno. i like it. i mean, the film is an attack on the sadistic nature of alot of hollywood films. the point of the film is to expose that. i don't see what's wrong with the attitude.Why Hollywood films? I'd say thrillers period, as well as the very middle-class audience that would watch his movie. And its nature as a condescending exposé is no different than Craven's Scream, which at least had fun with the conceit. It's suffocatingly academic, puritanical, and seemingly unaware that by indulging in that which it is so stuffily decrying, it is hypocritically having its cake and eating it too. Anybody ignorant enough to "need" such an exposé will be too busy either enjoying the thriller mechanics (which he executes fairly well) or flipping off Haneke's smugness to take his banal admonishing to heart.

[Spinal]

All he's asking people to do is think critically about the violent entertainment they watch. No need for the histrionics.

[Rowland]

No need for the histrionics.He talks down to us like we're children, so he deserves it.

At least he made up for it with Cache, which is genuinely brilliant.

[Bosco B Thug]

Perhaps we should think of an alternative theme/subtext to the film! Eh? It'll do us all some good. :)

Let's see... white-on-white hate. Imploding WASP complacency. ?



I like the new trailer. All I hope for from this remake are excellent performances.

[Spinal]

He talks down to us like we're children, so he deserves it.

I've never really thought of it that way. It seems to me that he gives his audience credit for a high level of sophistication, believing that we are able to be entertained and simultaneously ask ourselves why.

[Rowland]

I've never really thought of it that way. It seems to me that he gives his audience credit for a high level of sophistication, believing that we are able to be entertained and simultaneously ask ourselves why.There are numerous movies (including some of this year's best) that allow us to question the nature of cinematic violence as only a facet of their goals. Funny Games exists for no purpose beyond very obvious, literal scolding. His techniques for implicating the audience are so thuddingly in-your-face that, if anything, he is assuming no sophistication in the audience. He doesn't want anyone to miss what his movie is about. You really think he wishes to entertain us with this? Please. The games aren't even funny! :lol: :P

[Spinal]

The games aren't even funny! :lol: :P

They're funny in a German way. :)

[Rowland]

They're funny in a German way. :)You know, now that I think about it, your description of Funny Games as a movie "believing that we are able to be entertained and simultaneously ask ourselves why" fits perfectly for Natural Born Killers. And that movie is actually funny. :twisted:

[Ivan Drago]

I just saw the trailer for this...it looks interesting to say the least.

But my question is, why would filmmakers remake their own films? Do they think they're not perfect enough?

[Spinal]

But my question is, why would filmmakers remake their own films? Do they think they're not perfect enough?

To reach American audience members who would not see the film with subtitles.

[Ivan Drago]

To reach American audience members who would not see the film with subtitles.

Ha - I didn't think of that. That makes sense.

[Watashi]

Bitchin' new poster:

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2417/funnygamesver2ig1.jpg

So... is this film ever going to come out?

[Sycophant]

There's a Restricted Trailer that has catered to the more demented hopes of moviegoers. It kinda sucks, and reveals too much.I haven't seen the trailer and this comment is nearly two months old, but it reminded me of how much I hate the current hip trend of red-band trailers.

[number8]

I don't think I've asked this question before, but given Haneke's intention with the remake, are original Funny Games appreciaters actually looking forward to this movie, knowing that the message is only different and potent if given to an audience that's not them?

[Rowland]

I don't think I've asked this question before, but given Haneke's intention with the remake, are original Funny Games appreciaters actually looking forward to this movie, knowing that the message is only different and potent if given to an audience that's not them?I guess they still need it.

[Spinal]

I don't think I've asked this question before, but given Haneke's intention with the remake, are original Funny Games appreciaters actually looking forward to this movie, knowing that the message is only different and potent if given to an audience that's not them?

In all honesty, I'm not looking forward to this nearly as much as I would another Haneke film. The first one worked wonderfully for me, so apart from curiosity about Watts' performance, I find that this is something I'm not really in a rush to see.

However, I am definitely anticipating this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149362/).

[MadMan]

In all honesty, I'm not looking forward to this nearly as much as I would another Haneke film. The first one worked wonderfully for me, so apart from curiosity about Watts' performance, I find that this is something I'm not really in a rush to see.

However, I am definitely anticipating this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149362/).The film that link is to sounds far more fascinating and better than the planned remake this thread is all about. That and this reminds me that if I have time over the weekend I should rent Cache which is at my local video store.

[Ezee E]

I'm more curious about what others will think of Funny Games. I thought the message was the only thing that hurt the movie.

The next Haneke movie sounds great. I wonder if he'll do any further American movies though, as it sounds like he had a difficult time with this one because of the language barriers.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, here it is. The most Saw/Hostel-ish trailer ("http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1580740&vid=207349) they've come up with. Not sure if this is the same on Ezee E was talking about. Supposedly it just came out today. It's amusing because it reminds you how much this isn't a Saw/Hostel-ish movie.

[Ezee E]

Well, here it is. The most Saw/Hostel-ish trailer ("http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1580740&vid=207349) they've come up with. Not sure if this is the same on Ezee E was talking about. Supposedly it just came out today. It's amusing because it reminds you how much this isn't a Saw/Hostel-ish movie.
Not the same one. It goes more along the lines of what 8 was talking about. A horror movie. Looks good here without any of the quirks the movie will inevitably end up with.

[trotchky]

Like most of his movies it's about the tyranny of the director and the inherit dishonesty of film, not just the complicity of the audience. So Haneke doesn't necessarily absolve himself. If that's what you guys are talking about.

[Wryan]

The film that link is to sounds far more fascinating and better than the planned remake this thread is all about.

Unless little Adolf is a counselor in the school. Then...groan.

[MadMan]

Unless little Adolf is a counselor in the school. Then...groan.Hah, that will be at least hilarious in a really horrible ironic way. If it happens. Which I doubt it will.

[Grouchy]

I don't think I've asked this question before, but given Haneke's intention with the remake, are original Funny Games appreciaters actually looking forward to this movie, knowing that the message is only different and potent if given to an audience that's not them?
Exactly, and my answer is no. I loved Funny Games, but it's already made. Have it re-released. Buy enough people enough luxury dinners to get a Criterion treatment or a 2-disc special edition if you want more people to see it. If they don't want to see it because it's in German, then you're German, so you should feel offended enough to deny them the movie. Or, well, have them suffer through it, which I'm sure it's Haneke's intention. It's all very complicated.

Either way, it sort of reminds me of the Psycho remake. A waste of perfectly good film cans. Give them to me so I can shoot something in 35mm instead of throwing it away in this.

[Dead & Messed Up]

All he's asking people to do is think critically about the violent entertainment they watch. No need for the histrionics.

Then he should ask me, and not waste two hours of my life on finger-pointing.

I remember my response to this film vividly, as I'm sure most do. I watched it in a world cinema class, and I was genuinely irritated by it. Haneke's craft was impeccable, but the goal of the picture seemed condescending and one-dimensional. The efforts made to implicate the viewer ignored the fact that, by merely displaying the violence as he did, Haneke was already making his argument in a much subtler way.

It seems like a waste. Which makes this remake a double-do-deca-waste.

[Spinal]

Then he should ask me, and not waste two hours of my life on finger-pointing.

Very little of the film is didactic. If you broke down the interruptions, I would guess they comprise less than two minutes of the two hour film. Detractors fail to note how subtly Haneke introduces this aspect of the film. It doesn't even start until we are well into the plot and at first it is just a look from one of the characters. Only later does it become more overt and even then, the moments are brief, yet startling.

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen the original, so am looking forward to this. I'll be one of the few around here to go at it the other way.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Very little of the film is didactic. If you broke down the interruptions, I would guess they comprise less than two minutes of the two hour film.

Indeed, but their presence and effect cast a long shadow over the entire picture, mostly because what's happening is so superficial anyway.


Detractors fail to note how subtly Haneke introduces this aspect of the film. It doesn't even start until we are well into the plot and at first it is just a look from one of the characters. Only later does it become more overt and even then, the moments are brief, yet startling.

In my case, that's because I intensely dislike the "message" portion of the feature. My respect for his initial subtlety is miniscule compared to the irritation I feel as the film takes it into more overt, less interesting territory.

Having said all that, I'm very eager to watch Cache, which I hear is fantastic.

[trotchky]

Cache is the best movie of the decade, dudes. You're in for a treat.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Cache is the best movie of the decade, dudes. You're in for a treat.

says the guy with the 'Cache" avatar.

[MadMan]

says the guy with the 'Cache" avatar.Sometimes objectivity is overrated. :P

[Spinal]

I assume that he doesn't like the film because he has the avatar, but rather he has the avatar because he likes the film.

[Ezee E]

I assume that he doesn't like the film because he has the avatar, but rather he has the avatar because he likes the film.
And that's how Spinal gets all those rep points. He tells truth.

[Spinal]

And that's how Spinal gets all those rep points. He tells truth.

I am the Match Cut Confucius.

[MadMan]

I am the Match Cut Confucius.Somehow I highly doubt that :P

[lovejuice]

just read Lane's reviews (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/03/17/080317crci_cinema_lane?current Page=1), and curious if he like the original since all his negativity can apply to that movie.

Funny Games is a curious film that anyone can hate or love it for the exact same reason.

[Rowland]

just read Lane's reviews (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/03/17/080317crci_cinema_lane?current Page=1), and curious if he like the original since all his negativity can apply to that movie.That's a fantastic review, I agree with it nearly point for point. Funny Games is dated, and Haneke has since matured greatly as a filmmaker, rendering this inexplicable shot-for-shot remake doubly regressive. At least the Psycho remake had novelty and camp on its side.

[MadMan]

That's a fantastic review, I agree with it nearly point for point. Funny Games is dated, and Haneke has since matured greatly as a filmmaker, rendering this inexplicable shot-for-shot remake doubly regressive. At least the Psycho remake had novelty and camp on its side.Refresh my memory. How did the Psycho remake have novelty and camp on its side? I don't remember either being involved in Van Saint's wasting of cinema and celluloid.

[Rowland]

Refresh my memory. How did the Psycho remake have novelty and camp on its side? I don't remember either being involved in Van Saint's wasting of cinema and celluloid.The sheer novelty of an iconic, highly regarded Hitchcock classic being remade as faithfully as it was. How isn't that novel?

As for camp, I recall most of the movie looking and feeling "off" in ways that manifested themselves as camp. It sure as heck didn't work as horror. And this:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5899/psycho2ec6.jpg

[MadMan]

The sheer novelty of an iconic, highly regarded Hitchcock classic being remade as faithfully as it was. How isn't that novel?

As for camp, I recall most of the movie looking and feeling "off" in ways that manifested themselves as camp. It sure as heck didn't work as horror. And this:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5899/psycho2ec6.jpgTo me the whole concept of a "shot for shot" remake is just stupid and pointless. I don't find that being novel at all.

Hmm I may have to actually see the film again (I probably won't though but you never know) because I don't remember much of the camp. I did like the cast though-its sad that Van Saint assembled a bunch of good actors and then didn't go in an original direction with them.

[Rowland]

To me the whole concept of a "shot for shot" remake is just stupid and pointless. I don't find that being novel at all. What does quality have to do with being novel?

[lovejuice]

I did like the cast though-its sad that Van Saint assembled a bunch of good actors and then didn't go in an original direction with them.

speaking of the cast, i always think it's weird that vaugh makes his first major appearance as norman bates. and consider who he's today. i don't think there is a way i can look at his performance in psycho seriously.

[Rowland]

vaughn makes his first major appearance as norman bates.Not even close. Swingers, The Lost World... other stuff I can't recall.

[lovejuice]

To me the whole concept of a "shot for shot" remake is just stupid and pointless. I don't find that being novel at all.


as much as i don't like the final product, i think it's an interesting piece of experimental film-making. you take among the most well-known sequences of images in the history of mankind and make it "slightly" different -- "deconstruct" it, if i may dare say.

i probably like it more if it's not in color, or doesn't have those random images. actually the campiness kills the film for me.

[lovejuice]

Not even close. Swingers, The Lost World... other stuff I can't recall.

yes, i checked imdb and knew he has been around for quite a while. it's psycho though that actually put him on top producers' lists. back then, i think, most people knew him as "that guy who play norman bates." even the trailer for psycho -- "this is norman bates, and this is norman bates' mind" -- plays with his anonymity.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What does quality have to do with being novel?

If novelty isn't indicative of quality, why'd you mention it in defense of Psycho?

[Rowland]

If novelty isn't indicative of quality, why'd you mention it in defense of Psycho?I wasn't defending Psycho per se. Those were merely traits that render the existence of Psycho as less useless than the new Funny Games.

[Bosco B Thug]

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5899/psycho2ec6.jpg http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/images/photos/van_psycho5.jpg


http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/images/photos/van_psycho10.jpg

Wheee.

(btw, the images' source site is another pleasant elucidation (http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/van_psycho.html) on the agenda of the Van Sant remake. These never fail to make me glad.)

[lovejuice]

look like the critics are having too much fun panning this movie.

[Rowland]

Reverse Shot's Michael Koresky gives it hard. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/016688.html)

"The problem is that even if one fell for Haneke's limp tsk-tsking the first time around, ten years later his nasty little games of viewer barbarism seem musty, even quaint. What's worse, the entire project suffers from the gall Haneke shows in not only remaking his own film for the "edification" of a wider audience, but in trusting his own original vision so fundamentally and without question that he has chosen not to append or alter it in any significant way.

This speaks to an astonishing artistic hubris, but also of Haneke's refusal to engage with his own work and legacy; one would hope at this point in his career, especially after the refinement of his craft in films such as "Code Unknown" and "Cache," that Haneke would want to slash this old canvas with a razor. Instead, he offers it up again, like a paper written in freshman colloquium, without changing the text. (He'll undoubtedly get a free pass for his own carbon copy while Gus Van Sant's problematic but more artistically honest "Psycho" remake will continue to be trounced for daring to plunder hallowed work. The latter spied quizzically at its own creation and process; Haneke asks no questions of himself, positioned immutable as moral taskmaster.)"

:pritch:

[Watashi]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/REVIEWS/679566521/1023

Damn.

[Boner M]

Heh, the original has a 72 on metacritic while the remake has a 38.

AO Scott (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/movies/14funn.html?ref=movies) really tore into it as well.

[Raiders]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/REVIEWS/679566521/1023

Damn.

That's a great review.

[lovejuice]

That's a great review.

i don't know. i tend to distrust any review that doesn't address the "remake" angle.

[Sycophant]

If this film accomoplishes nothing else, it at least inspired some pretty good criticism.

[Raiders]

i don't know. i tend to distrust any review that doesn't address the "remake" angle.

Well, then it is a great review of the original.

[lovejuice]

Well, then it is a great review of the original.

that i agree, although i can't help but bother by the fact that boner just mentioned. i'm always under the impression that the original is helmed as haneke's breaking point or at least a really good movie.

[Spinal]

I guess I will never understand why Haneke's film is considered by some to be such an effrontery. I read reviews like Emerson's and it seems like such a stubborn reading of a film that is intellectually playful. But then, I guess I don't mind the idea of 'film as thesis' one bit.

[Rowland]

I guess I will never understand why Haneke's film is considered by some to be such an effrontery. I read reviews like Emerson's and it seems like such a stubborn reading of a film that is intellectually playful. But then, I guess I don't mind the idea of 'film as thesis' one bit.Intellectually playful? I'd say it's intellectually fascistic, which makes it hypocritical. Attacking "fascism" with "fascism"... doesn't he hate that?

[Spinal]

Intellectually playful? I'd say it's intellectually fascistic, which makes it hypocritical. Attacking "fascism" with "fascism"... doesn't he hate that?

See, comments like this. I have no idea where this is coming from. I cannot relate to your reaction. I felt like I had the power to accept or reject Haneke's ideas, just like any other film.

[Spinal]

And, is the topic of Haneke's film fascism? I thought it was the use of violence in cinema.

[Rowland]

And, is the topic of Haneke's film fascism? I thought it was the use of violence in cinema.No, but he has said that he made the movie as a response to movies that present violence fascistically.

[Spinal]

No, but he has said that he made the movie as a response to movies that present violence fascistically.

Be that as it may, I think that Haneke's film opens up the floor for discussion by asking us to accept or reject what is going on not just in his film, but in other films like it. That is the point that Emerson misses. Haneke's film is not just about whether or not you will watch Funny Games all the way through. It is about how you will react the next time you see a film that uses similar tactics. It is about how you will process what you see and whether you will be more critical. Personally, I think that's an exciting use of the medium and one that I am surprised more in this meta-happy online community don't embrace.

In short, I don't agree that Haneke's approach is fascistic. Rather, the opposite.

[Rowland]

But the movie isn't opening any discussion. It is flat-out telling us that we are debased, and it punishes us for this by debasing us with pedantic scolding projected directly to us through Brechtian devices because we'd be too stupid to understand otherwise, shot with ruthless formalism. The movie is repugnantly misanthropic through its simple-minded liberation.

In short, he's the dictator behind the scenes with complete omnipresent power (he's the real star of the movie), forcibly reprimanding us for our bloodlust, assuming that we have the intellectual/empathetic development of an infant.

But enough. I doubt there is much room for common ground between someone who borderline hates the movie with someone who has it in their top 100.

[Spinal]

But the movie isn't opening any discussion. It is flat-out telling us that we are debased, and it punishes us for this by debasing us with pedantic scolding projected directly to us through Brechtian devices because we'd be too stupid to understand otherwise, shot with ruthless formalism. The movie is repugnantly misanthropic through its simple-minded liberation.

In short, he's the dictator behind the scenes with complete omnipresent power (he's the real star of the movie), forcibly reprimanding us for our bloodlust, assuming that we have the intellectual/empathetic development of an infant.

Why take the film so personally? Do you not see the irony of saying that the film doesn't open up discussion as you discuss it on an internet message board? Your characterization of the Brechtian devices just doesn't jive with the way that the film actually operates. You want to characterize the film as a lecture. It is not. The interruptions are brief, intended to jar us at key moments. They do not dominate the film as many have suggested. That they linger so strongly with the viewer afterwords speaks to their effectiveness in my opinion. Repugnantly misanthropic? No. This film rewards critical thinking, perhaps mankind's greatest gift. It seeks to empower us. What you see as belittling, I see as playful jabs. They are just characters on a screen after all. It's not your mother or a police officer or someone who's going to get you in trouble. It's fiction. And it is fiction operating in a mode that was actually used by Brecht to counter fascism. It stirs us from our expectations and asks us to look at something familiar in a new way. Words like 'dictator' and 'fascism' are simply gross distortions of the way Haneke actually operates. He's cold and intellectual, but those are certainly not bad qualities in a director.

[Rowland]

Words like 'dictator' and 'fascism' are simply gross distortions of the way Haneke actually operates. I don't think so. If he is going to recklessly use "fascist" as a description of the depiction of violence in popular culture, than I can carelessly apply the same terminology against him.

[Spinal]

I don't think so. If he is going to recklessly use "fascist" as a description of the depiction of violence in popular culture, than I can carelessly apply the same terminology against him.

Are you critiquing the film or Haneke's comments on the film? :)

[Rowland]

Are you critiquing the film or Haneke's comments on the film? :)One and the same.

Let's just boil this down. You think it's clever and provokes self-reflection. I think it's witless and too smug to provoke anything more than contempt for the filmmaker. Furthermore, it's even more redundant and useless now. Everyone arguing that the movie is more timely in our age of "torture porn" (blech) have it backwards, because it will only come across as comparatively toothless today.

[Spinal]

One and the same.

Let's just boil this down. You think it's clever and provokes self-reflection. I think it's witless and too smug to provoke anything more than contempt for the filmmaker. Furthermore, it's even more redundant and useless now. Everyone arguing that the movie is more timely in our age of "torture porn" (blech) have it backwards, because it will only come across as comparatively toothless today.

Why do you get to do the summary? ;)

I'll say this much. I am a bit surprised that it sounds like Haneke hasn't taken the last ten years into account, because I think that's a missed opportunity and a place where he is perhaps rightly being criticized. I will have to wait to say more until after I see the new film.

[Raiders]

They are just characters on a screen after all. It's not your mother or a police officer or someone who's going to get you in trouble. It's fiction.

Right, but doesn't this go completely against the film's ideas? If they are just characters, why should I care if they die?

[Rowland]

Right, but doesn't this go completely against the film's ideas? If they are just characters, why should I care if they die?Yep. Beavis and Butthead even argue about this at the end. They conclude that people projected through cinema have a soul, and thus violence against them should impact us just as violence does against real people. Since the leader of the two is essentially Haneke's surrogate, it's fair to reason that this is his thesis.

[Spinal]

Right, but doesn't this go completely against the film's ideas? If they are just characters, why should I care if they die?

Expect that's the point of Brechtian alienation, to make you aware of how you are being manipulated emotionally. It's not that it is important whether a fictional character lives or dies. What's important is how filmmakers manipulate your capacity for empathy, rage, fear, etc. That is something tangible even if the fate of a fictional character is not.

[lovejuice]

I'll say this much. I am a bit surprised that it sounds like Haneke hasn't taken the last ten years into account, because I think that's a missed opportunity and a place where he is perhaps rightly being criticized. I will have to wait to say more until after I see the new film.

that i agree with you. certain elements are dated. i really like what one reviewer says about the metal/classical soundtrack. now the ipod era makes such thing more everyday life. all those torture porns -- which are probably inspired by the original FG -- make the phenomena of people going to the theater to see gruesome images more common. after kaufman we are no longer shock by fourth wall breaking. if there's something that still holds up quite well -- i will say -- the fact that the bad guy wins by pure luck and cheating

then again i can't think of any way haneke can "improve" the original. but since he's smart enough to come up with it, probably he can.

[Spinal]

all those torture porns -- which are probably inspired by the original FG

This seems unlikely to me.

[lovejuice]

This seems unlikely to me.

why? granted i am not very well versed in the genre, but it seems to me the work of eli roth and james wan are not too different from haneke in concept. when characters in those movies are tortured and hurt, it's actually the audiences that are visually tortured. to some degree, both have the breaking down of the fourth wall. haneke is just more honest, and FG is, no question, a more artistic expression and original to boot.

[Grouchy]

One and the same.
Huh, no. Actually, I think the film suffers because of Haneke's comments about it, which are obviously exaggerated and insincere. None in their right mind would go through the trouble of making a movie they dislike to see who's the bad guy that sits through it.

Personally, I love the original Funny Games and, like Spinal, I don't understand why people get so angry with it. The whole idea of an identical remake is moronic. I'll probably see it eventually, but I'm against it.

[Grouchy]

why? granted i am not very well versed in the genre, but it seems to me the work of eli roth and james wan are not too different from haneke in concept. when characters in those movies are tortured and hurt, it's actually the audiences that are visually tortured. to some degree, both have the breaking down of the fourth wall. haneke is just more honest, and FG is, no question, a more artistic expression and original to boot.
Eli Roth and most torture porn filmmakers are more likely inspired by exploitation cinema than Funny Games. I'm not saying they haven't seen the movie, but it's an exceptional film not representative of any genre, while Saw and Hostel are genre films that are in fact more graphic versions of slashers and Horrors made in the '70s and '80s.

[Spinal]

Huh, no. Actually, I think the film suffers because of Haneke's comments about it, which are obviously exaggerated and insincere. None in their right mind would go through the trouble of making a movie they dislike to see who's the bad guy that sits through it.

Yes, I find it much easier to defend the film than I do Haneke's comments about the film. Many negative reviews I've seen have taken Haneke's press notes or interviews as a starting point and then criticized it because it does not do what Haneke says it should do. These are separate issues in my mind. I think the film works wonderfully and Haneke, intelligent as he is, may be too close to it to separate his theories from the film he has actually made ...

... twice. :)

[Duncan]

I generally find a director's comments about his/her films to be fairly useless. Occasionally they'll say something enlightening, but I like the Lynch philosophy of talking about methods of filmmaking without touching on film meaning.

[number8]

I wish I can contribute thoughts on the remake because it looks like it's bringing such fervent discussions, but alas, I couldn't even bring myself to see it.

I had the screening invite, I had it on my calendar, I was ready to go, and then at the last minute I thought, "Do I REALLY want to see this movie again? Do I really care about Tim Roth and Naomi Watts that much to subject myself to such condescending shit?" The answer was no.

[Spinal]

I generally find a director's comments about his/her films to be fairly useless. Occasionally they'll say something enlightening, but I like the Lynch philosophy of talking about methods of filmmaking without touching on film meaning.

Yeah, I think the Haneke quote about those who sit through it are the ones who need it is particularly distracting. Obviously, thoughtful viewers will want to watch the entire film in order to process and discuss what they have seen. It's a red herring that Emerson swallows with glee.

[Rowland]

The problem however, and the reason that I said the comments and the movie are one and the same, is that the pedantic, moralizing attitude behind those comments is the very same that flows through the film. I was repulsed and unmoved by the movie because I recognized this while watching it.

I still maintain that any movie designed explicitly to enlighten us for our barbaric ways and then proceeds to anger us instead of prompting self-examination is a failure. Maybe that's the irreconcilable difference between those who like the movie and those who don't. I see it as an arthouse Scream that insults me because of how naive it thinks I am, while those of you who love it, I can only imagine, were genuinely moved into some sort of self-reflection.

I like this excerpt from Ty Burr's review:

The director seems to think an appetite for voyeuristic violence is a recent construct - one he's personally above - when it's actually hard-wired into the human subconscious. (Gore stories go back to "Beowulf" and beyond; the movies just re-create mayhem more faithfully than epic poetry does and, yes, the modern entertainment industry caters to that.) The question that should be asked is why.

The director doesn't care why, because "Funny Games" is really about punishing us. There's a prissy academic smugness that renders the 1997 movie more unbearable than anything that happens in it, a smugness mitigated in the new version only through the skill of Watts's performance. She's less of a sheep than the original's Susanne Lothar, and because Pitt's Peter is softer, less arch than Arno Frisch in the first film, the split between cold-hearted farce and sadistic tragedy is less evident. That blunted edge makes for a marginally more watchable movie - probably not what Haneke had in mind.

There may be a way to shock the weekend lemmings into questioning why they go to "Saw" movies, but torturing them for one's own high-minded jollies isn't it. In the end, it's Haneke's refusal to implicate himself that renders the movie infuriating and moot. The tagline on a poster for the new "Funny Games" gives the Euro-snob game away: "You must admit, you brought this on yourself."

Bingo. Also, it's encouraging to read that the remake is less insufferable. Not that I plan on seeing it.

[number8]

I think the meta-commentary was what killed it for me. The simplest argument against the movie I can say is that all the fourth wall breaking negates any effects the methods Haneke's using could have had. How am I supposed to be disturbed by the movie when there are two playful characters constantly reminding me that it's just a movie? It's effective to hide the mother's nudity to bait us, but then having them confront us directly about what we want to see? That's childish, ugly, and unnecessary. I don't mind film as a thesis, but in this case the thesis isn't well written.

[Spinal]

[I]The director seems to think an appetite for voyeuristic violence is a recent construct - one he's personally above - when it's actually hard-wired into the human subconscious. (Gore stories go back to "Beowulf" and beyond; the movies just re-create mayhem more faithfully than epic poetry does and, yes, the modern entertainment industry caters to that.) The question that should be asked is why.


The film does ask why.



The director doesn't care why, because "Funny Games" is really about punishing us.


No. I'm convinced that (no matter what Haneke says) the film is about successfully engaging us in a thriller and then asking us to consider whether we react to such entertainment thoughtfully and critically, or whether we allow ourselves to be pulled along by the emotional sweep. When Haneke's characters ask us why we are watching the film, they don't, in my opinion, mean this particular film. They are hoping we will consider that question in the future with films of this sort. A reasonable use of the medium.

[Qrazy]

then again i can't think of any way haneke can "improve" the original. but since he's smart enough to come up with it, probably he can.

I can think of a million ways, mostly centered around a shitload more negative capability and less contempt for his viewers and viewers in general. Even aside from my thematic issues though I think there's a lot of room for formal improvement as well. In fact making a shot for shot remake of one's own film is pretty much the icing on the cake of his inflated ego syndrome. 'What, I got it perfect the first time around, why should I change anything this time? I'm just remaking it to stick it to and make it more accessible to the stupid Americans who can't be bothered to watch my pertinent and poignant message the first time around in a different language.'

[Stay Puft]

Yep. Beavis and Butthead even argue about this at the end. They conclude that people projected through cinema have a soul, and thus violence against them should impact us just as violence does against real people. Since the leader of the two is essentially Haneke's surrogate, it's fair to reason that this is his thesis.

That's not what they talk about. They talk about time travel and simulation, both of which is seen playing out on the screen (the rewind scene, the projections of multiple narratives). In fact the whole point is that the conversation occurs within a simulation, that Fatso has already been killed, that the conversation is only possible because it is a projection of another possible universe or narrative, which is taken to be reality, to be the only possible narrative, because it is what Fatso sees.

The problem, as they discuss it (how matter speaks to anti-matter) is the relationship between simulation and reality, the apparent conclusion that the simulation is a form of reality because they see it in a movie. Fatso's reaction is an acknowledgment that we have seen him die, that both characters cannot, in fact, escape from the simulation - that every possible narrative will play out the same (that is be just as real) in the movie (because it is the same movie). That is their reality. It is not ours. How the simulation relates to the object being simulated, how the movie relates to our own subject position, how the representation of violence impacts our understanding of violence - in sum total, how the simulation impacts our understanding and interpretation of reality - how we use the simulation to make sense of our reality - is what is being asked.

[Rowland]

No. I'm convinced that (no matter what Haneke says) the film is about successfully engaging us in a thriller and then asking us to consider whether we react to such entertainment thoughtfully and critically, or whether we allow ourselves to be pulled along by the emotional sweep. When Haneke's characters ask us why we are watching the film, they don't, in my opinion, mean this particular film. They are hoping we will consider that question in the future with films of this sort.I don't need Haneke talking down to me with his obvious genre deconstruction and obnoxious provocations to think about my entertainment, thanks.

[Qrazy]

The film does ask why.

No. I'm convinced that (no matter what Haneke says) the film is about successfully engaging us in a thriller and then asking us to consider whether we react to such entertainment thoughtfully and critically, or whether we allow ourselves to be pulled along by the emotional sweep. When Haneke's characters ask us why we are watching the film, they don't, in my opinion, mean this particular film. They are hoping we will consider that question in the future with films of this sort. A reasonable use of the medium.

I generally agree that a filmmaker's comments ought to be separated from the work but I have felt the thread of condescension in three of the four films I've seen from him, so while I can still appreciate his formal skill, I have little respect for the majority of his opinions and his general outlook on mankind.

[Qrazy]

What gets me most and likely makes Haneke giggle with schoolgirlish glee is when people who like the film are offended by those who are offended by the film. Anyone who can say fuck you to that many people at once surely deserves commendation? Right? Right guys?

[Bosco B Thug]

"You must admit, you brought this on yourself." I don't have an opinion on Funny Games (haven't seen the original in three years and I'm trying to decide whether I should re-watch it before or after I go see the re-do) but I still love that tagline. It's in the film, right? Wait, don't tell me.

[Qrazy]

I don't have an opinion on Funny Games (haven't seen the original in three years and I'm trying to decide whether I should re-watch it before or after I go see the re-do) but I still love that tagline. It's in the film, right? Wait, don't tell me.

If you're going to re-watch one or both I'd say certainly go see the re-make first before re-watching the first one since you've already seen the first one before and you won't want to watch the re-make after just having re-watched the original.

[Rowland]

That's not what they talk about. They talk about time travel and simulation, both of which is seen playing out on the screen (the rewind scene, the projections of multiple narratives). In fact the whole point is that the conversation occurs within a simulation, that Fatso has already been killed, that the conversation is only possible because it is a projection of another possible universe or narrative, which is taken to be reality, to be the only possible narrative, because it is what Fatso sees.

The problem, as they discuss it (how matter speaks to anti-matter) is the relationship between simulation and reality, the apparent conclusion that the simulation is a form of reality because they see it in a movie. Fatso's reaction is an acknowledgment that we have seen him die, that both characters cannot, in fact, escape from the simulation - that every possible narrative will play out the same (that is be just as real) in the movie (because it is the same movie). That is their reality. It is not ours. How the simulation relates to the object being simulated, how the movie relates to our own subject position, how the representation of violence impacts our understanding of violence - in sum total, how the simulation impacts our understanding and interpretation of reality - how we use the simulation to make sense of our reality - is what is being asked.Thus, the simulation impacts us just as reality does, because it still informs our sense of reality. As such, what is shown in the simulation shouldn't be so far removed from the morality that informs our reality. I sorta had the general idea.

[Raiders]

A reasonable use of the medium.

I guess the problem is that I, myself as a rational human being, do respond to violence on screen in the context of the film environment. If a film casually and "coolly" kills its victims, I ask why the film does so. If a film uses death as a sad inevitability, I consider the film's position, and so on. I think you get my point. Haneke's film is just another form of filmic violence, only now done in a way that uses psychology to question what entertainment can be derived from such torture. As you say before, they are film characters. They are fiction. I only react to their deaths in the way a specific film intends. It is irresponsible to lump all film violence and death into one category. Now, I'm not saying Haneke is doing this, but given that most films inherently wish us to experience violence and death differently, his film can only have a surface-deep meaning as it only broadly describes the nature of violence in film.

Of course, I don't even believe Haneke is commenting on film violence as much as he is our reaction to the violence. He asks why do we watch. The comment near the end Rowland quoted, about film characters having their own soul (or relating the fiction to reality), is telling that I think Haneke is suggesting we try and relate these characters to actual life, and all his fourth-wall breaking tricks are there to suggest "no, this is not real life. It is fiction. Why should you care, and thus subsequently watch, films about the destruction of that which is not real?" By extension, to watch such an event is to admit to taking pleasure in the very act of killing since we cannot truly care about someone who exists solely on the celluloid, and thus our enjoyment is in the act of killing itself.

But, I can't help but reject this. I don't think violence nor death is in any way a lesser form of entertainment, nor does it hit at any base desire more disturbing than the millions that enjoy watching Ben Stiller completely fumble his way through a family gathering. Humans take comfort in that which is not happening to them. That is the nature of fiction. We awe at war, we cower at terror, we laugh at moderate misfortune. I don't see how this can change nor do I believe it should.

I also ask, in the end, why Haneke chose to make the victims WASP yuppies. Isn't that a form of bias? A form of his own desire to display that which he wants to torture? I seriously doubt his thesis makes much differences how well off the family is, what skin color they are, or what music they listen to. But he chooses to use that which we associate with the very opposite of disturbing violence. He isn't merely questioning film violence but looking to make the most disturbing film possible and then pass it off as the viewer's fault. To me, that is far more unsettling than Eli Roth deciding to torture some college kids.

[Bosco B Thug]

What films are those? I've seen Funny Games, Cache, 'Piano Teacher,' Code Unknown, and 'Seventh Continent' and I think only 'Games' is the only film of his that would provoke such accusations of condescension since it's so actively meta- and detached.


If you're going to re-watch one or both I'd say certainly go see the re-make first before re-watching the first one since you've already seen the first one before and you won't want to watch the re-make after just having re-watched the original. True, but the nuances that change this time around will prove more interesting since in this one, the film's apparently been made under less controlled conditions (being it's a "response" picture in a sense, Haneke's first US/English-language film, and it being a star-vehicle, again in a sense) and Haneke's obviously just letting out wind with this one. So in other words, being totally honest, I actually already knew I preferred to see the original again first, I'm just not sure if that can happen. But thanks. :P

[Qrazy]

What films are those? I've seen Funny Games, Cache, 'Piano Teacher,' Code Unknown, and 'Seventh Continent' and I think only 'Games' is the only film of his that would provoke such accusations of condescension since it's so actively meta- and detached.

I also felt condescended to in Cache and Piano Teacher although certainly less so than in Funny Games. I didn't feel it in Time of the Wolf. In Cache it was the Iraq war parallels vis. Algiers and being inherently morally culpable for not stopping my country for it's 'imperialistic attitudes towards an innocent, weak little country'. Oh and inheriting the guilt of my forefathers, as the son seems to inherit his father's guilt, for the Spanish American war and etc, etc for everyone in the world who is not living in a third world country... you're also guilty! I've discussed this film to death on rotten tomatoes though so I'm going to abstain for now in another conversation... I mean feel free to respond to this but I just may not respond in return having discussed it to death.

The Piano Teacher, I can't remember which element I found condescending but there was something, will have to think about/read a review/re-watch to remember.

[Qrazy]

What films are those? I've seen Funny Games, Cache, 'Piano Teacher,' Code Unknown, and 'Seventh Continent' and I think only 'Games' is the only film of his that would provoke such accusations of condescension since it's so actively meta- and detached.

True, but the nuances that change this time around will prove more interesting since in this one, the film's apparently been made under less controlled conditions (being it's a "response" picture in a sense, Haneke's first US/English-language film, and it being a star-vehicle, again in a sense) and Haneke's obviously just letting out wind with this one. So in other words, being totally honest, I actually already knew I preferred to see the original again first, I'm just not sure if that can happen. But thanks. :P

You're going to funny games yourself to death.

[Rowland]

But, I can't help but reject this. I don't think violence nor death is in any way a lesser form of entertainment, nor does it hit at any base desire more disturbing than the millions that enjoy watching Ben Stiller completely fumble his way through a family gathering. Humans take comfort in that which is not happening to them. That is the nature of fiction. We awe at war, we cower at terror, we laugh at moderate misfortune. I don't see how this can change nor do I believe it should.Absolutely. He doesn't even project enough moral sophistication to suggest how we as people have the capacity for gradation, and that any number of factors play a role in how we process violence, from humor to intelligence and what have you. He is equivocating all violence (the killers don't call themselves Tom and Jerry for nothing), which is why he comes across as a chiding censor.


I also ask, in the end, why Haneke chose to make the victims WASP yuppies. Isn't that a form of bias? A form of his own desire to display that which he wants to torture? I seriously doubt his thesis makes much differences how well off the family is, what skin color they are, or what music they listen to. But he chooses to use that which we associate with the very opposite of disturbing violence. He isn't merely questioning film violence but looking to make the most disturbing film possible and then pass it off as the viewer's fault. To me, that is far more unsettling than Eli Roth deciding to torture some college kids.Most, if not all, of his movies have an implicit criticism of the comfortable bourgeoisie. As such, it is reasonable to extrapolate that into the possibility that he believes this sheltered family, hiding behind their giant driveway doors, had it coming to them.

[Stay Puft]

Thus, the simulation impacts us just as reality does, because it still informs our sense of reality. As such, what is shown in the simulation shouldn't be so far removed from the morality that informs our reality. I sorta had the general idea.

I'm trying to say that the impact (or should I say our reaction) is not the same. There's no talk about characters having souls, and there's no insinuation that violence enacted upon said characters would (or even could) have the same impact as witnessing similar violence in real life. Peter and Paul only talk about their own reality within the movie, through talking about the story of Kelvin - and what the movie seems to ask is to consider the reality of the film, or as Spinal says (and I think he is right here), the way other movies construct and disseminate representations of violence, and what they say about us as such.

This just made me think of the scene in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, when the Player decides to kill one of his actors on the stage, but the crowd boos and hisses at the performance. The audience knows what is real and what isn't, but what they are not aware of is how they are being manipulated, how they have been conditioned to accept one thing over another. Because they have been conditioned.

So I think I do agree partly with Spinal that Funny Games is about the way we are conditioned and manipulated by other movies. At the risk of going Frankfurt School for a second, there seems to be the implication that the media trains us to accept or treat violence in a particular ideological way, and Funny Games wants to shake the viewer out of that complacency and make the viewer realize how violence is portrayed, and question why. But following this train of thought (and I do apologize if I am rambling, this is probably more an attempt at trying to figure out the movie for myself as opposed to a rousing defense), I would have problems, like Raiders, with some of the basic assumptions Haneke's movie makes about the way audiences "consume" information.

In short, I still have no idea what to think, but I'm enjoying the discussion all the same.

[Rowland]

and what the movie seems to ask is to consider the reality of the film, or as Spinal says (and I think he is right here), the way other movies construct and disseminate representations of violence, and what they say about us as such.I agree with this too. Of course he is talking about other representations of violence, what else would it be about? Heck, the blood splatter across the television airing a race, as well as the references between the two killers to such shows as Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead suggest that he is indicting all of the media. The problem here is that Haneke's finger-wagging tone suggests that he believes he is above the rest, when his representation of violence in this movie and his others is just as suspect, failing to note gradations in the representation of "violence." His thesis is generally clear (I could swear that discussion on the boat concluded that reality and cinema are indistinguishable), but it's a simple one, accomplished with little in the way of grace or respect for the intelligence of the audience.

[Spinal]

Ack, too much to read. Guess I'll have to catch up with this later.

[Stay Puft]

I agree with this too. Of course he is talking about other representations of violence, what else would it be about? Heck, the blood splatter across the television airing a race, as well as the references between the two killers to such shows as Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead suggest that he is indicting all of the media. The problem here is that Haneke's finger-wagging tone suggests that he believes he is above the rest, when his representation of violence in this movie and his others is just as suspect, failing to note gradations in the representation of "violence." His thesis is generally clear (I could swear that discussion on the boat concluded that reality and cinema are indistinguishable), but it's a simple one, accomplished with little in the way of grace or respect for the intelligence of the audience.

Hmmm... I'm trying to avoid discussions of Haneke's intent. I don't know, maybe he thinks he is above the rest, maybe not. The film plays with the conventions of a specific genre or "home invasion" narrative (the discussion on Emerson's blog has some good talk about these elements, and one guy offers an interpretation about Peter and Paul being characters from such movies stepping out of that dimension and into reality, although again I don't think that's what the final conversation gets at, because what other universe have they stepped into if not another constructed film narrative?). As such it creates scenarios in accordance with those narratives, and representations of violence follow from that logic (or don't, as is the case, since the film does not actually show any violence on the stage, so to speak, beyond the key moment at the end). What I take from the final conversation, or the film as a whole, is not a failing to recognize gradations of representations, but a recognition that any representation, from a silly Tom and Jerry cartoon to a serious "home invasion" thriller, constructs a particular mode of thinking or reacting to violence that equally depend on the tools of the medium to manipulate and condition and even indoctrinate the viewer in a cultural discourse. As if to say, don't walk out of theatre thinking just about violent thrillers, but of the world around you. Not a question of saying, shame on you for watching this (because as you say, what's the point of saying that if you go on to make more violent movies yourself?) but stop and think about your relationship to all of this and the culture at large.

But then, yes, that's probably a more sympathetic reading than even Haneke is willing to allow given all of his interviews, so whatever. I've read some of his interviews and I'm pretty damn confused or flat out disagree about some of the things he said, too. Maybe it's all part of the game! Haahahahahaha. :|

[Boner M]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/eed2/screens_feature-38693.jpeg

HA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HA.

HA HA HA

HA HA HAHA HA HA

HA.

[Rowland]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/eed2/screens_feature-38693.jpeg

HA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HA.

HA HA HA

HA HA HAHA HA HA

HA.He even looks like an incorrigible little rascal. I want to pinch his cheeks.

[transmogrifier]

I don't need Haneke talking down to me with his obvious genre deconstruction and obnoxious provocations to think about my entertainment, thanks.

Do you feel this way about all genre deconstruction, or just this one? Because you seem awfully defensive and offended, which would suggest Haneke hit a nerve. I fail to see how simply challenging our viewing habits when it comes to the violence depicted in our movies could get under your (or so many others) skin, so much.

Perhaps it comes down to an inherent dislike of having yourself questioned by others, when in fact I think it's something we ALL need from time to time.

[origami_mustache]

Not a question of saying, shame on you for watching this (because as you say, what's the point of saying that if you go on to make more violent movies yourself?) but stop and think about your relationship to all of this and the culture at large.



I tend to lean towards this more than the accusations of condescension. Funny Games is like a mirror. The audience is asked to examine themselves, but I don't think human nature permits anyone, including Haneke from being excluded from scrutiny.

[Spinal]

Well done, all. Don't think I have more to add, especially since Stay Puft so effectively covered spaces out of my mental grasp. It has been an interesting read.

[transmogrifier]

I guess the problem is that I, myself as a rational human being, do respond to violence on screen in the context of the film environment. If a film casually and "coolly" kills its victims, I ask why the film does so.

Really? I don't. Never have. I never stopped for a single second to think about what all the victims in things like Die Hard were killed "for".

[Rowland]

Do you feel this way about all genre deconstruction, or just this one? Because you seem awfully defensive and offended, which would suggest Haneke hit a nerve. I fail to see how simply challenging our viewing habits when it comes to the violence depicted in our movies could get under your (or so many others) skin, so much.I don't like how he does it. I'm more offended by the notion that if someone doesn't like the movie, it must be because Haneke was doing something right, than I am by the movie itself, which I found rather sophomoric in its pretensions. My dislike for the movie has grown over time through discourse more than it did while watching it.

[transmogrifier]

I don't like how he does it.

But - to me - it's fairly innocuous (the violence is all off-screen, and the use of breaking the fourth wall is relatively minimal). The fact that the film makes so many people squirm despite the lack of grisly stuff happening is a testiment to his method - he simply makes us aware that the film (substituting for the filmmakers) is aware that we are out there waiting to be entertained. Quite a clever trick, and it obviously works, in that it throws into relief the individual viewer's approach to screen violence. To me, the film doesn't work much beyond that, making it rather shallow (it would have been a more daring thing to have tried to add more shading to the characters, or something), but I have absolutely no problem with the message or the basic method.

[Rowland]

But - to me - it's fairly innocuous (the violence is all off-screen, and the use of breaking the fourth wall is relatively minimal). The fact that the film makes so many people squirm despite the lack of grisly stuff happening is a testiment to his method - he simply makes us aware that the film (substituting for the filmmakers) is aware that we are out there waiting to be entertained. Quite a clever trick, and it obviously works, in that it throws into relief the individual viewer's approach to screen violence. To me, the film doesn't work much beyond that, making it rather shallow (it would have been a more daring thing to have tried to add more shading to the characters, or something), but I have absolutely no problem with the message or the basic method.I suppose this boils down to some je ne sais quoi regarding the tone. Something about how he executes this intellectual exercise, and let's not fool ourselves into believing it's anything else, struck me as arrogant and patronizing, enough so that I felt genuine disdain towards the movie, and not for the reasons he seems to intend. He lays the machinery so bare that after about 30 minutes, it ceases to work as a movie, and unlike something like Scream, there isn't much else here to keep the experience compelling once I quit taking it at face value. Because of this, I was specifically noting details like the characters calling each others various pop culture names, how they calmly watch television between torture sessions, the blood streak on the television screen, etc. etc., and it all struck me as fatuous.

[Watashi]

I find it amusing that in 5 pages of worth of banter back and forth, no one has even seen the the remake at all.

Maybe that's the point?

[Spinal]

Something about how he executes this intellectual exercise, and let's not fool ourselves into believing it's anything else ...

Why is 'intellectual exercise' a pejorative?

[Rowland]

trans, you just saw this recently. How did the banter on the boat go at the end?

[Rowland]

Why is 'intellectual exercise' a pejorative?It isn't, but I usually prefer my movies to work simply as movies too. Caché, for instance, works brilliantly on every level, from beginning to end. This starts off as the respectable first act to a home invasion thriller before evolving into an ostentatiously clinical thesis movie for the remainder of its length.

[Bosco B Thug]

I also felt condescended to in Cache and Piano Teacher although certainly less so than in Funny Games. I didn't feel it in Time of the Wolf. In Cache it was the Iraq war parallels vis. Algiers and being inherently morally culpable for not stopping my country for it's 'imperialistic attitudes towards an innocent, weak little country'. Oh and inheriting the guilt of my forefathers, as the son seems to inherit his father's guilt, for the Spanish American war and etc, etc for everyone in the world who is not living in a third world country... you're also guilty! I've discussed this film to death on rotten tomatoes though so I'm going to abstain for now in another conversation... I mean feel free to respond to this Well, I'll just say... definitely Haneke certainly has an uncanny way of affronting his audience the way he builds films around the image's address of the viewer, but when there's some humane investment in the narrative and characters, I can appreciate some tonal didacticism, especially when so many "films as theses" are meant to affirm the audience instead of implicating or calling them out. But on a pointless aside, film is such a self-involved thing anyway, I suppose political affronts should be on, say, CNN sans the obfuscatory fictional allegory.

The Piano Teacher, I can't remember which element I found condescending but there was something, will have to think about/read a review/re-watch to remember. Hmm, I'm not sure. It does pretty much affirms its pathological case as completely, cluelessly hopeless, then degrades her to no end due to her denial of, well... I'll just say it, gender roles, though that phrase has come out of my mouth enough in the recent past. :lol:

You're going to funny games yourself to death. I know. Chalk it up to self-esteem issues.

[Qrazy]

Well, I'll just say... definitely Haneke certainly has an uncanny way of affronting his audience the way he builds films around the image's address of the viewer, but when there's some humane investment in the narrative and characters, I can appreciate some tonal didacticism, especially when so many "films as theses" are meant to affirm the audience instead of implicating or calling them out. But on a pointless aside, film is such a self-involved thing anyway, I suppose political affronts should be on, say, CNN sans the obfuscatory fictional allegory.

I don't mind a film calling me or people out ala Bunuel, when I think there's some value to be had from the scrutiny. What I mind is what I find to be a systematically reductionistic approach to his themes... in Funny Games vis. violence in relation to voyeurism, in Cache violence and guilt in relation to war/invasion. I don't think the responsibility and culpability for Iraq or Algiers can so easily be laid at the feet of the people of France or America. I greatly prefer the nuance of The Battle of Algiers to something as thematically obtuse as Cache. I feel Haneke is quick to judge and provoke without much in the way of self-criticism.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't mind a film calling me or people out ala Bunuel, when I think there's some value to be had from the scrutiny. What I mind is what I find to be a systematically reductionistic approach to his themes... in Funny Games vis. violence in relation to voyeurism, in Cache violence and guilt in relation to war/invasion. I don't think the responsibility and culpability for Iraq or Algiers can so easily be laid at the feet of the people of France or America. I greatly prefer the nuance of The Battle of Algiers to something as thematically obtuse as Cache. I feel Haneke is quick to judge and provoke without much in the way of self-criticism. I see... he definitely conceives premises with characters ripe for judgment first, then constructs the film around that. I felt in Cache he successfully buries his critique of colonialism within the particular psychologies of his characters, though. But yes, The Battle of Algiers and Bunuel (only seen 'Viridiana' and 'Los Olvidados') definitely have more intricate, naturalistic approaches to commentary.

[Ezee E]

Saw it, and if there are any dialog changes in the movie, they are minimal at most. Otherwise, yep, it's the exact same movie. So I simply saw it a second time, with different actors (some better, some worse), and on the big screen.

Taking it in the second time, it still works best as a thriller, bringing me into that world, and making Haneke laugh his ass off at me. The message doesn't seem to be as hammered as I thought, as Watts is in the middle of the screen near the end, as she's about to be drowned. You aren't really focusing on the dialog between the two killers. You're focusing more on her.

So, there were two walkouts after the kid was killed, and someone else thought something was wrong with the movie when it went backwards. I guess the first two understand the message, while the latter just had no idea what was going on at all.

The core family is definitely better than the original, but I prefer the killers in the original to this one.

[Ezee E]

I looked at the reviews on metacritic, and they seem to be all over the place. There's literally every type of rating there it seems. That's pretty rare.

One of the best quotes is someone that says it's intriguing and repugnant at the same time.

[MacGuffin]

For those who have seen it, is the grieving scene left in its entirety, and did anybody walk out of your screening because of the shot's length? Just curious.

[Ezee E]

For those who have seen it, is the grieving scene left in its entirety, and did anybody walk out of your screening because of the shot's length? Just curious.
Yes and no. There were some groans though.

[MacGuffin]

Yes and no. There were some groans though.

Personally, I think it'd be wonderful to hear them groan. Idiots! :lol:
:twisted:

[Noisotika]

I saw the film yesterday at the SoBe theater at 12:30 pm. Maybe 10 or 12 people were in the room. No one walked out. And no one cheered loudly when Naomi got her revenge.

To be honest I thought the film was a dark comedy. There's something strangely funny about the Nascar scene and the hair dryer/cellular phone scene. And that Heavy Metal song!

Plus the politeness and the boyishness of the two killers helps the film to go down "easier" [Michael Pitt's performance is so charasmatic that... I don't know I guess I kind of felt like I was on his side, if that makes sense]. I mean if they were totally humorless bastards straight out of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer then the film would probably be unwatchable.

Which isn't to say that the film is easy to sit through. I thought about walking out mid-way through it. I asked myself, "Why do I want to watch this?" But I stuck with it. Just like I stuck with Gasper Noe's IRREVERSIBLE. Incidentally, both of these films happen to be really interesting visually [a trait that I think keeps them watchable]: the way Haneke isolates his actors, for instance. In the eggs scene, notice how Haneke frames Naomi whenever she turns around to look in the refrigerator.

But what effect will the film have on violent cinema? Who will see this? Art-house fans, of course.... I mean if fans of the Saw franchise haven't already questioned their lust for outrageous torture scenes then...?

[Spinal]

But what effect will the film have on violent cinema? Who will see this? Art-house fans, of course....

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed to see that in Portland this is only playing at one downtown arthouse theater. Maybe more people will see it on DVD. I don't know.

[Rowland]

Personally, I think it'd be wonderful to hear them groan. Idiots! :lol:Exactly the attitude regarding the movie that I hate.

[Noisotika]

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed to see that in Portland this is only playing at one downtown arthouse theater. Maybe more people will see it on DVD. I don't know.

Here in Miami it's playing at two multiplexes [a Regal and an AMC] that ordinarily show indie films.

But has the film been advertised enough on TV to attract mainstream audiences? The advertisement with Naomi's face is certainly striking and the quotes from critics might attract some.

But I don't think that if Saw fans saw the film they'd want to stop watching violent [Horror] movies. IRREVERSIBLE might have won that battle. I don't know. To be honest I left the film with a smile on my face. Not because I enjoyed it, but because... of the music? I thought it was a pretty good movie. Nothing revolutionary or offensive. The audience I saw it with just filed out of the theater quietly. The woman I met on the bus stop complained about how stupid Naomi and Tim were. "Who lets strangers enter their home like that today?" etc.

There was one young couple in the audience. The girl laughed along with her boyfriend. At least I wasn't alone in thinking that the film was a kind of dark comedy.

[monolith94]

Darius Kondjhi isn't good enough reason to go see cruelty. Pass.

[MacGuffin]

Exactly the attitude regarding the movie that I hate.

So you tolerate impatience then? Alrighhhtttt...

[Spinal]

But I don't think that if Saw fans saw the film they'd want to stop watching violent [Horror] movies.

I don't think that's the basis on which the film should be judged. Do you?

[Rowland]

So you tolerate impatience then? Alrighhhtttt...I don't hold a grudge against the audience, nor do I presume to judge them on the basis of their reaction to one movie, especially in the case of a movie like this that is explicitly designed to provoke heightened reactions, in which case exasperation is entirely reasonable. I've read credible arguments contending that boredom is exactly what we are supposed to feel during that scene.

Alrighhhtttt...?

[Noisotika]

I don't think that's the basis on which the film should be judged. Do you?

Not at all. I'm just saying. For what reason was the film made?

[MacGuffin]

But I don't think that if Saw fans saw the film they'd want to stop watching violent [Horror] movies.

I think the people that if the people who watch movies like Saw watched this, the majority of them probably wouldn't understand the movie's underlying message because they don't go to the movies to look for subtext. Anyways, I've only seen the original, but it's practically the same movie from what I've heard.

[Spinal]

I don't hold a grudge against the audience, nor do I presume to judge them on the basis of their reaction to one movie, especially in the case of a movie like this that is explicitly designed to provoke heightened reactions, in which case exasperation is entirely reasonable. I've read credible arguments contending that boredom is exactly what we are supposed to feel during that scene.

No, not boredom. Haneke holds those extended takes so that you will go past your initial emotional reaction and begin to consider what has just happened intellectually. He explicitly describes it on one of the DVDs and there are similar scenes in 71 Fragments and Cache.

[Rowland]

No, not boredom. Haneke holds those extended takes so that you will go past your initial emotional reaction and begin to consider what has just happened intellectually. He explicitly describes it on one of the DVDs and there are similar scenes in 71 Fragments and Cache.I said that I've read credible arguments, not Haneke's specific interpretation. Weren't you just arguing a page or two back that we can't trust Haneke's comments relating to the movie?

[Spinal]

I said that I've read credible arguments, not Haneke's specific interpretation. Weren't you just arguing a page or two back that we can't trust Haneke's comments relating to the movie?

I thought we were talking about what we were intended to feel. This is different from talking about what effect the film actually has and how it should be evaluated. At any rate, this is a case where I think Haneke actually is successful at achieving his goal.

[MacGuffin]

Why exactly are we arguing about what one is supposed to feel when watching a movie, or a scene? Isn't that one of the many points of movies? Everyone feels something different and it's stupid to argue over how one should feel. I was just noting I would imagine that it would be funny to see people walk out and leaving during the grieving scene, and particularly ironic that they stuck around for all the violence beforehand.

[Rowland]

I thought we were talking about what we were intended to feel. This is different from talking about what effect the film actually has and how it should be evaluated. At any rate, this is a case where I think Haneke actually is successful at achieving his goal.I've read several takes contending that they found themselves looking forward to something happening, perhaps even hoping that the killers would return, so that the funny games could continue. This is a valid reaction, and one I'm sure Haneke would be pleased with.

[Rowland]

Why exactly are we arguing about what one is supposed to feel when watching a movie, or a scene? Isn't that one of the many points of movies? Everyone feels something different and it's stupid to argue over how one should feel. IExactly. So who's to say that groans during the extended aftermath scene aren't a valid response? That you would roundly dismiss those who would do so as idiots suggests a certain self-righteousness, which is the very same attitude that I personally sense and respond negatively to while watching the movie.

[MacGuffin]

Exactly. So who's to say that groans during the extended aftermath scene aren't a valid response? That you would roundly dismiss those who would do so as idiots suggests a certain self-righteousness, which is the very same attitude that I personally sense and respond negatively to while watching the movie.

I was just being facetious, dawg.

[Rowland]

I was just being facetious, dawg."So you tolerate impatience then? Alrighhhtttt..." suggests otherwise, but whatevah homeslice.

[MacGuffin]

"So you tolerate impatience then? Alrighhhtttt..." suggests otherwise, but whatevah homeslice.

Well, do you? I guess I really want to know.

[Rowland]

Well, do you? I guess I really want to know.I feel impatient all the time while watching movies I don't like, so yes, it is within my capacity to tolerate impatience in others.

[Qrazy]

To be honest I left the film with a smile on my face. Not because I enjoyed it, but because... of the music?

That's pretty fucked up.

[Noisotika]

That's pretty fucked up.

You know, I thought the film was too self-conscious to take seriously. I kind of left Irreversible with the same expression on my face. When the movie ended I wanted to say to the people in the audience, "We survived it!" They're both just movies anyway created with the sole purpose of provoking. A 5 minute rape scene? A scene of a guy's face getting smashed to pieces? A boy shot with a shotgun? The killers making asides to the camera as if the film itself is a documentary of their invasion. C'mon.

[Spinal]

Please take care to avoid spoilers.

[Noisotika]

Please take care to avoid spoilers.

Sorry. You took care of that quickly.

[Watashi]

Please take care to avoid spoilers.

Yeah, same here. I hate how all the reviews I've read assume you already have seen the original.

Hell, even the most infamous scene of the characters breaking the 4th wall is spoiled everywhere. Even in this thread.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I remember seeing the original, without spoilers, and wondering if I just saw what I thought I saw when it was broke. It was pretty quick the first time.

[Qrazy]

You know, I thought the film was too self-conscious to take seriously. I kind of left Irreversible with the same expression on my face. When the movie ended I wanted to say to the people in the audience, "We survived it!" They're both just movies anyway created with the sole purpose of provoking. A 5 minute rape scene? A scene of a guy's face getting smashed to pieces? A boy shot with a shotgun? The killers making asides to the camera as if the film itself is a documentary of their invasion. C'mon.

Yeah, Irreversible as dark comedy...

[Ezee E]

Yeah, Irreversible as dark comedy...
Yeah, underpassages are a circus!

[Noisotika]

Yeah, Irreversible as dark comedy...

When did I say Irreversible was a dark comedy? I sad Funny Games was a kind of dark comedy.

[Qrazy]

When did I say Irreversible was a dark comedy? I sad Funny Games was a kind of dark comedy.

But you walked out of both with a smile on your face.

[Noisotika]

But you walked out of both with a smile on your face.

I wasn't smiling because of the violence inflicted on the people. I think it was the audacity of the filmmakers I was smiling at. The whole idea of a bunch of supposedly high-minded people coming together to pay $7 or $8 to see "art-house" movies with graphic exhibitions of violence.

[Qrazy]

I wasn't smiling because of the violence inflicted on the people. I think it was the audacity of the filmmakers I was smiling at.

I didn't say or mean that you were.


The whole idea of a bunch of supposedly high-minded people coming together to pay $7 or $8 to see "art-house" movies with graphic exhibitions of violence.

It's the new Dada, minus the absurd and multiplied by violent ugliness ten fold.

[lovejuice]

my thought on the remake

it's more didatic than the original which is not per se a bad thing, considered haneke has been accused many times his intellectual game hinders the message. while i view the original as a pure intellectual exercise, this newer version hits home quite well the commentary on our culture of violence.

but i stand correct that audition, saw, hostel, and other torture porns make it less shocking. i went with a friend who hasn't seen the original, and afterward he keeps comparing the movie to above titles. he appreciates haneke's as more artistic and better film, but to him, it also feels been-there-done-that. this actually leads me to agree with many negative criticisms that it's pure egoistic to not "update" anything when the original is -- i think, obviously -- dated.

and i don't like the new family. it's much too "fake." an uber-bourgeoisie euro-centric that doesn't exist anywhere except in a social commentary film. i like pitt even less. he gives a fine performance, but i think casting a semi-well-known face is wrong, to begin with.

[Qrazy]

my thought on the remake

it's more didatic than the original which is not per se a bad thing, considered haneke has been accused many times his intellectual game hinders the message. while i view the original as a pure intellectual exercise, this newer version hits home quite well the commentary on our culture of violence.

but i stand correct that audition, saw, hostel, and other torture porns make it less shocking. i went with a friend who hasn't seen the original, and afterward he keeps comparing the movie to above titles. he appreciates haneke's as more artistic and better film, but to him, it also feels been-there-done-that. this actually leads me to agree with many negative criticisms that it's pure egoistic to not "update" anything when the original is -- i think, obviously -- dated.

For an updated version... Two killers, One cup?

[monolith94]

To be honest, I'm happy that this thread is so full of spoilers. I didn't want to see the film, but I was curious as to what happened in it. Spoil away!

[lovejuice]

For an updated version... Two killers, One cup?

actually for a film-maker as talented as haneke, not making it a shot-by-shot remake probably will do. i believe, certain new aspects will come up simply with that. a shot-by-shot remake is but a way to limit himself, and refuse any "improvement."

[chrisnu]

How is it a shot-for-shot- remake, when there are cell phones?

I'll still see it. :)

[Rowland]

How is it a shot-for-shot- remake, when there are cell phones?

I'll still see it. :)Yeah, I've read that modern technology isn't really integrated into it much. It's shot-for-shot in the sense that every shot in the original is in this movie, even if there are slight alterations within the shots. Haneke has even been bragging about how they are only like 3 seconds apart in length or something.

[Spinal]

How is it a shot-for-shot- remake, when there are cell phones?

I'll still see it. :)

Don't they have a cell phone in the original? What do you mean by this?

[Ezee E]

Don't they have a cell phone in the original? What do you mean by this?
It was cordless.

[Spinal]

It was cordless.

Cell phones usually are. :confused:

[chrisnu]

Cell phones usually are. :confused:
All cell phones are cordless, but not all cordless phones are cell phones. :)

[Spinal]

All cell phones are cordless, but nor all cordless phones are cell phones. :)

I know this distinction is extremely important to understanding the films, but I will concede your point this time.

[Raiders]

All cell phones are cordless, but nor all cordless phones are cell phones. :)

http://www.black20.com/files/fck/scanners4.jpg

[Rowland]

Extended thoughts on the differences between the two versions. (http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/2008/03/funny_games_2008.html#more)

Very interesting. This review makes me want to see it.

[Spinal]

Extended thoughts on the differences between the two versions. (http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/2008/03/funny_games_2008.html#more)

Very interesting. This review makes me want to see it.

Yes. Good stuff there. I like the fact that he notes the lack of on-screen violence and also that the film has comedy in it. The original has that too. Not necessarily laugh-out-loud stuff, but it definitely has witty touches that seem to register as smug to some.

[MacGuffin]

As I was walking out of the theater, I heard a girl say something like, 'I hope they let you choose your ending like they did on the Final Destination 3 DVD.' This is a masterpiece people, and it's Haneke's best movie by a whole lot.

[Derek]

'I hope they let you choose your ending like they did on the Final Destination 3 DVD.'

Mission accomplished, Michael. The choir once again "gets it" and the oblivious and unconverted return home to watch Final Destination 3 another time.

[MacGuffin]

Mission accomplished, Michael. The choir once again "gets it" and the oblivious and unconverted return home to watch Final Destination 3 another time.

I don't think it's like that. Me, I get what he was trying to do. My experience is not based on somebody else's.

[Mysterious Dude]

I love the original film, but the fact that Haneke thought its message was so important that he had to remake it for the American audience (that, admittedly, didn't see it in 1997) seems extremely arrogant to me.

[Derek]

I don't think it's like that. Me, I get what he was trying to do. My experience is not based on somebody else's.

The point of the remake, as I understand it, was to bring it to an American audience unlikely to watch subtitled films. My point was that it wasn't effective at getting through to that audience, at least in that case and I imagine others, in part because Haneke's refusal to update anything. As much as I love Haneke aside from this film, I still can't get over him making this as a response to our supposedly increasing lust for blood and violence, yet sticking to the film he made a decade ago, before the mainstream torture porn sub-genre took off.

[Rowland]

it's Haneke's best movie by a whole lot.Fuck no.

[MacGuffin]

I actually think the movie showed everything that is wrong with America if you looked closely enough.

[Derek]

I actually think the movie showed everything that is wrong with America if you looked closely enough.

Where exactly did it address our obesity problem, the real estate market and public education? I clearly wasn't looking close enough. ;)

[origami_mustache]

Extended thoughts on the differences between the two versions. (http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/2008/03/funny_games_2008.html#more)


Although these subtle differences might help the film play better to an American audience, a lot of the substituted elements mentioned were important in me liking the original. The fact this came before the proliferation of the torture porn genre, the unattractiveness of the mother, the unfamiliarity of the European family, and the lack of notoriety of the other actors and associated charisma are seemingly small factors, but certainly positively contributed to the impact of the film on myself. I'm just not sure Naomi Watt's sex appeal and a less smug and more low-key Michael Pitt will elicit the same response. I also hate the idea that people are insinuating (perhaps even Haneke himself), that this is specifically targeting America. The media's infatuation with violence is a universal phenomenon; making the film in the U.S. just insures a broader audience will have access to it.

[MacGuffin]

Where exactly did it address our obesity problem, the real estate market and public education? I clearly wasn't looking close enough. ;)

Maybe not everything, but enough. I'm a little tired right now, so I'll try to answer any specific questions tomorrow if I can.

[Rowland]

I actually think the movie showed everything that is wrong with America if you looked closely enough.Please stop.

[MacGuffin]

Please stop.

I'm not going to deal with your horseshit any more, man.

[origami_mustache]

secret alliance anyone?

[Duncan]

secret alliance anyone?

:lol:

[Rowland]

I'm not going to deal with your horseshit any more, man.Sorry, but you can't make an absurd statement like that without backing it up. Not that it can be justified.

[MacGuffin]

Sorry, but you can't make an absurd statement like that without backing it up. Not that it can be justified.

Yeah, it can't be justified. In fact, let's say that about everything so no one will ever have to waste their time over anything ever again and we can all be bored forever.

[Boner M]

I'm digging Clipper Ship Captain's inexplicable bouts of petulance that seem to occur everytime Rowland lightly ribs him. New *drink* item, anyone?

[Spinal]

Any truth to the rumor that in the new version of the film Haneke actually finds the location of Osama Bin Laden, but decides not to pursue him in order to punish bloodthristy Americans?

[MacGuffin]

Any truth to the rumor that in the new version of the film Haneke actually finds the location of Osama Bin Laden, but decides not to pursue him in order to punish bloodthristy Americans?

No, that's does not happen. I went overboard a little bit, but it does recognize a surprising bit of things I didn't think about being relevant to America in the original (I was mostly just thinking about Haneke's obsession with violence criticism).

[Raiders]

Any truth to the rumor that in the new version of the film Haneke actually finds the location of Osama Bin Laden, but decides not to pursue him in order to punish bloodthristy Americans?

Actually, I think he found Morgan Spurlock wandering about, mistook him for Osama Bin Laden, killed him, realized his mistake, rewound the killing, decided that it was actually probably for the best, and killed him again.

[Spinal]

Actually, I think he found Morgan Spurlock wandering about, mistook him for Osama Bin Laden, killed him, realized his mistake, rewound the killing, decided that it was actually probably for the best, and killed him again.

Oooo, harsh.

I think Morgan should make a film where he watches nothing but Funny Games three times a day for a month and then evaluates whether it makes violent entertainment attractive or repellant to him.

[MacGuffin]

Ah, fuck you.

[Spinal]

Ah, fuck you.

Dude. I'm glad you liked the film. It's good to hear positive feedback. Just riffing on a boring Monday at work. That's all.

[MacGuffin]

Dude. I'm glad you liked the film. It's good to hear positive feedback. Just riffing on a boring Monday at work. That's all.

I think by now people should be able to recognize my reactionary hyperbole. I was like that on the old site too, and no one seemed to care. I even said I'd probably post real thoughts today, but now, why bother? They'll probably just get "riffed" on.

[Raiders]

I think by now people should be able to recognize my reactionary hyperbole.


I even said I'd probably post real thoughts today, but now, why bother? They'll probably just get "riffed" on.

INCONCEIVABLE!

[Spinal]

I think by now people should be able to recognize my reactionary hyperbole. I was like that on the old site too, and no one seemed to care. I even said I'd probably post real thoughts today, but now, why bother? They'll probably just get "riffed" on.

Oy. :|

[MacGuffin]

I said I'd probably post some extended thoughts on this, and so here they are. (http://staticshotcinema.blogspot.com/2008/04/funny-games-us-michael-haneke-usa-2008.html)

[Duncan]

I saw this a couple night ago and liked it. I suppose I'm an odd audience for this film because I haven't seen the original, nor have I seen a single film from the torture porn genre. I'm not just the choir, I'm the choir for an cloistered, evangelical church. Maybe not being familiar with the Saws and Hostels of the world allows me to sidestep any traps of specification, and approach the film more broadly. It doesn't seem dated to me, or hurting for lack of updates. It's not as though there weren't violent films before the original, so I don't see why there being films closer in plot to this one nowadays makes it obsolete at all. Was the NASCAR shot in the original, btw? That seemed very potent to me. Almost Herzogian, but more political. The conversation on the boat definitely concludes with Paul saying there're no real distinguishing features between film and reality. I think that contradicts some of the readings in this thread (which was a good read), and maybe the film's most interesting statement.

[Amnesiac]

Out of curiosity, what in particular did you find potent in regards to the NASCAR shot?

Do you feel there's some subtext there indicating Haneke's tangential disapproval of another type of soulless media? That is, does it indicate that Haneke is both dissatisfied with an irresponsibly violent cinema and the culture which chooses to indulge it, as well as other aspects of media which can offer them similarly visceral thrills (i.e., NASCAR and the contingency of car-crashes and death)?

Or do you feel he's simply (but effectively) highlighting, in conjunction with the film-specific thesis of Funny Games, another banal and destructive form of entertainment which may or may not be tied to our alleged blood-lust?

[Ezee E]

Out of curiosity, what in particular did you find potent in regards to the NASCAR shot?

Do you feel there's some subtext there indicating Haneke's tangential disapproval of another type of soulless media? That is, does it indicate that Haneke is both dissatisfied with an irresponsibly violent cinema and the culture which chooses to indulge it, as well as other aspects of media which can offer them similarly visceral thrills (i.e., NASCAR and the contingency of car-crashes and death)?

Or do you feel he's simply (but effectively) highlighting, in conjunction with the film-specific thesis of Funny Games, another banal and destructive form of entertainment which may or may not be tied to our alleged blood-lust?
Just following his previous movie which had Auto-Racing as well.

[Amnesiac]

If you're referring to Caché, I can't seem to recall any scenes involving automobile racing in that film...

[Ezee E]

If you're referring to Caché, I can't seem to recall any scenes involving automobile racing in that film...
previous version of Funny Games that is.

[Duncan]

Out of curiosity, what in particular did you find potent in regards to the NASCAR shot?

Do you feel there's some subtext there indicating Haneke's tangential disapproval of another type of soulless media? That is, does it indicate that Haneke is both dissatisfied with an irresponsibly violent cinema and the culture which chooses to indulge it, as well as other aspects of media which can offer them similarly visceral thrills (i.e., NASCAR and the contingency of car-crashes and death)?

Mostly this one. But when I see a picture of cars going around in a circle I always think of Even Dwarfs Started Small and Stroszek. It's not just a critique of media and culture, but a philosophical comment as well. There is an inherent absurdity to driving a car around in circles, and it's even more pronounced in the act of watching a car go around in circles. Herzog's image is more comic and less accusatory. It's inclusive in its absurdity, whereas Haneke wants, perhaps, to quarantine that image. I guess what I'm saying is that Herzog's image is about an unavoidable, chaotic essence of life, whereas Haneke's is about the choices we make that are capable of providing meaning and order (or the easier choices that lead to self-deception).

[Amnesiac]

I guess what I'm saying is that Herzog's image is about an unavoidable, chaotic essence of life, whereas Haneke's is about the choices we make that are capable of providing meaning and order (or the easier choices that lead to self-deception).

We use ostentatious automobile racing to provide meaning and order to our lives? :) Or to deceive ourselves?

Sorry, I just think you brought up an interesting point and I want to make sure I get where you're coming from.

[Duncan]

We use ostentatious automobile racing to provide meaning and order to our lives? :) Or to deceive ourselves?

Sorry, I just think you brought up an interesting point and I want to make sure I get where you're coming from.
I'm saying it's one of the easier choices that lead to self-deception. Like I said earlier, it's an absurd image, especially in the midst of a bloodbath. But it's not an ecstatic image, like what Herzog is trying to achieve, because it can be turned off whereas the chicken won't stop. (Have you seen Stroszek, btw?) Herzog's is a comment on being, Haneke's is a comment on culture.

[Amnesiac]

I'm saying it's one of the easier choices that lead to self-deception. Like I said earlier, it's an absurd image, especially in the midst of a bloodbath. But it's not an ecstatic image, like what Herzog is trying to achieve, because it can be turned off whereas the chicken won't stop. (Have you seen Stroszek, btw?) Herzog's is a comment on being, Haneke's is a comment on culture.

I get you, thanks for the clarification.

Unfortunately, I haven't sen Stroszek (I wanna' get the Kinski and Herzog sets when they're more reasonably priced) but I can still appreciate what you're saying.

[Katiescarlett]

Ok, I just finished watching this movie.

I rented it blindly knowing nothing about it nor the director. I was half way through the movie when I paused it and asked KF if he knew anything about the movie.

He told me everything he had heard and after that I was pissed off. From what he said it seems like the director thinks I should be disgusted with myself for having sat through it.

You know how hard it was for me to finish the movie?

I did anyway and yeah I hated it. It served no purpose whatsoever. And Michael Pitt talking to the audience? I wanted to punch him in the face.

[Spinal]

I don't think KF explained it right.

[Ezee E]

Can't say it doesn't provoke at least.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't think KF explained it right.

I didn't technically explain anything. I told her I hadn't seen it, but that I read a quote on Match Cut from Haneke along the lines that he didn't think people should sit through the entire film, and if you did, you need the film most, or something along those lines. I told her most read it as a film intended to challenge the viewers idea of violence as entertainment. Now, I was tired, so those ideas may not have come out quite as eloquently as now, but those were the only two comments I made.

[Ezee E]

I didn't technically explain anything. I told her I hadn't seen it, but that I read a quote on Match Cut from Haneke along the lines that he didn't think people should sit through the entire film, and if you did, you need the film most, or something along those lines. I told her most read it as a film intended to challenge the viewers idea of violence as entertainment. Now, I was tired, so those ideas may not have come out quite as eloquently as now, but those were the only two comments I made.
Eh, I like the movie, but I hate the way Haneke backs it.

[chrisnu]

And Michael Pitt talking to the audience? I wanted to punch him in the face.
Well, that's only natural...

[Katiescarlett]

I didn't technically explain anything. I told her I hadn't seen it, but that I read a quote on Match Cut from Haneke along the lines that he didn't think people should sit through the entire film, and if you did, you need the film most, or something along those lines. I told her most read it as a film intended to challenge the viewers idea of violence as entertainment. Now, I was tired, so those ideas may not have come out quite as eloquently as now, but those were the only two comments I made.

Well, you have to admit that you thought I shouldn't watch it.

Anyway, if me hating it means that he did what he wanted to, then great.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, you have to admit that you thought I shouldn't watch it.

Anyway, if me hating it means that he did what he wanted to, then great.

You said you didn't want to watch it if

everyone died.

I was explaining why that happens, and letting you know if you felt that way that you shouldn't watch it.

[Katiescarlett]

You said you didn't want to watch it if

everyone died.

I was explaining why that happens, and letting you know if you felt that way that you shouldn't watch it.


Yeah well... it doesn't matter the whole experience was a bust for me. I don't blame you.