Back in 1997, director Michael Haneke directed a film in Austria called Funny Games. It was an experimental film, one that I have never seen. At some point, someone decided that it should be adapted to English for American audiences. I am not sure whose decision this was, whether it was a studio executive, a producer, or Haneke himself.
Having now seen the American version, I would have to believe that it was Haneke who made the decision, and not only because he wrote and directed both versions. As I left the theater, I cannot picture an executive watching this bleak, twisted film and saying, "Hey! Let's make this in English, the kids'll love it!" It just isn't that kind of movie.
Funny Games is a daring film that is an exercise in excruciating terror. It is a graphic, disturbing journey into a situation that feels almost too real. One could almost imagine a situation like this actually happening. For all I know, something like this may have already happened, and if not, I am sure someone could be contemplating such a dark deed. Scary isn't it? Michael Haneke takes us into the darkness with no chance for escape, no comic relief, no hope for salvation. It is a black hole of despair, the likes of which the big screen has not seen in some time.
Comparisons could be made to other torture-centric movies like Saw and Hostel, but there is something distinctly different in the way that it approaches the subject. Those other series are, more or less, passive experiences that invite you to watch but leave you safe and sound in your seat at the theater or in your home, but Funny Games is different. It implicates you in the goings on, it breaks the fourth wall and speaks directly to the audience. I had read something about the film doing this, but made no real note of it, so when it happened I was caught off guard. It drew me even further in, increasing my level of discomfort. There is no escaping it.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Brad Schader
I was wondering what you would think of it. Ebert hated it. I have not seen the remake (and probably won't), but that is because I saw the original years ago and it is still stuck with me. It is a movie that the second viewing I think would weaken it.
So many people are placing this movie with Saw or Hostel, but there is a huge difference between the two. Saw and Hostel want you to enjoy the torture. It is honestly "torture porn" because the images are there to get you off. This movie clearly wants you to hate the killers and want the family to survive somehow. You may go hoping to see the torture of the saw movies, but it will not give it to you. It lets you know it is happening, but will never let you enjoy it. You are 100% behind the family in this movie where as I really wanted those pricks to suffer in Hostel.
The thing I loved the most about the movie was that it directly blames you for everything happening to the family. Many reviewers have commented on a lack of motive for the killer's actions, but they missed the point I think. The killers are doing what they are doing because you are in the seat to see it- nothing more and nothing less.
I hope I didn't ruin anything. Great review as usual.
2 - Brad Schader
PS- you are the first review to not speak about Naomi Watts in her bra and panties. It makes me wonder exactly what movie those critics were hoping to see since that is the image they walked away with. The original had no such scene- she went as far as a slip and that was all.
3 - Chris Beaumont
I don't believe that Ebert has seen it, or at least he has not posted a review, that half star review was from the site's editor, Jim Emerson.
It is easy to lump it in with Saw and Hostel, but there is a big difference as you noted.
It is definitely an intriguing experiment, and definitely not to everyone's tastes.
Thanks