Mr. Floppy 10.19.08: Funny Games

Posted by Peter Bielik on 10.19.2008

Time for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

Just now, right here on 411, Joseph Lee is doing a list of 100 Greatest Horror Films Ever Made. A really good idea that makes for an interesting read since I don't think I've even seen 100 horror movies in my entire life (although I'm by no means turned off by the genre) and some interesting movies worth checking out have already appeared there. Anyway, in one of the installments, Funny Games were included and while I'm not sure it's a mere horor movie, I thought it'd made a good inclusion to the list of flops I've already written about. The american remake that is.

Personally, I didn't think the movie would fare this bad in theaters (the sub-genre of torture films itself is pretty popular). The general public however had no interest in seeing director Michael Haneke's experiment. And those three people that saw the film know that „experiment" is the most accurate descritpion you can use. An experiment where viewer is the subject.




Year of the cock-up: 2008

Budget: $15,000,000

Domestic gross: $1,294,919

Foreign gross: $7,337,037

Worldwide gross: $7,337,037


Michael Haneke is a controversial filmmaker. I think the only other film of his that is somewhat known is The Piano Teacher (the other being Funny Games). That also was far from a conventional movie as the plot centered around an aging teacher that wants to engage in sadomasochistic activities with her student. It's very dark, depressing and maybe even off-putting. While not entirely unintersting watch, it's definitely a movie I don't need to see again. It won the Grand Prix in Cannes back in 2001 (one of the more controversial choices of the past decade).

The original Funny Games were made even sooner- in 1997. I actually bumped into this movie by coincidence, but I was all the more surprised that a film like this came out of the cinematically anonymous Austria.

I remember I read about Funny Games on an internet somwhere and decided to check it out, never before hearing about the film. And I have to admit, it was a pretty suprising experience. The plot looks like your typical thriller/slasher. Two young guys torture a small, ordinary mid-class family in their perfectly normal holiday home. That sounds like loads of violent fun, right? That's gonna be an effin‘ massacre! Not by a long shot.
People that see this movie and then say it was „a good thrill-ride" obviously missed Haneke's intentions.

This movie is not your typical thriller. What it is, is a sophisticated example of how to use the laws and attributes of a movie genre to make the viewer think, or how to use those laws and attributes against the viewer. It is an experimental film that's made to specifically comment on a particular topic that just happens to be a sub-genre of films and people that watch it. The message is pretty clear- why are you watching this? Why do people seek out violent films and enjoy the violence presented? Sure, you can say it's just a movie, but the thinking here is why turn brutal violence into an entertainment? I can't say I don't watch a violent film every now and then. That would be hypocritical. But I don't necessarily seek them out either. The fact is people do enjoy seeing horor filcks. Just check out the box office of the entire Saw franchise. The earnings are always surprisingly big and that's because of the audience's obvious desire to watch these films. The fifth part is just around the corner (I think a Saw movie is slowly becoming a regular Halloween tradition). And what else is selling these films beside the violence? The „torture porn" label is pretty spot-on. Nobody goes to see a Saw movie for the characters and plot. No, it's just the torture and violence combined with the curiosity of what sick things are in store for us this time. And that's Michael Haneke's concern.

This movie plays with its viewer. Whether it's one of the tormentors repeatedly talking to the camera, extremely long static shots (the longest is cca 10 minutes long), deceiving shots (knife at the boat we then expect to be used, which doesn't happen) and probably the film's most famous shot. The one that divides people into those who love the film, hate the film or don't get the film. It's the one with the remote (if you don't know, watch the film- for better or worse, you'll remember it). I'm not going to write what happens, but it's defnitely unexpected. It caught me off guard as I didn't know anything about the movie. It was mainly after seeing this scene that I began to think what kind of film am I really watching here.

The director's approach is fairly uncompromising. When one of the tormentors, Paul (played by Michael Pitt in the US version), looks into the camera and winks at the audience, he's basically making us the viewers his accomplices. I mean, we all came to see how two psychopaths torture a family, right? With his winking, Paul lets us know he's on our side. After all, it's in the name of our entertainment that these atrocities are being committed. Paul also frequently states his intentions to follow the standards of movie plot development. When he asks the audience to bet, he guesses that the audience wants the family to win. After the killers vanish in the third act, Paul later explains that he had to give the victims a last chance to escape or else it would not be dramatic. Toward the end of the movie, he postpones killing the rest of the family because the movie has not yet reached feature length. Throughout the film, Paul shows awareness of the audience's expectations and uses them against us.

The scene with the remote is the prime example of this "game" being played with the audience. Haneke just enables us to witness the suffering of the family for some additional time. After all- that is why we bought the ticket. The following sentences may spoil what happens in the scene so if you don't want to know, just jump to the next paragraph. The scene may also serve as a commentary on the wide distribution of violence on DVDs and whatever format you can think of. After all, we are enabled to watch extremely violent films in the comfort of our own homes and we can rewind and re-watch every nasty thing we desire. We can freeze the frame and check the level of detail of any brutality we watch.

The long static shots are put there mainly to provide time and space for the viewer to really think about what they're watching. To think about what really interests them about these kind of films. The shots are overly long however and I can't imagine an average viewer sitting through them.

Whenever anyone writes about this film, one thing never fails to be mentioned. It's the fact that Funny Games US are a direct copy of the original. Shot by shot, line by line. Apart from absolutely irrlevant things, the movies are identical. The production crew even used the blueprints from the 1997 original. The set of the house in the 2007 American remake has the same proportions as that of the 1997 set.

The only thing that logically had to change were the actors. They all deliver strong performances, but the point of the movie is dampened a bit by the casting. The men are all fine, it's Naomi Watts (who I believe was the one pushing for the movie to get made) that's the problem. She's a great actress, but I don't think she's an ideal choice (when thinking about the film's meaning). You see, the part of the wife is portrayed by an actress that doesn't posses half of Naomi Watts‘ sex-appeal in the original. But on the other hand, she looks like an absolutely anonymous, ordinary woman which makes it a lot easier for the viewer to relate to her. Watching the original is thus much more disturbing and uncomfortable in many scenes, because you're less detatched from the character. That way, it's easier to make the viewer think whether it's normal that he seeks these kinds of movies for his entertainment. But Naomi Watts is an already widely known face, plus she's hot so the viewer doesn't feel as close to the character. It also serves as an effective distraction, because seeing Naomi just in her bra and panties moves the male part of the audience's thoughts in a different direction than intended (not that I'm overly complaining though :-)).

But even the relatively known cast (Tim Roth was also there) didn't prevent this film from tanking during it's theatrical run. The budget wasn't big, but Funny Games are simply too unconventional for the general public to digest. The mixed reviews also didn't help, but a film this weird couldn't expect anything special. The success is that Haneke's idea is at least introduced to a much larger audience, which is why the director probably did the movie in the first place..




Funny Games is exactly the type of film that not everyone will enjoy (for various reasons), but Haneke himself has commented, "Anyone who leaves doesn't need the film, anyone who stays does." Funny Games is both a classic thriller in its own right and also an analytical exercise that uses the rules of its own genre to make the viewer think and throw him off. The concept of the film shows audiences how open to manipulation they really are. We are voyeurs watching (and enjoying) the suffering of others and as such, we are also responsible for what's happening to them.
It's also nice to see that Haneke didn't hypocritically show us brutally violent scenes, while moralizing. All killing takes place off-screen and if some of you are only hungry for blood, you have to look elsewhere.

Haneke's point is increasingly more valid (the original film was made in 1997). Apart from the Saw series, other films have been released in the last few years that contain a healthy dose of torture- Hostel, Hostel II, Devil's Rejects, Wolf Creek, Ichi the Killer, Captivity etc. Torture has thus become a regular addition to commercial mainstream cinema and it's an interesting addition indeed. Audiences are obviously becoming more and more immune towards the extreme violence shown in movies. Like I said, I'm no bleeding heart and I can enjoy a good horror movie, but for example, I consider Saw 3 to be a simply disgusting piece of crap. Too violent for its own good.

The problem essentially is the permanent presence of violence in the media, which takes two forms- the real violence you see in the documentaries and news (how many people are intrigued by the words "the following images may be disturbing"?), then the fictional violence you see in movies or TV series. In the latter instance, the violence becomes less real. We're fed all these images of violence in movies, but we often have little direct experience with violence ourselves. We're maybe slowly getting to the point where we don't know what real violence is in which case there's a bigger chance of people actually committing it. Studies have revealed that being surrounded by violent images in the media lowers the point of inhibition at which people decide to commit violent acts.
When you see a child shot in front of the cameras, it might shock you and disturb you. But the next time it happens, you're probably going to be less interested because it's nothing new.

I don't want to moralize or ask people to stop watching horror films, but it's always good to think about what you're doing for a minute. That's all.

Anyway, the film still flopped and since I don't want to post Haneke's ancient philosopher-like looks here, I'll provide with something much easier on the eye.

Since I talked about Naomi Watts' sex-appeal earlier, here's a concrete proof.



I can imagine playing a funny game with her. I'm not surprised King Kong went bananas for her. That was a really lame joke, I know. Would "King Kong went ape-shit for her" been better? Probably not. Why am I even writing about this? To kill some more space under the pictures of course.

So if you are open to film experiments, give this one a shot.

- PeTeR