Is Funny Games a better film than Saw or Hostel simply because it doesn’t fetishize its violence and it knows it’s sending up the gorno genre? Does its self-knowledge somehow elevate it past films that aim only to exploit brutality and torture as a means for cheap thrills? Or is it worse because it should know better than to exist in this filth? Honestly, who cares, either way it doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to watch. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play bland, white-collared lakeside homeowners who, for no good reason, become the captives of Peter and Paul (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet), or Tom and Jerry, or Beavis and Butt-head, or whatever alter egos these two decide to go by on a minute-by-minute basis. These two motiveless psychopaths are dolled up in entirely white polo outfits that match the place so well they might as well be house decorations. There are extended long takes and - sure - Haneke is a better craftsman than either Eli Roth or James Wan, so from a filmmaking standpoint it’s far superior to those other films. But no matter how you slice it, it’s still torture all the same. Haneke just prefers his own brand of emotional torture. Instead of reveling in the excessive bloodletting, Haneke’s film is decidedly non-violent, turning a blind camera eye for every climatic, gory explosion and cheating the viewer out of any kind of retaliatory eruption. Funny Games revels in the aftereffects, lingering on endless shots of Haneke’s victims suffering, making the audience suffer right along with them. It’s a moralistic lesson that if Haneke could somehow make the opening night Saw crowds sit through and see the repercussions of this brand of brainless sadism it might actually make it worth something. But he missed his target audience… they don’t care. And neither do I.
3 comments:
Not having seen this movie yet we're not able to agree or disagree with your rating. However we thought the original 'Funny Games' was quite spectacular.
Wow, I just read your comments on the film. All you wrote was how it was shot and compared it to "other" torture porn films. This was a great film, I'll write it again a GREAT film. Stop for a thinking second about how it was shot and tell us how it made you feel. After watching it I felt like I woke from a nightmare not because it was a poor film just that the horror was over for the lead characters but not for everyone. Just the music alone at the beginning of the film was so well done not to mention every performance on the screen was A plus.
I suggest you watch it again and put away you pad and paper, you'll probably see it for what it is A GREAT MOVIE.
This film is SO under-appreciated, it makes me tired. I suppose in order to like it, whomever is watching it should have an extremely open mind. I found it interesting how this review was respectfully compared to other gorn horror movies. But here's the HUGE chunk I think you're missing out on. And that's simply that Funny Games (in its own way) is a parody to mindless violent slasher films.
Constantly throughout Funny Games, Paul breaks the fourth barrier and connects with the audience, teasing us, making us feel like we should be on the family's side. That alone, I think is brilliantly chilling.
And I beg to differ about the reaction it dawns upon watchers. Unlike Saw and Hostel (which were films that made you jump or cringe), Funny Games has a true terror-emotional impact on the viewers conscience. In other words, it makes you think twice about the definition of a horror film.
It definitely made me appreciate more psychological thrillers.
Post a Comment