Whats up with the 'wheres the remote scene' - Funny Games (1998) Discussion

[–] obin_gam 14 years ago

whats up with it, is whats up with the movie in general. the whole point of the movie is to make us wonder about OUR need for violence.
the moment she takes up the shotgun we the audience yells out YES!!!. the whole point of the remote scene is to comment on why we are so prone to violence.

--------------------------------------------------
... I TELLS YA!

reply

[–] CaptRhodes666 14 years ago

I was really enjoying the movie till this scene came on,it just wasnt needed,i dont think the outcome would have been much different,she shoots paul,peter knocks her out and regains control,with the rewind paul doesnt get shot and they still have the control so its pretty much not needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkpbSD5sOj8 I'm running this monkey farm now frankenstein

reply

[–] royalicecream 14 years ago

i'm actually surprised that you all don't seem to like it.
personally, it made me rate the movie an 8 instead of a 7.
also it wasn't the first time in the movie he broke the fourth wall, he did earlier on when he asked if we wanted the game to continue...
i think it just shows how much power the killer has.

reply

[–] NancyLarned 13 years ago

I thought the remote scene and Paul talking to the camera made the movie much more unique and original. I felt incredibly disturbed and unsafe when Paul started talking to us, like he was saying "I know you're there and you're not safe from me even though I'm in a movie." As for the remote scene, it was Haneke's way of saying Screw you audience, no hope for you! That scene made me realize there was nothing the characters could do to save themselves.

These scenes made the movie unpredictable and more interesting IMO. I mean, any other movie would have ended with Anna killing one guy, maybe escaping, maybe getting shot. It added such a hopelessness to the film and it was then that I realized nothing would ever go right for them. It was different and unique, not formulaic, which is extremely difficult to pull off nowadays.

reply

[–] praveenksingh 13 years ago

In one of the interviews Haneke says that he had deliberately put the remote scene to play with the psyche of the viewers. In one of the screenings he said..viewers almost cheered and clapped when the Peter was shot by the woman. And he had fun watching the audience's reaction when they figured out that they had been tricked and the outcome of the movie was going to be very different and the one that they dreaded..
I loved every minute of the movie!

reply

[–] carmen_corral 13 years ago

What a stupid scene! Completely unnecesary...the movie became boring to the point of unwatchable after that. I've read the posts in htis thread, I understand what the director *allegedly* wanted to do: So?! It doesn't make it less of a mistake if the scene was intentional or not, it still sucked!

reply

[–] jamasian_man 13 years ago

I think the part where the wife grabs and gun and shoots one of the killers is almost like a day dream for the audience, especially because it prays on our sympathy for the family.

I've seen these done times before like in Buried, or The Descent. They will have this super happy change of events like scene and then cut to the reality, as if the dream was shattered.

Instead of having it just cut away, they had the other killer talk to the audience and basically say that this would not happen. Then he maybe never needed to rewind it, because he grabs the gun away from her.

If Haneke were to cut out the fourth wall and rewind scene then it'd just be another shock tactic daydream and it would feel cheap. Having the commentary about violence and our sympathy makes the movie unique, and different from the pack.

reply

[–] Magog360 13 years ago

My first reaction to this movie was "That was the biggest waste of my life", but as I kept thinking about it I came to realize that, while I am not a big fan of many "horror" movies, this movie is just pure genius. This movie is more horrifying, to me at least, than any Hollywood piece of s**t out there. The quietness and nonchalantness of it all is truly and deeply disturbing. No gorefest will ever be able to scare or disturb me as much as this movie. There are scenes and shots from this movie that are just burned into my brain, so now my reaction to it is no longer "biggest waste of my life" but it is now "That is burned into me for the rest of my life". For better or for worse it's in my brain. If the director's point of the movie was to get a reaction than I believe that he is a master of his craft, and deserves recognition.
"No big secret, just love yogurt."
-Michael Westen

reply

[–] coolbrett 13 years ago

I agree. I thought that scene was ridiculous. It totally took away from any realism it had going for it.

reply

[–] los-chupacabras 13 years ago

I thought the scene was sophomoric. The movie is actually pretty disturbing up to that point. The rewind scene felt like something out of an episode of That's So Raven. Sort of like philosophy as taught by the Matrix. If the director wanted to make a point about the audience's expectations and thirst for violence, he could have found a less axiomatic way to do it.

reply

[–] harkness78 13 years ago

Wow I am surprised at all the haters. Paul had broken the fourth wall several times, it was pretty well foreshadowed that these killers were somehow transcendent or above the film's reality.

The fact that they left the house for what 20 minutes, in all that time the husband and wife could have gotten the phone to work and called the police, or yes reached a car on the road or get to a neighbors house. This fact alone they left the house completely unattended for about 20 minutes just goes to show that the movie was no longer aimed at being a realistic portrayal of a home invasion.

I like the rewind scene, cause it hammered home that no matter what the family did it never had a chance of making it out alive. The killers made a bet they couldn't lose. Also, since in this reality the killer's have total control, it begs to question how many lake homes have they taken apart thus far? We have seen 2 and they move onto a third one at the end, maybe this is the 20th house? It's their own sandbox so it's not unfeasible that this *beep* is on a constant loop.

Anyways, certainly not a film for everyone, but if you were enjoying it up to that point, your just close minded or ignorant if the rewind "ruined" the whole movie for you.

"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing

reply

[–] cian_jm 12 years ago

Well the film made it clear throughout that what you are watching a movie. You have the main characters talking straight to us basically saying "what we're going to do is hurt these innocent people in the style of a game show, because you guys just love watching violence so much".

What the remote scene does is basically tease you. For the first time, we actually see on-screen violence and we all cheer because the lead antagonist is dead but then the film just sort of goes "LOL jk, we just wanted to see how you would react to that, back to the show".

Its really supposed to show you how much you enjoy violence, this is probably preferable for most people than if the cops showed up and arrested the two guys. We're used to seeing films where the lead character has been wronged and we relish seeing them get their revenge, this film goes against the grain but dangles in front of you the outcome you really wish happened.

reply

[–] weepingwillow314 12 years ago

if I recall correctly, the scene where it gets rewound by the remote is the only scene where we see any direct gory violence. every other violent assault takes place just off camera, we hear slaps, thuds, gunshots and screams, but we only see blood or injury after the fact.

to me, this makes the "victim" be the only visible "killer" in the movie. turns violence on its head. a surprising moment, and made me think long after the film was over.

reply

[–] fullmoon7461-908-439866 11 years ago

and having Paul break the fourth wall made him all the more creepy!! at least for me.. it was such a creepy "nudge nudge wink wink" saying to the audience, "oh you are in on this too, you are cheering for violence" -- which is what we ARE doing before he rewinds...Haeneke is playing with us, and making us feel even more uncomfortable with violence, as the poster above says...

very unnerving film

reply

[–] DethbyHashi 10 years ago

I kind of have to revise my rating after much thought. I give this movie a 6/10. Even though I think this whole scene could have been slightly tweaked I think it is brilliant. To be completely honest I thought the remake had a better execution on this scene.

Last Movies Seen:
The Raid 2 (2014) 9/10
The Illustrated Man (1969) 7/10

reply

[–] fallen_elite 10 years ago

In the cut I saw, you see the slap, the hit with the golf club, etc... so no. Its the only "death" shown though. Regardless, it isn't like the capacity, and joy, of violence in the antagonists is hidden. They blatantly admit they are drawing it all out just for their own amusement in one scene.

Regardless, I have to side with those who thought it was poorly executed. I didn't find the message profound (maybe due to the time since its been released) and the use of breaking the fourth wall was off putting to me. It isn't a movie I'd watch again anyways... but I may have enjoyed it some if it didn't pull some of that.

reply

[–] Planikta 9 years ago

Paul didn't want his story to be too formulaic, so when that scene happened, he had to rewind it and prevent the movie from ending the way the audience expected and hoped for it to end. He makes it clear by continually breaking the 4th wall that this is his movie and that he can do whatever he wants with it, which he does.

reply

[–] sektionproductions-654-897545 9 years ago

The Choen Brothers does stuff like this all the time like in Burn After Reading and A Serious Man...It's like the joke's on you...I think it's brilliant. Audience's don't like it because they feel like they've been had - like they've been taken advantage of. In way they have....Remember the title of this film is called Funny Games - Haneke wins and the audience loses.

reply