Good film but here are some things that irked me.... - Funny Games (1998) Discussion

[–] ichbinsisyphos 16 years ago

you understood the rewind scene. you can understand the rest of the movie in the same way.

there are no motives. its just a movie and paul knows.
the others dont know and therefore they are victimized.

funny games is between paul (and the director) and the audience.

thats a very simplistic explanation, but it should be enough to make the rest clear to you.

you can stop thinking about why the family was weak, its not their personal problem. they are weak in order to deny you satisfaction out of violence that comes from the eventual outburst of heroism in the victim (like it would be in a more typical movie of this genre).

after the rewind scene the movie was done, the illusion was broken beyond repair. and it ends rather quickly afterwards anyway.

reply

[–] Emperorglenuff 15 years ago

The level of the family's fight didn't bother me at all.
I think once the dad was handicapped by the blow to the leg, which would definitely incapacitate you no matter how much drive you have. I think the sheer pain he would experience at even moving it slightly would cripple you.

The threat of two grown men willing to maim and kill, and with your young son present would hinder any kind of attack. They could have tried to attack them, but would have either left one member to die. It was a horrible situation that all the family could hope for was an intervention or act of mercy.

Also the level of threat Peter and Paul posed gradually got more menacing until it was revealed to be murderous. So the family were willing to play by their rules until i was too late.

reply

[–] Karskoya 14 years ago

Oh please, the dad was such a pansy. A blow to the leg would "definitely incapacitate you no matter how much drive you have"????? What kind of crap is that? I'd like to see you get your knee blown out and then have your family tortured and killed. I'd bet my life that you'd forget all about your knee. And if you couldn't forget about the pain, a temporary non-life-threatening pain like that, then I honestly don't think you deserve a family. You have to be there for them and this guy obviously wasn't.

"Am I missing an eyebrow?"

reply

[–] ibrarules 15 years ago

two comments morrisey

1) there are numerous accounts of psychotics working in pairs. Look up some of the most famous american serial killers to read up on the psyche behind this behavior

2) you writing "light relief" at the on screen shooting of one of the perps means you were affected by the movie exactly as Haneke intended (I did the same and then later on almots felt ashamed for the director being able to manipulate my feelings that well). Imo, his point is that we shouldn't react this way, but we do, we enjoy horror films and in a sense we are as callous to violence as the two perps. Same reason why the main perp talks to the camera a couple of times, make us identify with em

reply

[–] emnima2002 14 years ago

Did you miss the enire scene where Paul makes up completely fake backgrounds? The point is there is no motive. It's just pure violence. And also, I thought it was implied (in the U.S. version at least)that Peter and Paul are brothers.

Look at these two and tell me, honestly, that they don't look similiar.
http://www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/images/desktops/movie/funny_games01.jpg

Even their names are similar! Peter, Paul.

reply

[–] ilpohirvonen 14 years ago

Ugh.. Here we see what happens when a mainstream Hollywood movie-goer watches an european film. Haneke is a film philosophist. Who said Funny Games is realism? It mixes truth and fiction with reality. You shouldn't focus on trying to find the motives or plans for the family to escape. Look below the surface. Or don't I don't care xd

"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle"

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

Like to assume much do we? So because I didn't appreciate the concept of fiction Haneke decide to throw into a movie three quarters of the way through I must be pigeonholed into your pompous ideology? I looked below the surface and all I found was a cheap manipulative filmmaking trick used to distract the viewer from the fact that they were watching a rather mundane thriller, that said nothing that hasn't already been said before. I hope you've taken great joy in attempting to condescend, unfortunately it reflects badly on you and your pompous assumptions.

reply

[–] Buff70 13 years ago

Freku - you said it.
Hollywood movie-goers will not be able to appreciate, or even come close to understanding European cinema.

reply

[–] StaunchWoman 14 years ago

But what are the chances of two boys both being on the same psychotic level, meeting by chance, becoming friends and agreeing on torturing families as a pass time? *beep* slim to impossible, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_loeb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

The Leoplod and Loeb case certainly has similarities, however I feel you're clutching at straws with your Starkweather comparison, which has more in common with Bonnie and Clyde. The point remains, these cases are few and far between compared to your standard cases and the film failed to address a lot things which would have given it more depth; instead we have two rather one dimensional killers with not a lot of personalty to separate them.

reply

[–] StaunchWoman 14 years ago

The only reason I included Starkweather was to illustrate that 2 people can indeed be on the same level of psychopathy. And like you mentioned, Bonnie and Clyde, the Copeland couple, Bernardo and Homolka, and even Rutterschmidt and Golay who were in their 70's.

I wasn't comparing Starkweather to our friends in Funny Games, just responding to the original post.

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

[–] amythewang 14 years ago

morrisseylovesyou -- THANK YOU! You could not have expressed *my* feelings any better! I was immediately irritated by the initial golf club attack on the dad. I didn't find this to be as scary as I did totally annoying. And then Haneke breaks his own rules and throws in the stupid remote control rewinding cheat. WTF. As you said, when Fatty was killed, there was finally some relief, but no, not really. I still held out some hope that this film would have some redeeming quality to it, some coherence of some kind; I thought maybe on the boat in the penultimate scene, when they're talking about anti-matter, the skinny one would turn annoyingly to the camera one last time and tell us it was all a joke and would whip out the remote again, rewind the entire thing, and show the family having a normal vacation.

But no. Lame. I had even told myself, a few minutes into the hostage situation, this better not be a waste of my freaking time. I kept saying, the ending better be freaking fantastic. Boy was I wrong.

At any rate, I'm 100% in agreement with you, morrissey.

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

That's because like me, you like your films to have some consistency and substance. Throwing in a ridiculous fantasy scene right near an end of a film reeks of cheapness; can you imagine the collective sigh from the audience during that scene when this film had it's premiere? As soon as the forth wall is broken and said character addresses the audience all suspension of disbelief is lost forever - with this genre of film, breaking the forth wall is a big no no!

Some idiot fanboys here actually defend this junk as art...wow!

reply

[–] solothsar 14 years ago

As soon as the forth wall is broken and said character addresses the audience all suspension of disbelief is lost forever - with this genre of film, breaking the forth wall is a big no no!

the director wasn't trying to work within the rules of the thriller genre. in fact he repeatedly demonstrated that he knew what the rules were, but he broke them anyway. the fact that you're even arguing whether funny games is a very good thriller or not demonstrates that you do not understand it. you seem to feel that you are seeing through the directors "cheap tricks". in many cases you probably are (though i don't find them cheap). however, i think the full picture eludes you. the problem may not be with the film, or with your ability to understand it. you may just be hampered by your assumptions.

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

I've heard this argument many times by fanatics defending their idol's work - "the problem is you, you don't understand it,the director wasn't trying to blah blah blah blah!" The film is garbage, there's no depth for it to even be misunderstood.

Don't try and condescend me, nothing about this film was compelling or complex, the only thing about it that eludes me is why I'm still discussing it with pretentious cretins.

reply

[–] solothsar 14 years ago

i never questioned your taste or intelligence. i simply said that funny games isn't a thriller and that you shouldn't criticize it based on the "rules of the genre".

you seem overly defensive. insecure much?

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

"i think the full picture eludes you"

I found this remark fairly condescending in the context of your post - I think you're kidding yourself into believing the film has more to it than the sum of it's parts.

So please tell me what genre this film fits into?

reply

[–] StaunchWoman 14 years ago

I'll never understand why people get disappointed because the film they've seen wasn't what they expected or wanted... You didn't make it so watch it and take it for what it is. No need for 'could have been better with...' or 'should have included that...'.

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

[–] Spellbinder888 14 years ago

I don't understand where people are coming from when they start to question the actions/choices of the victims.

Is ths the kind of blame-the-victim mentality that leads to people saying that the actions of rape victims in some way led to their being raped?

Anyway, back to the film. I for one would never in a million years presume to know what it is like to be held captive and tortured by two men. It's a family who are held captive, not even an individual. If it was you alone, you can do whatever you like to survive. This isn't the case if you are with your kid. The potential repercussions of taking on someone with a shotgun are enough to render anyone immobile surely???

I think you've all seen too many revenge led films where the viewer reaches a sort of catharsis through revenge. Maybe this is why you feel cheated.

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

I don't think you've fully understood my post(s).

reply

[–] Bronze_Ookpik 14 years ago

I must say I am one of those whose opinions are in opposition to yours in this matter; I won't, however, discredit your right to interpret the film as a trite piece of pretentiousness either. That said, your referring to folks such as I as "idiot fanboys [who] actually defend this junk as art" is a clear case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black when you go on to complain about other peoples' condescension. For those who find meaning and worthiness in the film, there is; for those who do not, there isn't. No need for ad hominems and insults, of which I see ample examples from both parties. While my beliefs lie with those who say there is something more to be read between the lines of the infamous "flow-breaking" scenes, my impression on first viewing was one of comic relief for each of them: a much-needed release of tension in such an otherwise bleak film.

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 14 years ago

You've missed the boat my friend, this discussion died a little while back - but thank you for your input anyway. I can live with the fact that people admire this hacky piece of film-making; some people just don't know any better.

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

You criticize the film for injecting supernatural elements into the narrative at the end, but the remote control wasn't the first time that such elements were utilized. In that sense, it's not a cheat. Throughout the film, it was clear that Paul had a supernatural control over the diegesis. We first become aware of this when he winks at the camera, and later when he talks directly to the audience. He is fully aware that he is in a film. The remote control was Paul stepping up his control of the narrative, which had momentarily escaped his control.

When you watch the film with others, knowing what Haneke has up his sleeve, it's amazing. You know that the audience will cheer when Peter is killed, and the reaction is completely shattered when the film is rewound. I think it's brilliant.

I agree with the poster who said you can't judge this film based on the standard rules of the genre. Haneke is deliberatly shattering the conventions of the thriller.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

Breaking the forth wall is not considered supernatural by any stretch of the imagination - it's merely another form of narration.

It's cheap because it takes you out of the film and thus renders it pointless and you no longer feel any emotional attachments to any of the characters. So ultimately you cease to care about the follow events that transpire. It's a desperate measure a director takes when there's no where else to go with the wafer thin plot.

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

But when Paul is the only character who is capable of breaking the fourth wall it does constitute a supernatural ability. As I said earlier, each time the fourth wall was broken, the effect was more provocative.

Breaking the fourth wall is much more than a form of narration (that would be an aside, which is when a character speaks directly to the audience). When the fourth wall is broken, it shatters the illusion. That is the effect Haneke was going for and that was obviously the effect he achieves when the film is rewound. Breaking the fourth wall is a provocative act, a distancing effect.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

Seriously you're really clutching at straws here. Woody Allen breaks the forth wall in a number of his films eg. Annie Hall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

I guess he has a supernatural abilty too, huh? *sigh*

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

Really?! You're trying to limit the potential of a technique to the way that Woody Allen used it? When Haneke's characters break the fourth wall it's for different effect than when Woody Allen does it and you're being disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Woody Allen is using the technique for comedy. Just because Ferris Bueller talks to the camera doesn't mean that breaking the fourth wall doesn't have dramatic potential...

Haneke is using it for its full Brechtian effect, the original way that the technique was supposed to be used. It's a supernatural ability in Funny Games because its use by Paul has implications on the other characters; Because Paul is able to communicate directly to the audience while the other characters cannot, and because he is the only character who is aware they are in a film, it is indicative of supernatural ability. Haneke himself has said as much.

Clutching at straws would be bringing an irrelevent director into this discussion.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

What are we actually arguing here? Whether breaking the forth wall is a supernatural ability? or does that only apply to Haneke's work?

"Woody Allen is using the technique for comedy"

I think you'll find Funny games is very much a comedy, a black comedy if you like.

I can appreciate that in your ignorant youth you'll salivate over directors like Haneke, who appear revolutionary and daring, I get it, I really do. But for me the guy is basically a hack, who decided to incorporate a surreal plot twist that was clumsy implanted into the tail-end of a sub-standard thriller to give it some depth.

"it is indicative of supernatural ability. Haneke himself has said as much."

I'm sure Haneke has spent many a night indulging over his own work; even to the point that he saw fit to actually remake this piece of trash, so it would be more palatable for the American audiences - who apparently have trouble reading subtitles! Anyone that remakes their own films to make money clearly has no artistic integrity.

"Clutching at straws would be bringing an irrelevant director into this discussion."

We were discussing the use of the forth wall and since Woody Allen uses it frequently in his films I found it was worth a mention. How is that irrelevant? I wasn't comparing directors, I was referencing a technique.

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

I am arguing that the way Haneke used the technique is different than the way Woody Allen (or Ferris Bueller) used it. Haneke's intention is provocative. When Paul does speaks to the camera, he's baiting the audience. When Woody Allen breaks the fourth wall, he is engaging the audience directly, rather than distancing them from the action. I'll concede that this seems like splitting hairs, but my reasoning for even discussing the supernatural implications of breaking the fourth wall is that what occurred when Paul literally rewound the diegesis of the film was consistent with the powers he demonstrated earlier (only intensified). I don't think that was cheating, it was fulfilling the titular promise of Funny Games using the logic that the film had already established.

This is significant because this film, unlike Annie Hall, challenges the viewer's assumptions about their position in relation to the screen. Haneke's intention is Brechtian rather than just being stylistically playful. It's different because a Brechtian technique is used to challenge the audience's passivity. Paul's breaking the fourth wall in Funny Games makes the audience (unwilling) accomplices to the action, whereas it seems to me that Allen speaks directly to the camera as an aside (which is a passive experience).

When Paul addresses the audience, he implies that the audience is complicit with his violence. For me at least, this increases the tension. Somehow it makes me feel responsible. That's why I admire this film, because so many other thrillers seem to make the audience passive spectators; the violence is sanitized and consumable, but this film seems to challenge that and confronts the audience with the real impact of violence.

I'm sure Haneke has spent many a night indulging over his own work; even to the point that he saw fit to actually remake this piece of trash, so it would be more palatable for the American audiences - who apparently have trouble reading subtitles! Anyone that remakes their own films to make money clearly has no artistic integrity.

I wish more directors would spend as much time thinking about their work. I would hope that any artist could discuss at length what they were trying to achieve with their work, and I've seen few directors as eloquent and thoughtful on the subject of the philosophy behind their work as Haneke. I don't think this is a bad thing...

Regarding the remake, Haneke was offered the opportunity to remake Funny Games pretty much with complete artistic control. If I remember correctly, Naomi Watts was a big reason that the project occurred at all (I think she produced the remake and was the one to contact Haneke initially). Considering that one of the most legitimate criticisms of the original is that it missed its intended American audience just because it was subtitled, I don't see a problem with Haneke not wanting to pass up such a lucrative opportunity. While I vastly prefer the original, I appreciate the remake as a technical exercise. The fact that the remake reached a wider audience who missed the original just because it was subtitled is a bonus. Also, Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much, so I don't think it's a question of artistic integrity.

I sincerely apologize for this being so long-winded, but it's late and I'm tired.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

I never disputed that fact - I just didn't see it as a supernatural ability nor did I think Paul had a magic remote control that could pause, forward and reverse time. But I did see it as trite curve-ball that just reminded me that I was watching a film, and thus all my emotional investments in the characters were dispersed of almost immediately. Nevertheless, congratulations for actually making the film sound more interesting than it actually is.

"I don't think that was cheating, it was fulfilling the titular promise of Funny Games using the logic that the film had already established."

Please elaborate, I saw no evidence that suggested the whole "remote control scene" appeared perfectly feasible in context to the rest of the film.

"I would hope that any artist could discuss at length what they were trying to achieve with their work"

I couldn't disagree more, films should remain a mystery, always open to different interpretations depending on who's watching.

"Also, Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much, so I don't think it's a question of artistic integrity."

When Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew too Much he was a very well established director, so we can safety assume that money wasn't a motivation behind it. In fact the films were made 22 years apart and The plots of both the films vary substantially, as do the settings and the overall tone.
Where's Funny Games is a shot for shot remake that serves no real purpose other than to cash in. Even with a bigger budget, better actors and complete artistic control Haneke still managed to make an inferior product to the original. How is that even possible?

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

Paul is supernaturally aware that he is a character in a film. He goes from acknowledging this by winking at us to communicating with the audience directly to actually using the medium to change the outcome of his "funny games", which momentarily escaped his control. As I've indicated, this progression gradually reveals Paul's control over the film. It adds to the suspense. We aren't sure how much power over the situation Paul has: is he just a typical movie villain? Is he just a smart-ass? He knows that he's in a film, he knows that the audience is watching...and then in the end he actually uses this knowledge to make sure that the he wins. So the remote is a surprise, but it's not a cheat.

But I did see it as trite curve-ball that just reminded me that I was watching a film, and thus all my emotional investments in the characters were dispersed of almost immediately. Nevertheless, congratulations for actually making the film sound more interesting than it actually is.

That was the point. Haneke isn't interested in your emotional reaction, he wants an intellectual reaction. The whole movie was intended to remind you that you were just watching a film, and because the film is a genre deconstruction he wants you to think about what is occurring rather than just generating a typical emotional roller-coaster ride. And this film is pretty interesting in its own right, I doubt anyone cares about my commentary...

I couldn't disagree more, films should remain a mystery, always open to different interpretations depending on who's watching.

You have nothing to disagree with: Haneke is a master of leaving his films open to interpretations (our reactions to Funny Games being a prime example) but he is also able to brilliantly discuss his methods, various possibilities, and the effect he was setting out the achieve. He gives brilliant interviews.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

"He goes from acknowledging this by winking at us to communicating with the audience directly to actually using the medium to change the outcome of his "funny games", which momentarily escaped his control."

I haven't seen the film in a while, but I'm almost certain Paul winks at the camera at the end of the film, which is way after the diabolical remote control scene. I'm sorry but calling it a supernatural abilty is a bit of a stretch, more like sublime knowledge.

"Haneke isn't interested in your emotional reaction, he wants an intellectual reaction."

An intellectual reaction to an absurd scene is asking a lot. You appear to have good taste in films, I'm some what suprised that you like this film. Oh well...

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

Paul's winks at the audience very early in the film...during the "hot-cold" game:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Funnygamesgerman.JPG

This is the first moment the audience becomes aware of Paul's "sublime knowledge" (if you prefer). Paul knows that we are watching the film and he knows what our expectations of the film are. He acknowledges us, taunts us by implying that we are complicit with the violence, and eventually subverts our expectations, using the remote. Generic thriller conventions require that the villain loses, but with his self-aware knowledge of these conventions, Paul is able to emerge triumphant. It's snarky, it's cruel, but it also elucidates our relationship to cinema.

I actually think there's something clever about Paul using the remote to pull a fast one over on the audience. A remote is generally reserved for the passive audience--it is used from a distance so that the user doesn't even have to get up to change the channel. In that sense, it's a symbol of the complacency of its user. The remote is used by the audience to completely control their television, to track down more satisfying programs, to rewind interesting action, to change the channel from the uninteresting material. In this film, Paul uses it to contradict the desires of the audience! It's a subversion of what a remote is supposed to do, which is increase our complacency and maximize our pleasure..."Haneke, you sassy BITCH!"

I like the film because I think the acting is incredible and the direction is precise, and because it's genuinely clever. The film feels like a classic Epic Theatre play, with two snarky clowns injected into the drama. The villains are playing violent (slapstick) comedy whereas the family are playing tragedy. I think it's brilliant.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

Well I don't see a wink in that picture, however he is looking directly into the camera, so I'll take your word for it. I still fail to see how this one subtle action can prepare one for the absurdity that transpires towards the end of the film. It certainly is subversive and I guess it works on that level - the idea was so clever it was incorporated into the Adam Sandler classic "Click" 10 years later. *sigh*

The acting is good for this particular genre, but I wouldn't describe it as incredible, the direction from what I remember was also above average, I found it more intriguing than clever, before that remote control scene of course.

Are you familiar with Werner Herzog's work?

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

Don't mention Click...that film is an uneven abortive mess! Paul definitely winks at that moment though...here is a better pic:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/fg97.jpg

I actually haven't checked out Herzog's work yet, but I've been meaning to. Any one you'd suggest starting out with? I'm thinking Aguirre looks right up my alley

And thanks for actually maintaining a civil discussion. I'm used to the hostility of Film General, and I've actually enjoyed this conversation.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

Thought you'd like that comparison, yes I see the wink more clearly now

I think you'd really like Herzog's work, especially his early films. Aguirre is certainly a great place to start, in fact you can't go far wrong with any of his collaborations with Kinski. This boxset is great value!
http://www.amazon.com/Werner-Herzog-Klaus-Kinski-Legacy/dp/B00005YKXQ/ ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293557743&sr=8-1

Stroszek is also amazing, a tragic black comedy with the most surreal ending. Even Dwarfs Started Small is hilarious but also quite nauseating, with unforgettable imagery. Clearly a huge influence on David Lynch. Here's another boxset.
http://www.amazon.com/Werner-Herzog-Collection-Bruno-S/dp/B0001ZX0F6/r ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1293557743&sr=8-2

Well there was no reason why it shouldn't be civilized, you're clearly a smart guy and you made some valid points. Despite the fact I still don't like that remote control scene, I can at least appreciate it a subversive way since discussing it with you.

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

You've convinced me...I think I'm going to snatch up those box sets while they're so cheap! Herzog is someone I've been interested in checking out for quite some time, and I'm on a Fassbinder kick right now, so it'll be nice to expand my German cinema selection.

On a side note, have you seen any other films by Michael Haneke? I have yet to see a film by him that hasn't impressed me.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply

[–] morrisseylovesyou 13 years ago

You won't regret it, trust me! Let me know how you get on with them?

I haven't invested too much time into researching Haneke's other work, as I was told Funny Games was his "masterpiece." Am I missing out?

reply

[–] RaidenPLS 13 years ago

Well, Funny Games is the one that pisses people off...either you like it or you don't. His other films are less confrontational. Definitely check out Cache, The White Ribbon, and The Piano Teacher.

I'll keep you updated on the Herzog quest!

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

reply