Funny Games: Unsettling review
"Funny Games" has next to no instances of onscreen violence but is still a very violent film - mentally and physically, writes Tom Elce
Nowadays it is common to walk into a cinema and casually watch brutal violence on-screen. When the norm was once the relatively goreless - with the horror genre's crowning achievements indeed being the likes of "Frankenstein," "Nosferatu" and "Halloween" - it is now nothing of a rarity to witness the grotesque and the bloody on a silver screen. Casting a disapproving eye over exploitative films like "Hostel" and "Saw" is Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" redux, for which the Austrian original had already been out long before either of those films.
Haneke duplicates his own 1997 meta-shocker with the English language version of "Funny Games," a shot-for-shot remake that tweaks only the most minute details in pursuit of unsettling the audience for a myriad of reasons. It is a damning report on the debatable moral and artistic soundness of a genre that increasingly goes in directions violent and visceral that nonetheless contradicts itself in a willingness to punish it's protagonists for enjoying their comfortable upper class existence so much. All while it wags a finger at a screening audience who might have come along to see similar torture elements as in the aforementioned "Saw" and "Hostel."
Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth) and Georgie's (Devon Gearheart) journey out to their holiday home to enjoy a peaceful break from the day-to-day only to have their stay interrupted by polite brothers Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), whose calm demeanour doesn't dissipate when they make clear their intention not to leave and begin forcing the family to participate in a series of physical and mental games (far from funny) - that go in increasingly horrific directions.
Taken at face value as an intentionally unpleasant horror film about a family's systematic breakdown, "Funny Games" is difficult to watch and, as helped by the creepily pleasant manner of the antagonists, very unsettling. It lingers in the mind for how impossible to shake it is and for how unforgiving it's narrative is to the characters. When one of the family meets a grisly death - which isn't shown in detail as part of Haneke's disdain for screen violence - the film remains with the remaining two for a long-take of around ten minutes. This scene is meticulously orchestrated in the way it flawlessly unfolds, and also impactful in how the characters' pain is hugely felt. It is probably the film's strongest scene.
Coupled with a self-conscious ulterior motive deadset against the so-called 'gorno' trend in the horror genre, "Funny Games" feels alternately condescending and hypocritical. Designed as such as something intended to have the audience squirming in their seats (or even walking out) the film is appropriately a chore to endure, but the intention of the film leaves an unfortunate sour taste in the mouth. For all it's rebellion against a culture capable of accepting graphic violence as entertainment - evidenced no moreso, and less subtley, than in a scene with blood sprayed across a television screen as motor racing plays out on it (violence as sport, obviously!) - "Funny Games" doesn't get the job done as some of the most shocking and gory films of recent times ("Haute Tension" and "Wolf Creek" both have a longer lasting impact).
There are many moments that unnerve within Haneke's 110 minute shocker, such as Paul's sporadic breaking down of the fourth wall. His accusatory look, gleeful and intentionally off-putting reels the viewer in and makes them stick around, if only to hope to leave the screening when the film gets even more unpleasant. For fans of the gorno wave, "Funny Games" has next to no instances of onscreen violence but is still a very violent film - mentally and physically. Expecting a bloodbath shall lead to disappointment. Haneke's film is deeper than this, if contradictory. Excellent performances from Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet make it's flaws forgivable ones, and essentially "Funny Games" basically makes the cut because it is as vile and damning as the director intended it to be.
[rating:3]
(1 vote)
Comments( 2 )
Excellent piece Tom. I haven’t
Excellent piece Tom. I haven’t seen the Hollywood remake, but I did see the 1997 original. That, for me, was as close to a perfect thriller as a film can ever get. The direction was impeccable, the adolescent villians creepy beyond belief and at the same time highly realistic. That film was not just an indictment of violence on screen, it was also a very black satire against the self content and sophisticated European bourgeoisie. Not even the great Louis Bunuel could make the bourgeoisie look so vulnerable. (And that is saying a lot). The husband and wife were essentially weaklings, stuck in a situation, their background and social milieu did not prepare them for. The basic plot is exactly the same in both the films. But “plot†devices really didn’t matter in Haneke’s original. It was the growing sense of menace, the feeling of being trapped like a rat in your own home. It was also about confronting gratuitous evil. The well-bred tormentors were all the more unsettling because of the sheer randomness of their brutal acts.
But why a Hollywood remake? Maybe Haneke wanted to reach out to a wider audience. Or perhaps he felt that it was finally time to go mainstream. Whatever his motivations, its interesting to note that the film was not as well received as the original. Maybe Haneke’s classic bourgeoisie setting could not be replicated so flawlessly in an American state.
By the way it would be worthwhile to view another Haneke classic-"Cache" made in 2005. That too was about an affluent middle class couple terrorized by a series of random video tapes being sent anonymously to their doorsteps. Another excellent study of bourgeoisie vulnerability.
Thanks for the comments Aniruddha and I
Thanks for the comments Aniruddha and I too think Haneke was inspired to do the remake to meet a wider audience (i.e. viewers in english-speaking countries who might not give foreign films much attention).
I have actually seen Haneke's "Cache" and I agree it is an excellent, excellent film.