Funny Games U.S

[Staal]

I stumbled upon Funny Games U.S. last night and really liked this one. I found it terrifying.

But the ending, does anyone know what the hell that was about? That whole rewind part. For me, that ruined the whole movie.

[fortunato]

Originally Posted by Staal

I stumbled upon Funny Games U.S. last night and really liked this one. I found it terrifying.

But the ending, does anyone know what the hell that was about? That whole rewind part. For me, that ruined the whole movie.

I don't mean to be a douche or sound elitist or anything, but I think you lost the point of the film.

Funny Games is supposed to be an analysis of the portrayal of violence in cinema, and wake-up call of sorts. Ostensibly Haneke was disturbed by the fact that violence is consumed so easily, for the most part. Such a big deal is made over sexuality represented in films; as a media-consuming collective, we're shocked and offended by nudity or sex scenes or sexual dialogue and/or so on, yet think nothing of a man being shot to death or a car accident or a fist fight, etc. So to really make this observation digestible (and to show us that we're always accomplices to depicted violence by the sheer act of watching it), he decided to implement the viewer in the crimes onscreen. This is why the criminals interact with the viewer, to make us part of what they're doing to this family. The two criminals are not characters in the narrative sense, they're more archetypes, representations of violence itself. They talk to us, they manipulate time and space, they do what they want, removed from not only the rules that govern our society but from reality itself (refer to the conversation Peter and Paul have on the boat at the end of the film). Funny Games is a meta-film, an abstraction of violence in cinema from cinema itself in order to make a statement about the former by making it the focal point and removing all other extraneous information. By doing this and removing all believability from the film, the violence becomes hollow, meaningless, and we're left to only consider the violent acts themselves, instead of why they might be committed in the context of the film. There's not supposed to be hope for the family. Haneke just wants us to realize the frightening power of violence, and to never take it for granted.

Yes, it's cynical, it's sarcastic, it's manipulative, and sure, it's even a little pretentious, but (I felt, at least) it's effective.

If you couldn't tell, I'm really really bored.

[Staal]

Well, actually I was aware. I did not know as much about this as you did, but I was aware of it. Still, it wasn't all that. I bet you could watch that movie, not having read a single review, not get the point and still like it.

But my question was just. Is there a any point to that bit where Paul (I believe that's his name) rewinds after his mate is shot?

I really did not understand that part.

[fortunato]

Originally Posted by Staal

I bet you could watch that movie, not having read a single review, not get the point and still like it.

I think that's what Haneke was afraid of.

Originally Posted by Staal

But my question was just. Is there a any point to that bit where Paul (I believe that's his name) rewinds after his mate is shot?

I really did not understand that part.

Paul rewinding the action serves as the final point in Haneke's statement: that we've been (and are) manipulated by cinema. The horrible things that they do to the family get you hating these two criminals, and you feel relief or satisfaction when Peter is shot (violence), a catharsis. But you've been manipulated. The director chose the actions to play out in such a way as to elicit this response in the viewer. So, Haneke shows us this by having Paul rewind the scene. That's what I was saying about him trying to show us how calmly and readily we take in violence through manipulation. When Paul rewinds the action, that's Haneke's intent with Funny Games in a nutshell: Cinema (or effective cinema, anyway) molds our emotions and responses when we watch, and a product of this is our untroubled consumption of its violence. The point of that scene is to jostle us awake and into this realization.

This kind of "analysis of film within the film" is present in another film of his, Caché. If you haven't seen Caché, definitely watch it. Amazing film.

Anyway, that's awfully rambling, but I hope it makes sense.

[Staal]

Actually, that explained alot. I guess I really misunderstood this movie. That's a shame, cause I really loved how evil these two villains were.

I'm not sure if you thought out all of that yourself, or you know any articles or the alike I can read about this film? Having trouble finding anything useful.

And i'll definately try to look up that movie.

[fortunato]

Ah, I'm sorry. I don't know of any articles or anything written about the movie.

I did find a pretty interesting interview with Michael Haneke given after the release of the US remake:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2017...183048,00.html

Let me know what you think of Caché as well.

[Zero]

haneke has long been obsessed with the cinematic form as it relates to manipulatoins of the audience - check out his Cache - not quite as obvious as Funny Games but great. Also there is an original Funny Games worth seeing.

[Plaguewind]

Great analysis, fortunato... And yeap, Caché is awesome, no doubt about it.

I guess Hanneke makes a strong statement...

I was just thinking: here in Brasil, a local movie called Tropa de Elite (which might be translated literally as Elite Troop, as I think you may have guessed), which portrays an elite police unit in Rio de Janeiro, won a huge lot of fans... Who just idolized Captain Nascimento, the protagonist, which, incorruptible and righteous as he may think he is, uses overtly (and overly) violent procedures to deal with the criminals he goes after. The point the director was aiming at (with which I don't agree, even though I did like the movie) was that moral choices are ultimately determined by the environment. People didn't discuss that (even though a quote about that is showed before the first scene, most spectators just forgot about it) and ended up idolizing the guy just because he didn't hesitate to torture and spank criminals. It got me thinking... We are so brutalized by violence that, as far as the results are there, many people just think it's OK... The bad guy's being shot? All right. A kid in the slum is about to have a broomstick shoved up his ass just because he doesn't wanna tell where the drug dealer is hiding? Oh, he had it coming. And so on...

Right, it may have been a little of topic... I'm sorry if that was the case.

[Anthropophagus]

After all that`s been said i still find this movie amazing and frightening and for me the best movie i have seen for a few months.I have seen the US version twice and the original once and it never fails to entertain.If entertainment is the right word.Class.

[Despare]

After the infamous remote scene the absence of hope and the lack of reality surrounding the "violent acts" rendered the film's message impotent. Every moment in the film which was gripping and suspenseful before became feckless and I felt is if my time had been wasted. I wasn't a fan and my view of modern cinema wasn't even tweaked.