Funny Games

With "Funny Games," director Michael Haneke-whose last film was the somewhat overpraised "Cache,"-has remade his own film from 1997 shot for shot-the only thing changing here is the language that the actor speaks, and the actors themselves. So in this way, as Haneke even said himself, seeing this film having seen the original is completely and utterly pointless. Of course, I saw the original film and I went to see this one, if only curious to see how it translates to American screens. Sadly for Haneke, "Funny Games" completely bombed in the United States, barely making a million dollars with a rather generous release considering its subject matter and its budget. Maybe its because its marketing tricks the audience into thinking it will be something that it isn't.

I am a big fan of the 1997 "Funny Games," finding it a rather haunting and grueling experience, as it should be. I suppose I wanted to see the remake because I wanted to experience this story on a big screen, with a crowded audience for maximum effect-even though I knew everything that was about to come. The story begins with a family moving into their summer home for a couple of weeks. Everything about this family screams "stuck-up," and married couple Ann and George-played by Naomi Watts and Tim Roth-are playing a car game where each one selects an opera to play and the other has to guess which one it is. We are hearing this rather pleasant music against the backdrop of a car driving along the road, until Haneke plays a trick on us and suddenly employs loud heavy metal music to play. It is a shock for the viewer, and at this point you know that this is not ordinary movie you are about to watch. Ann and George, along with their son Georgie and their dog, begin to settle into the summer home, until the door rings and two young men dressed all in white are there. Under the ruse to borrow four eggs, the two men-Paul and Peter, played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet respectively-milk this request for all its worth, until it culminates in George slapping Paul. The two men get their revenge, and soon they are holding the family hostage, betting with them that in twelve hours they will be alive or dead.

What follows is a grueling and unpleasant ninety minutes, where we watch with a rather sick fascination as to who is going to live or who is going to die. However, we hardly get a look at any of the violence on the screen-and all strong acts of violence committed are off screen, although we do get to see a few bloody results. Haneke seems to be commenting on our fascination to violence-not just in the movies, but in general. This is shown by the Paul character talking to the audience from time to time, breaking the 'fourth wall.' He asks us who we are rooting for, or if we want the film to end there. And the only time we actually get to see an act of strong bloody impactful violence is when Haneke plays a trick on us and has Paul "rewind" the image using the television remote changing the course of action in the story. Haneke frustrates his viewer by denying this release for the viewer. And I like how we never get to really know these character before they are taken hostage-we see them playing their innocent games, and we see their rather snooty lifestyle unfold before us-but we never actually get to know them as people. Their marriage is fine, their son seems to love them, it is all really picture perfect. But we are detached as they are tortured-which makes it easily for the viewer to want to know their fate and at the same time not exactly feel a strong amount of sympathy for them. 

All of the acting is right on target-Watts, who serves as an executive producer as well-and Roth are both fantastic here. I wish that Roth would work a bit more-he disappears for a while and then shows up. And I wish he didn't waste his time with last year's "Youth Without Youth." Pitt and Corbet really do seem to have fun and play around with their roles. I like Michael Pitt from time to time, but he plays this rather sick and deranged character better than he plays in films like "Silk," which was just plain awful. And Haneke does his job very well as director. "Funny Games" has a slow pace, much like "Cache" only in this case its quite tolerable. Haneke allows the camera to stay on one image for long periods of time, namely one shot where Watts is tied up and moving around the living room after a big shock incident. It goes on for about five minutes without moving once, and even though there is no dialogue at all it is quite gripping. The visual style is extremely dark, despite almost the entire set and the outfits of Paul and Peter being completely white. Every single shot has this dark undertone that is just beautiful, and one shot that comes to mind is a shot of Roth sitting on the couch talking to the two of them saying that they don't have to do this-its framing and lighting is quite perfect. Haneke's ability to frustrate his viewer is at a strong high here, much like it was in "Cache"-however the slow moving of that film just seemed to have a negative toll on the viewer, although I am in the minority saying that. There is one scene where we see blood draped over the television set after a gunshot goes off-we do not see the gunshot fired and we do not know who it hit-and on the television screen is the sound of a NASCAR race that seems to drill into your head as you watch it in eager frustration. Haneke wants us to be eager-he wants us to be dying to know who is dead, which would be exactly what he is commenting on. It really is well done.

But the point of this movie-well, in the end there are a few explanations. Is Haneke just trying to make a fast buck by being unoriginal and redoing a movie that he made already? Is he trying to bring his comments to an American audience, since the odds of them watching a slow French film is quite slim? Is it both? It is safe to say that "Funny Games" is useless to someone who has seen the original, unless they want to be interact with an audience for the experience. Or unless you are a film nerd who wants to see both versions to compare. I found both films to be equally unpleasant and grueling to get through, but that is absolutely the point. This isn't supposed to be a cake walk. And so I cannot recommend one over the other-I suppose if it is someone open to subtitles I would say the original-only because the familiar faces of Watts and Roth and Pitt make the experience somewhat less horrifying than when it is faces of the unknown-because the unknown French actors could be anyone, and the mystery of that really does make you want to know what will happen next every bloody and violent second later.

Final Grade-

Funny Games-***1/2 of ****

Married Life, Snow Angels, and Paranoid Park Open This Week!

Two very good movies open this weekend in the New York City area, that I can recommend heartily, and oddly enough somewhat companion one another.

The first is "Married Life," Ira Sachs new 1920's romance/thriller/mystery/comedy, which is based on a noir book from the 50's that he adapted into a rather offbeat mediation of love and marriage and everything else in between. I saw the movie at the Toronto Film Festival, where it opened to rather mixed reviews, one of them from Dan Sallitt, whose own film thoughts can be found here, but I found it to be quite good and one that I would like to revisit. My full review of the film from the festival can be found here. The film can be found at a few locations around Manhattan, including the Sunshine, the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, and the Chelsea Clearview Cinema.

The second is "Snow Angels," which I saw last June at the Sundance Film Festival at BAM's week long festival. I fell in love a bit with the film, and its other haunting mediation on love, marriage, and other various stages of relationships. This is a much heavier film than "Married Life," but its themes somewhat connect. Sam Rockwell gives another fantastic performance here, and one that I would have considered for awards had the film been released during the awards heavy season. At the moment I consider "Snow Angels" and "In Bruges" the two best films of the year, and this is one I hope lasts long enough for me to get a second look at it nearly a year later. My full review for that film can be found here.  The film can be found at the Sunshine Cinemas and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

On the other hand, Gus van Sant, probably my least favorite film maker currently working, has a new film coming out called "Paranoid Park," which I saw at the New York Film Festival and somewhat hated just as much as his last two efforts "Last Days" and "Elephant." Dull, long (which is tough to say with an only 80 minute run time), uninterested performances, and a script that has scenes of filler because there isn't enough story to cover a full length film (there is even a scene where a younger brother is reciting dialogue from "Napolean Dynamite" to his uninterested older brother!), "Paranoid Park" was simply a waste of my time, but fans of van Sant might just eat it up.  My full review can be found here, and it can be found at the Angelika Film Center and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

Be Kind Rewind

It is quite easy to say that Michel Gondry has quite a creative knack. As a director he is filled with so much energy and excitement. The more times I see "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," the more perfect I find it to be. The more times I see "The Science of Sleep,' the more times I realize that the film is kind of a mess, if not creative and very colorful and filled with imagination to the very brim. I somewhat have to give the most credit to Charlie Kaufman for his rather genius script for "Eternal Sunshine," but the two do work as a team the make that film so great. On his own, Gondry has spirit and imagination, but at times his movies on his own can be a little uneven. Such is the case with "Be Kind Rewind," a film I liked quite a bit, but with such an oddly incredible plot it should have had a bit more. Perhaps it was the marketing, which seem to promise a rather Jack Black-esque ridiculous comedy, but I should have known better. Instead "Be Kind Rewind" ends up taking a feel good finale, which was fine and well-done (I even had some water in my eyes), but this sudden divert change in tone made the movie as a whole a bit uneven. 

Taking place generally inside of Be Kind Rewind, a video store on the corner of a rather old neighborhood, run by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) who trusts his store over to his only worker Mike (Mos Def) for the week while he goes out to do research over what makes video stores more successful. The store only rents video tapes, a dollar for a day, which is a dying breed. Mr. Fletcher's only request is for Mike to keep Jerry (Jack Black) out of the store, because he destroyed everything he touches. Mike doesn't listen because of a communication error, and when Jerry goes out to sabotage a local power plant his brain becomes magnetized. Going into the store he ends up erasing all of the tapes by touching them, leaving them with nothing. Mike becomes worried, especially when a long time customer (Mia Farrow) who is on good terms with Fletcher demands a copy of Ghostbusters. And struck with the only idea to save the store, Mike and Jerry begin to make their own versions of these movies-twenty minutes length usually-and suddenly find themselves as local celebrities.

One thing I had a problem with was the rather forced method of getting the tapes to be erased in the first place. Jerry's magnetism (and his obsession with the power plant in general) is barely introduced, and clearly only used as a way to get us to the remade movie subplots. His magnetism is also discarded quite easily, in a very Gondry style animation segment, involving pee (it was one of the few parts where I actually thoughts to my "what is going on?") Either Gondry could not think of another way to get to the remade movies, or he started writing something much different when he continued. The middle section focuses mostly on the remade movies, which is a constant thread of creativity. One example is during a version of "Boyz in the Hood," where one of the characters gets shot and instead of a pool of blood they put a cheese pizza right behind his head. Little details like that really do show Gondry's sometime genius, which has been waning since 2004. Some of the acting is a little off as well, especially since Gondry enjoys a rather casual style of dialogue, having the characters speak while the camera kind of drifts in front of them, sometimes not even paying full attention to them. It worked in "Eternal Sunshine," perhaps because Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet are just much better actors than Jack Black and Mos Def.

And then the third act becomes something out of Capra. The themes of the movie come into play- preserving the old neighborhood and bringing the community together (sometimes I actually wrote an entire paper on at the tail end of high school) but it seems oddly out of place in comparison of the rest of the movie. I did enjoy it, but the three separate segments in the movie seem very loosely tied together making it a rather uneven, but still entertaining and imaginative, little movie. So I have come to not expect greatness from a Gondry film anymore, unless Charlie Kaufman has a hand with the screenplay, but I can expect something unlike anything I've seen before, and just an overall good movie.

Final Grade-

*** of ****