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 ****