Funny Games is a horror film starring Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart. Directed by Michael Haneke.

When I decided to watch Michael Hanaeke’s remake of his 1997 film of the same title, I knew it would be a challenge to review. It is one of the most polarizing films I have ever seen, not only to an audience, but in and of itself. To explain, there are aspects of this film that I admire greatly, but other aspects that I downright abhor. All I know is that I’m glad I saw the remake, but if I never see either version of Mr. Haneke’s experiment ever again, I’ll be just fine.

The plot: a quintessential yuppie American family -- Ann (Naomi Watts) and George (Tim Roth), their pre-teen son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and their golden retriever (given the tragically ironic name of Lucky) are on their way to their idyllic boathouse. While Dad and Son take the boat to the dock and Mom prepares dinner in the kitchen, a young man named Peter (Brady Corbett) shows up at the screen door asking, innocently enough, to borrow some eggs. Soon, Peter is joined by Paul (Michael Pitt). Once inside, these two nice, polite young men (both dressed in tennis whites and oddly menacing white gloves) take the entire family hostage. For the rest of the film, the two young men unrelentingly torture the family, physically, but mostly emotionally, until their hostages (and the audience) are thoroughly beaten into despair.

In discussing, what I admire, and abhor, about this film, I will start with the positives:

As in the original, there is an effective jolt at the beginning: the film lulls the viewer into a sense of calm, as the first shots are of the SUV driving through a pastoral setting. Classical music is heard as the family laughs and chats casually about the music. Then, BAM! As the family continues to smile and chat, FUNNY GAMES, in blood red letters, is splashed across the screen and screaming thrash metal replaces the classical. This sudden jolt effectively puts the viewer on edge throughout the rest of the film.

Interestingly, it seemed that my having seen the original heightened the tension of the opening scenes. When the assailants first arrive, they remain polite, mild mannered and kind. However, they still stubbornly refuse to leave. Seeing the two young men gradually, steadily go from stubborn, to belligerent, to hostile, while all the time remaining calm and polite, is the most frightening aspect of the film.

The acting by Tim Roth, Devon Gearhart and Naomi Watts is outstanding, particularly by Watts, who is arguably one of the best actors working today. Her role is incredibly demanding, as her character has to experience extreme levels of nearly every negative emotion, be it fear, rage, grief, humiliation, or, ultimately, despair. Why any actress would want to take on this role I don’t know (obviously she did, as she’s listed as executive producer as well).

Finally, like the original Funny Games, this film left me totally shaken. Any film that “stays” with me, like both versions have, I have to give credit to for its effectiveness.

Now for the negatives:

In the early scenes, conspicuous detail is placed on the family’s yuppieness; they listen to classical music in their SUV; they have a sailboat in tow and (of course) golf clubs in the back. Once they arrive at their picture perfect summer home, Ann puts soy milk in the fridge and gives Lucky gourmet dog food. There is also a Tivoli radio in the kitchen. The fact that Haneke gave such attention to these details gnawed at me, for they seemed to suggest that maybe these rich, spoiled Americans deserved what was about to happen to them (the fact that Haneke stated that he always indented for an American audience to see this film only heightened my suspicion).

Another quote from Haneke: the original was made as "a reaction to a certain American Cinema, its violence, its naiveté, the way American Cinema toys with human beings." This statement is not only smug, but also hypocritical: Funny Games “toys with human beings” as cruelly and sadistically as any of the torture porn movies-and one could easily argue that Funny Games IS a torture porn movie on the same level as Saw or Hostel. Case in point: after the key act-the most horrific moment in the film-occurs, there is a long scene done in one take, with a medium range shot. During this scene, the camera never wavers as Ann, stripped to her bra and panties and with her hands and feet tightly bound, struggles to break free. She finally has to resort to pitifully trying to bunny hop to the kitchen. These moments have such an ugly, cruel and voyeuristic aspect to them that I came close to turning off the DVD (indeed, the moment is similar to the infamous scene in Fargo where the kidnappers laugh as the bound, hooded Mrs. Lundergaard runs through the snow-a moment where many viewers thought the Coens went too far with their cruelty).

My major complaint: as in the original, Paul has the ability to break the fourth wall and address the audience directly. The first time this occurs is chilling, as he turns and grins directly at the audience to show he knows we’re watching. However, the more times he addresses the audience (such as asking us if we are pulling for the family or not), the more his asides distracted and angered me. These asides, most notably the unforgivable TV remote scene near the end, effectively move the audience from the theater into the classroom, where good doctor Haneke has to lecture us, the American unwashed, on the true meaning of violence. Indeed, the director seems to want to remain above both his own work and his audience: here is my cruel, violent, unremorseful film for you and now don’t you feel ashamed for wanting to watch it?

The film doesn’t quite pull itself apart, but you can see the stitching start to give. The undeniable tension and brilliant acting in the film are praiseworthy. However, the undercurrent of smugness and hypocrisy that runs through it is execrable. One viewing was enough for me.

PS: If you have seen the original and didn’t like it, there is no reason to see this version. It is nearly a shot for shot remake, only in English for its “intended audience.”

Aspect Ratio:

• 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
• 1.33:1 Full Frame

Dolby Digital Formats:

• English 5.1 Surround
• French 5.1 Surround
• Spanish 5.1 Surround

Subtitles/Captions:

• English Closed Captions
• English Subtitles
• French Subtitles
• Spanish Subtitles

I found no extras on the DVD.

---

LINK THIS ARTICLE

Average user rating

   (0 vote)