Pros: Great performances from an ensemble cast coupled with solid direction and tension raised to a fever pitch make this one of the most gut wrenching films in recent memory
Cons: The heavy handed treatment of the thematic material and a scene that breaks every rule of cinema and logic are the film's two weakest points
Funny Games: Wega Films/ Attitude Films Rating: USA: Unrated/ Australia: R
Fiction is real—what you see in the movies is what you see literally.--Paul, Funny Games
Bleak. Disturbing. Nihilistic. Whenever someone mentions writer/director Michael Haneke’s (The Castle, The Age of Wolves) 1997 film Funny Games, these are immediately the words that spring to mind.
Few films have inspired such an intense love/hate relationship with international audiences as this amoralistic meditation on violence in the 90’s and how the media helps shape our perceptions and casual acceptance of such heinous acts. Revere it or revile it, Funny Games, much like Pasolini’s Salo and McNaughton’s Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, does bring more to the table than just an urge to revel in its exploitational roots.
Much like Man Bites Dog (see my review if you’re interested), Funny Games essentially eschews a traditional film narrative. Instead, Haneke gives us a situation—a family of three and their dog set out for their summer house on the lake, looking forward to boating, golfing, and spending time with friends. However, shortly after their arrival, they’re accosted by the two most polite home invaders in the history crime—Peter (Frank Giering) and Paul (Arno Frisch). These two white-gloved youths enter the home under the pretense of borrowing some eggs. However, it soon becomes apparent that they have no intention of leaving—despite the family’s repeated requests. Soon, Peter and Paul have incapacitated husband Georg (Ulrich Muhe) by breaking his leg with a golf club, and taken him, wife Anna (Susan Lothar) and son Georgie (Stefan Clapczynski) hostage—forcing them to partake in their ‘funny games’ in order to survive.
From this situation (which is reminiscent of the noir thriller The Desperate Hours) Haneke then turns the film into an endurance test—continually pushing the audience, and his characters, to the breaking point by ratcheting up the intensity notch by notch. From the beginning, it seems certain that these two sociopaths (who seem to perfectly embody the ultimate banality of evil) intend to do very bad things to the family, but it’s not until nearly the one hour mark that Paul looks at them and asks if they’d like to participate in a bet—a bet concerning whether or not they’ll live till the next morning. Paul follows this up with a series of glib asides wherein he breaks down the cinematic ‘fourth wall’ and talks to the audience directly—asking us who’s side of the bet we’d take, winking at us to let us know that he’s clearly lying in one scene, complaining that the events have unfolded too fast—and that this is a feature length film in another, and making us complicit co-conspirators in others.
Any time a film allows a character to break down the fourth wall, the movie runs the risk of losing its audience. When onscreen characters start talking to the audience, it often reminds said audience that what they’re watching is indeed a film—and tends to pull them out of the fictional world that the director and screenwriter have worked so hard to create. Certainly there have been films that have used this technique successfully (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off springs readily to mind) and you can add Funny Games to the list—for the most part. The asides themselves don’t destroy the illusion of the film mainly because the film has a cinema verite feel to it throughout most of its running time. It’s quite easy to imagine this being a twisted documentary or homemade snuff film—Haneke gives us a number of static shots with little visual flair, seemingly content to set the camera down and capture the events in wideangle shots (again, very reminiscent of Pasolini’s Salo). There’s a very cold, very clinical feel to the film (witnessed through one long static segment where two family members hug quietly while a third lies dead in a pool of splattered blood—all of this in the same frame for several minutes). The asides themselves merely come off as a man talking to the person behind the camera—a documentarian, perhaps.
However, near the film’s climax, there’s a scene that breaks just about every film rule imaginable. I won’t give it away, because it’s a vital scene in the movie and you should experience it as it happens, with no preconceived knowledge of it, but it is one scene that many of the film’s detractors have latched on to as a major flaw in the movie. Personally, I don’t find the scene all that bothersome—I think that while it does break a bunch of cinematic and logic rules, it also helps drive home just how mean-spirited this film really is. Haneke gives us a glimmer of hope, then snuffs it out completely.
Another frequent complaint lodged against this movie concerns Peter and Paul’s lack of motivation. Neither the audience, nor the hostages are ever given any rationale for these heinous acts, and that tends to bother some people. Of course, Peter and Paul do offer up several motivations at one point (including my personal favorite, concerning Peter: “a spoiled child tormented by ennui and world weariness, weighed down by the void of existence."), but they’re all false—simply regurgitations of the most popular Hollywood clichés. Truthfully, though, motivations are something for screenwriters, lawyers, and cops. I doubt that there’s ever been anyone staring into the face of their own impending death who found the reason behind the ‘why’ all that satisfying. But, if you really want to get down to it, I think you could make a case for these guys being inspired by the media itself. No one ever comes out and says anything precisely along those lines (although, the quote I cite at the opening does come pretty close—despite the fact that it’s an inherently flawed statement), but consider the fact that our sociopaths continually refer to each other as ‘Beavis and Butthead’ and ‘Tom and Jerry”—both sets of cartoon characters prone to pulling violent pranks—and I think you can at least look at the media as a possible source of motivation for their behavior.
Haneke won a Best Director award at the Chicago International Film Festival for his work here, and despite the film’s few flaws, I think it was a well deserved honor. Problems with the experimental techniques used in the film aside, Funny Games succeeds because it’s so real. The potential for this kind of situation exists—this isn’t a supernatural manifestation of evil, it’s a prime example of mankind’s own ability to do awful and heinous things to ourselves. Home invasions do occur—even here in America, and anyone could easily find themselves in a similar situation. This illusion of reality, coupled with the ever-present sense of menace and dread, and the ever-increasing level of tension makes viewing this film one of the most gut-wrenching cinematic ordeals in recent memory.
The other reason this film succeeds is because Haneke has assembled a first rate cast. Arno Frisch and Frank Giering are mesmerizing in their roles—there’s a cold and calculating menace at work beneath these polite and vapid exteriors…an almost reptilian predatory sense coupled with a workman-like efficiency, and both actors do a splendid job bringing it out on the screen. Of course, Susan Lothar is also quite impressive as the mother and wife. The scenes where her character appears to be in shock have a very genuine quality about them—and there’s something inherently heartbreaking about the portrayal.
I suppose I should also mention that despite there being an all pervading air of menace in the film--a feeling that something terrible could happen at any moment--the film itself is relatively gore-less. Haneke makes the decision (and I think it's a wise one) to never actually show the violence. This way, the viewer fills in the details from their own imagination--details that are invariably worse and far more graphic than what the Special FX crew could create. Still, gore fans will likely enjoy this film despite the lack of onscreen carnage--the brutal tone more than makes up for the lack of blood.
If the film has any missteps (discounting the aforementioned one that breaks the rules of cinema and logic—a scene that I don’t genuinely consider a misstep), it’s that the thematic material—that we’re complicit in the onscreen crimes simply because we watch them—because we don’t walk out of the theater or shut of the VCR in disgust—is both heavy-handed and not all that original. Salo, Man Bites Dog, Natural Born Killers, etc. have all covered this same ground—and done so at least as effectively as this movie. Plus, I’m not entirely sure I like filmmakers luring me to their films then browbeating me with the idea that I shouldn’t enjoy them—or that I’m somehow a bad person because I do.
Truthfully, there’s a lot more that could be written about Funny Games--it’s one of those films that tends to linger with the viewer for a long time after the viewing has ended, and lends itself to detailed analysis quite easily. It’s an ambiguous film that doesn’t give up its secrets without a fight, made by a director who’s far older (nearing 60) than you’d probably expect.
And while it does make the occasional misstep (the occasionally heavy-handed treatment of the thematic material), it’s still quite good. By giving Funny Games a five star rating, don't assume I’m championing it as a flawless film—because it’s not. I am, however, championing it as a film that disturbed me more than anything I’ve seen in recent memory—and with me, that counts for a lot. Funny Games is must see material for horror film fans or those who enjoy multi-layered exploitation flicks. Love it or hate it, it’s well worth seeing at least once.
Author’s Note: This is my 200th review here at Epinions, which is hard to believe. Thanks to everyone who’s returned time and time again to read my stuff. I realize that most of you have probably never even heard of half the movies I prattle on about—but the fact that you continue to come back and read them anyway isn’t lost on me. An extra special thanks to “The King of Epinions”, Chris Bickel, for being the first guy to trust me way back when and Blackelve for getting me started here. I never expected to get this kind of response when I first started posting stuff here—thank you all for being so cool. --Mike Bracken
A powerfully graphic film (even though no violence is ever shown on the screen itself) about an Austrian family who goes on a country vacation and bec...More at HotMovieSale.com
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.