Funny Games

I don't know what to rate this. Although I can appreciate what Haneke was going for, the morally condescending tone didn't work for me. While you could write a book on the topic, I'll keep my thoughts short: humans have a fundamental craving for violence, and I can differentiate violence in media from violence in reality. His message just ended up falling flat. There wasn't any deeper criticism of violence and I didn't walk away feeling wrong or like I should have a new perspective on the matter. Yet I still didn't dislike it... The film was expertly crafted for his intentions, was adeptly acted, and I was kept engaged. Does that make me his target? Is it just pretentiousness? I'm not sure.

6.4/10

First things first, Michael Haneke HATES Quentin Tarantino's films. He hates the way violence and death are shown as being 'cool' - Cool gangsters executing their enemies whilst saying cool lines (And you will know, that my name is the Lord! etc,etc)with a cool song playing in the background. This is not how violence is in the real world, violence is a horrible fact of life, not a glamourous thing for youths to copy, and I think Haneke intended Funny Games to show it how it really is. I watched Funny Games without the slightest clue what the film was about, so I just had to sit back and take it as it comes. At first, I wasn't too impressed. I thought the scenes were too long and dragged out, yet at the same time, I felt a strange feeling of suspense. The incredibly long camera shots leave you that bored, that you think "Something bad is going to happen soon, I can tell...". The suspense also lasts right through the film 'til the very end. You don't want to watch it, but at the same time, you feel hypnotised by it.

I will not detail any events of the film, to save spoiling the atmosphere, but I will note one thing that people tend to be confused about:- "Why did the family let them into the house in the first place?" The two characters of Peter and Paul are let to walk all over the family because of one flaw in the bourgios psyche - 'The more polite a person is, the better a person they are.' This absurd way of thinking is played on by Peter and Paul and they obviously score, plus 'getting into the house without breaking in' is also one of their 'games'.For those who haven't seen the film, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for a night in with the parents/girlfriend, but I definitely would for people who want to see the difference between death and Tarantino-glam. Prepare for a highly suspenseful yet sickeningly violent, non-Hollywood, edge-of-the-seat piece of art. 8/10

SPOILER: Okay... I just read most of the 144 user reviews.... Basically I wanted to make up my mind about this film, a film that is a very heavy load.

I've seen this movie 5 years ago, the good thing is most of the time you forget about (having seen) it but now and then you recall it. I can understand that many people hate this film, it is not nice to watch, the more when you see it in a theatre where the only chance to break its spell is leaving the theatre. Regardless if you leave or stay and watch it leave it beats you one way or the other. I fully agree with many other reviewers that I have no idea whom I should recommend it too. I am tempted to watch it a second time but didn't make it happen in 5 years.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is an excellent movie. It is also very disturbing and upsetting, I can't think of the right mood to watch it cause it'll take you down. And I think here is where the movie polarises. If, after watching, you find yourself deducting some message in the violence, and perhaps rethink violence - in both real life and movies - you will, well, also will have found some reason for this movies existence, if not - and it might be better if one does not - you will join in the 'crappiest movie ever chorus'.

I do however want to point out some achievement of this production:

*) The movie catches the audience in theatre. *) It does shock the audience but most of the violence is off-screen. You see more people dying in many fast-driven action movies. Only here you care. There is minor suspense, but I, personally, wouldn't put it into that category. (But then I am no horror/shocker/suspense fan and can easily err here) *) It's hard to compare it with any other movie (that I have seen). I am not sure if this is an achievement, but it's outstanding.

The reason I think Haneke made this movie. or, what I deducted from it is how far away violence and death are in our everyday lives today. While Hollywood - and other film productions serve them daily right in our living room, we hardly notice them anymore. Violence also sells movies, and we're meanwhile pretty used to that. Haneke also serves violence, and he dishes it next-door. He turns into a moral figure that asks the audience if they want more (after all me and you consume it every day) - and while HERE we want to say 'no please stop' he doesn't do our silent bidding. He pushes us down the drain, forcing us to deal with aspects of the violence we don't (want to) see. He even goes one step further. He offers us a 'good' ending, a payback that would make it easier for us to bear the movie, only to snatch it back and rip us of any cheerful emotion, telling us like 'no, sorry, here it doesn't work that way'.

I also read reviews mentioning the unsatisfying (often used, cliche) end. One more time Haneke manages to disappoint us, so far we were driven and didn't know what would happen, what to expect.

Only in the ending, we see it coming, and so it ends, obviously similar to many other movies. We're back standard movie stuff, the arc bent and the connection made.

"Funny games" is everything else but the title. Perhaps it refers to the funny games built on standard film violence in everyday movies. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps Haneke wants to stress that violence is a bad thing. Perhaps he's just sick.

One thing for sure, regardless if you like it, don't care, or hate it. You might have seen something somewhat like it, but nothing similar.

If you hate shockers, don't watch it. It will only be torture. If you love suspense, sorry, only very little gore here.

If you plan to watch it, calculate a few hours before you will manage to put your head to rest.

And don't watch it it personal crisis.

This movie will make you feel bad. If you watch it in a cinema, just look around. You're not alone with this feeling.

I've been watching a lot of films directed by Michael Haneke recently. Why? I don't quite know, probably a combination of things really, availability (UK channel film-four dedicated a Eurovision's season to his work), boredom, and mainly curiosity. When a director has the power to divide an audience as smoothly as the red sea, I take note. When a film comes along that seems to challenge its audience to switch off, look away, find something more rewarding than the monotony of cinema, I can't help but be intrigued. However, reputation and moral outrage does not, a good film make -- and the over-hyped shock of reactionary audiences could not be more present than in the backlash/acclaim dished-out to Haneke's psychological thriller/cum social conscience -- 'Funny Games'.

The title, 'Funny Games', is a curious one, because there's nothing in particularly funny about these Games -- this is without a doubt one of the most unrelenting and unnerving films ever made. It's not horror, but it's tightly wound scenes of tension have a shocking affinity with 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and 'The New York Ripper'. And despite the certainty that this is definitely not a comedy, the majority of the actors still make sly, ironic references, and mug uncontrollably to the camera, the sort of behaviour more at home in a Mel Brooks' spoof than a 'serious' film. However, the multitudes off-putting contradictions only derail Haneke's subtle cinematic depth (he can be a good director when the mood suits him). Hitting us with a message that is so crystal clear, you could write it on a blackboard and even the most shortsighted student at the back could make it out.

The film begins with a family car travelling through a lush Austrian countryside, filled with willowing green trees and homely lakeside cottages. The family, comprising of mother Anna (Susanne Lothar), father Georg (Ulrich Mühe) and young son Junior (Stefan Clapczynski), are on their way to spend a relaxing week of boating, fishing and entertaining with friends, a truly stereotypical portrait of the bourgeoisie. I wouldn't want to ruin the set-up, but from the minute the family arrives at their glorious lakeside home, a mere ten-minutes into the film, you can tell things are about to turn nasty. In setting-up the arrival of the two, white-clad young menaces, Haneke lays down the heavy-hand. Signposting events to the audience with glee, he makes the two youths come across like the killer equivalent of Laurel and Hardy, rather than a male counterpoint to Bonnie and Clyde. Understandably, from this point on, 'Funny Games' spirals way off track.

What follows is one of the most heart stopping, nihilistic and degrading portraits of humanity ever produced. An hour-long onslaught of violence -- sexual, physical, and mental, often at the same time -- and although Haneke goes to great lengths to make sure none of the violence is ever depicted on screen, we are frequently treated to one bloody aftermath after another, complete with copious amounts of screaming from the victims and 'comic' head-scratching from the victors. But unlike a lot of commentators of the film, my negative reaction isn't based on moral outrage, but on the principal fact that 'Funny Games' just isn't a good film. It attempts to convey a serious message, but does so with all the shallow, stylistic emptiness of a Hollywood blockbuster.

To those who trash the film on grounds of violence and pretension, I think you're watching the wrong kind of movie. 'Funny Games' is (supposed to be) about violence, if you know of its reputation then you'll know Haneke is hardly a close cousin to Steven Spielberg, so why is there such surprise when the events turn nasty. In terms of cinematic pressure building 'Funny Games' doesn't do to badly, there is at least a spark of ingenuity to some of the set ups. However Haneke does nothing with these sequences -- his entire objective with the film is to play off the audience's lust for violence and anticipation for characters to be picked off. His message is clear from the start, and after an hour it becomes grating.

Simply put, 'Funny games' doesn't want to do anything other than shock the audience. There is no insight, no creativity and no direction -- in short, it's a film with great promise, but little discipline. If you've seen the pathetic 'Man Bites Dog' or Oliver Stone's over-indulgent 'Natural Born Killers', then you've seen this kind of thing done a million times before and you'll understand why films like this never successfully work . This is the cinematic equivalent of a car wreck, it's messy, violent and never something you'd want to be involved in, but to the spectator it holds an almost forbidden, voyeuristic curiosity. So if you decide to brave the nihilistic mayhem of 'Funny Games', and for whatever reason, find yourself feeling outraged and appalled by the excessive diversions the film takes, don't say you haven't been warned. 1/5

I think there is a valid argument to make that the universal visceral impact that Funny Games has on audiences undermines the very thesis of its director Michael Haneke. I use the word thesis very deliberately because Funny Games is an intellectual academic statement. Plainly it is not an entertainment movie but I don't consider it to be an art film either. Haneke intended it to be neither in my opinion. I think he intended it as an assault on both Hollywood and the audience. It's the cinematic equivalent of punk. Rock music against rock music. This is an analogy Haneke draws the audience to himself by overriding the classical music Anna and Georg are listening to with some extreme punk music on the sound track. We are left in doubt that the world of Funny Games belongs to Peter and Paul. Anna and Georg and their bourgeois taste in music are treated with utter contempt before Peter and Paul even appear on the screen.

Getting back to my original point: I think there are two parts to Haneke's thesis. The first is that Hollywood has commodified and sanitised violence and turned it into thrilling entertainment. Hollywood violence doesn't show the reality of violence or its consequences on those it is inflicted on. The second part of his thesis is that Hollywood's portrayal of violence has dehumanised and inured the audience and reduced their capacity for empathy and sensitivity. I fully agree with the first part of his thesis. The problem is most people do. I think you would be hard pushed to find any reasonably intelligent, educated person who doesn't agree with Haneke in this regard. Anyone who doesn't isn't going to be enlightened by watching Funny Games. On this point I can't help feeling that he preaching to the converted.

It's the second part of his thesis that he inadvertently undermines. Haneke set out very deliberately to make violence real again so that the audience feels it in their gut. Funny Games isn't real violence though. It's still just a film. However it is a film that manages to make a huge impact on an audience well accustomed to watching violence on the screen. This clearly indicates to me that audiences are smart enough and sensitive enough to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood trite and a convincing portrayal of violence. You could argue that Haneke had to resort to making such an extreme film to have the intended impact on an audience dulled by years of cinematic violence. However Funny Games isn't actually that violent. Compared to the average Arnold Swarzenegger movie it's actually quite tame in both the quantity of violence and how graphically it's portrayed. What makes Funny Games so disturbing is the emotional content in the impact and consequences of the violence on the victims. This is effectively contrasted with the casual approach, understated sadism and emotional shallowness of the perpetrators. If audiences were as lacking in sensitivity as I think Haneke is suggesting then surely Funny Games would have simply have been accepted as another piece of horror entertainment.

Haneke said something along the lines that anyone who stops watching before the end doesn't need Funny Games, anyone who watches it to the end does need it. This strikes me as thoroughly arrogant and is quite wrong in my opinion. Nothing can be implied about anyone who watches it to the end and there is no such thing as a film that an audience needs. Funny Games is a superb piece of cinema and there is no doubt that Haneke was fully successful in what he set out to achieve. However what exactly is it that Haneke thinks that the audience needs from it? As I said earlier most of the audience already understands the point he is making about Hollywood. It seems to me that Haneke is trying to shame the audience into realising how immoral they are for watching violent films. I fundamentally disagree with him if this is his intention. Personally I have no problem with the cartoon violence of Hollywood for the very reason that it is lacking in any real emotional content. It would seem that Haneke not only has a problem with the cartoon violence in films but with actual cartoons. Both Tom and Jerry and Beavis and Butthead are referenced in Funny Games. If Haneke is seriously suggesting that Tom and Jerry cartoons are a moral problem then he is beyond ridiculous.

Having said all this I still give Funny Games a 10 out of 10. Whether we agree with Haneke or not he made us react, think, defend and argue. He also made a truly remarkable film with some of the most heart breaking and profound acting I have ever seen. Funny Games a deeply intelligent film and I don't doubt Haneke's total sincerity and moral integrity. I just don't necessarily agree with him.