On the site, I have made it known on numerous occasions that home invasion thrillers scare the living hell out of me. Every time I have commented on how films like Ils and A l’interieur and If I Die Before I Wake are by far the most disturbing films of its subgenre, I always had people ask, “But have you seen Funny Games?” I had never seen the 1997 Austrian horror film directed by Michael Haneke, but after hearing he had directed a controversial shot by shot remake for North American audiences, I had to check it out.
So last week, I watched the film and all I can say was that I was in utter shock that this film was being remade (shot by shot nonetheless) and knew I had to take someone who hadn’t heard of this movie to see the remake. So, I decided to take my date to the theatres to witness the wrath of Michael Haneke. Since he considers Quentin Tarantino films as art house pictures, I knew he was the perfect candidate (a.k.a sucker) to bring along with me. So did my date appreciate Funny Games or did he run away screaming for the hills? Read on to find out!
General Idea: Funny Games is about a happy couple (played by Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) and their child Georgie who get held hostage by two young psychopaths. (Played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) Throughout the night, they are tortured with sadistic games and are pushed to the limits to survive past 9 am the next morning. (The killers bet them they won’t live past that time.)
The Good: Unlike Gus Van Sant’s Psycho remake, Funny Games is a shot by shot remake done right. In fact, it made sense that Michael Haneke decided to film the movie again for North American audiences, because he knew of the subtitle phobia a lot of audiences have. By remaking this film, he turned his obscure 1997 film that had a mild success in the film festival circuit into the Lambada of American Cinema.
This movie pushes the limit and goes past what North American audiences are used to from horror films. You can tell the director thrives on this, for he takes his time setting up the movie to play out like a standard thriller and then gladly hits his viewers hard with the unsuspecting horror that awaits them. He knows that the viewers are used to the predictable conventions of mainstream horror films and he punishes them greatly for it. There are no tense chase sequences accompanied by a ‘Marco Beltrami’ score. There are no choreographed showdowns that leave the protagonist as the victor. More importantly, none of the characters go out with ‘at least they went out fighting’ bang. If they go out with a bang, it’s from the deafening noise of a shotgun, met with the cries of their loved ones.
Where as most home invasion thrillers focus on what humans are capable of doing to protect themselves and their family, Funny Games focuses on the realism of being stuck in a surrealistic situation, and to me that is far more frightening.
One thing both version of Funny Games both are criticized and praised for is the director’s bold choice of breaking down the “fourth wall” by having the film’s main villain, Paul communicate with the audience. Unlike anyone else in the movie, Paul is fully aware he is in a film, and he uses this to his full advantage. Once Paul starts interacting with you, you will feel extremely uncomfortable and will most likely wish you could physically beat the fourth wall down, and jump into the screen and beat the living crap out of him. This to me was a crucial part of the viewing experience, for it made me aware that this film was not just about torturing the helpless family members, but it was also about torturing the helpless audience. (Or should I say…voyeurs?)
The fact that I had already seen the original film, I thought since I knew what to expect, it was going to make for an easier watch. (Boy, was I wrong!) Surprisingly, the remake was even harder to watch, because now I was watching the violence being done to very recognizable and talented actors. Although, I have never been a fan of Michael “indie prince” Pitt, (I still can’t get ‘The Dreamers’ out of my head!) I thought he did a fantastic job as the main antagonist. His portrayal of Paul sent chills down my spine and made me feel very uneasy. Tim Roth and Brady Corbet also did serviceable jobs in their respective roles as the injured husband and the sidekick henchman; however, it was obvious that the focus was to be on Naomi Watt’s moving performance. (As it rightfully should.) You felt her fear, pain, anger and hopelessness. By the end, you feel as emotionally drained as her character. Honestly, this is Naomi Watt’s best performance since 21 Grams, and kudos to her for taking on such a challenging project.
THE BAD: Although, I don’t have many complaints about the film, there were things I noticed the audience didn’t like, and even though I appreciated them, I could understand their complaints. About half way into the movie, the remaining family members are left to mourn after something horrible happens. For a good twenty minutes, the audience is left to watch the members grieve and slowly try to figure out a way to get help. It is a very slow moving section in the movie and it’s obvious that it’s catered to the art house crowd. I heard complaints in the audience that the section was boring; however, I found it to be the most frightening part of the movie. This is because that is exactly what would be happening in real life if this horrible situation ever happened to anybody. It may be slow, but a lot of people didn’t realize that it was put in there to add to the seemingly endless torture. Nothing scary happens during this section; however it’s the part of the movie I am deeply disturbed by.
One of the only things I disliked about this film would be the use of the breaking down of the “fourth wall.” Yes, I found that it was a powerful way to affect the audience; however it was hardly used as much as it should have been. When Paul talks to the audience, it is powerful, yet those parts are very far and few in between. Sometimes it felt too random to take seriously, and if they had used it more often and focused more on Paul, I think it could have been far more effective.
OVERALL: Like ‘Last House on the Left’ and ‘Henry: A Portrait of a Serial Killer’, ‘Funny Games’ is a traumatic, unapologetic and unrelentless punch to the gut that only truly affects you after you have viewed the film. However, unlike those two films, ‘Funny Games’ surprisingly has very little violence shown onscreen, which made me even more impressed that the film affected me as much as it did. It is not an amusing film by any means, however it is a compelling film that I think should be witnessed at least once.
After the viewing, my date was silent as we walked out the theatre. I thought he was going to swear at me and dump me right there on the spot. However, he turned to me and said, “I have never been so affected by a movie before…..Wow.” Hopefully, that is the reaction Michael Haneke was hoping for. :)
I give this movie an 8.5 out of 10.
