In Theaters Mar 15 2008 @ 09:28 pm
REVIEW: Funny Games
Written By: Michael Haneke
Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet
Running Time: 107 minutes
Rated R for terror, violence and some language
If you’ve seen the trailer, you think that Funny Games is about two fratboyish sociopaths (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) named Paul and Peter terrorizing a family at their country estate. That is a complete distortion of the truth. Yes, there are sociopaths, and yes, there is a family, but German director Michael Haneke (Caché) is playing at something very different than filmmaking. Marketing departments often engage in dubious ethics, but Warner Independent Pictures has stretched that ethical line to the breaking point with Haneke’s Funny Games.
Haneke isn’t telling a story here, he’s conducting an experiment, with the audience serving as his little white lab rats. It’s not about story, it’s not about character, it’s not even about dialogue or cinematography or any of the things movies are typically about. It’s about subjecting the viewer to unthinkable violence (strangling young children, for example) and demanding a reaction from them. Haneke certainly gets a gold star for postmodernism. Even as Paul and Peter play games with their victims (“Successfully recite the Lord’s prayer backwards and you’ll get to choose how your husband dies!”), Haneke is playing games with his audience. Will you stay in your seat or will you get up and leave? Will you enjoy it or will you be disgusted? Either way, you’re a pawn in his experiment. In 1998, the first time he conducted this exercise (this version is a shot for shot English remake of his original Austrian film), he had this to say:
Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn’t need the film, and anybody who stays does.
I nearly left but stayed so I could write this review. The appropriate response for me, then, seems to be to play a game of my own. That’s why I’m going to do something I’ve never done in a movie review before and I doubt I’ll ever do again: I’m going to break the cardinal rule of film criticism, and I’m not even going to warn you before I do it. The three members of the victimized family, Anna (played by Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth), and their 10 year old son Georgie (Devon Gearheart), are all dead by the end, and their killers are not. Gotcha.
Oh, you don’t like being toyed with like that? Then you’ll hate Funny Games, since I basically just recreated the experience for you. I haven’t ruined anything either since Haneke doesn’t care about the plot - his story is only an excuse to get you into the theater and into the experiment. About 90 minutes in, Michael Pitt’s character breaks the fourth wall (i.e., directly addresses the audience) and says, “You want a real ending with plausible plot development, don’t you?” Funny Games is the cinematic equivalent of a bait-and-switch, which is why Haneke has his sociopaths tease you about your expectations. At one point he even gives you two versions of the same scene, choosing the brutal version over the emotionally satisfying one, but not before dangling it in front of your face like a carrot. He’s only interested in forcing you to decide how complicit you’re going to be in his game. If the thought of being part of an existential experiment intrigues you, then it doesn’t matter that I’ve told you the ‘ending’ (I use that term very loosely) - you’re probably already on your way to the theater. On the other hand, if being jerked around like a marionette isn’t worth 10 bucks and 2 hours of your time, then I’ve spared you a lot of unpleasantness.
Besides my friend and I, there were eight people in the audience. Two of them left, at the point where Paul puts a pillowcase over the little boy’s head and strangles him until his mother willingly undresses. A third person laughed inappropriately at every incident of torture and humiliation. Typically I have zero tolerance for such people. During Open Range I almost got in a fight with a drunk after I politely, but loudly enough for the entire theater to hear, asked him to be quiet. This time I said nothing, as the cackler’s presence felt appropriate for the occasion. How long would he, could he, keep laughing? During the strangulation scene he quietly got up and left, and when he came back he didn’t laugh any more. Perhaps Haneke, in all his pompous arrogance, accomplished what he set out to do, although that doesn’t make me any more appreciative of my stint as his personal guinea pig.
One final observation. At the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington D.C. there is a light bulb on a stand. A plaque next to it explains that the bulb randomly turns on once every year for ten seconds. Your participation – how long you’re willing to stand there in the off chance you’ll see it light up – is part of the art. The exhibit is fascinating to think about and enjoyable to discuss, but it is neither compelling nor amusing to experience. Such is Funny Games. I’ve never had a more engaging post-film discussion, but I’ve never had a more miserable, manipulative, and soul-crushing cinematic experience either.
Note: Luke Harrington, who saw this with me, had a very different reaction, and will be posting his review later. We expect to engage in vociferous debate over who is right and who is wrong.
on Mar 15 2008 @ 10:53 pm 1. Rick Olson said …
Have you all scoped out the vigorous debate about this going on over at scanners? Here’s the link.
on Mar 15 2008 @ 11:09 pm 2. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for the heads up, Rick. Certainly one of those films thats infinitely more enjoyable to talk about than it is to actually watch. The catch-22 is you have to watch it to really be able to discuss it.
on Mar 16 2008 @ 4:40 pm 3. Ryan said …
I saw the trailer for this a while back and then (in my bad habit) went to Wikipedia to read the plot synopsis… I agree with the 0/5 at least for the story (can’t vouch for the cinematography, etc).
-Ryan
on Mar 16 2008 @ 5:31 pm 4. Evan Derrick said …
The worst of the worst movies I would happily give at least a half star to - every film has some redeemable quality. I slapped this one with a 0 because its not a film (this, of course, is debatable) - its a director playing mind games with his audience.
The cinematography is quite good, and the acting is superb. But its all in service to Haneke’s experiment.
on Mar 16 2008 @ 9:59 pm 5. Mrs. Thuro said …
Very interesting post. I came very close to checking it out Friday night, but after I read one critic’s review (”If you liked Hostel, this is the movie for you.), I mulled over it for the rest of the afternoon at work, and changed my mind. I may catch it via Netflix some day, but at least I won’t hate myself for turning it off as opposed to leaving a theater after spending $9 on it.
on Mar 16 2008 @ 10:07 pm 6. Craig Kennedy said …
Nice review Evan. As I said elsewhere, I considered spoiling the plot and even the rewind twist because it seemed appropriately Haneke-like. I chose not to, but I’m kind of glad someone else did.
I gave it more than zero stars because I had to admit that large chunks of it worked prettty effectively as a work of pure suspense and terror. Take away the smirking at the camera by the villain and you’ve got a pretty classic horror movie. Of course that doesn’t forgive the marketing dishonesty, but that’s the subject for another time.
on Mar 16 2008 @ 10:53 pm 7. Evan Derrick said …
Mrs. Thuro, the funny thing is that this film isn’t for the Hostel set. All of the explicit violence happens off screen, and although Haneke has Watts disrobe, he doesn’t show you that either. I imagine a torture-porn aficionado would stay until the end but would be thoroughly disappointed by the lack of gore.
Thanks, Craig. During the course of watching a film I keep a mental tally of the star rating (I just can’t help it). During Funny Games it slowly descended until it hovered around 1 star. But at the point where I realized Haneke was just toying with me (right after the rewind), I knocked it to zero.
The funny thing is, Haneke would probably love my review.
on Mar 17 2008 @ 10:32 am 8. Daniel said …
Thanks for the blow-by-blow. I’m really glad I skipped this one, and believe it or not I have no problem with the spoiler as I only read reviews afterwards anyway.
Also, a belated welcome to LAMB!
on Mar 17 2008 @ 1:06 pm 9. Jed said …
I watched Haneke’s previous movie Cache and this one is probably his worst movie ever. There is no redeeming value, it’s just that- a director who wishes to impose upon his audience his own set of mental torture, and he seems to enjoy doing it.
Even his star, Michael Pitt, one of the most boring actors today, has the gall to sneer and remarked that this movie is above and beyond such films as Hostel, etc…
no stars indeed!
on Mar 17 2008 @ 3:35 pm 10. Fletch said …
I haven’t seen the film, and most likely won’t, at least not in theaters, but I guess I’m not understanding what the problem is with the martketing/trailer?
Aside from the 4th wall bit and admission by the director that he’s bascially just effing with his audience (which, by nature, will piss them off), the trailer seems to be spot on to what the movie gives you. It’s not like you didn’t know going in that you were going to see the family tortured; the only thing left in doubt was a) how well would it be made and b) would the family live or die?
I think you’ve unwittingly played into his hands be being bothered so much by “playing” his game. It’s understandable, and I might as well, but luckyily (I guess), I wasn’t attracted by the trailer in the first place. It seemed sadistic to begin with…
on Jun 13 2008 @ 12:50 pm 11. Matt Gamble said …
Totally coming late to this debate but did want to point out one inconsistency to Evan’s argument.
“I slapped this one with a 0 because its not a film (this, of course, is debatable) - its a director playing mind games with his audience.”
I’m just wondering what do you think Haneke was doing in Cache, if not playing mind games with the audience? Is Cache not a film either?
on Jun 13 2008 @ 1:43 pm 12. Evan Derrick said …
Matt, I think I mentioned over at your site that I loved Cache “against my better judgment.” I would agree, Haneke is playing mind games in Cache, but I think they are mindgames of a different sort. He is not flagrantly taunting the viewer there, as he is in Funny Games. Cache is open to a lot of interpretation by the viewer, Funny Games not so much.
However, my statement that it is “not a film” is a pretty lame one, in retrospect. More along the lines of what I said at your blog, the film isn’t the point - Haneke’s experiment is. There, again, is another difference between it and Cache - Cache seems to be much more interested in it’s characters and developments. The film is the point there.