Funny Games

So while on a trip to New York I happened upon on this film (I have been wanting to see it, but it was never playing in a theater near myself), although I really do not know if film is the appropriate title for what I saw fore according to most the purpose of film is to entertain. It appears many felt the same as by the end of the film, many had left the theater, yet this is for later discussion.

However, first let us get to the basics. The film is of course entitled Funny Games and is directed by Michael Haneke (Cache...one of my favorite films of the past several years). It should be noted that while this film is in fact a remake of a foreign film (see every horror flick out right now), there are several things that set it apart from your average remake. First, it is the original director at the helm of this work and, secondly, it is essentially a shot for shot remake, with the only updates stemming from updating some of the technology used in the film (the original was made in 1997). Also, to get this out of the way...I shall try to avoid spoiling the film and will avoid major plot points; however, I will note most technical aspects of the film, which may border on spoiling the film (not the plot).

Let us begin with the technical aspects of the film. The editing is fantastic, as the film gives the sense that the actions happening on screen are occurring in the real time, thus further enveloping the audience by offering a sense of reality. The sparse use of music (aside from the occasional heavy-death-freakout-metal) aids in building the already unbearable tension, as it music can often be used to allow the viewer the chance to escape from the actions taking place on screen. By using very little music, the audience is forced to focus solely on the characters and their actions, thus further entrapping the viewer in this rather terrifying affair.

The cinematography (one of my favorite aspects of film in general) is quite fantastic (as well as inventive) in the film. As in Cache, Haneke uses long and distant shots to display his film, which truly allows the actors the chance to interact with their environments and perform at their best. Also noteworthy, is how the film is rather inventive with its shots. For large portions of the film the camera will focus not on characters, but on the scenery or random objects, which within the context of this film, allows the viewer a glimpse it to just what is cherished by the family involved: the simple and easy life. When juxtaposing the content of the film with a camera style often found in sweeping period pieces (see Atonement), one finds a rather odd conundrum, which can easily be explained simply. This camera style shows us that while war and peace have a place in every person's mind, the horrors found in one's personal life, in the home no less, can often prove to be far more engaging and easy to connect with. *Spoiler*One last note that should be made on the camera work in the film is that while this film is rather grisly and terrifying, very little of the violence is actually presented to the audience. All we are allowed to see is the aftermath for the most part, leaving the audience only their imagination to use. *End Spoiler*

The performances in the film are astounding. Naomi Watts (per usual) gives an amazing performance as Ann; however, I believe that it is Tim Roth (playing George) that truly gets the audience emotionally involved with the family. Every time we are forced to look at the pain and anguish on his face, we are reminded of personal anguish suffered in the past, thus causing the audience to become more invested in the action taking place on screen. Also, it should be noted that Michael Pitt, who plays Paul (the leader of the two torturers), plays one of the more chilling characters to grace the silver screen (yes...beating out Chirrguh from No Country for Old Men).

I guess I should make a small note on the plot of the film. The plot centers around a rather wealthy family being held hostage by two teenagers. Those are the basics and it is rather linear and simple, which, upon further reflection, is rather uncommon in film today. Most films feel the need to make an overly complicated story in order to grab the audience; however, this film does just as well (if not better) with a rather straight forward plot.

So, with the technical aspects fully explored (and remarked upon in a rather positive manner), we can now look at just what makes this film so difficult to rate...much less recommend. One can skip the next two paragraphs to avoid spoiling the film; however, it is safe after that.

One must understand that when going into this film, one should not expect any sort of lightness. From the opening shot to the last several seconds, one is immediately confronted with the fact that this film will only contain fear, pain, anguish, and darkness. There is no hero that saves the day, much less allow the audience feel any sort of retribution from the actions that they have just witnessed. What is worse, is that by breaking the forth wall (uncommon for most media), the audience becomes implicit in the actions taking place on screen, thus forcing part of the blame of the family's pain on the audience. If we were not there watching the film...the characters in the film would be fine and by simply watching the film we are, in a way, supporting the actions performed to the family. As the tagline of the film states "You must admit, you brought this on yourself."

Also implicit in this statement is the fact that we can choose to leave should we feel it to be too much or exploitive. As demonstrated by my fellow movie goers this past Monday, we are really the ones in control, so, in a way, in order for the film to have a happy ending one must leave the theater and imagine one for them self. Even the director admits this as he has stated in previous interviews, "I always say, those who watch the film to the end apparently needed it. Those who leave earlier apparently didn't."

Which brings up the why labeling the film, much less recommending the film is so difficult. This was not a film made to for one to enjoy and be entertained by, but to be inspired to think about violence and how it is often glorified in most media outlets. Also, due to its subject matter and lack of any light it is difficult to simply say to someone: "Hey Funny Games was a great movie and you should watch it!" When the viewer is left feeling hollow at the close of the film one wonders if they should have seen Horton Hears a Who instead; however, that is not an attack on the film. Many films (The Elephant Man, Grave of the Fireflies, City of God) leave the audience in a similar state and are often remembered if only for that reason. Before entering this film, one needs to look at what they feel the purpose of film is, whether it is simply to entertain or to challenge our very beliefs. Of course a film can do both (see City of God), but this film certainly is not one that can.

At the end of the day though...I feel that is a film can make a person feel anything (aside from revulsion like in the case of Date Movie or Norbit) and cause an intelligent discussion, it was worth the experience. Hmm...there we go, the perfect way to describe the film: an experience.

A-