Dir. Michael Haneke (1997 & 2007)
A family on vacation is interrupted by two young men who seem intent on playing sadistic games.
CAUTION: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
For the purposes of this review, I will be discussing both the original Austrian film and the American remake, as they are practically shot-for-shot and address the same themes and events. It’s really up to the viewer which film they like better: I’m more of a fan of the original because the dialogue is a little less stilted than it is when translated directly into English, though the actors are far better in the remake. That being said, the disturbing banality of the more amateur-ish acting of the original gives the entire thing a much more creepy realness. Whichever film you pick, you’re getting an incredibly effective indictment of violence in media and our culpability in its increasing influence on society.
Michael Haneke is an incredibly gifted director, and he always manages to give us a story that we can take to heart while also allowing for a deeper analysis of the message behind the film. In the case of Funny Games, we watch these two teenagers take over a vacation home populated by an innocent family, and we learn throughout the film (and, if we’re paying attention, at the beginning) that this is not the first time they’ve done this and will not be the last. It is a wildly nihilistic film, one in which there will be no happy endings, and that, by itself, also lends to the incredible realness that we see throughout the film.
Interestingly enough, one of the more controversial parts of the film directly deals with its take on reality. Spoiler alert for those reading here, if you haven’t seen the film, give it a watch before reading the rest of this paragraph. When the mother (Susanne Lothar and Naomi Watts in the different versions) turns the tables on the baddies and manages to kill one with a shotgun, the other antagonist reaches for the television remote, where he rewinds time and undoes her actions. Obviously this is not something that is possible in reality, but between this action and the occasional third-wall breaks that the antagonists perform, we are left knowing that they are completely in control, and their will will be done. The ending becomes inevitable, and we are left to wait with breath that is bated to see how it will all play out.
It's an arty film, and thus will not be in everyone’s wheelhouse. It’s slow, methodical, and tense, allowing us to get to know both the victims and the perpetrators. However, as the perps refer to each other by different names at times, and refer to events that did not actually happen as part of their sadistic torture of the victims, we are left knowing very little in actuality about the people behind these heinous crimes. They are doing these things simply because they want to, and because they enjoy it. This is, by and large, the most nefarious of all serial killer motives, and it is on full and gut-wrenching display in Funny Games. By addressing the audience at times, the killers let us in on their games and consequently ask our permission to continue. We can, after all, turn it off at any time. While one could certainly argue that Haneke is as culpable as the rest of us for making the film, the point is still a valid criticism of American culture (as it was intended to be even when it was in German). By portraying what is occurring as boring and ordinary, Haneke is showing us exactly how commonplace these actions could be.
It's an incredible film, one that will stick with you long after watching. The nature of the crimes are horrifying, but as we watch the insidious little ways in which the killers pick at the victims’ sanity, we are fully able to put ourselves in their shoes. What would you do in a situation like this? Is there anything you could do? Are we responsible for watching this play out, or is that just the director’s personal guilt on display for all to see? It is certainly one thing to critique Americans’ obsession with violence in the media they choose to make and consume, but it is another to create another piece of that culture and then critique those who choose to watch. However, as Haneke himself has said, if the movie turns out to be popular it will be because people missed the point. It certainly never gained the popularity of other films of its period, but it is an unforgettable watch nonetheless and should be viewed by anyone who would appreciate it.
Who this movie is for: Foreign film lovers, Film-as-art/critique enjoyers, Golfers
Bottom line: Absolutely, 100% worth a watch. If you love disturbing films you more than likely have already seen it, but the availability of both a German and English version make it an inexcusable miss. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are excellent as always in the American version, but the acting in the original hits a little bit closer to the banal and mundane ferocity that Haneke intended, in my opinion. Honestly, check both of these out.
