Funny Games (1997)

H

hungrig

Guest
_http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/plotsummary

Two seemingly well-educated young men, who call each other Paul and Peter among other names,
approach a family on vacation. They are, apparently, friends of the neighbors, and, at the
beginning, their true intentions are not known. But soon, the family is imprisoned and tortured
in its own house violently, which the viewers are forced mostly to imagine and to share a
certain complicity with the criminals. It might be some kind of game with the lives of husband,
wife, son, and dog, but why are they doing it? Written by Luis Canau
{luis.canau@mail.EUnet.pt}

In this deconstruction of the way violence is portrayed in the media, a family settles into its
vacation home, which happens to be the next stop for a pair of young, articulate, white-gloved
serial killers on an excursion through the neighborhood. Written by MuzikJunky

Georg and Anna, and their son Georgie, are traveling to their lakeside summer home. Upon
arrival, Georg and Georgie head off to the lake for sailing while Anna prepares dinner in the
kitchen. The serenity is shattered by a young man named Peter, who knocks at the door asking to
borrow some eggs. The unwanted visitor is joined by Paul, a brash, arrogant young man. It soon
becomes clear the pair has no intention of leaving. When Georg returns and tries to throw them
out, physical violence erupts, and the family is held captive. What ensues are highly
disturbing and violent games that are initiated by Paul and Peter with Georg, Anna, and Georgie
as the unwilling participants. Written by Attitude Films {mail@AttitudeFilms.com}
Click to expand...
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)

The film frequently blurs the line between fiction and reality, especially highlighting the act
of observation. The character Paul breaks the fourth wall throughout the movie and addresses
the camera in various ways. As he directs Anna to look for her dead dog, he turns, winks, and
smirks at the camera. When he asks the family to bet on their survival, he turns to the camera
and asks the audience whether they will bet as well. At the end of the film, when requesting
eggs from the next family, he looks into the camera and smirks again. Only Paul shows awareness
that the film is being observed by the audience.

Paul also frequently states his intentions to follow the standards of movie plot development.
When he asks the audience to bet, he guesses that the audience wants the family to win. After
the killers vanish in the third act, Paul later explains that he had to give the victims a last
chance to escape or else it would not be dramatic. Toward the end of the movie, he refuses to
kill the rest of the family because the movie has not yet reached feature length. Throughout
the film, Paul shows awareness of the audience's expectations.

However, Paul also causes the film to go against convention on a number of occasions. In
thriller movies, one sympathetic character usually survives, but here all three family members
die. When Anna successfully shoots Peter, as a possible start to a heroic escape for the
family, Paul uses a remote control to rewind the film itself and prevent her action. After
Schorschi dies, Paul regrets killing him first because it goes against convention and limits
the suspense for the rest of the film. At the end of the film, the murderers prevent Anna from
using a knife in the boat to cut her bonds. An earlier close-up had pointed out the knife's
location as a possible set-up for a final-act escape, but this becomes a red herring. At the
end of the film, Paul again smirks triumphantly at the audience. As a self-aware character, he
is able to go against the viewers' wishes and make himself the winner of the film.

After killing Anna, Peter and Paul argue about the line between reality and fiction. Paul
believes that a fiction that is observed is just as real as anything else, but Peter dismisses
this idea. Unlike Paul, Peter never shows an awareness that he is in a film.

Michael Haneke states that the entire film was not created to be a horror film. He says he
wanted to make a message about violence in the media. He had written a short essay revealing
how he felt on the issue, called "Violence + Media." It is available to view on the website for
the film's remake.
Click to expand...
So I just watched this movie at watch-movies.net. Strange movie I must say, especially when that odd remote controll flicked time it self.


Almost at the end of the film, just before Paul and Peter kill Anna they talk about antimatter?:
...only it's all inverted.

But of course all these predictions are wrong so as to avoid a panic.
But now Kelvin knows how it really is and wants to warn his wife and daughter in time.
But the problem is not only getting from the world of antimatter to reality, but
also to regain communication...

-Look

(Anna reech for the knife, but fails....)

So were was I

-The communication problems between
matter and antimatter.

Exactly. As if you were in a black Hole!
Gravitation is so strong that nothing can escape it: absolute silence.
Click to expand...
Probably just psycho talk? I don't get or me thinks there are indications in this film of an possible message about STS overloads using psychos to go against time... How everything is setup, and if something goes wrong they just go back in time. They always arrive when least expected.
 
I have seen the original movie a very long time ago.
It was indeed a bit strange with the rewinding of the film itself, the unberable cruelty and the dark ending.
I think Haneke may have done it to make you an unwilling accomplice of the two young psychopaths as he blurs the boundaries between the action on the screen and your position as a spectator, unlike recent horror movie where you just watch passively scenes of torture and so on.

I don't know if he is genuinely interested in facing us with the psychopathic fascination of all things violent in our societies or if it's just an excuse. I don't know if all the violence was necessary to get his point across , without a proper context or explanation his denounciation might get lost osit.

I am curious about his own remake of it in an American setting, although I doubt I'll see it.

I've seen another of his movie called "Caché" and it was very interesting on how someone manages to burry his conscience despite the harm done.

I never heard of the movie Le temps du loup (2003) (Time of the Wolf) about the survival of a group of people after the collapse of society. Might be interesting.
 
I saw a review of this film which said that, the writer or director etc was basically punishing people for having watched so much violence on T.V. for so long and revelled in it.

So it's as if he made it horrible to punish those who watched it.

Apparently there's no way you could call it entertainment. I think Tigersoaps unwilling accomplice idea compliments the reviewers opinion.
 
Thomas C said:
So it's as if he made it horrible to punish those who watched it.
Apparently there's no way you could call it entertainment
Click to expand...
Well I can subscribe to that! It`s too long ago when I saw it to offer anything resembling objectivity.
But i don`t remember ever having seen a movie I hated more then this one! Yes, hated. Actually I
pressed fast forward at some point and have refused since to watch any other movies Haneke made.
Given the fact that it has quite some reputation I occasionally wonder if I`ve been unfair in my past assessment?
 
Well I know people who would call it entertainment. I've seen a great deal of movies through out my life.
Played video games, all of it consisting of killing/horror/death murderers, magazines, you name it.

Though, I don't watch television any more or play any more games... I must admitt that I were rather passive when watching this flick. I now see how brainwashing and dangerous it all can be. Just how sick it is, when people watch the News as if it was an good flick, that so oh many does.

I mean watching horror movies passivley, years of programming, I mean. At least now I know why some of my old friends plays CS while having a snack, and watching Tv at the same time, changes the channel from News to that good channel of great entertainment.

I just watched Caché, it took me sometime to get it. As the thrill of the stories of; who is responsible of the tapes, took me away from the fact that the movie was perhaps about a man consciences not so much in conscience.
 
pescado said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c2U9kcpepoo
Click to expand...
It's an interview from Michael Haneke about the reason for the movie "funny games"

Interesting to hear about his point of view, without naming psychopathy he is aware of such characters and their behaviors osis.

Part 2 _http://youtube.com/watch?v=roOl9PvEPjs&feature=related
Part 3 _http://youtube.com/watch?v=dJ48tEdV2Fo&feature=related
 
in benny's video, piano teacher, funny games (and alot of his work) he directly addresses the nature of psychopathy. its certainly horrifying but thats his intent. also like tigersoap mentioned, and is mentioned in the above link (which is an extra on the dvd), that its also his attempt to make the audience aware that they are accomplices to the violence they observe on television, movies, etc. i think these sorts of statements are important to make.. i dont think his movies would be for everyone but i think its important that he make them.
 
I just saw it and feel like a emotional-dishrag now, the movie generate alot of emotions. Hate, despair, hope, hopelessness and so on; however the scene with the remote had me perplexed as it 'didn't fit in' imo. I scanned trough the comments on imdbs forum and found this:

I just watched this movie. I think it was excellent in the area of craft and intelligence, but, for those who love it and want to watch it multiple times, I think you need help. For those who think it's terrible because of how it makes you feel, I say step back and think maybe those emotions are exactly what Haneke wanted you feel. It's like saying the violence in a scorsese gangster picture is nihilistic. You're supposed to be disgusted. The point is a meta commentary on violence in movies. To get angry that the one good part (the retribution of shooting Tubby) is taken away from you is to spit in your face for your blood lust. You're supposed to leave this movie thinking, not be emotionally satisfied. That said it's a movie that is made to specifically not be liked, so you're right not to like it, but it's pretty.... I wish I had a better term.... immature to throw a tantrum because your emotional response was correct but you're intellectually unable to come to terms with what that means.

This at least seem somewhat close to what I experienced watching it.
I recommend the movie but its very intense.

Ps. I watched the US 2007 version, according to some forum-members its almost identical. (plot, scenes, dialog and such)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom