MUBI

Michael Haneke es uno de esos directores de cine difíciles de analizar. Algunos llaman a su obra como suprema y definen el cine con sus películas. Otros, lo consideran un director algo sobrevalorado, lo cierto es que la Cineteca Nacional decidió hacer una retrospectiva de su obra y como buen cinéfilo acudí a la cita.

Mi elección fue Funny Games (1997), en realidad deseaba poder observar The White Ribbon (2009) pero sólo se podía ingresar con invitación y es obvio que yo no contaba con una, el por qué elegí Juegos Divertidos fue simple: había contemplado el remake americano y seguramente había diferencias entre uno y otro, a pesar de que las dos películas habían sido dirigidas por Haneke. ¡Error!

Grupo de experimento 1

Cuando vi Funny Games (2007) desconocía por completo quien era Haneke, en realidad compre boletos para película debido a la duración de
la misma, 111 minutos lo que ese día representaba la cantidad exacta de tiempo que podía perder en el cine.

Ingrese a la sala junto con otras 25-30 personas y después de un largo suplicio provocado por el cácaro la cinta comenzó.
Debo admitir que no me gusto, a pesar de eso quede impactado con lo que acababa de contemplar. Al final sólo quedábamos unas diez personas en las butacas (sin exagerar). Haneke lo había logrado.

El filme es una oda a la violencia sin sentido y un reflejo de la sociedad que regirá al mundo en unos años. Una generación de jóvenes empujados únicamente por la necesidad de sensaciones nuevas, no importa que estas provengan del internet o de asesinar a una familia de clase media.

Por aquellos lejanos días todavía no conocía a Jean Luc GODard, ergo cuando los personajes hablaban a la cámara quedaba anonadado, hasta ese momento el único personaje que había hecho lo mismo (al menos en las películas que había visto) era Ferris Bueller.

Los gestos de angustia y hastió enmarcados en los rostros de todos aquellos que abandonaron la sala eran un a favor del director, que sin duda alguna quería que los espectadores odiaran al par de asesinos y su hartazgo los llevara a huir del cine.

Punto para Haneke

Grupo de experimento 2

Como ya lo cite al comienzo del texto, mi deseo de ver en la Cineteca Funny Games (1997) en su versión original era buscar las diferencias que tenia con el remake.

Ignoró si los demás asistentes habían tenido oportunidad de contemplar la del 2007 pero si puedo asegurar que sabían quién es Michael Haneke y que por lo mismo la sala 3 de la Cineteca Nacional lucia un lleno bastante aceptable.

En cuanto me percate de que las únicas diferencias entre una película y la otra se reducían a un emplazamiento distinto y a actores que hablan inglés, perdí el interés por lo que pasaba en la pantalla, era más interesante observar que hacia el público presente.

A diferencia de la primera ocasión que trate con Haneke los espectadores no dejaron sus asientos, sólo cinco decidieron que habían tenido suficiente y claudicaron.

Michael Pitt en la segunda versión logra ser más odioso que Arno Fish, aunque el segundo es mucho mejor actor. Igualmente en el remake el juego de personajes que se desarrolla entre los asesinos (intercambian nombres constantemente) está mejor logrado debido al parecido entre Michel Pitt y Brady Corbet. Además Naomi Watts se convierte en la perfecta esposa trofeo completando mejor el estereotipo de la perfecta familia de clase media.

También note que algunos aplaudían, si las victimas lograban lastimar a los jóvenes psicópatas; o se mostraban enojados si los asesinos ganaban en el sencillo juego con el que avanza la trama del filme. Muchos, de igual manera, estaban disfrutando el sadismo plasmado en el celuloide y esto debe de preocuparle en demasía a Haneke, debido a que si el espectador no huye de la proyección el experimento falla, sí lo disfruta es aun peor.

El tratado del director alemán se queda corto con la realidad y velocidad en que se desenvuelve el mundo, ni su versión original ni el remake son verdaderamente impactantes. Actualmente se hacen películas mucho más transgresoras y en cuanto a la realidad, el cine sólo la imita no puede repetirla ni recrearla.

Tache para Haneke

Funny Games is a movie that leaves nobody neutral. When you come around movie forums, it’s a«love it or hate it» kind of movie. Altought the difficult nature of the subject, the «graphic» nature of some scene and the boredom of some others, it’s cleary a movie that can make you think and that take it’s audience for what they are : intelligent human beeing.

Haneke has made a movie to denounce violence, not just to represent it. First of all, when you look closer, you have to understand that there isn’t a single graphic violence scene in the movie. We see people reacting to violent act but we never see violence directly. In the worst scene, we just see the camera moving really fast so it’s hard to notice clearly what is happening. The only graphic scene in the netire movie is when the mother is shooting paul…just before we see the classic «rewind» scene.

I’ll come back to violence later, but let’s see what the rewind scene is there fore. It is the apogee of the reflexive process of the movie. First, we saw Peter doing a wink to the camera. At that time ,we don’t know if he’s doing it to Paul or to us. Then, we see Peter interfering directly in our confront zone and involving us in the movie. Finally, we saw the classic rewind scene. These scene are here for one thing ; Reflexivity in film have the goal to remind us that we’re watching a movie, to get back and have an objective look at what we’re looking. French new wave directors have been suckers for this kind of speech(Godard especially). That’s what Haneke is doing here. He’s telling us : you (the spectator) are putting life into violent movie just by watching them, you’re part of this kind of movies and you’re asking for more. But he isn’t playing with us by showing us violence, he’s just playing us. He don’T show us violence in the movie and yet, it’s almost unbearable.

That’s where the violent scene comes back. It’s the only graphic scene in the movie and yet, we’re all waiting for the family to do this and when she shoots, we applaud. And then, to show us what he bring us to, he just put up the rewind thing to show us that we’ve been played. The only graphic scene is now then, not even a part of the narrative structure.

Haneke has using similar technique in other film like Cache (that I won’t analyse since it’s been wonderfully done by Antoine Doinel on the auteur) and is always making his viewer thing about social or history aspect of life. Agreeing or not about the violence in contemporary media or about the intellectual approach of Haneke, there’s clearly some things to work on here. Despite its flaws, Funny Games remains a great and important film.

Well I think its commenting on people’s obsession with violence. Between movies, TV, and more importantly the news people use violence as a form of entertainment. They have for thousands of years. However since our society is now more “civilized” its easy to forget that Hostel and gladiator matches are supplying the same thing.

He does this by toying with our inner desire for violence. He shows us awful, dragged out, torturous scenarios and then doesn’t even show us the pay off. Be it when the boy gets shot, or when the mom strips.

And also the film was just brilliantly acted, brilliantly directed, and absolutely masterful in the suspense it created. In the scene where the boy is trying to hide in the house, Haneke uses lights turning on to create multiple situations of the boy being a “deer caught in the headlights”. That scene was one of the most terrifying scenes I have ever witnessed.

I’ve been meaning to write a review for Michael Haneke’s Funny Games since rewatching it Halloween night. I had seen it for the first time around 3-4 years ago on IFC and was blown away by its inventiveness. It definitely holds up today as a sharp thriller and satire for our culture of wanting to see pain and torture on screen. With movies like Saw coming to theatres now, it may be even more relevant than it was in 1997. Word had it that Haneke, after the huge success of his most recent film Caché, would be remaking the film for English language audiences next year. I had reservations about this, but eventually heard it would be a revisioning not a strict copy in English, (although pulling a Gus Van Sant—Psycho—would be cool to satirize America for being too lazy to either learn German or read subtitles that they need a Hollywood adaptation). Whether this is true or not, the film has gotten underway as I’ve heard from an old friend how he has been cast as a stand-in for one of the troubled youths. Although unknowingly, Brett Vanderbrook has finally gotten me on track to review Funny Games with his jogging my memory a couple weeks late.

One knows they are in for a treat right off the bat watching a family drive along a road guessing classical music. All of a sudden the sound cuts to a heavy metal scream and the entire car ride is displayed, complete with the family still swaying their heads, with the jarring guitars and hoarse voice. The family finally reaches their vacation place and sets up to get a fishing excursion going and dinner cooking. When their neighbor’s houseguests come over to help, the film really starts going. These two young boys, played with playful malice by Arno Frish and Frank Giering, begin to mess with the family psychologically until the confrontation escalates to violence. To make the proceedings more fun, they eventually strike a bet on whether the captors will survive the night. This would seem strange at first until the director does the unthinkable and breaks the fourth wall. Yes, the antagonists start to converse with the audience, making the viewer into an accomplice, allowing the torture to continue. Credit Haneke here as the first moment of using the camera as a character is so subtle, one will think, “wow that was weird, I almost thought he was looking at us.”

Funny Games is a comment on the fact that we as moviegoers enjoy to watch torture happen onscreen. We feel safe knowing that the events transpiring are fake, yet feel inclined to watch them play out. By talking to the audience, Haneke is showing that these characters are conscious of their activities and are almost asking the audience if they should continue on their treacherous ways. Of course you could just walk out of the theatre or turn off the tv, but instead you become enthralled and need to see what happens. Just by finishing this film you yourself become that which it is a commentary on. One reason, however, besides the psychological reasoning, keeping you in your seats is the emotionally draining performances by Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Mühe. Their anguish at the helplessness of their situation towards themselves and their son is heartbreaking. They are at the mercy of their captors and must bear with the “games” until their fate is decided. You need to watch the excruciatingly long single take around three-quarters in, and see true cinema greatness. What Orson Welles did technically with his opening to Touch of Evil, Haneke does here emotionally. To be able to change mood from being defeated, to scared, to angry, to helpless, to utter sadness is amazing. If Naomi Watts even comes close in the remake to what Lothar did here, she will be guaranteed that Oscar she was robbed of for Mulholland Dr.

Hopefully Haneke knows what he is doing with a retelling of his brilliant Funny Games. I must admit I recently told my friend Brett that Haneke was a God of cinema, mostly because of the jealousy that he gets to work on a movie with him no matter in what capacity. While that statement is a bit premature, being that I’ve only seen this film by him, I do own his filmography and in the near future will most certainly be able to make that declaration again feeling justified in doing so.