I shake my head in frustration at Haneke’s remake, not because of the violence necessarily (Haneke has never been one to stray away from the core of violence) nor the apparent pretentiousness (I’ve never found his films pretentious – preachy, but not pretentious), but because it being made at all is simply unnecessary. We got the original some ten years before and Haneke’s seems to think that this is such an important topic that we need it remade almost exactly the same but with different actors. Why?
Haneke’s entire career has seemed to be obsessed with the effects of violence and the apparent human need to create it, to surround himself with it, to emulate it. With his Funny Games films, Haneke isn’t expressing anything that he himself hasn’t already expressed to death (no pun intended) in many films before, let alone a point made many years before by the likes of Peckinpah and many others. So, Haneke’s continuing obsession with violence (done a little more tastefully in White Ribbon, but still ever-present) is probably something that isn’t going to change, so what I disapprove of with Funny Games is it’s stagnancy and lack of imagination. It had a semi-clever marketing angle, but doesn’t do anything new that hasn’t already been done before (even by Haneke himself).
“I believe that a lot of people who hate the movie either don’t get it (what a pretentious statement is that), or they take it to comment on just itself and not on horror films in general.”
Being self-effacing is no excuse for being disingenuous. Plenty of people have with more articulacy than you mustered in your post argued as to why they didn’t care for the film, fully grasping its in no way subtle or even particularly intelligent themes. Explicit self-reference is nothing special now, and was not even at the time the original was made. For decades it has been a staple of both art house and even Hollywood filmmaking, and the interest is not so much in the technique as to the commentary the technique is employed to convey, in this case nothing more sophisticated than “you like violence as a narrative device, amiright; how about I give you violence without the traditional narrative justifying it, while simultaneously having my characters explicitly tell you what I’m doing in case you don’t get it and mistake it for just another torture porn movie? Won’t that disappoint your carnal desires and enlighten you!” Not only is the argument basically that of puritanism (and that Haneke feels it is perfectly fine for him to employ it to criticize you for wanting it is him effectively putting himself in the position of a censor), but it washes so much ambiguity out of what violence in films is to make its point that it effectively can’t rebuke anything but itself. This is nothing more than the grade school cleverness of Scream repackaged for those who like to be told that they are a little morally superior as opposed to those who simply can absorb the ideas for what they are.
“This is nothing more than the grade school cleverness of Scream repackaged for those who like to be told that they are a little morally superior as opposed to those who simply can absorb the ideas for what they are.”
‘What a pretentious statement is that.’ I find it absolutely hilarious that, at the same time you criticize someone for making what you deem, ‘pretentious’ statements, and you criticize a filmmaker for telling us what to believe, you write up one of the most didactic, and pretentious posts I’ve seen on this forum.
The film withstanding, if you dislike Haneke for, ‘explicitly’ telling us what to believe then you should at least make the attempt in your posting to not do the exact same thing. It makes you look absurd. Especially, since there have been, ‘plenty of people that have with more articulacy than you mustered in your post argued as to why they [did] care for the film…’
It’s a pretty funny post, though, I’ll give you that.
@Col. Dax: As pleased as I am to bring out the snide face in anyone, I must ask exactly what my post was pretending to deserve to be called “pretentious”. That I was employing didacticism to criticize who I see as a didact is hardly relevant seeing as he is considered to be an artist and his didacticism a work of art and I have made no such claims about myself or my post.
I thought it felt so real at times. Haneke’s long, drawn out scenes of people struggling to escape or contemplating options, etc was brilliant to me. I felt so tense and empathetic for the victims. I was also ecstatic when (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) Naomi Watts’ character, Ann, kills the brother, I thought that was great. However, Michael Pitt’s character, Paul, ruined it for me when he picked up the remote and began rewinding the scene. The three scenes where something like that happens killed it. I thought it just took me out of the movie, something Haneke spent so much time trying to submerge me into. And to be bluntly honest, I thought it was inappropriate and a bad move on his part. It killed the intensity of the film and made it bizarrely comical. It almost reminded me of Godard or something, the way he purposely reminded you it was just a movie, but Godard was consistent with it, as opposed to Haneke which, as I said before, created scenes that submerged you in the moment.
Overall I liked it, and own it; I wouldn’t let three scenes ruin it for me. But I just can’t get passed how silly those scenes are. they weren’t entertaining to me, they were stupid. If one were to like that though, I could see it being nearly a perfect film (for what it is).
Well, to be fair, Haneke is pretty consistent in breaking the fourth wall, especially where your watching a scene only to realize later that it is something that has been taped in the past (by a character rewinding, fast-forwarding, or watching the same scene again in slow-motion). He’s done this multiple times – Benny’s Video and Cache to name but two.
But having said that, I do agree that it seems like a Godard “prank”, only with Godard it seemed more natural, like a natural stylistic inclination, than with Haneke as a gimmick.
Deckard: You said it better than I…
“I do agree that it seems like a Godard ‘prank’, only with Godard it seemed more natural, like a natural stylistic inclination, than with Haneke as a gimmick.”
Austin — If you were so ecstatic when she killed the brother, didn’t the mere fact that he could rewind that and make it so it never happened anger you? I’m sure I could have reacted more cynically than I did, but the fact that I was so invested in the story made it that much more powerful.
And as for the Godard thing, I felt like this was much more natural. Like in Pierrot Le Fou, when he’s driving and makes a comment to the audience, it’s a cool and disarming moment but it doesn’t serve a purpose other than for style. In this film it’s all done for substance as well; it actually enhances the message.
@Bruce, I should clarify I don’t get a “morally superior” feeling in any way from watching this film. If anything I feel bad about liking it. I really like films that evoke anger – in Paths of Glory, for example, when the (general?) said “Your men died well” I wanted to reach through the screen and punch him. Here, I wasn’t so much angry at the characters as I was at Haneke for making me go through this and at myself for enjoying it.
Matt: I think I follow your question. Yes it did upset me when Paul rewinds because I too was invested in the story, but I personally wanted to see it unravel naturally as opposed to rewind and toy with my mind. In regards to Godard, his entire films were bizarre in that way. They would talk to the audience, music would cut in and out, etc. You were constantly reminded that you were watching someone’s art and style. I felt when Haneke did it, it came out of nowhere and didn’t fit the overall intensity and dramatic vibe the story was radiating. I am not saying the film is bad, because again, I really liked it. But I am not into the balance Haneke chose. It felt inconsistent to me.
But Matt, the difference between Pierrot le Fou (wonderful film by the way) and Funny Games is just that … there was no emotional investment that took place with the Pierrot scene you mentioned, therefore when Godard pulls the rug out from under, so to speak, it’s more humourous than a trick. With Haneke, the scene in question is based off of our trust on the reliability of the filmmaker and he plays off our emotion to make the scene work (despite my dislike of the scene I do recognize that Haneke achieved his goal with its use) – so there’s a slight difference I think. Godard was more of a mischievous jester than Haneke who, in my opinion, follows an obvious agenda that is prevalent in practically all his films. They both use similar techniques, but their motives are very different.
But really I can’t really get too worked up over Haneke’s remake anymore, what’s done is done.
I loved it! It’s funny when people complain that they didn’t like the movie because it was a remake of his own movie…that statement has nothing to do with whether the film was good or not. I wish more people would watch a film, by itself for what it’s worth instead of focusing on everything that surrounds the film. What if Orson Welles remade “Citizen Kane” for France using all French actors in 1951? Would it suddenly become a bad movie simply because it was a remake of his own? No, it wouldn’t.
Haneke talked in an interview about how the reason he remade it in the US was to sneak it in to this audience. Deckard, you thought it was unnecessary but did you see the US remake in theaters at all? I think you’re forgetting that many theater goers in the US do not actively seek out foreign films. Not everyone is as cool as us on the Auteurs :-) I saw it in a theater with many people who had never even heard of the movie until it came out in the US…and the film did it’s job, it angered some and baffled others. And I absolutely loved it. Oh yeah, I had never heard of the film until I saw the US remake trailer. So thank you Michael Haneke for remaking this movie, if you didn’t then I would’ve never known about it until much later.
I loved it because it went beyond the scope of what most movies do now adays. It angers many (as I can see on this board) and that’s what it tries to do. It’s holding up a mirror to us and toying with us…the so called ‘funny games’ include US, the viewer. When the main guy rewound the remote control after the shooting of his friend, I fuckin jumped up and CHEERED in the theater. It is honestly my favorite moment in a movie I have ever seen, simply because it spent all this time getting (most) of you to root for the good guys, then when Naomi finally strikes back, he takes it away from you. I thought it was amazing.
Like others have mentioned, it also engrossed me very much as well just because everything seemed to happen almost in real time. Watching the characters trying to get out of the situation knowing that the characters (and Haneke himself) was in total control absolutely gripped me. It goes beyond what your normal scary/horror movies try for these days and I absolutely respect that. I thought it was flawlessly executed.
“What if Orson Welles remade “Citizen Kane” for France using all French actors in 1951? Would it suddenly become a bad movie simply because it was a remake of his own? No, it wouldn’t.”
yes,it would….
I see where you’re coming from Ryan, but that’s exactly my point – he remade his own film, intentionally making it exactly the same as the original (apart from the language). I get the idea that he wanted to expand his audience, but why make it exactly like the original? I mean it’s not like we’re remaking Psycho, we don’t need a carbon copy of the original (we didn’t even need it for Psycho, but that’s for another thread). And yes, I did see it in the theatre originally and perhaps I would’ve enjoyed it more if I hadn’t (considering I was standing behind this guy that kept referring to Haneke as “this great Russian director” and had to hold my tongue, heh).
And I’m not completely opposed to Haneke’s “games” (I’m not totally humourless, heh), but it’s the fact that it’s been done before (even by Haneke himself – not including his original Funny Games). And of course the characters are in total control – they always are in horror films, the only difference is that Haneke makes it so blatantly obvious that people seem to think it’s something original.
On the other hand though, you’re right – Funny Games (both versions, since they’re practically identical) is better than most other modern horror films, but that’s like saying “at least it’s not shit”. I don’t really give “extra credit” to films that attempt something “out-of-the-norm” – they’re supposed to do that anyway, just because most don’t is simply unfortunate and rather “human” I might add.
But anyway, I’m not trying to rob you of your admiration for the film (and Haneke) – admire on.
@Matt:I would like to just add a brief disclaimer to say that I am certainly not in a position to understand why everyone who likes this film does so, but that the film is constructed as a moral condemnation of a specific audience, and there tends to be a trend of reviews in the vain of:
“I think you’re forgetting that many theater goers in the US do not actively seek out foreign films. Not everyone is as cool as us on the Auteurs :-) I saw it in a theater with many people who had never even heard of the movie until it came out in the US…and the film did it’s job, it angered some and baffled others. And I absolutely loved it.”
That are emblematic of those who go not to watch the film but to watch the audience not like the film, and to celebrate themselves for not being them.
Hi Bruce, when I said “I absolutely love it” I was referring to the film, not the audience. I’m not celebrating anything. I went to the theater to watch the movie and I just simply like the movie. So don’t include me in that trend of reviews. Thanks
Oh and Dimitris, would you mind expanding on your statement?
Deckard, I understand where you’re coming from. I guess for me, when I watch a movie I block out most of the stuff that surrounds it. I don’t think about any of the other movies the director has done, I don’t think about whether it’s a remake or not. And I agree about your point regarding it being better than the shit that gets put out nowadays. I am not saying that it’s a great film SOLELY because it goes beyond what most other films in it’s genre do, it’s just more of the icing on the cake if you will.
what’s there to explain?
what’s so funny is that i myself watched it in a stuffed theater (free premiere of course AND with company,i’d never pay for that!) and i was curious indeed to see the reactions of the majority…what’s more shocking though wasn’t the fact either some were annoyed or others over-pumped with joy…it was this statement here that made me realize what i felt after having watched it…
“Oh yeah, I had never heard of the film until I saw the US remake trailer. So thank you Michael Haneke for remaking this movie, if you didn’t then I would’ve never known about it until much later.”
if this is irony,it’s a well-made one..if it’s not…my oh my…my argument does make sense:
U.S. majority of cinephiles + Greek majority of cinephiles = tired to search alone without trailers and commercials and propagandas…
thus: U.S. popcorn notion integrated Greek culture….
(and most people here are still UNAWARE of the original…)
Oh i get it, because I saw a trailer of ONE movie then that must mean that I’m too tired to search for movies without trailers, commercials, or propaganda! Great way to put me into a category when you know almost nothing about how I find out about films.
What I wanted you to explain was why you believe that if a person recreates his own piece of art 10 years later, why the latter work of art is suddenly “bad.” Let me put it this way…a musician makes a song in a studio. He re-records the song 10 years later with different other session players but the song mostly sounds the same. Is the new song suddenly a bad song simply because a version of it existed prior to the re-recording? If the song sounds the same as the original good song, how is it bad?
@Ryan: Because originality is part of what makes art interesting. When you recreate something like Citizen Kane shot for shot, which was revolutionary in how it shifted the paradigm of film away from imitation theater to a purer language, you betray the spirit in your adherence to the letter.
Bruce, that’s a good point and I understand it. I guess I just don’t agree 100%. Yes, I will say that originality does make art interesting. But I don’t believe that just because it’s not original suddenly means that the content is no good. Like I mentioned, when I view works of art I block out everything else, everything that came before it, who’s done this/that technique before, etc. and I just view the work only for what it is.
As an example, for me I like John Lennon’s cover version of “Stand By Me” more than I like the Ben E. King version. To me, the content of the song is not changed merely by the fact that someone other than Ben E. King sings it. Out of curiosity, do you automatically not like a cover version of a song simply because it was recorded previously?
But with Funny Games, Haneke’s message was aimed mostly to the people who watch mindless horror movies for entertainment. I’m sure Dimitris will agree, the US is a prime place for that – and the people who watch those movies don’t usually bother with subtitles. Why fault him for making this movie for Americans?
@Matt: How exactly is it any less mindless than other horror movies? In that it’s so obvious that you can understand it?
@Ryan: No, but then I know absolutely nothing about music.
But Matt, you’re either assuming that Americans are incapable of watching a subtitled film or that they shouldn’t have to watch a subtitled film. And I see where you heading with that thought, because Haneke obviously had a specific message he wanted to convey and in order to reach his prime audience/target he would best accomplish that by remaking the original in English. However, that doesn’t excuse it from being heavy-handed and preachy.
As far as the whole “remakes are automatically bad” argument, I’d say that certainly there’s no automatic anything in regards to film. Remakes are usually bad, but I reserve judgment until I’ve actually seen it. And Funny Games isn’t a bad remake at all, it’s just unnecessary and redundant.
Deckard: I think Matt was trying to point out that non-subtitled films are generally more widely seen that subtitled films in the US and that Haneke was just being pragmatic.
Matt
(Don’t read this if you don’t want spoilers – which you definitely don’t if you haven’t seen it)
I loved this film. I thought it was brilliant. The remote scene was one of the most amazing, shocking, can’t-believe-that-just-happened things I’ve ever seen in a movie. And as for the ambiguous reason they’re randomly killing these people, it’s for our entertainment. The kids satisfy our desires, even (especially?) the ones we won’t readily admit we have – for example, the scene where the dad says “why don’t you just kill us now?” and he talks to the audience and asks what if? – It would be a lame ending, of course. We want more. Plus, doing the typical horror movie ridiculous excuse for the hot female character to get naked, but only showing her from the shoulders up. The tagline on the poster is “You must admit, you brought this on yourself” — it’s talking to you. It’s just awesome. Yet so many people hate it, because of either the violence, the pretentiousness (which I don’t get), or even the fact that it breaks the fourth wall. I believe that a lot of people who hate the movie either don’t get it (what a pretentious statement is that), or they take it to comment on just itself and not on horror films in general.
So basically I wanted to know, what do you all think of it?