Funny Games

oleras

Ok, just saw this movie. I knew when i started watching it was like a outside looking in on cinema violence, but i think the movie went that little bit far, maybe it was supposed to insight me write this, then fair play !

BUT, i dont watch film to comment on the depraved world we live in, be it hostel 2 (i done a quick search and this movie was mention in a saw thread) the sickle scene in hostel amazed me it passed the censor, now.....dont get me wrong, i would be the first the look and comment on it if it was banned, but it passed THAT boundery, did it need that scene ? nope.

Did funny games need the scene where the boy gets killed ?nope.Did it need the scene where the boy wets his pants ? nope, did it need the scene where roth knew he let it happen without doing a thing ?nope, did it need A scene where roth gave every breath of life in him to defend his son and wife ? YES, but that was missing.

Thats what annoyed me about this film.

A commentary on cinema violence, keep it to discovery channel.

Scary, scary disturbing film, but just for that sake of going that one step further, nothing against a thriller, nor horror, but this movie breaks the bounderies. Children dont suffer in film, felt the same about city of god.

I get where the film is coming from, just didnt like the trip....

aurel

oleras wrote: »

Children dont suffer in film.

Why do you say that?

DeepBlue

oleras wrote: »

did it need A scene where roth gave every breath of life in him to defend his son and wife ? YES, but that was missing.

Thats what annoyed me about this film.

From what I've read the English version of Funny Games is an exact shot-for-shot remake of the original. I haven't seen the new one (there's absolutely no reason I'd ever want to re-watch that film) but I'd disagree with you about the above point.

I think what the film was getting at here is that the heroic, save-the-day, antics we've come to expect from ordinary people in those roles in other films are completely unrealistic.
The Dad character couldn't predict that the psychos were going to kill his entire family and it's practically impossible to think calmly and rationally in such a situation.
The scene was "missing" in the sense that it's what we've come to expect from such films.

Anyway I don't think the film really worked in getting the viewer to think about the amount of violence in film in the way the director might have wished.

rizzla

I think it was a great movie but there where 3 parts which really annoyed me and ruined the movie in a sense.

The 2 parts in which Paul was talking to the camera. Breaking the fourth wall really took me out of the film. The thrid part was when they got the remote and missed the scene, I understand what they did in the part but I though the rewinding with the remote was a pretty poor gimmick.

oleras

aurel wrote: »

Why do you say that?

I just feel it is a line that should not be crosed, just the way i feel,from a personal point of view.

oleras

DeepBlue wrote: »

From what I've read the English version of Funny Games is an exact shot-for-shot remake of the original. I haven't seen the new one (there's absolutely no reason I'd ever want to re-watch that film) but I'd disagree with you about the above point.

I think what the film was getting at here is that the heroic, save-the-day, antics we've come to expect from ordinary people in those roles in other films are completely unrealistic.
The Dad character couldn't predict that the psychos were going to kill his entire family and it's practically impossible to think calmly and rationally in such a situation.
The scene was "missing" in the sense that it's what we've come to expect from such films.

Anyway I don't think the film really worked in getting the viewer to think about the amount of violence in film in the way the director might have wished.

I understand what you are saying, i know why some scenes were missing, i get the movie as a whole, i just dont like the way is brings it across, its the subject matter rather than the nuts and bolts that i disliked.

Eirebear

Children dont suffer in film. I felt the same about city of god

Are you mad?! The film you mention is about the suffering of youths, and children, and how people CAN rise out of it given the right set of conditions.
Did you feel the same about Assault on Precinct 13?

As for Funny Games, i havnt seen the remake yet, but i think the original is a very good film and i hear that Roth and Wattas are fantastic in their respective roles.

As for your overall comments, yes film is a form of entertainment but it is also a very useful tool for getting your opinions/voice across in terms of social commentary.....see "Dawn of the Dead" for perfect example, it may on the surface look like an out and out piece of entertainment, but its also quite an astute commentary of the time.....many films are like that.

MooseJam

rizzla wrote: »

I think it was a great movie but there where 3 parts which really annoyed me and ruined the movie in a sense.

The 2 parts in which Paul was talking to the camera. Breaking the fourth wall really took me out of the film. The thrid part was when they got the remote and missed the scene, I understand what they did in the part but I though the rewinding with the remote was a pretty poor gimmick.

agree with you here, thought those bits spoiled it somewhat, can't see the reason for it, apart from that found it a pretty disturbing film

johnny_ultimate

Eirebear wrote: »

As for your overall comments, yes film is a form of entertainment but it is also a very useful tool for getting your opinions/voice across in terms of social commentary.....see "Dawn of the Dead" for perfect example, it may on the surface look like an out and out piece of entertainment, but its also quite an astute commentary of the time.....many films are like that.

I think this is the point I would use most when examining Funny Games (I have only seen the original too). It uses cinema as a way to look at deeper issues. Most films try to draw you into the world being created, but Funny Games tries to address the issue of the manipulation in this concept. It constantly reminds you that you are watching a film - it doesn't want you to become fully engaged with the narrative, but wants you to look at it from a more distanced, removed perspective. Now, there is certainly a debate to be had about how competently Haneke manages this - some of the moments are indeed not as effective as they could be, and may come across as gimmicks.

I think this film is anti-entertainment. Theres a couple of other films like this - some of Tarkovsky's films or the Death of Mr Lazeracu are two examples that spring to mind. Difficult to watch, and not instantly enjoyable, but ultimately thought-provoking. Its not about getting away for two hours - it makes you think about the implications of giving yourself completely into to a narrative. This will definitely split opinion on the film, and I think thats why the response to this film differs so radically (I've seen one star to five star reviews). I think the main point of the film is to stimulate some sort of debate, and I bet you Haneke is sitting in his evil tower somewhere cackling away to himself - releasing a film like this generally (on the back of a very misleading marketing campaign) can only have gotten the intended reaction.

Sam Vimes

i thought the film was fairly good. it takes a lot to disturb me so i didn't really find it disturbing tbh.

the only thing that annoyed me about the film were the parts that dragged on and on. for example

the scene where the mother spends what must have been 15 minutes trying to stand up and get to the kitchen to cut the duct tape. get on with it ffs

Nolanger

This movie would have been more enjoyable if it had starred Tom Hanks and Nicole Kidman .

Vic Vinegar

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the scene where the mother spends what must have been 15 minutes trying to stand up and get to the kitchen to cut the duct tape. get on with it ffs

Considering her situation at the time i thought she did quite well!

Anyone else think she looked great in her undies?

faceman

Re children in movies they are often left alone however they do on one hand represent innocence and hope.

when William peter blatty was writing The Exorcist he purposefuly selected a young girl as the victim and allowed depraved acts to be carried out to her to highlight the point that there is no hope and evil knows no boundaries.

Raekwon

faceman wrote: »

when William peter blatty was writing The Exorcist he purposefuly selected a young girl as the victim and allowed depraved acts to be carried out to her to highlight the point that there is no hope and evil knows no boundaries.

True. The actual 'event' that The Exorcist was based on was to do with a teenage boy who was thought to have been possessed by the devil. I think if Blatty had written the book with a teenage boy in mind instead of a pre-teen girl (& William Friedkin mirroring this in the movie) then it would have lost alot of its impact IMO & probably wouldn't have been as controversial either.

oleras

faceman wrote: »

Re children in movies they are often left alone however they do on one hand represent innocence and hope.

when William peter blatty was writing The Exorcist he purposefuly selected a young girl as the victim and allowed depraved acts to be carried out to her to highlight the point that there is no hope and evil knows no boundaries.

She survived !

faceman

oleras wrote: »

She survived !

I could explain why but i would go severely off topic! I wrote a mini thesis on the film in college!

oleras

faceman wrote: »

I could explain why but i would go severely off topic! I wrote a mini thesis on the film in college!

Whats a mini thesis ? An essay ?

and in sure it would not go off topic, it is about children in film after all, and in funny games it is a storyline.

Please share !

L31mr0d

rizzla wrote: »

The 2 parts in which Paul was talking to the camera. Breaking the fourth wall really took me out of the film. The thrid part was when they got the remote and missed the scene, I understand what they did in the part but I though the rewinding with the remote was a pretty poor gimmick.

seen the US version of this movie over the weekend. It really was pretty "meh" tbh. The above post being my main gripes with the movie. I guess I've just been watching a fair few disturbing movies over the last few weeks and this one just didn't seem that disturbing, it's definitely well below RFAD in regards to evoking a visceral response. Sure they had intent but the content wasn't there. There where no really graphic scenes and the

breaking of the 4th wall took me completely out of the movie and made me look at everyone like actors

Also, I hate predictable endings, the moment the lead protagonist

first looks at the camera and makes his comment about expected conclusions to situations like this in movies you know everyone is going to die and that those people momentarily introduced at the dock are going to get killed in the end

Paligulus

Finally got around to seeing this film at the weekend. The main points that I thought Haneke was trying to make in the film (in regards to cinema in general) were:

- To expect heroic displays by a father to protect his family is ridiculous (e.g. Commando, Taken etc...)
- Why should the last girl survive? (e.g. every slasher movie Helloween etc...)
- Why should children be exempt from mindless acts of mindless
- It is wrong for the modern audience to crave violence, even if its justified. The only violence we see in the film is when one of the "baddies" gets shot. Why is this OK?

But did any of these points have to be made (and in such a heavy-handed, preachy way)? Sure, the film might make you think, but did it really make you think about anything new, or make you re-evaluate an existing view?!!!

Personally, I though the whole exercise was pointless.