Funny Games June 20, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Modern Films, 1990s , trackback
Funny Games
The 1998 film begins with a German family driving to their vacation home while listening to a selection of classical music. The viewer is soon jolted by the abrupt switch from the melodic orchestral piece to the loud sounds of heavy metal. I suppose the director here is warning his audience that he plans to not play by the rules of normal moviemaking, a message he then proceeds to bash the viewer over the head with as the film progresses. As the family arrives to their destination, everything initially appears normal until a seemingly polite young man who claims to have been sent by the neighbors to borrow some eggs wears out his welcome. He’s soon joined by his partner in psychosis and the “funny games” are off and running.
In Funny Games, the director rarely shows actual moments of violence and instead puts the viewer on the edge of their seat with insinuation and imagination. He deftly handles the thriller aspects of the film and keeps his audience interested all the way to the deeply unsatisfying conclusion. Personally, however, instead of reflecting on the film in relation to other, more straightforward violent thrillers, I turned my ire to the filmmaker for his shameless manipulation and unnecessary scolding. Haneke seems to revel in mocking his audience as he pulls the rug from underneath their feet.
The audience as accomplice theme that Haneke is striving for becomes the root of the film’s problems. I completely understand what his intentions are, that audiences who watch films such as this are being entertained by violent torture and murder in hopes that the victim can turn the tables on his or her attacker and ultimately become a torturer or murderer as well. My disagreement with Haneke is that not everyone who views his particular film(s) is also an avid viewer of the genre he’s attempting to subvert. I’m sure many viewers, including myself, watch Funny Games because of it’s arthouse reputation and not for titillating suspense and/or violence. This lack of respect of his audience is misplaced since the very people who are likely to watch his films are the moviegoers most likely to shun the needlessly violent films he’s attacking.
Haneke’s assertion in the interview accompanying the DVD release that those who have applauded the tortured female victim Anna’s actions prior to Haneke’s rewind effect will be taken aback once they realize they’ve cheered a murder is baffling. If given the opportunity, I would relish the chance to ask Haneke how an audience is supposed to react when his heroine shoots one of the men who has been torturing her family, including killing her young son. Should the viewer not feel relieved and happy when such a man is seemingly killed onscreen? Haneke’s arrogance and preaching is at its height when he deprives the audience of this satisfaction by rewinding the scene as we watch and giving the killer a second chance. In fact, I can imagine viewers as more likely to watch the violent films Funny Games is attempting to subvert in order to achieve the satisfaction and closure that Haneke’s film fails to provide.
My complaints with Haneke’s films remind me of what Roger Ebert said in his review of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (which is included on that film’s DVD). Ebert was upset that Lynch seemed to be provoking his audience with some of the images shown onscreen, such as Isabella Rossellini nude on the lawn, without any real reason or rationale except to shock and manipulate the audience. I think Ebert got it wrong with Blue Velvet because Lynch does appear to have a method to his madness, as evidenced by his subsequent films and interviews. Lynch respects his audience whereas Haneke laughs at his in a sadistic attempt to show them how wrong and stupid they have been for watching his film.
One thing that I do have to begrudgingly give Haneke is his ability to provoke an audience. His films certainly cause a reaction from the viewer. Whether this is good or bad or even relevant is up to the individual viewer. I can’t say I’ve enjoyed watching any of his films or that I plan on revisiting them. I see him as the worst type of filmmaker, one who has the talent to keep an audience interested but chooses to see them as lower than he is and must let his arrogance get in the way of making quality films. Manipulation is not something to admire and, so far, that seems to be all that Haneke is interested in achieving.
Comments»
Thought this was an interesting and thought-provoking review and I agree with most of your points.