"Funny Games" ** 1\2 (out of ****)The term "challenging film" was invented for movies such as Michael Haneke's "Funny Games". Then again, Haneke has always been a challenging filmmaker. I've enjoyed what I've seen from him, "The Piano Teacher", "Time of the Wolf" and "Cache". None of these films came to easy conclusions and they most certainly did not ask easy questions. But, when do we, as an audience, draw the line?
"Funny Games" is a remake of Haneke's own 1997 film, under the same title. It was nominated for the "Golden Palm" at the Cannes Film Festival. This new film couldn't even get an invite. It wouldn't even be able to park cars at the festival.
Naomi Watts, truly one of our greatest actresses, stars as Ann. A happily married woman, whom, along with her husband, George (Tim Roth) and their son, also named George (Devon Gearhart) head out to their family cabin for the week.
At the beginning of the film we see the family play an innocent car game of name that tune. With that immediately the concept of "games" is placed in our head. A piece of classical music plays in the car and over the credits and sudden the music comes to a stop as loud head-banging rock music plays. This took me out of my element. It made me uncomfortable. It makes us aware it is a movie. We are awaken and slightly disturbed. This feeling will play out again and again through-out the film.
While cooking dinner there is a knock at the door. It is one of their neighbor's guest, a young man named Peter (Brady Corbet). He asks Ann if she can spare some eggs, 4 to be exact. She hands him the eggs but he drops them. Annoyed she gives him 4 more. While leaving, the family dog jumps on him, scares him, and causes him to drop the eggs again. This time however with Peter is Paul (Michael Pitt). They need 4 more eggs. Ann refuses, and asks them to leave. She needs the remaining eggs herself. But the boys do not leave. They insist upon getting the eggs. Soon Both George and George Jr. enter the house. Ann tells her husband to ask the boys to leave. They do not. At this point I was reminded of the Luis Bunel film "The Exterminating Angels" in which a group of guest arrive at a party and once the party is over, for some reason, cannot bring themselves to leave the house.
What happens next is unpredictable. The young boys beat the father and keep the family hostage while insisting on playing "games". And these games are nothing like the innocent family games we saw being played in the car. From this point on the film is about the family's struggle to stay alive.
I'll leave the plot there. If, for some reason, you chose to see the film, I suppose it is best to be surprised. The larger question to examine here is, what is the point of all of this? Is Haneke making a social commentary on violence? If so, I much prefer David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence". Or is the point suppose to be, we are merely suppose to watch how senseless and unpredictable violence is? In which case I prefer Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" which showed us a high school massacre being committed. It offered no explaination, it just showed us the events of the day in an ordinary fashion. Prior to seeing this film, I saw Kenneth Branagh's remake of "Sleuth". There too was a film about "games" and revenge. "Sleuth" though had razor sharp dialogue. It didn't pretend to be about more than what it was; slick and well-conceived. My gut tells me Haneke wants to tell us something.
For about the first hour, even though I was slighly bothered by what I was seeing, I was aware this is how Haneke wants me to feel. So I was reacting appropriately. I knew the film was about more than the violence we see on-screen. I knew Haneke is pushing our social buttons. He wants to see how far he can take this. The film now becomes more of an experiment than an actual film. But then Haneke loses me and its hard to explain how without revealing much of the plot.
SPOILER ALERT!
The young men suddenly leave the cabin. Ann and George try to find an escape. George's leg at this point is broken after getting beaten with a golf club. Had the film end at this point, I would give it 4 stars. Because up until this point, I felt I understood Haneke's message. It had succeeded. But then the boys come back and now we begin round two and here is where the film loses control and a sense of purpose. Paul starts speaking directly to the camera, breaking the fourth wall and once again reminding us, as happened with the music shift, we are experiencing a movie. But the acts repeat themselves. The second half almost seems comical. The ending seems to be trying to make us laugh.
END SPOILER
Credit has to be given to the actors involved. I also recently watched "The Painted Veil" with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. Nothing about her character in that film resembles the character she plays here. She is such a talent. She has the ability to lose herself in her roles. Even if I don't enjoy a particular film she is in, which doesn't happen often, I still leave the theatre with admiration for her. Tim Roth is another gifted actor. Never content on playing ordinary characters either he doesn't shy away from a challenge. I can understand why they took on these roles. And Michael Pitt, you may remember from Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Dreamers". Pitt is so effective in this movie, I won't deny watching him in this movie, I was starting to have violent thoughts. I wanted to strangle him or shoot him or something. And that's exactly what he was suppose to do. He is not playing a likeable character. He is playing a killer.
Maybe that was the point of Haneke's film. How we, the audience, respond to violence. What runs through our brains when we see these images. The "experiment" was on us. Then again, who knows, only Haneke has the answers to these questions. But, I will say this. If Michael Haneke makes another film like this, I may have to stop by his house and ask for some eggs....
Posts
