Funny Games (1997)

Directed by: Michael Haneke
Starring: Susanne Lothar

*****

Where to begin? Michael Haneke said of his original version of Funny Games that if it is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I don't think there is a better way to describe what he did with this film. In my opinion, he was successful regardless of whether or not the film was or if audiences understood what he was doing. For those who do understand, its because this film was perfectly crafted into a great movie that, at least for entertainment purposes, I'm not eager to watch again.

I'm not a good enough writer to cover everything that so intelligently went into this movie. The word perfect gets thrown out nonchalantly and its bold to suggest that Funny Games might be a perfect movie. Its close. Not because I was so entertained throughout or because the acting or the story was so great. Entertainment value, acting and story in this film were all pretty standard. It was nothing we haven't seen before. The genius of this film, its perfection is derived from what else we see, or what we don't see and how we see it. This is far more than a movie in the narrative sense. While not an experiemental film, it is an experiment and an insight into an audience's psyche. Yes, two sadistic teenagers play deadly games with an innocent family, games they think are funny, but more importantly, the film is playing a funny, sadistic game with its audience and that is where it succeeds just as was its intention.

I watched an interview with Michael Haneke after finishing the movie and in doing so, I was able to make some sense of everything that was going on in my head. When I watch a movie like this, I spend more time pondering over the point of a particular shot or a line of dialogue than I do wondering what will happen next. Haneke himself says that this movie was never intended to be a horror movie and I completely understand that. Movies like The Last House on the Left or The Strangers fail because they rely solely on horrifying their audiences with shock value and suspense. Having not seen either, I can only speculate that the violence and gore play a big part in providing those shocks. Haneke turns that on its head, it takes that violence which we as a society are so accustomed to and shows us that the consequences of violence isn't necessarily violence with a vengence. More likely is sitting still, head down, in shock for ten long minutes before you can even bring yourself to accept what has happened. The chilling ten plus minute long shot where the aforementioned innocent family does just that is as effective a long take as I've ever seen.

Haneke uses longs takes often in this film. At times it seems like he's putting on a play, one location, one long shot, actions happening off screen (stage) only create suspense and speculation. The advantage of film of course is the close ups and the emotion. Haneke uses these close ups not only to show how terrifed (for some of his characters) or calm and composed (for others) his characters are but to create a clostraphobia. The inescapability that Anna, Georg and their son are faced with is expressed through the close ups not because fear is across their face but because we are stuck watching that fear. Haneke allows no escape for his audience. He forces is us to watch a facial expression react to the violence that is happening off screen. Its almost as if he wants us to want to see it. Finally, when we do see some violence it appears to be a outlet, a way out of his trap and we welcome the violent images on screen... but its taken away from us in a most unorthodox but I think brilliant fashion.

Haneke really made this movie to challenge audiences. I know this because he comes right out and says it in one of the few instances he breaks the forth wall and speaks to his audience saying, "You're on their side aren't you?" Well, of course we're on the side of the innocent family who has done nothing to deserve the torture betowed upon them. However, I found myself wanting to see less of said family and much more of these two charming but again, sadistic teens. What makes them tick? There isn't a whole lot of depth to these two characters but there doesn't really have to be. They have no background or past. They are archetypes. The came from seemingly nowhere, played their game and then disappeared, perhaps off to play the same game with someone else.

Haneke said that if Funny Games is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I like to think I understood the meaning because I found it to be one of the most successfully crafted films I've ever seen. Perhaps its as simple as a commentary on violence in film and in the media but I think it goes much deeper. The movie challenges what we as a society consider to be acceptable. It brings to mind how fragile the idea that the majority of us don't kill just because we can, that we repsect our fellow man just enough to let him live his life peacefully. Should we chose, there's not really any way to stop our society from falling victim to a string of funny games.