Funny Games - the First Polarizing Movie of 2008

There is no in between with a movie like this. You will either love or hate this movie with equal passion. I was fascinated by this movie from the trailer, and I was eager to see it as soon as it came out. Reviews for this movie have gone all over the place from praise to vicious hatred. Some will look at this as a completely immoral piece of work that revels in what it despises. Others will look at as very strong suspense film that does not hide from the ugly reality of violence. After seeing this movie, I can't help but think that this is what director Michael Haneke wanted. Alfred Hitchcock was once quoted as saying:

"I love playing the audience like a piano."

So does Haneke. Truth be told, he must be reveling in getting us in such an emotional state over this movie like he did back in 1997. "Funny Games" is a shot-for-shot remake of his original suspense thriller from ten years ago. I have not seen that version, so this will not be a comparison to the remake. In fact, I didn't realize that this movie is a remake until just recently. But since this is a virtual duplication of another film, I'm not sure how necessary it will be to see the original at this point. It's not the first time a director has remade one of his own films. Hitchcock did it with "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and George Sluizer redid his brilliant thriller "The Vanishing" in America and unforgivably butchered it in the process with a completely unbelievable ending. In terms of shot-for-shot remakes, the one that comes to mind is Gus Van Sant's version of "Psycho," and I still can't figure out why he did it.

Michael Haneke wanted to remake "Funny Games" for an American audience because he felt that it was in essence an American story in that he sees Americans being giddily in love with violence onscreen and in the media. While there is something rather condescending about him thinking that, he does have a point to a certain extent. Every once in awhile, we will need a movie that reminds of the brutality of violence and that although we may fiend for gun battles on the big screen, violence in real life is scary and we should be eager to avoid it. "Funny Games" is both the first ironically titled and first truly polarizing movie of 2008. This movie is anything but entertaining, and in the end, it is not meant to be. Some movies made to be experienced and not simply to be enjoyed. This is one of those movies that gets under your skin, unnerves you completely, and whether or not you stay for the whole thing just might say something about you as a person.

For me, I found "Funny Games" to be at times a brilliantly made movie that shows Haneke to be a current master of suspense. This movie has no real film score to speak of, and it doesn't need it to generate tension. Like "The China Syndrome" from so many years ago, the movie is an intense enough experience without it. The only music we hear are some opera pieces the happy middle class family play in their car as they head off for a relaxing weekend in a home by the river. This music is then viciously interrupted by some really hard heavy metal music that immediately unsettles the viewer and gives you an idea of what to expect. But even then, your expectations may not be met with a movie like this.

The movie revolves around a married couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) driving down the highway with their son (Devon Gearhart) and their sailboat in tow. When they finally arrive at their destination and start to get settled, they are met by two young men (William Pitt and Brady Corbet) who look like well-bred preppies with very nice manners. Brady's character comes to borrow eggs to give to the neighbors which Naomi gives him kindly. But on the way out, he "accidentally" drops them, and then he won't leave until he gets some more eggs which he knows the family has. Soon, both husband and wife are trying to throw these two guys out, and then the two show their true colors when they take a golf club and seriously smash the crap out of one of Tim Roth's kneecaps.

With the family held hostage, they finally reveal their heinous plan; they bet that in 12 hours, the whole family will be dead. The movie becomes a game of survival for the family as the games the boys get more and more dangerous. One of the major criticisms I have heard leveled at this movie is that the killers have no motive. Sometimes not knowing why people do the things they do makes a movie or a story a lot scarier. When "Silence Of The Lambs" was first released in theaters, we never did know why Hannibal Lecter was a cannibal. But here, these two evil schmucks do have a motive that is more senseless as well as viciously cold: they are torturing this family for the thrill of it and for the "importance of entertainment." The director has given us two psychos whose motives, as he puts it are not "easily explained by societal factors." They look to enjoy the power they have over the helpless family. While that may frustrate those hoping to see a more psychological thriller that gets at the roots of evil, their motives (while utterly repellant and coldly vicious) are not entirely unbelievable given what I have seen recently.

This phenomenon of people getting a high off of violence and torture feels like it is growing at a horrifying rate. There have been movies like "Henry - Portrait Of A Serial Killer" and "Menace 2 Society" that have moments where the characters commit violent acts which have intentionally or unintentionally been videotaped. We later see the same characters watching their hideous acts over and over on their VCR's. There was an episode of "Homicide: Life On The Street" which featured a scene with one cousin filming the other as he goes over to a nearby bus stop and shoots an old lady to death. No reason is given, other than the fact that they find it so incredibly entertaining.

Like all those examples, the two young men in this movie are utterly repellent people. This may be where a lot of hatred has been leveled at this movie. But the thing is, you should be repelled at what these guys are doing. They are without morals, and the rules of society are nonexistent to them which makes them all the more dangerous. The comfortable conventions of the normal suspense thriller are not in existence here. If they are, then they are only there to be overturned when the audience least expects them to be. Unlike other Hollywood thrillers, the violence here feels much more real than you would usually expect it to be. Director Michael Haneke is out to make you uncomfortable as possible, and he succeeds in different ways with this movie.

One of the other interesting things with this movie is that although it technically an ultra violent movie, there is actually not a lot of violence shown on the screen here. Most of the truly violent moments here are shown off screen, making them all the more terrifying. There's another moment where Naomi Watt's character is forced to disrobe completely, but you never see her from below the neck. It's a moment where Haneke dares you to wonder why the camera isn't showing us more here. You may end up hating him for that, but you can't deny (I can't anyway) that my mind did go there even if I wouldn't have admitted it right away.

Haneke, like in his other movies like "Cache," likes to film shots in long takes. This succeeds in trapping the viewer in with this family as we wait to see how they can escape their fate. One sequence that is done in one shot lasts a good five minutes or so as Naomi Watts' character desperately tries to break free of the tape that binds her hands behind her back. There are a lot of static shots here that are free of overly clever camera moves, and they suck us in to the action of the movie while generating some strong suspense. There are points where we are not sure when these two psychos threaten to strike next. Like the family, we are trapped with them in their horrifying ordeal.

The director goes even further by having one of the characters break the fourth wall between the characters and the audience watching the movie. Many found this device to be annoying which is understandable, but I wasn't bothered much by it because it made the movie seem even creepier to me (this was especially the case in the very last shot of the film). It probably would have been an unnecessary device had it been overused as I expected it to be. But I felt it was used rather sparingly and was not overdone. Had it been overdone, it definitely would have a major negative effect on the movie for me.

There is also a moment where there is a rewind employed in the film. I won't say where this occurs, but if you are gutsy enough to sit through this experience, then you will know when it occurs. It is as brilliant a move as it is frustrating to the viewer as it completely eschews the formula of movies like these that we have come to expect. The director doesn't hesitate to subvert our expectations and trap us into a reaction we cannot hide.

Many call Haneke a hypocrite in the way he portrays the violence in the film while professing to be against violence. I can't say that he escapes the curse of hypocrisy here, as making a movie that has violence while trying to have an anti-violence agenda is difficult enough, but believe me when I say there are worse examples that have already been released this year. A month or two ago, we had "Untraceable" with Diane Lane thrown out at us. While being a formulaic action movie, it also sought to attack those who glorify violence on the internet. But in the process, the movie did the exact same thing by giving us graphic murder scenes that didn't skimp on the details! Now that is a truly hypocritical movie for you. "Funny Games" however doesn't dwell on the graphic violence we see in movies as it does on the reality and the aftermath of it which makes the movie all the more shocking.

Whatever you think of the movie, there is no denying the superb work by all the actors here. Tim Roth does strong work, and I can't remember the last actor who made me feel the pain of broken bones on the big screen. I also don't want to forget Devon Gearhart who plays his son Georgie Jr. Devon has a very unenviable role as a child caught up in the worst of situations. He is asked to do things that we would rather not see a child actor do, and he makes his sheer terror seem all the more horrifyingly real.

Michael Pitt plays the lead psycho of the film, and he succeeds in creating such a cleverly cold character that some have compared to Malcolm McDowell's character of Alex in "A Clockwork Orange." This is a young actor who has made himself a strong presence in many independent movies like "The Dreamers" and "Bully" among others. He excels in roles like this that play on his charm to an incredibly unsympathetic effect. Brady Corbett plays the seemingly wimpy one of the two, and he also has made a strong impression in independent movies like "Thirteen" and the brilliant "Mysterious Skin." Together, these two actors create a lethal pair that you despise in no time at all.

But in the end, the movie really belongs to Naomi Watts (who also executive produced the film), as she continues to prove that she is one of the bravest actresses working in film today. In movies like "Mulholland Drive" and "21 Grams" among others, she has portrayed characters that are so naked in their vulnerabilities onscreen that it makes you wonder how she gets through these roles without having a nervous breakdown. Her performance in "Funny Games" is no exception to that. She puts herself in situations that have to be so difficult to make seem real, but she succeeds here in making us believe just how terrifying her ordeal really is.

"Funny Games" is one of those movies where you cannot help but read into everyone's reactions to it. Like I said before, this is without a doubt a very polarizing movie that people will either love or hate. In a way, if many did not have such a negative reaction to the movie, then Michael Haneke would have failed in his mission to get under our skin and unnerve us completely. No it is not an enjoyable movie, but it is an experience that cannot easily be ignored as you walk out of the movie theater. It is a thought provoking movie that in no way allows for a neutral opinion. For my money, it is a very strong exercise in suspense that never lets up throughout its 2 hour running time (you heard it right).

It is not the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen in a movie theater ("Requiem For A Dream" takes the cake there), but it sure comes close. The violence in the movie is of a real kind that does not offer the typical feeling of an escapist movie, and that may be why some people hate it so much. The best advice I can give you is if you don't want to subject to a very disturbing and unnerving experience, then don't see "Funny Games." You have been warned, so take the R rating seriously.

***1/2 out of ****