Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#251 Post by Big Ben » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:14 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:I'm not sure horror films are any more likely to market themselves with 'based on a true story' than any other kind of movie. Indeed, the most notorious example of this is Fargo, a crime thriller.

You say Hanake's aim is to point out that horror films are constructed. Ok. But to what end? If it's an end in itself, the critique risks simply being banal (to say nothing of unoriginal, given the existence of Luna's Anguish). If not, what? Is the film siding with the viewer against itself? Or is it against the viewer, like zedz says?
I just can't agree with there (Although I'll certainly concede if proven wrong.). No other genre has that selling point more than horror. Fargo is just one example (That's also blatantly false. There isn't even an attempt at stretching something even close to reality which numerous horror films such as The Strangers have stretched to an incredulous degree.) and compared to the numerous other examples of films themselves (Take any number of true crime films ranging from Zodiac to the most recent Ted Bundy biopic now in production). Now if we wanted to do a "ripped from the headlines" for police procedural on TV like Law and Order I'll concede on that point.

As I stated in a previous post the film doesn't have a point past pointing out artificiality. (Haneke has stated himself it's pointless and that if he had succeeded financially he would have failed.) There is no formula to art and that's why I think the film is so frustrating (And why we're having this discussion.). Take note of the sequence where one of the boys is brought back to life through the fourth wall breaking rewinding of the film. The logic of film causality is violated in toto. Everything is done right by the protagonist and yet they still lose due to artificiality of literal fourth wall breaking interference. No doubt many audience members got angry because they were denied a happy ending due to a violation of perceived cultural commitment (One person has to survive right?)! You have the recipe for a horror film yes, but you're reminded at least twice (One of the boys states that we're not even up to feature length yet!) that you're watching something that's constructed. Your immersion is intentionally violated for some Hanekian purpose (I cringe typing that).

My point is that I feel Funny Games only goal is to remind you it's artificial and there's nothing past that other than presenting this horrific masquerade. Can you imagine if this film was played straight? Whether that's a successful formula or a sort of "Nyah" moment is up to the viewer and I'm rather ambivalent even as I type this. I'm certainly now open to the idea that it's a "Do as I say but not as I do" sort of film though. It certainly feels really disingenuous the more I think about it.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#252 Post by swo17 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:27 pm

I'm mostly indifferent to this film, but I do think that sometimes you have to wallow in the muck and even outmuck the muckiest parts of it to show just how mucky it is and why that's a problem. Or, I don't know, maybe you don't have to do that. But I do like it sometimes when people do. (For instance, Salo.)

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#253 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:16 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:I'm not sure horror films are any more likely to market themselves with 'based on a true story' than any other kind of movie. Indeed, the most notorious example of this is Fargo, a crime thriller.

You say Hanake's aim is to point out that horror films are constructed. Ok. But to what end? If it's an end in itself, the critique risks simply being banal (to say nothing of unoriginal, given the existence of Luna's Anguish). If not, what? Is the film siding with the viewer against itself? Or is it against the viewer, like zedz says?
I just can't agree with there (Although I'll certainly concede if proven wrong.). No other genre has that selling point more than horror. Fargo is just one example (That's also blatantly false. There isn't even an attempt at stretching something even close to reality which numerous horror films such as The Strangers have stretched to an incredulous degree.) and compared to the numerous other examples of films themselves (Take any number of true crime films ranging from Zodiac to the most recent Ted Bundy biopic now in production). Now if we wanted to do a "ripped from the headlines" for police procedural on TV like Law and Order I'll concede on that point.
You haven't offered any proof, tho'. And your claim is hard to take seriously given that you're talking about the standard advertising technique of any film with a connection to real events. Movies in general advertise themselves as "based on a/the true story" whenever they can, including movies like Fargo which famously are not. So you'd have to be claiming that horror films base their stories on real events more often than the entirety of non-horror filmmaking. That's pretty unbelievable and would require a lot of proof.

What you're saying doesn't even make any sense considering biopics and historical dramas are exclusively based on true stories, and so in and of themselves disprove your claim. And you can't discount either of those categories because a lot of your evidence (eg. the Dahmer biopic) would be discounted along with them.

There's nothing in your claims or examples that isn't explained by confirmation bias.
swo17 wrote:I'm mostly indifferent to this film, but I do think that sometimes you have to wallow in the muck and even outmuck the muckiest parts of it to show just how mucky it is and why that's a problem.
Would you agree that if you're going to descend into the muck, you can't simultaneously claim to be above it, let alone tut and wag your finger? Would you also agree there's a difference between indicting the audience for thinking, feeling, or doing whatever ugly thing X is taking place in your movie, and indicting the audience just for watching the movie?

Toying with the audience only so that you can look down on them is far uglier than whatever crimes they have supposedly committed in watching your film.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#254 Post by Big Ben » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:32 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: You haven't offered any proof, tho'. And your claim is hard to take seriously given that you're talking about the standard advertising technique of any film with a connection to real events. Movies in general advertise themselves as "based on a/the true story" whenever they can, including movies like Fargo which famously are not. So you'd have to be claiming that horror films base their stories on real events more often than the entirety of non-horror filmmaking. That's pretty unbelievable and would require a lot of proof.

What you're saying doesn't even make any sense considering biopics and historical dramas are exclusively based on true stories. And you can't discount either of those categories because a lot of your evidence (eg. the Dahmer biopic) would be discounted along with them.

There's nothing in your claims or examples that isn't explained by confirmation bias.
That's fair takedown and I'll concede my point.
Mr Sausage wrote:Toying with the audience only so that you can look down on them is far uglier than whatever crimes they have supposedly committed in watching your film.
It's amusing that swo mentions Salo because Haneke listed it as one of his top ten films. It it does remind me of Salo in the sense that it's a film driven by extremes. (Although I doubt anyone here will attempt to debate Salo is less...well everything content wise than Funny Games.). I've always felt Salo was ridiculously overblown metaphor wise and that it felt a lot like a cheap metaphor in the same way a High School teacher would tell you that the blue drapes in a characters room meant the author was depressed or something. Fascism is bad no doubt about it. But adapted a Marquis de Sade story and saying your adaptation is a metaphor for Fascism strikes me as really reaching (Can you tell I much prefer Accattone?). How do you all feel about on screen extremes (In the case of Funny Games) being used as a base for real life horrors? Is it wrong to make films about those scenarios period if you're just going to attack the audience for consuming it?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#255 Post by zedz » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:13 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:Toying with the audience only so that you can look down on them is far uglier than whatever crimes they have supposedly committed in watching your film.
It's amusing that swo mentions Salo because Haneke listed it as one of his top ten films. It it does remind me of Salo in the sense that it's a film driven by extremes. [. . .] How do you all feel about on screen extremes (In the case of Funny Games) being used as a base for real life horrors? Is it wrong to make films about those scenarios period if you're just going to attack the audience for consuming it?
Does anybody really feel that Funny Games is all that extreme apart from Michael Haneke? Just about any modern horror movie is more extreme in terms of gore and violence, because Haneke famously keeps all the violence off screen. And there are lots of horror films that are more extreme in psychological terms, including many that push Haneke's particular envelope more effectively than he manages to.

For me, the film's real achievement is the uncommon naturalism he brings to the film (it's like Wolf Creek - or any other nominally realistic modern horror movie - if the characters weren't idiots), and this is where 90% of its power comes from - before the gauche schoolmarmisms dispel about 50% of that added value.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#256 Post by swo17 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:31 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
swo17 wrote:I'm mostly indifferent to this film, but I do think that sometimes you have to wallow in the muck and even outmuck the muckiest parts of it to show just how mucky it is and why that's a problem.
Would you agree that if you're going to descend into the muck, you can't simultaneously claim to be above it, let alone tut and wag your finger? Would you also agree there's a difference between indicting the audience for thinking, feeling, or doing whatever ugly thing X is taking place in your movie, and indicting the audience just for watching the movie?
Probably. I didn't much care for it when Kate Plays Christine pulled this trick, for instance. Though I wouldn't rule out someone being able to do this effectively either. This kind of thing is tricky--it's not enough for your heart to be in the right place--it's all in the execution.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#257 Post by knives » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:29 am

swo17 wrote:I'm mostly indifferent to this film, but I do think that sometimes you have to wallow in the muck and even outmuck the muckiest parts of it to show just how mucky it is and why that's a problem. Or, I don't know, maybe you don't have to do that. But I do like it sometimes when people do. (For instance, Salo.)
I think Salo is actually a very illuminating comparison in part because the film is actually very funny and not just a po faced critique. As well the film spends just as much if not more time as a critique of Pasolini than of the audience.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#258 Post by Big Ben » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:04 am

zedz wrote:Does anybody really feel that Funny Games is all that extreme apart from Michael Haneke? Just about any modern horror movie is more extreme in terms of gore and violence, because Haneke famously keeps all the violence off screen. And there are lots of horror films that are more extreme in psychological terms, including many that push Haneke's particular envelope more effectively than he manages to.

For me, the film's real achievement is the uncommon naturalism he brings to the film (it's like Wolf Creek - or any other nominally realistic modern horror movie - if the characters weren't idiots), and this is where 90% of its power comes from - before the gauche schoolmarmisms dispel about 50% of that added value.
I do and for one specific reason. A lot of moments in Haneke's films are awful but the genuine mood passes and you're granted some sort of release even in films where there's underling tension (Take your pick, Cache, The White Ribbon). The violence is off screen sure, but the only real release is when it looks like they're going to escape and then..nope. There's no catharsis of any kind as it's implied that these two young men are going to do this again. It's precisely because they do everything intelligently and are foiled by a literal break of logic that separates this from Haneke's other work too. Just because the violence isn't onscreen doesn't make it any less disturbing in my mind. It's the whole package that makes it rather ghoulish.
knives wrote: I think Salo is actually a very illuminating comparison in part because the film is actually very funny and not just a po faced critique. As well the film spends just as much if not more time as a critique of Pasolini than of the audience.
Could you explain what you mean? It's been nearly ten years since I saw it but I don't remember it being anything other than a very horrific look at degradation in any number of ways. Perhaps it's my lack of ability to perceive certain types of humor and social mores (I apologize as I literally can't help this.) or I was simply too young (I would have been eighteen or so) to understand anything in any significant manner. In relation to Funny Games though I very much perceive extremes but not the same methodology behind them. Salo is very much meant to be about Fascism but that's something that's been added wholly by Pasolini. The Marquis de Sade's original text (Despite recently being declared a national treasure by France!) never struck me as anything but an incredibly transgressive manuscript written at a time where this was very much not tolerated and that's were it's value really lay. Funny Games is transgressive because I feel it revels in it's artificiality except this isn't a John Waters film. It's ghastly sure but for a very different reason.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

#259 Post by knives » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:37 pm

The original de Sade text certainly has a political element to it even if one largely irrelevant to today's political models. As for Pasolini's interpretation, he famously made the film in reaction to what he saw as the very violent and pessimistic reaction to the trilogy of life. Whereas he saw what he was making as an ode to life the films that came out because of them were generally violent sexually in a way he found shocking. Salo thus was at least in part a way of turning the mirror back around with the result as you say being very shocking. In its satire though he produces a lot of comedy. I'm especially thinking of the circle of shit and the blame game of who was breaking the rules more that ends in such a devastating punch. I don't mean to say that Salo is funny in the way of Lubitsch or the Brothers Marx, but it does have a wry sense that the horrors depicted are absurd.

Post Reply