Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

[domino harvey]

I've searched everywhere online, but have not been able to find a comparison of the image quality between the R1 and R2 DVD releases of US remake.

The DVD Times review of the R2 disc reports the image is a little soft; although it does have an half-hour interview with Haneke.

Unfortunately, both the R1 and R2 discs contain the film

[foggy eyes]

Unfortunately, both the R1 and R2 discs contain the film

Not very helpful.

Domino, your incessant shtick is getting rather tired. Where's the 'yawn' emoticon?

[foliagecop]

=D>

Couldn't agree more, Domino.

The original cacks all over it.

Foggy eyes, it's just sarcasm. Deservedly so, in this instance.

[colinr0380]

I like to think of Domino as our forum's own golf club wielding, egg smashing, loquacious torturer. I'm sure I saw him knocking Invunche off the side of a yacht a little while ago.

And by the way, where's my dog? Am I getting warmer or colder?

[a.khan]

No harm done -- hopefully someone will eventually be able to help me out: with image quality being paramount, I need to decide between the R1 and R2 DVDs; blu-ray is not an option for me (yet).

[franco]

Hi a.khan... I have the Canadian disc, and its transfer is interlaced. Looks horrible. Not sure whether the US disc would share the same atrocity, but I imagine for a disc that includes a full frame presentation, it can't be any better.

I think maybe the R2 is the one to go. At least you get the DTS track.

[Nothing]

I had the Chinese pirate - image quality was pretty good. Left it in a hotel room as a, er, tip for the cleaning staff.

[a.khan]

I had the Chinese pirate - image quality was pretty good. Left it in a hotel room as a, er, tip for the cleaning staff.

Ha ha, imagine their surprise when they happily throw the DVD into their player, on a lazy weekend!

Keep those helpful comments coming, guys. Thanks.

[CSM126]

This movie was pathetically bad (I think I owe Rob Zombie somewhat of an apology because the awfulness of Funny Games makes RZ's White Trash Halloween Jamboree look like a good film in comparison) but I don't want to just throw in my two cents and be done with it (we have Domino for that).

I want to ask a question. I want to know if someone can explain to me what the blue fuck Michael Haneke's fascination with broken eggs is. He lingers on that shot of the broken eggs forever near the beginning, he throws in a mention of more borken eggs a moment later, and then just for good measure he breaks more eggs later on in the movie ("We were supposed to be careful with the carpet"). Are they just some lame metaphor for innocence shattered (I'd expect it is, but with a movie this obscenely obtuse you can't be sure) or is he just pretentious enough that he thought "Hey, broken eggs. If Kubrick could linger on a guy running in circles and get away with calling it art, I can linger on eggs and call it art, by God!"?

His fascination with runny yolks is so strong that I marvel at the fact that the DVD cover wasn't just a picture of a broken egg.

[karmajuice]

Hitchcock said he was freaked out by eggs, especially yolks. Maybe Haneke was just trying to freak out everyone, even the most obscure demongraphic.

I recommend people this film whenever I can. It's more entertaining than watching it.

[colinr0380]

Isn't it another use of the objects of everyday life as weapons of humiliation - purposefully breaking borrowed eggs and then acting like you are entitled to more is just the opening gambit in the perverting of the comfortable, even luxurious, environment into a torture chamber.

If we wanted to get pretentious ( ) there might also be a mother having her eggs smashed/having her child killed link lurking around in there too.

Here's a very interesting article on the remake.

[knives]

It's weird because I like Haneke's aesthetic and approach to things but dystopia isn't exactly a rare thing nowadays and more of it is likely to just burn me out. I've not seen Time of the Wolf but isn't that a dystopia too? Perhaps that's a good judge for those who have seen it?

Time of the Wolf is an amazing film. This ... sounds weird. But if it's Haneke, it has to be good, right?

Funny Games says hello. (actually I dislike Benny's Video the most, but that has its fans.

[Big Ben]

Funny Games says hello. (actually I dislike Benny's Video the most, but that has its fans.

Which version of Funny Games are you referring to? I quite like the original Austrian version but the English "remake" is kind of funny in a bad sort of way.

I've actually seen his work get more divisive among some people in my circle the further and further he has gone on. The only Haneke I outright dislike is The Piano Teacher and that's for the simply fact I've no idea what he was trying to do or say with it. I can only hope that it'll follow along the lines of his earlier films and deal with those theme in this dystopic worldview of his.

[mfunk9786]

Re: Funny Games, I quite like it despite the ugliness of its content, and even though the original film is better acted and more impactful, the remake looks so fantastic that if I ever go back and revisit it, it's the U.S. one. Would love to see all of Haneke's older stuff get a full restoration, even though I'm in agreement that Benny's Video is dreadful.

[knives]

I actually quite like both versions of Funny Games, but I don't think it is as smart or as daring as it thinks it is. A lot of the commentary also seems misplaced being more attributable to action films than the horror ones he takes inspiration from.

[Big Ben]

I actually quite like both versions of Funny Games, but I don't think it is as smart or as daring as it thinks it is. A lot of the commentary also seems misplaced being more attributable to action films than the horror ones he takes inspiration from.

You'll have to forgive me but when did the lot of you see this? I was six when this was released and I'm not entirely sure what the market was being saturated with. Funny Games always struck me as having the look and feel of a horror film when really it really wasn't one. I felt at the time I first saw and I still do that it's about how we perceive violence and how the brain tolerates some kinds but is repulsed by others (Particularly when the violence is institutionalized.). We're intentionally denied a catharsis and that makes it exceedingly unpleasant. Haneke has stated it's essentially pointless though and that if it had been a success he would have failed.

Translating all this into a television show though I can only imagine this will involve media (Social, Televised etc.) and how it played a part in societies downfall. And on paper with that brief synopsis I'm going to have to side with mfunk for the time being. What becomes of it we'll just have to wait and see.

[mfunk9786]

Well, I am 31, but I saw it when an ex and I rented it (on the strength of Cache) from that green envelope foreign/indie DVD rental service (someone please help me with the name because it's not coming to me) in..... I wanna say 2005, 2006? But you're both right that the preachiness of the film is easily its worst aspect - especially since it's as effective a horror film as all the stuff it's wagging its finger at.

[zedz]

Well, I am 31, but I saw it when an ex and I rented it (on the strength of Cache) from that green envelope foreign/indie DVD rental service (someone please help me with the name because it's not coming to me) in..... I wanna say 2005, 2006? But you're both right that the preachiness of the film is easily its worst aspect - especially since it's as effective a horror film as all the stuff it's wagging its finger at.

I agree: it's an exemplary horror movie (one of the few I can think of where the victims are intelligent, brave and resourceful - they do everything right - yet are still doomed), but as satire / social comment it's rather dumb and disingenuous.

[dda1996a]

It's been a few years since I've seen it (haven't seen the remake) which means it's due a rewatch , but isn't the film's point is to test us viewers regarding violence in film? As in incriminating us in letting these actions happen and continuing to watch the film, as pointed out in the meta scenes of the film (looking into the lens, the remote control etc.)

[colinr0380]

I remember first encountering Funny Games through a two page write up in the Shivers horror film magazine (ironic for a film trying to go against genre tropes that the horror magazine review was the most in depth one I read at the time!), which rhapsodised over the film but stated that it would be impossible to release in the UK due to not just the violence but also that we spend excrutiatingly long feeling scenes watching characters cut carrots and so on! Though those scenes of 'domesticity' are not exactly drawn out here, but crucially placed to contrast against the cruelty being inflicted on these characters. If these well to do, upper middle class, summer home renting, boat owning, well behaved son and dog raising, opera trivia game loving, fully stocked fridge characters can have their lives systematically shattered and overwritten by Naked City and characters with control over the very image itself, what hope is there for anyone without even their resources? Does the torture go on so long because we need a film to run for two hours, and to see the cat and mouse games play out even if they will inevitably be entirely futile. Futile because (in the best and most harrowing scene following the first human death) the killers may have left the scene but the camera is still there intently watching those who remain.

(I first saw the film a year or two after the Shivers review, picking it up on the then state of the art Tartan VHS release in 1999 following a trip to Meadowhall Shopping Centre in Sheffield with a few friends. I also picked up Boogie Nights at the same time and ended up double billing them, which I suppose is why the firecracker scene from Boogie Nights always reminds me of Funny Games, and vice versa!)

But I just love Susanne Lothar's performance in the original film. That kiss goodbye of the husband (played by Ulrich Mühe, her real life husband) is heartbreaking in its attempts to find some comfort in the face of utterly devastating loss. The US remake of Funny Games is kind of an entirely different thing, in that it just cannot be that raw. Though I think that there could be an interesting piece that could be written about Funny Games 2008's equivalence to something like Body Double for creating meaning through a 'synthetic recreation' of a previous director's work, the themes and characters becoming more 'film-like' being something the film(s) are actively wanting to promote.

[mfunk9786]

Well, I am 31, but I saw it when an ex and I rented it (on the strength of Cache) from that green envelope foreign/indie DVD rental service (someone please help me with the name because it's not coming to me) in..... I wanna say 2005, 2006? But you're both right that the preachiness of the film is easily its worst aspect - especially since it's as effective a horror film as all the stuff it's wagging its finger at.

I agree: it's an exemplary horror movie (one of the few I can think of where the victims are intelligent, brave and resourceful - they do everything right - yet are still doomed), but as satire / social comment it's rather dumb and disingenuous.

It's also the rare horror film where said doom doesn't come from the villains being particularly good at anything - they're not physically imposing, they don't have a cache of weapons, they're not omniscient. It must have been quite difficult to write the film and do so in a manner that is convincing.

I'm not sure what it says about me that my favorite horror movies have to do with grounded, gimmick-free cruelty. But Funny Games is definitely a standout in the "it's scary because it could conceivably happen" category.

[zedz]

It's been a few years since I've seen it (haven't seen the remake) which means it's due a rewatch , but isn't the film's point is to test us viewers regarding violence in film? As in incriminating us in letting these actions happen and continuing to watch the film, as pointed out in the meta scenes of the film (looking into the lens, the remote control etc.)

Well yeah, but isn't that a fundamentally dumb and disingenuous argument? Nothing happens in a film because we let it. The filmmaker is ultimately responsible for the images they create. And scolding the audience for actually watching the film you made is a glib cake-and-eating-it conceit that doesn't stand up to the barest intellectual scrutiny.

[Big Ben]

The filmmaker is ultimately responsible for the images they create. And scolding the audience for actually watching the film you made is a glib cake-and-eating-it conceit that doesn't stand up to the barest intellectual scrutiny.

It felt more like I was being reminded what I was watching was artificial, something horror films go out of their way to avoid with taglines like "BASED ON THE SHOCKING TRUE STORY!!!". I remember very well in an interview about it Haneke stated that he was completely mystified by people's desire to commit these acts of violence and use excuses like "I wanted to see what it would be like." Haneke's repeated desire in his work to say "Remember this is a film." is something I know you all know and will most likely acknowledge. With Funny Games it felt like I was being told "You do realize you're watching a film about people being tortured and murdered right?" That for me is where I feel the scrutiny should lie not necessarily watching the film itself. This was made in the nineties. And after some of the deeply problematic stuff made in the eighties (Particularly in Europe) I think horror was due for some self reflection. Whether Haneke was successful is something I'll remain ambivalent about as it's been years since I've seen Funny Games.

[Mr Sausage]

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?

[Feego]

It's been a few years since I've seen it (haven't seen the remake) which means it's due a rewatch , but isn't the film's point is to test us viewers regarding violence in film? As in incriminating us in letting these actions happen and continuing to watch the film, as pointed out in the meta scenes of the film (looking into the lens, the remote control etc.)

Well yeah, but isn't that a fundamentally dumb and disingenuous argument? Nothing happens in a film because we let it. The filmmaker is ultimately responsible for the images they create. And scolding the audience for actually watching the film you made is a glib cake-and-eating-it conceit that doesn't stand up to the barest intellectual scrutiny.

I hated Funny Games (the original, haven't seen nor care to see the remake) for this very reason. I actually think Scream 2, released the same year, explored similar territory more effectively because Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson implicated themselves along with the audience. That a copycat murder takes place in a movie theater where the characters are watching a carbon copy of Craven's/Williamson's original film does point a finger at an audience who literally allow someone to be murdered right in front of them because they are so caught up in the spectacle of a violent film. But Scream 2 doesn't take any kind of moral high ground on the issue, with the filmmakers saying they are just as responsible, if not more so, than the audience if there is any complicity. Plus the Craven film is just a lot more fun.