The movie is "Funny Games," and it is wildly unsettling. It's also receiving some of the harshest reviews a film has ever gotten. There are critics who are apoplectic in their loathing of it. It's the kind of picture that, after seeing it, you would be hard-pressed to call enjoyable or entertaining. I gather that if a friend in your group calls it the feel-good movie of his or her life, you have a right to be suspicious of that friendship. And their sanity.
If you're unfamiliar with the state of contemporary horror thrillers, a brief explanation may be needed. If you've seen "Saw" or "Hostel" and their sequels, then you know the sky's the limit when it comes to sadism and bloodletting. Anything is possible.
The people behind these movies, and others like them, ratchet up the violence to the point that many in the audience begin to bond with each other and react to the goings-on with approving laughter. Ghoulish humor begets a togetherness that is decidedly weird. They get the joke. Moviegoers are united in their appreciation that the directors and screenwriters and cast members are willing to stop at nothing to keep the thrills coming. Some call these films "torture porn."
A lot of critics like the "Saw" and "Hostel" movies because they play by the rules of the genre. "Funny Games" doesn't play by the rules and it's getting savaged. It seems that some critics -- these detractors -- are OK with manic intensity and seething lunacy as long as the "film" involved knows it's a "film." It can't take itself seriously. There can be laughs, but not the wrong kind. The movie has to be true to Hollywood conventions -- no kicking down the fourth wall. No drawing attention to itself.
"Funny Games" delivers the wrong kind of laughs. And it tears down the fourth wall, which is that invisible barrier between the audience and what's happening up on the screen.
It's a movie about two young men, very white-bread, very preppie older teens -- clearly children of privilege -- who hold a vacationing family hostage in their very large, very comfortable lakefront house. It's going to be a hellish night of madness directed at George the dad, Ann the mother, and Georgie their preteen son. Also involved is the family's golden retriever. On occasion, one of the evil characters, the primary torturer, turns and speaks to the audience, saying things like, "You're probably on their side." Most of the crowd should be rooting for the victims -- the side of the angels, so to speak. It's OK when this shattering of the fourth wall is done in something like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" because that's fun. But when it's done in "Funny Games," to some, it's just not right. It's upsetting the Hollywood applecart, the way films are supposed to unreel. Mommy, make him stop. Don't worry, honey, it's only a movie.
Well, "Funny Games" is not "only a movie." It's something a lot more challenging. It's callous and cruel and claws at all of your preconceptions about what is acceptable behavior on screen. It plays with your mind.
The two young men -- perfect specimens of young American manhood -- are acted by Michael Pitt as Peter and Brady Corbet as Paul. Go ahead, draw your own conclusions from their names. They look as innocent as lambs. They are pretty in an androgynous way. Not only do they appear wearing tennis whites, but they also wear white linen gloves. They are as polite as can be while they pick your pocket. And pole ax your husband with a golf club.
They show up at George and Ann's house asking to borrow some eggs. And when the eggs are purposely dropped -- because they can drop them if they want to -- they ask to borrow more eggs. And then they drop those eggs and ask for some more. These boys are the epitome of capitalist ruling-class youth.
"Funny Games" is written and directed by Michael Haneke, an Austrian who has made most of his movies in France. It's his first English-language film. His most famous work, and the one probably most familiar to Americans, is "Cache." Haneke prefers making the audience watching his movies very uncomfortable. He's won a lot of prizes at film festivals. Quite interestingly, "Funny Games" is a shot-for-shot, line-for-line remake of his own 1997 German-language version of "Funny Games."
He has said that he always felt that the earlier movie should have been made for American audiences, because of the penchant for violent behavior in the United States -- essentially it's being a society at war with itself, citizen against citizen (so much street crime, so many serial killers, not to mention all that capitalist greed). Haneke believes Americans think violence is fun.
OK, pause to answer this question: Do you find violence fun?
The movie begins with the camera concentrating on quintessential contemporary Americana. A family, their beautiful wooden sailboat being towed behind their SUV, their dog, the open road, gorgeous landscape, music on the CD player, a planned vacation. Heaven on earth.
Haneke doesn't make any demands of the family, and he doesn't challenge their luck or their place on the planet. But he's also not going to challenge the sociopathic behavior of Peter and Paul. He isn't interested in motive.
After the nightmare has begun, George asks them why they are doing what they are doing, but he can't wrap his bleeding head around the facetious answer. By the time it's all over, the audience may be numb, angry, confused, even bored.
Haneke's rationale is easy to explain: Americans relish violent cinema, while all around them their society is filled with cruelty and hideous behavior. You have every right to deny his assertions, but if the violence and sadism and sexual cruelty in this movie bores you, why are you bored with it? Too familiar? Seen too much of it? Is Haneke right? Are Americans so inured to violence in their culture that it's just one more thing to cross off their to-do list? Are we that casual? Haneke seems to think so.
The movie has a terrific look to it, as envisioned by Haneke and carried out by cinematographer Darius Khondji. Some of the images are shocking, but they are actually less grotesque than the material that's seen in standard slasher films. Sometimes the camera is slowly drifting as something deadly unfolds. You only think you saw it. And sometimes we only hear the horror.
The acting is excellent. Pitt and Corbet are unnerving, and I'll tell you that I did want them to be stopped by any means possible. Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart as the victims offer performances that are heartbreaking. Boyd Gaines, Robert LuPone, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Susanne C. Hanke and Linda Moran are neighbors and relatives.
Psychological terror -- often best observed by Roman Polanski, as in "Repulsion," "Cul-De-Sac" and his masterpiece, "Rosemary's Baby" -- is not supposed to make for pleasant moviegoing. It's supposed to upset you.
And try not to have anyone tell you about something that happens near the end of the picture. Just when you think there's hope, the teenage lust for its own ever-changing culture has a moment that might infuriate you. It shouldn't bewilder you.
Hate "Funny Games" or love it, at least go see it.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | March 18 2008 |