
Funny Games
It’s not very often that I’ll walk out of a film.
It takes a lot. I even stayed to the end of Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, a decision I truly regret and wish I’d taken Leanne’s lead by curling up in the chair and grabbing some sleep. I can only attribute this unwarranted tenaciousness to childhood sentimentality for the original films, but it’s still a couple of hours I’ll never get back.
Tonight Leanne & I went to see “Funny Games”, a film directed by Austrian director Michael Haneke. It’s actually a remake of a film he made back in 1997 though this time with an English speaking cast. Haneke’s name wasn’t familiar to me, but I found out after we returned home that he’d directed a film called Caché (renamed to it’s English translation, Hidden, here in Australia) starring Daniel Auteuil & Juliette Binoche. I only recently saw Caché and really liked it – a good, slow burning film with lots of layers to it. It’s probably a good thing that I didn’t know he’d directed this film beforehand, as it would have raised my expectations substantially and that would have meant a harder fall.
We had no idea as to the plot of the film and only realised just before the film began that we were about to see some kind of psychological horror flick. Ordinarily Leanne wouldn’t voluntarily go to this genre of film, but we decided to see how it would pan out. It begins quite well, and without giving anything away it very cleverly manages to unnerve you at the outset so that you’re already pretty unsettled before the film gets going.
Sadly, that was about as good as it got for me. I found that even with the calibre of actors like Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, the film really struggled. The acting was a bit wooden (perhaps due to Haneke’s insistence that the film was to be made almost exactly like the original, shot for shot, actors in positioned the same spot as the original version for each scene etc, which hardly lends itself to creative insight), the dialogue was dire, and I couldn’t stand Michael Pitt & Brady Corbet who were totally unconvincing in their roles. They were way too preppy without enough depth of character to carry it off, and were almost lazy in their approach to their roles and yet at the same time seemed to try way too hard.
We lasted about 35 minutes before we’d had enough, which was probably about 20 minutes longer than we should have waited but we wanted to be sure we’d given it enough of a chance.
It turns out (upon some post-film research) that Haneke’s intention is to point a finger at that segment of the American market that enjoy films based on their level of gratuitous violence. This film was supposed to be a counterpoint to these films both by withholding the very thing that the audience came to see (i.e. graphic violence) as well as demonstrating that violence is neither entertaining or trivial.
Yawn.
Really? Did he think that those of us who already understand this needed to be told? And does he think that those poised at the lowest common denominator of said audience would either be remotely interested or even understand his oh so cleverly allusive cryptogram? Come on, that just seems so…well, arrogant, doesn’t it? If he’s as clever as he’s supposed to be, he already knows that the bunch of adolescents in the back row of [insert your local multiplex here] in anywhere USA will only walk out of this film feeling either ripped off, confused or, most probably, both. So to the rest of us, then, he’s just preaching. Urrrggghh.
Seriously, don’t bother with this film. It’s neither clever nor suspenseful, either of which Haneke would have you believe – depending on who you are.
Filed under: Film | Leave a Comment »