Solemn-Look.7.8.9: April 2008

Been awhile since I made a movie review... I remember my last review was on 881, the local getai movie by Royston Tan. There wasn't much movies worth reviewing after that, until yesterday we caught Funny Game U.S., which was awesomely brillant in my opinion.
Its directed by Micheal Haneke (Piano teacher, Cache). In this English-language remake of his 1997 Austria version, an exploration of our violent society and how depictions of violence reflect and shape our culture, a middle-class housewife Anna tells the story of how she and her husband George and their 10-year-old son Georgie submitted both physically and mentally to the torture, violence, and death foisted upon them by two young, unexpected, white-gloved visitors at their weekend vacation retreat near a lake.

After viewing the film, I was astounded about the reactions of the audience members. The various audience members who thought they were there to view another "saw" esque film, were obviously disappointed and with comments such as "that was boring"... I got the same sentiment at the beginning but after reading about the director's vision of trying to show the audience how sickening the watching of graphic torture for entertainment really is, my thought is clearer and in sync with his.

Funny Games is concerned whole-heartedly with VIOLENCE!(and violence as entertainment). The film is shocking and disturbing but its meant to be, Violence is not entertaining in reality and this is the point the film is trying to convey- Haneke makes you uncomfortable, frustrated and even Angry (Especially with the ending).

This film gets in your head by giving the pretense that you will witness all the horrible acts, and then turns around on you by not showing anything! Everything is off-screen so you are left with only the sound effects. It is more disturbing as your imagination sets to work on the images off screen, and that in itself is more horrifying.

Haneke has a particular approach to film-making: Long Takes, (allow audiences to interpret scenes in their own way), Shocking Violence (however mostly implied and not shown) is there not to entertain but to horrify (Haneke believes that audiences have been desensitized to scenes of violence - so what he does is make it real again - something which many people don't like) - Haneke also manipulates the cinematic form itself, making audiences aware of its construction (eg breaking the forth wall, addressing the audience, Rewinding / Pausing live action).

So why does Haneke choose to have the character of Paul break the fourth wall and address the camera/audience?
Thats the whole point of the movie. By breaking the fourth wall, Haneke turns the viewers into an accomplice of the killing. The film is about violence in the media and film. Haneke shows that real violence isn't something that should not be made as entertainment, that is why the film is so brutal and unrelenting. The point Haneke makes is that if you watch a film like this, such as Hostel or Saw, then you are an accomplice. When Paul, or Peter, or Beavis, or Tom, rewinds the film, its is Haneke's way of playing a game with us as well as a way to show that violence in real life is never how it is portrayed in film. Rarely in real life is the victim able to fight back.

It happens near the ending as well, with Paul stating that we, the audience must want a real ending, with a plausible plot line. The entire thing is mocking us, telling us that we should be rooting for the family, because in the end of most movies they would be the victors, emerging unscathed while the villians are defeated. That's a normal movie, and this is not. It's mocking the idea of the family being able to beat Paul and Peter, and it also tells you what kind of person you are. When they said you should be betting on the family, that you were on their side, I realized I wasn't. I wanted Paul and Peter to win, and when they were gone I wanted them back. People don't understand the movie because they don't understand the idea. In real life, the ending portrayed in this movie, where the family all dies, is the most plausible. Sure you would like to see them all survive until 9:00 wouldn't you? At least one of them, right? Too bad. And that's the best part of this movie. It doesn't give you what you want.

I would not recommend this film to everyone as it will disappoint the Saw/Hostel audience and may confuse newcomers. With that aside, I greatly welcomed the dissection of violence, and someone who understands the point of the film and enjoys art house-style film-making will appreciate it.

Overall - An emotional, disturbing film, intense and powerful.