Love Is A Temple

Icon

Funny Games (3/5)

I really do not know what to think of this film. I peeked at the critics for some explanation and they were all markedly divided. I don’t think anyone thought it was just “ok”. It is either brilliant satire/criticism of the torture film genre or another of the sort. To Haneke’s credit, he doesn’t show the gore on screen like we all expect, but the menace is still there nonetheless. Nor does he deliver the justice we would hope for–not even close. So if you like this film, I am very curious what you liked about it. Haneke even drops the forth wall on occasion and has an alternate scene in the middle of the film–well, sorta, I don’t know how else to describe it. Whether these jarring narrative cock-ups are all part of the titular “game” or the director taking the piss, you can’t walk away from this one unruffled. I’ve been asking people if they’d rather create something that was good, or something loved and hated–most have said loved and hated. I’ll give this thing 3 stars (a “good” rating) for being so loved and hated, for taking a risk, and for screwing with the medium in a passionate and compelling manner. And, yet another minimalistic score that did the trick just fine.

Filed under: 3 stars, review

3 Responses

  1. Kj says:

    “Funny Games” is a re-working of Peter Collinson’s 1967 psycho-drama “The Penthouse” about a couple being held hostage in, well, a penthouse. The film was based on Scott Forbes’ earlier play called “The Meter Man” where it’s a freaky/fake meter man doing the terrorizing and torture. Collinson also remade the film again, but I can’t remember which it was- since most of his later movies all sound the same- someone getting terrorized by a lunatic- but it might be “Open Season” – where its traumatized Vietnam vets re-traumatizing others. I saw a paper presented on “The Penthouse” and it’s filmic offsprings at a conference i went to in February. Sounds like the critical response to Funny Games was as mixed as for Penthouse. People don’t know how to respond to being forced into the position of voyeur with that kind of claustrophobic, mindless terror. All I know is, you couldn’t pay me to watch Michael Pitt be even freakier than he already is…

  2. Chad says:

    Don’t know about the previous comment but simply: I hate the original from a decade ago and slide this one in as totally useless as well. Watch “Straw Dogs” instead for a conversation piece couples with someone who has a grasp of cinema as well.

  3. Zadok says:

    this is true:

    “All I know is, you couldn’t pay me to watch Michael Pitt be even freakier than he already is…”

Leave a Reply