Funny Games is an Austrian movie by writer/director Michael Haneke starring Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Arno Frisch and Frank Giering which he then remade shot for shot ten years later with Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

Plot:
A well-off family travels to their weekend getaway at the shore of a lake. While the father Georg(e) [Ulrich Mühe/Tim Roth] and the son get the boat ready, the mother Ann(a) [Susanne Lothar/Naomi Watts] stays in the house to prepare dinner. Suddenly a young man, Peter, [Frank Giering/Brady Corbet] comes from the neighbour’s house to ask for some eggs. He’s joined by another young man, Paul, [Arno Frisch/Michael Pitt] and while both of them are very polite, things become threatening really quickly. When the father and the son return to the house, Peter and Paul take the whole family hostage to play “games” with them.

Both movies are heavy cost – a thorough and deep analysis of violence in movies and what it does to the viewer. Haneke uses the horror genre conventions to hammer home a point – and hammer it he does. This is no subtle pointer that maybe violence in movies is not such a good thing but a huge, blinking neon sign that screams about the depravity of the average movie consumer.

[SPOILERS]

I watched both movies basically back to back (U.S. version first) because I was curious if I could find out how detailed a Haneke script is. Two things I have learned from this:

1: Don’t watch these two movies back to back if you are not completely stable and have either already lost all faith in humanity or have some magic formula to retain your faith. One of them is bad enough, but seeing the whole thing twice is soul shattering.

2: Haneke scripts are very detailed. But interestingly enough they detail other things than I would mention in a script of mine. For example, in the U.S. version pretty much everything’s white, not only the clothes of Peter and Paul, but also the complete interior design. So, as I’m personally a little obsessed with colour in movies, I figured this would have some significance. But in the Austrian version, only the two guys are dressed in white, the interior design isn’t. On the other hand, the entire layout of the house is completely identical – something I would have thought unnecessary.

After watching the first movie, I desperately needed a break. I felt like throwing up and crying. Just not knowing what to do first kept me from doing either. Seeing the second movie (sometimes I’m a mean bitch towards myself) was a little better. I don’t think it had anything to do with the quality of the films – honestly, all performances were great and other than that, nothing much had changed – but with knowing what to expect.

Because the thing about it is: Haneke doesn’t let the audience be an audience; he incorporates them into the film in the form of Paul. Paul, one of the perpetrators and the leader of the two, turns round in the middle of the film and winks at the viewer. I first I thought nothing much about it – it was a shock, being pulled out of the comfortable role for a second, but you quickly settle back into it.

And then Paul does it again. But this time, he talks to you, asks you about your expectations etc. And this time, you can’t just wave it away, can’t just pretend like nothing happened: you are forced to consider your own role in this. And you can feel the judgment, the nagging question: “Why would you watch such a movie in the first place?”

But the coup de grace is when Ann(a) manages to grab the gun and shoot Peter. Paul is thrown off for a second, searches for the remote control – and just hits the rewind button. The movie, obediently, rewinds.

Up until this point you might have still been able to kid yourself, but even the most unreflected movie goer surely most have felt the pressure Haneke built on the viewer at this point.

Because – or maybe despite – of this pressure, what I felt while watching the movie was not horror or even disgust, but desperation: Desperation that the family’s siuation was so completely chanceless, but even more desperation about us humans as a species who watch stuff like that as an entertainment [I'm not judging here, I watch these movies myself and I do enjoy them. (Even after Funny Games.)]. The conclusion of this film seems to be that we’re all completely fucked. [Which might be true, but do I really want to think about that?]

And Haneke manages to invoke all of this without showing us any act of violence directly. Contrary to what is usually the case, he only shows us the effects the violence has: The physical and emotional wounds.

So, if you want to be challenged – intellectually and as a movie goer - one of these two films will be perfect. Just make sure that you’re sufficiently anchored. But it’s definitely worth to give the movie a try and examine yourself in the course of it.

Director: Gregg Araki

Two Boys. One can't remember. The other can't forget

Writer: Gregg Araki (screenplay) Scott Heim (novel)

Starring: Brady Corbet, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michelle Trachtenberg

This was on late one night and Joseph Gordon-Levitt originally drew me to the film. It is an amazing piece and shows the effects of child abuse. Neil (Gordon-Levitt) and Brian (Corbet) are abused by their little league coach when their quite young. The film follows the different paths the boys take; Brian doesn’t remember the abuse and becomes obessed by aliens as a way of explaining the gaps in his memories. Neil is tormnented by the memories and becomes a male prostitute. In the end, the Brian seeks Neil out and they share a tear-jerking reunion in the house they were abused in. It is a thought provoking film.

BEST QUOTE

Neil: I hate it when they look like Tarzan but sound like Jane.

10/10

Mysterious Skin es la octava película dirigida por Gregg Araki. Está basada en la novela del mismo nombre de Scott Heim escrita en 1996; aunque el guión estuvo a cargo de Araki, con la participación de Heim quien ayudó a algunos actores a compaginarse con los personajes de su novela. Esta historia nos presenta a dos niños de Kansas de ocho años que juegan en el equipo local de baseball. Uno de ellos, Neil McCormick siente el deseo de ser apreciado por su entrenador, siendo el mejor jugador del equipo probablemente buscando la figura paternal que le hace falta en su hogar. El entrenador, un tipo estilo Uncle Rico de Napoleon Dynamite es un pederasta que aprovecha la situación para llevarse a Neil varias veces a su casa, atrayendolo con videojuegos y dulces que no estan al alcanze de un niño como el. Neil viviendo sólo con su madre descubre intrigantes las revistas Playgirl que encuentra en el cuarto de ella, y al llegar a ser abusado por su entrenador totalmente confundido se deja llevar. El otro niño, Brian Lackey, es de los peores jugadores en su equipo, el no recuerda qué pasó un día en que uno de los partidos de baseball fue suspendido por lluvia. Sólo recuerda que empezó a llover, y que después su hermana lo encontró escondido en su sotano, con la nariz sangrando y totalmente ido. Tiempo después, en una noche de Halloween, unos bullies lo molestan por que no pudo entrar por temor a una casa de terror, empujandolo y tirandolo al suelo pierde sus lentes, y sin ver nada llega a un lugar con un azul resplandeciente, viendo una figura humanoide misteriosa que le hace sangrar de nuevo la naríz, llevandolo a un desmayo. Años más tarde, Neil, ya de 19 años es sexualmente compulsivo y homosexual. Decide anunciarse en un baño público como prostituto, trabajando sólo con hombres de edad media de todo el pueblo. Por otro lado Brian es acosado por una serie de sueños que poco a poco revelan sus recuerdos perdidos de esas dos noches. Viendo casos de gente abducida por extraterrestres deduce que esos bloques de memoria fueron borrados por aliens. Brian sigue en su búsqueda para saber qué fue lo que pasó, descubriendo que la clave de todo es Neil McCormick.

En definitiva una película con escenas fuertes y no apta para homofóbicos. Tiene una muy buena dirección, podría decir que es como una película con una estructura post-rock. Hay muy buenas actuaciones, especialmente la de Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Neil) que sin duda se lleva toda la película. Hay escenas (como cuando Neil está en el autocinema) que me hizieron recordar mucho a la novela gráfica Blankets de Craig Thompson. El soundtrack es muy bueno, tiene a Syd Barret, Sigur Rós, entre otros.

Impactante.

Would you like me to model my new thong? Great for pooping on the go!

– Tracy

Written by director, Catherine Hardwicke and one of the stars of the film, Nikki Reed, Thirteen is a fictionalized account taken from Nikki’s real life.  It has been years since its release that I have seen it. I still love this movie.

Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) is an innocent thirteen-year-old girl that is trying to fit in the cool kids. She befriends the bad girl of the school, Evie (Reed) by stealing a woman’s wallet. She descend into a downward spiral of drugs, sex and alcohol.

The more time that Tracy spends with Evie, the more nasty she gets to her mother, Melanie (Holly Hunter), a hairdresser and former alcoholic that is trying to penetrate girl world. She seeks solace to her boyfriend, Brady (Jeremy Sisto).

I know that the average teen wouldn’t expierence a quarter of the shit that Tracy and Evie have done in this movie. I could have happen.

The organic camerawork make the movie feel like a documentary. It felt so raw and real. A great flick.

Judgment: If you want to reach out to your teenage daughter, you must watch this movie together.

Rating: ****1/2

This U.S. remake was done ten years after the original 1997 Austrian version. The same director handles both versions. Michael Haneke has strong feelings about violence in media. He pretty much bashes you over the head with it here. This is a horror film blog so Mr. Haneke is wagging his finger right at me. As a sane, thinking adult I would not want to be told what I can and cannot watch. I am a chick who likes horror and I’ve been taking flack for that most of my life. I also have a brain in my head and I know right from wrong. But I like my sensibilities challenged! I like to be scared, horrified, and disgusted. I like when a film can evoke strong emotion from me and that is a big part of what is so appealing to me about horror. That, and the groovy makeup and effects!

A family of 3 have arrived at their cottage where they intend to spend the summer. A teenager claims he is staying with the neighbours and has been sent over to borrow eggs. He is invited into the family’s home. The truth is soon revealed when a second teenager shows up. The two make the family prisoners and force them to play sadistic and “funny games”.

Making a film that is a statement about the way violence is depicted and how it shapes our culture is one thing. Making that film disturbing and violent itself, is pretty damn cheeky. Not that this is the first horror film that has ever had a point to make, but this one has more balls than most. The violence is often off screen but doesn’t make it any less terrifying. In fact, the shots where they show the horrified witness instead of the murder itself are downright brilliant. The two young men dressed in tennis white’s are at first ackward and polite. At the same time something doesn’t seem quite right. In fact, there is a scene previous to the boys entrance into the home that suggests things are not as they should be. The boys carry out their task of torturing the family with youthful enthusiasm. They enjoy the reaction they receive immensely and take no responsibility for their actions. One of the boys states,”You must admit, you brought this on yourselves.” The little bastards look right into the camera and question me mockingly. They know I’m not rooting for them, but they don’t care. They know exactly how things will turn out. When Roth asks the duo “Why don’t you just kill us and get it over with?” The reply is “What about entertainment?” It is a film that knows it is a film. The performances are outstanding. Tim Roth is emasculated almost immediately and Naomi Watts tries very diligently to keep her shit together for her son. Pitt and Corbet who play the two teens are perfectly cast and play it wonderfully menacing. The film gets a little too preachy for me and it tries its best to make me feel guilty about enjoying it. I can’t imagine that a lot of mainstream audiences would find this film pallatable and some would probably miss the point altogether. I can’t exactly say it was a fun ride but it is a fascinating film to watch and its images stayed with me long after the credits rolled. But, if you think this will dampen my love of horror films Haneke, your out of your freaking mind!

Dungeon Rating: 3.5/5

Directed By: Michael Haneke

Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart, Boyd Gaines, Siobhan Fallon, Robert LuPone, Susanne C. Hanke and Linda Moran

Barneys’ Actors

Spring/Summer 2009

It is all about the new comers… Some time ago as we presented, Vmag had Luke Grimes on the cover – Next to the super Model Natyalia Vodianova – and now, Barneys brings us Actors, their latest catalogue in which promising Hollywood stars as Luke Grimes Christian Camargo, Rafi Gavron, Lukas Haas, Vincent Kartheiser and Brady Corbet, leave acting for a second and focus on fashion, with the styling by David Vandewal and wearing Gucci, Ferragamo, Lanvin, Drakes of London, Giorgio Armani. Photography by Mark Segal. This is the future of Hollywood Ladies and gentlemen.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)

Directed by: Richard Brooks
Produced by: Lawrence Weingarten
Starring: Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman, Burl Ives, Jack Carson, Judith Anderson

“The raw emotions and crackling dialogue of Tennessee Williams’ 1955 Pulitzer-winning play rumble like a thunderstorm in this film version whose fiery performances and grown-up themes made it a box-office hit.” 

Lord of the Flies (1963)
Novel by: William Golding
Written for Screen and Directed by: Peter Brook
Starring: James Aubrey, Tom Chapin, Hugh Edwards, Roger Elwin, Tom Gaman 

“Based on William Golding’s classic novel, Lord of the Flies is a disturbing tale of conflict and savagery. A plane carrying a group of schoolboys crashes on a remote tropical island. No adults survive but forty boys emerge unhurt.”

Mysterious Skins (2004)
Written for the Screen and Directed by: Gregg Araki
Produced by: Mary Jane Skalski, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Gregg Araki.
Starring: Joseph Gorden-Levitt, Brady Corbet, Elisabeth Shue

“When he was eight, Brian Lackey woke up in the crawlspace beneath his Kanses home with his nose bleeding, having no idea how he got there. Since then his life has been different – he is afraid of the dark, wets his bed and is plagued by terrible nightmares. Now 18, Brian believes he was abducted by a UFO.

Neil McCormick is the ultimate beautiful outsider, the boy everyone loves from afar but is afraid of when they get too close. Also 18, Neil longs for the relationship he shared with his Little League coach when he was eight years old.

Neil’s search for what he thinks is love leads him to New York. Brian’s search leads for what happened to him leads him to Neil. Together they come to realise that the events that shaped them most were not what they seemed to be.”

Twist(2003)
Written and Directed by: Jacob Tierney
Produced by: Victoria Hirst
Starring: Nick Stahl, Joshua Close, Gary Farmer, Stephen Mchattie, Tygh Runyan

“In a gritty retelling of the Dickens’ classic, TWIST takes Oliver and the Artful Dodger out of the poorhouse and onto the streets, where junk is the currency and hustling is the game.

Starring Nick Stahl as Dodge, the beautiful nihilist who leads the innocent Oliver into a life of heroin and prostitution, TWIST is a haunting modern day fairytale about two boys who cannot escape their past.” 

Yup. You'll be bored to tears. And probably really fucking mad about losing 2 hours.

Whenever I embark upon writing a review, I try my hardest not to bog you, the loyal readers, down with a bunch of intellectual mumbo jumbo and background info.  Unfortunately, this review can not only benefit from an explanation, but it demands one.

In 1997, Michael Haneke made a film called Funny Games.  It  garnered some controversy, and like all shocking and experimental films, gained a devoted fan base, as well as harsh criticism.

The film was something of an exploration of modern day societies, in particular middle to middle upper class Americans, acceptance AND passion for violence.

10 years later, with NOTHING different with the exception of shooting locale and cast, Haneke remade his own film.  I personally found this quite perplexing, especially since it made me feel that even if I enjoyed the remake, which I planned to see first, I would never need to see the original due to them being, essentially, carbon copies of each other.

Now, instead of wishing I could’ve enjoyed 2 different, yet similar films, I wish I had never known about either.

“Two psychotic young men take a family hostage in their cabin.”

IMDB sums it up best.  And that’s it.  Say goodbye to 2 hours of your life.

Haneke must really think highly of himself.  I mean, to have the balls to remake your own film means that you must think it’s pretty important, important enough to have some major Hollywood actors in it and be shown to a new, wider American audience.  And really, it shows in his work.

I’ve watched some shit movies in my day, and I am proud as all fucking get out about it.  I’ve seen things that barely constitute as actual cinema…and enjoyed it.  The common thread between “bad” movies I wound up enjoying?  The people behind the camera understood, even if they don’t admit, what their movie truly is.  If someone is making a movie about lesbian vampires raping small schoolgirls with baseball bats up the ass, they might try to explain how this is a political “message”, but in their heart of hearts, they know they are just shoveling fantasies to anyone desperate enough to pay $20 bucks plus shipping to satisfy their own demented perversions.  The proof of this is, we never have people grow up making lesbian vampire baseball bat schoolgirl rape flicks, and then go on to direct something the likes of  The Passion of the Christ.

Haneke though, seems like the kind of guy who would have a rib removed so he could suck his own dick.  He seems like the kind of guy who would hold his dick so sacred, no one else could pleasure it but him.  Funny Games is, at it’s best, an exercise in how to take talented actors and a descent plot, and make the most unwatchable movie possible out of those ingredients.

If only I had a bag on my head for this whole "movie"

Oh, and before you get on your high horse, yeah YOU the reader who will undoubtedly stumble upon this article and spout out mantra’s like “you didn’t “get” it” and “it’s art, not film”, Fuck You.  I got it.  I understand EXACTLY what Haneke is trying…TRYING to accomplish.  What he’s trying to accomplish is to keep the audience focused.  See fellow Midnighters, Haneke, about 4 times through the film, has his lead, and main heavy, Paul (played beautifully by Michael Pitt, unfortunately a wasted performance) look into the camera and either give us a telling look or a nod, or directly speak to us, the audience.  Haneke does this in order to “snap” the audience out of getting to into the movie and rooting for the good guys.  He wants us to face the fact that we, the audience, don’t approve of psychos killing innocents, but DO approve of heroes killing villains.  He’s trying to make us look within ourselves, at our own justifications and rationalizations we use for committing horrible acts of violence, and in some cases, even commit murder.

His head is in the right place, he just forgot one thing.  A movie.

He didn’t need to make the good guys win.  Haneke just needed a point.  Like most art films, he does an admirable job of pointing things out, making acute observations, and addressing a hot button issue.  But when it comes to making his final stand on the argument his film is making for almost 2 unbearable hours, he simply decides to plead the fifth, by restarting the games all over again with a neighbor and then rolling credits.  It’s like reading a college term paper without a thesis.  Sure, you’ve proven you can write halfway descent, and at great length, but you never prove anything.  You just blow the whistle, but then run when people show up asking “what is that fucking noise?”

Here's Naomi Watts tied up. I have to give you something in return for reading this right?

The most heinous crime though, is the fact that Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt, and Brady Corbet seemed to really believe in this picture.  Their acting is unreasonably good, and it shows a tremendous amount of professionalism on their parts, considering how many LONG (and by long I mean 10 minute plus static shots of the actors with no cuts) scenes their were, almost all including intense emotional performances.  All wasted, in my opinion.

Funny Games is the perfect example of why terms like “Art House” and “Artsy-Fartsy” are dirty words to most movie fans.  It seems like everytime I take the dive into the deep end of the “Art” film pool, I wind up hitting my head on the bottom.  Because being told that the water is deep, and the water actually being deep, are two completely different things.  Haneke uses nothing more than pretenious, polite dialogue, “shocking” off screen kills, and Sesame Street style gimmicks (remember how all the muppets used to talk to us, even while in the middle of a conversation with someone?) to try and pass off his boring, uninspired schlock as something more than the ultimate tease and a full on slap into the face of any self-respecting movie-goer.

It in my sincerest hope that this movie, via any medium, fails horribly.

Michael Haneke, please follow these instructions.

“Brace yourself” (Rolling Stone) for a raw, revealing insight into urban adolescence that’s so intense and realistic, “it’s possible to turn away (Interview Magazine). Anxiously trying to fit into the peer-pressure cooker environment of junior high, thirteen-year-old Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) goes to shocking lengths in order to befriend Evie (co-writer Nikki Reed), the most popular girl in school. Now the two are inseparable – and incorrigible – leaving Tracy’s desperate mom (Academy Award winner Holly Hunter) powerless to rescue her from a whirlwind of drugs, sex and crime.

A gut-wrenching portrait of adolescence, Thirteen is made all the more powerful because it was co-written by a genuine teenage girl, Nikki Reed, who also co-stars in the movie. Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood), a serious good student, finds herself needing to express her anger and resentment at her fractured family life. To rebel, she pursues a friendship with the reckless, alluring Evie (Reed), who seems to have all the cocksure freedom that Tracy desires. What follows is both harrowing and compelling: Tracy becomes enmeshed in a relationship with Evie that empowers Tracy and drags her deeper into the misery she wants to escape–and terrifies her mother (Holly Hunter), who struggles desperately to hold on to her daughter’s love. Thirteen makes every step on this path utterly convincing, due to the vivid script, energized direction, and astonishingly alive performances from Hunter, Reed, and especially Wood. Jolting, sad, and mesmerizing. –Bret Fetzer

Thirteen is available at Amazon for $9.99. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Kids
• The Virgin Suicides
• Girl, Interrupted
• Bully
• Spun (Unrated Version)

Dir. Michael Haneke
(R) ★

I rented Funny Games out of curiosity. They say it killed the cat.

I had read the reviews and was fascinated — mostly, fascinated by the scorn with which some critics responded to it, moving beyond a simple objection to its content to a resentment of its maker, Austrian director Michael Haneke (Caché). Said Newsweek’s David Ansen, “So as you’re squirming in your seat, gagging on Haneke’s cinematic castor oil, try to remember: this movie is good for you!” And Mark LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle: “… just because it’s a conscious commentary on other vile, useless, pointless cinematic exercises doesn’t make it any less vile, useless and pointless.” Even some of the film’s defenders are ambivalent, like Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly: “He’s a clever and sophisticated filmmaker; he’s also a self-important highbrow Euro pain freak.”

The review that most made me curious to see it for myself was by A.O. Scott, of The New York Times — ironic, as his review is the most searingly negative of all. He wrote, “Funny Games tries to insulate itself from its own awfulness in the fine cloth of self-consciousness … It actually knows it’s a movie! What a clever, tricky game! What fun! What a fraud.” If you read only one review of Funny Games, it should be his. If you read a second, go ahead and parse mine.

The fourth paragraph. I have cited the opinions of other critics but as yet have not offered my own. Haneke’s film is an intellectual exercise, an example of cruel cinematic violence intended to comment on cruel cinematic violence. So I gathered my thoughts, regained my bearings, and sought out further analyses to better inform my own. My conclusion: I’m with Mr. Scott.

According to Haneke, Funny Games is “a reaction to a certain American Cinema, its violence, its naiveté, the way American Cinema toys with human beings.” He made a German-language version in 1997, and he has remade it, reportedly shot-for-shot, in English, to bring his scorn for us straight to our doorstep. How generous of him.

The story concerns an affluent American family: Ann (Naomi Watts), her husband George (Tim Roth), and their son Georgie (Devon Gearhart). Soon upon arriving at their posh, gated cabin, they encounter a pair of polite young men dressed all in white, including their gloves. They are Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), and they are sociopaths. They hold the family hostage in their home and bet that all three will be dead within twelve hours.

That’s the story, but that’s not what the film is about. On occasion, Paul speaks into the camera, addressing the audience directly. He talks to us about our desire for neat resolutions and asks us if enough is enough. How should we answer? In one scene, he presses rewind on a remote control and repeats an event for us differently. The film knows it’s a film and means to consider not the interactions of the characters, but the interaction of the audience with the cinema.

But Haneke, you see, is a moral coward; his camera, in the merciless, indifferent way it observes the family’s plight, identifies with the sociopaths, but he absolves himself of responsibility by asserting that he is only feeding the beast, providing fodder for the bloodlust of us depraved Americans. “You asked for it,” he seems to say through Peter and Paul as he commits unspeakable crimes against the innocent family. It’s the philosophical equivalent of pounding us with our own fists and asking, “Why are you hitting yourself?”

But of course Haneke has a point. Fetishistic violence has been a commodity of American cinema for a long time, and the advent of so-called “torture porn” seems inevitable in hindsight. (Saw V opens October 24 in a theater near you!) So it is not Haneke’s theme I object to, but rather the manner in which he expresses it. He directs with icy, meticulous skill, and he effectively creates an atmosphere of dread, but he inflicts it upon the audience like a cudgel. Smug and sanctimonious, he scolds America for its exploitation of suffering for entertainment, but is it any less contemptible to exploit suffering to make a ham-handed statement about our thirst for it? “How dare you enjoy this!” he chides, while beating, violating, and humiliating his characters. Well, I didn’t enjoy it, Mr. Haneke. Do I pass your test? Is my misery penance enough for the sins you have ascribed to me?

One scene questions whether there is an appreciable difference between reality and fiction, implying that by celebrating violence on the screen we promote violence in the world. Well, let’s imagine a scenario as it might unfold in the real world. A man walks down the street. A philosopher crosses his path and for no reason throws a stone at his head. As the man bleeds to death on the pavement, on-lookers watch the scene in horror, and as the police arrive to arrest the philosopher, he says, “It does not matter that I have thrown the stone or that the man suffers. What matters is that you watched.” “Yeah, yeah,” says the cop, rolling his eyes as he puts the philosopher in cuffs. “Tell it to the judge.”

German director Michael Haneke (Caché, The Piano Teacher) has remade his 1997 Austrian film Funny Games as an almost shot-for-shot English language version. Funny Games U.S. now introduces a new audience to Haneke’s deeply upsetting message-film about complicity with cinematic violence.

An affluent middleclass couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) arrive with their son at their weekend home before being taken captive by a pair of snooty college students. Paul (Michael Pitt from Last Days) and Peter (Brady Corbet from Mysterious Skin) torment, torture and threaten to kill the family through a series of cruel and humiliating games that we, as an audience, are made to feel part of. Although most of the violence is off-screen, what transpires is particularly nasty.

By making the film so arduous to endure, Haneke makes us question why we have allowed violence in films to become a source of entertainment. Paul and Peter are devoid of any charismatic villainy, moments of cathartic release are denied, red herrings abound, many scenes go nowhere and Paul even casually addresses the audience directly. Funny Games U.S. will offend, frustrate, provoke and anger. This is part of its brilliance.

Originally appeared in The Big Issue, No. 312, 2008

© Thomas Caldwell, 2008

“E necessário ver nas entrelinhas para entender“

Em 1997 o diretor Austríaco Michael Haneke resolveu filmar um novo estilo de terror, sua idéia não se popularizou porem marcou e ganhou um publico que o consagrou junto com seu filme. O longa se chamava Funny Games tradução (Jogos Divertidos) traduzido aqui no Brasil como Violência Gratuita, este filme contava a história de 2 simpáticos jovens que sem motivo algum, decidem torturar uma família rica recém chegada numa bonita e pacata região.

Violência Gratuita (2008) trata-se de uma clara referencia aos instintos humanos, geralmente vamos assistir um filme de terror para ver sangue, ver mortes, ver violência, e ainda de maneira descarada torcer para o mocinho sobreviver certo?, podemos resumir o parágrafo acima e classificá-lo da seguinte forma : Somos loucos por violência. E o que gostamos de ver nos filmes, é dai que o diretor Michael Haneke puxa a genial idéia de nos fazer bastidores do ‘Violência Gratuita’ nos levando para dentro dele. Resumindo: Um dos torturadores, O personagem Paul (Michael Pitt) ora vira para a câmera e se comunica com o publico fazendo questionamentos como:

”Você acha que devemos parar de torturá-los?, não esperas um final plausível?!’’

Outra interessante e quando Ann (Naomi Watts) pergunta para um dos torturadores,

”Porque não nos mata?!”

e ele responde,

”Não podemos nos esquecer do entretenimento”

Tais atos caem genialmente bem porem quebram a atmosfera realista que a atuação dos atores acaba criando.
Estas características criadas pelo diretor em busca de uma auto-crítica fria e sem medo da sociedade desenvolveu conseqüências que podem desagradar uma grande maioria que não vai engolir a moral da história. Mas infelizmente é o que acontece, os filmes de Hanake chegam desavisados e pelo trailer ou pelo pôster nos sentimos motivados a ver sem saber que, será necessário um pouco de sabedoria para entender sua moral.

Há também certa referencias criadas pelo diretor que parecem ser tiradas do filme ‘Laranja Mecânica’, A ausência do som e os cortes de edição que demoram a aparecer criam um clima que faz friar a alma dando facilmente a impressão de estarmos dentro do filme, não vivenciando, mas assistindo aquilo tudo.

Ótimas atuações do elenco, Naomi Watts (O Chamado), Tim Roth (O Incrível Hulk), Michael Pitt (Sonhadora) dão um show a parte, e claro, sem esquecer dos outros dois principais no elenco Brady Corbet e Devon Gearhart.

PS: Não há diferença deste Remake para a versão original, a única coisa que muda são os atores. Os diálogos, o roteiro, a edição, a fotografia, toda e a mesma, o que me dificulta entender então, porque diabos o diretor quis refilmar sua película sem alterar nada???.

Para conferir fotos, Videos, Trailers, Comentários e informações sobre o filme clique aqui.

Não são de fácil digestão os filmes de Michael Haneke. Sim, ele é esquisito. Nenhum filme dele te deixa numa situação cômoda ou confortável. Não é por isso, também, que eles sejam obras-primas. Seu mais recente, Violência Gratuita, não foge à regra.

Violência Gratuita é um remake de um filme dele mesmo, com a diferença do primeiro ter tido produção austríaca e, o mais recente, americana. Inclusive cenários e ângulos de câmera são os mesmos. Quando Gus Van Sant fez isso com Psicose (1998), realizando o mesmo filme do mestre Hitchcock quarenta anos depois, até podemos compreender se ficarmos com a palavra “homenagem” na cabeça, mas refilmar o próprio filme da mesma maneira, parece-me uma incrível falta do que contar.

Havia visto a primeira versão de Violência na Mostra Internacional em 1997. Chocou-me muito, é verdade, mas eu não precisava de uma versão americana do filme hoje para conseguir refletir sobre ele. Bastaria alugar a cópia do filme original. Na trama, um casal (Naomi Watts e Tim Roth – ótimos sempre) e seu único filho chegam a sua casa de veraneio para o início de suas férias. Em suas vidas aparece uma estranha dupla loira: Paul (Michael Pitt) e Peter (Brady Corbet). Aparentemente inofensivos, eles irão se divertir fazendo um macabro e perigoso jogo físico e intelectual com a família.

Se Naomi e Roth mantém o padrão de interpretações dilacerantes, o maior destaque aqui é Michael Pitt. Com 27 anos, o loirinho especializa-se em personagens controversos, não tem medo de cenas polêmicas e invariavalmente está em ótimas produções. Veja-o em Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001), Bully (2001), Os Sonhadores (2003) e Last Days (2005). Ele está também nos próximos filmes de Oliver Stone e Abel Ferrara. Seu desconcertante vilão Paul é de longe onde o filme mais ganhou em relação à versão anterior.

Violência não tem a força de A Professora de Piano (2001), mas pelo menos é bastante superior a Cachê (2005), na minha opinião, uma das produções mais superestimadas pelos críticos naquele ano. Então, vista o casaco, tome um Dramin – para não enjoar – e prepare-se para as quebras dos convencionalismos de Haneke. Mesmo que você já pudesse ter feito isso 11 anos atrás. O filme estréia dia 19 de setembro.

Cotação (de 0 a 5): 3,5 – Comidinha honesta

Are you sick of people telling you that you’re too happy? Want to do something about it? Watch Funny Games and any feelings of wellness will be battered away with golf club like efficiency. This tale of an innocent family terrorized by two seemingly polite and well dressed young psychopaths is so depressing (how depressing is it) it makes the ending of The Mist seem like the ending to Rocky II. Suffice to say, Funny Games is quite, ironically, un-funny.

Typically I’m down for a good nihilistic flick. If a movie can’t be entertaining, it can at least be enthralling. The problem with Funny Games is that it was neither. It’s too bad because the set up is simple and effective and the movie boasts an excellent cast with performances to match. Naomi Watts, Timothy Roth and Devon Gearhart are superb as the family in peril and our villains are played to wicked perfection by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet (polite and well dressed on the outside, evil psychos on the inside). So what the heck went wrong?

My main gripe with the flick is that it’s too damn pretentious. I get what director Michael Haneke (remaking his own Austrian film for American audiences) is doing. He’s making a film about violence in society and violence as entertainment. We, the audience, are responsible for the carnage that happens to this family because we’re watching it. We love to watch but do we even care? Hey, I’m hip to what your saying, no reason to hit me over the head with it. But getting hit over the head is exactly what happens. In fact, I think the weapon I was bludgeoned with was the Art House Movies 101 text book. There are several 4th wall breaking moments that I feel take the viewer out of the movie and dull its impact, hence weakening the film’s message overall. There are several times when the villains talk directly to the audience (as if mocking us for not being able to turn away). I think the film would have been better served to have saved these scenes for the end of the film instead of peppered through out. Trust the audience enough to understand what the film is truly saying instead of forcing it down our throats. Haneke really should have studied the tag line to Last House on the Left; the audience is the one that needs to tell itself it’s only a movie, not the director.

I really think that if the movie had nixed some of the art house wankery, it would have been a much more powerful film and still conveyed the same message. The funny thing (no pun intended) is that at times the flick teetered on the edge of being powerfully brilliant but kept falling over in to “just plain depressing” and that gets boring pretty quick. I admit that this is a movie I may re-visit later on with a different perspective and perhaps end up with a different view on it. Like I said, there’s good stuff in here for sure, I just wasn’t in to the execution. The movie has spurred a lot of interesting debate (and a lot of “your opinion sucks” silliness) on internet message boards, so the movie definitely has had an impact on viewers. I do recommend giving the film a look, but your opinions will vary.