Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#76 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:26 am

Jeff wrote:poster
Great poster indeed.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#77 Post by Cold Bishop » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:04 pm

colinr0380 wrote:*gravelly voice speaking over montage of happy family (twirling child around in slow motion, that kind of thing) to a classical music score*

"This woman never had to fight for anything in her life...this summer...she will"

*end gravelly voice and cue hyper edited violence montage to grunge rock soundtrack*

"Coming soon - rated PG-13" :wink:
"Funny Games..... Who's Laughing Now?"

User avatar
Abulafia
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:44 am
Location: The Banana Republic

#78 Post by Abulafia » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:41 pm

I have to agree with an earlier post, I thought this film was hilarious, although I must confess I have mentioned this to others and they have not agreed, rather they have looked to distract me while others still make phone calls to people with with white jackets.

On the issue of a shot by shot remake, well, this makes sense to me, given the nature of the film. It is a funny game after all, and what better joke than to literally "remake" the film. Furthermore, the action is essentially a loop, with the assailants moving from one victim to the next with a calculating and precise modus operandi. As a filmmaker, is this also not what Haneke is doing?

Finally, the first film was a success. If the producers want a remake, then why not simply reintroduce the same winning formula. Perhaps Haneke was already extremely pleased with the result of the first version. God knows he has a very exact way of doing things, that he implements from film to film. Perhaps, for him there is no other way the film could be made. In this case, it makes sense to shoot and edit everything more or less the same as before, only with English speaking actors, almost like in the early days of cinema where directors made a number of takes of a scene in various languages for the different markets.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#79 Post by Cold Bishop » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:07 pm

denti alligator wrote:once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater
Or I guess you can stay and laugh at it... especially if your in a room full of people.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#80 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:36 pm

Just got it in the mail today so I can't attest to how in depth it gets, but Harper's has a feature article on the films of Michael Haneke.

eez28
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:51 am
Location: Houston

#81 Post by eez28 » Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:42 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Just got it in the mail today so I can't attest to how in depth it gets, but Harper's has a feature article on the films of Michael Haneke.
the movie?

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#82 Post by Matt » Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:45 pm

eez28 wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:Just got it in the mail today so I can't attest to how in depth it gets, but Harper's has a feature article on the films of Michael Haneke.
the movie?
Maybe a rephrase in is order:

"Harper's has a feature article on the films of Michael Haneke. I just got it in the mail today, so I can't attest to how in depth it goes."

User avatar
Mr Pixies
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:03 pm
Location: Fla
Contact:

#83 Post by Mr Pixies » Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:52 pm

Cold Bishop wrote:
denti alligator wrote:once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater
Or I guess you can stay and laugh at it... especially if your in a room full of people.
And because it's not that tough of a film.
SpoilerShow
The hot/cold scene is the best I guess for getting across what the film is about, but after that it's not challenging. But Haneke keeps that stuff so far away and interesting that it's hard to want to turn away and not keep watching. I think I get what the point is, but this film is like having some cake and eating it too.

User avatar
gubbelsj
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: San Diego

#84 Post by gubbelsj » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Just got it in the mail today so I can't attest to how in depth it gets, but Harper's has a feature article on the films of Michael Haneke.
I realized it was just shy of a year ago that Harper's ran a nice piece on Herzog, and I posted something to the effect that I hoped such a move suggested a greater future emphasis on film within the magazine. I'm not sure if one article a year suggests a renaissance, but it's welcome all the same.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

#85 Post by John Cope » Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:59 am

I just watched Vacancy the other day and wondered briefly if that's the kind of thing people are going to expect this to be--I'm talking about people unfamiliar with the original, of course. Actually, Vacancy isn't half bad for the kind of thing it is--excellent use of the frame and a nice, gradual build. Still, it's magnetically drawn back to grounding everything in exposition and in a sense reassuring us that all will be okay through excessively personalizing everything. And all is okay, or at least that's the implication at the end, which is absurd. Kind of lets the air out a bit. Although it's not exactly what I lovingly refer to as a Cliffhanger ending, in reference to the Harlin movie which was cognizant enough of its own limited ambitions that it more or less just stopped after Lithgow's helicopter exploded.

The most disturbing thing about Vacancy, btw, is smuggled away in the special features section of the DVD under the seemingly innocuous heading "Mason's Video Picks: Extended Snuff Films". Here we get the usual short clips within the film drawn out to their full, unedited length. This is the stuff that belongs in a Haneke film and would probably fascinate him. It's effective enough to be risible as the clips emulate a kind of loose verite style and feel more authentic than you might expect. Anyway, I think it's the indifferent packaging of this material as "just more of those extended scenes buyers love to watch" that sits uneasily with me. Certainly this stuff adds a dimension to the film, though it registers more as Noe-esque inescapable fatalism than anything else in Antal's comparatively conventional and non-threatening thriller. Its inclusion on the disc, however, is all the more confrontational a provocation because it naggingly suggests a casual disregard of any aesthetic distinction, and by implication any moral one, that may exist.

User avatar
Fierias
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:49 pm

#86 Post by Fierias » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:48 pm

heads up for anyone in Boston, this is screening this Friday at the Harvard Film Archive at 7:30pm, and then Haneke will be there to do a discussion afterward. If you can go don't miss it. $15 a ticket.

User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

#87 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:42 am

The world premiere was at the London Film Festival, with the cast (but not Haneke alas) in attendance. It really is a shot for shot remake of the original; the only real difference I remember was Anna using (and losing) a mobile rather than a cordless phone, but the script and narrative was identical. And it worked. The casting is an issue perhaps; where Naomi Watts is probably better than the actress who first played Anna, most agree Tim Roth isn't quite as effective as Georg. Maybe Michael Pitt doesn't show the charming malevolence as Arno Frisch did in the original, but he and Brady Corbet are perfectly fine.

When European film makers hot tail it to Hollywood to remake the film that made their name known they often make concessions and accept the casting choices of the money men, but not here. Haneke made the film on his own terms with the cast he wanted. It's much more in tune with van Sant's Psycho remake than say The Vanishing.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#88 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:55 am

thirtyframesasecond wrote:It really is a shot for shot remake of the original; the only real difference I remember was Anna using (and losing) a mobile rather than a cordless phone, but the script and narrative was identical.
You are talking about the beginning scene where the phone is 'accidentally' knocked into the sink?

Watching the BBC's Newsnight Review programme over the weekend I was taken aback a bit by one of the guests saying that she wished the film had been made with unknown actors rather than big names - watch the original then! #-o

Considering that seems to be one of the main reasons for doing the remake it was a strange comment to make.

How did the audience react? I suppose it was made up mostly of people aware of the original and Haneke's work, but were there any walkouts, things thrown at the screen, vomiting incidents? :wink:

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#89 Post by Antoine Doinel » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:08 am

gubbelsj wrote:I realized it was just shy of a year ago that Harper's ran a nice piece on Herzog, and I posted something to the effect that I hoped such a move suggested a greater future emphasis on film within the magazine.
Yes, it's welcome that they are starting to (hopefully) cover cinema within their pages more often. Unfortunately, the article on Haneke is a chore to get through. I only made it a few pages and gave up due to the author's condescending and arrogant tone that outright dismisses anyone who may criticize Haneke's films.

User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

#90 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:38 am

colinr0380 wrote:You are talking about the beginning scene where the phone is 'accidentally' knocked into the sink? ...

Watching the BBC's Newsnight Review programme over the weekend I was taken aback a bit by one of the guests saying that she wished the film had been made with unknown actors rather than big names
That's right. I watched the original again yesterday just to make sure there were no other changes.

I was sitting next to a couple who'd obviously not seen the original from their reactions, and I suppose a large bunch of the crowd might not have done. Whether they were attracted by Haneke because of the success of Hidden, or the cast, I don't know, but I thought most who knew it was a remake would know about the original. I think the biggest gasp came when the dog slumped out of the car - that and the "rewind" scene. Or hearing the use of "Bonehead" by Naked City.

The NR team seemed to dislike all the films I've seen oddly. I think they just wrote this off as a fairly redundant exercise, which it really isn't. A redundant exercise would have been hiring a hack for hire to direct, insert an uninteresting cast and diluting the film's power and purpose. Like I said, it has more in common with van Sant's Psycho in it's artistic value (which I think it pretty undervalued myself).

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#91 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:16 pm

As someone who has seen it thirtyframesasecond, would you say that the film was able to stand on its own for an audience unfamiliar with the original? I suppose it would naturally be deepened if you had seen the original and were comparing the two versions for the slight differences in performance, and I guess it won't have the problems the Psycho remake did of redoing a film whose shots were etched into the minds of the fans to the point where it seemed heretical to change them, even with the best intentions. I didn't like the Psycho remake at all, but I have the feeling that this film might be able to help me understand it better - Funny Games actually seems as if it might be better suited to that experiment of keeping as much of the locations and events the same yet subtly changing the performances through the different actors cast.

It seems that with the locations created to mimic the originals extremely closely and hopefully with few changes to the visual style of the material (which was something Van Sant seemed interested in playing with in his remake but which sort of muddied the experiment too much for my taste), then the emphasis will probably be placed even more on the difference in the performances. I really liked Susanne Lothar in the original film, and I couldn't imagine Naomi Watts playing the scenes the same way, even if they contained the same dialogue and were blocked the same way - the same with Tim Roth.

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#92 Post by toiletduck! » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:48 pm

There may be an interesting side effect on the box office from those who have seen the original (unless I'm the odd duck - ha! - in the group). I will be going to see this on opening weekend not because I really want to see it (again), but because the only way I want to see it again is with a large group of people who have no idea what's coming.

Which is a credit, not an insult, to the film.

-Toilet Dcuk

User avatar
Dylan
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

#93 Post by Dylan » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm

What's also interesting is that both remakes being discussed ("Psycho" and, obviously, "Funny Games") employ A-list cinematographers to helm what has already been completely visualized shot for shot beforehand (the "Funny Games" remake is lensed by the magnificent Darius Khondji, perhaps our finest working French DP).

Does the "Funny Games" remake have a few trademark Khondji touches (those familiar with his work should know what I mean...he shot "Delicatessen," "The City of Lost Children," "Se7en," "The Ninth Gate," "Anything Else," all gorgeous-looking...hell, even "Wimbledon," which I caught a few minutes of on TV earlier this year, looks gorgeous), or is it pretty much just a slightly more 'embellished' look due to the higher budget?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#94 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:37 pm

In a way the saving of the boy [in Time of the Wolf] from the fire is as much a deus ex machina at the hand of the writer/director as the unnamed event that has wrecked the society or the accidental murder of the father at the opening. Haneke has planned the unplanned to illustrate his points, nowhere more clear than the rewinded sequence of Funny Games. I wonder if that is why he tries to keep his characters at arm's length in that he is extremely involved with the structure of the plot. I think that the plot is not what interests him though, it is trying to create a believable reaction by the characters to the events they find themselves in, more than creating a believable environment, like putting rats in a maze to observe their behaviour. I think that makes the few moments the characters appear to escape the boundaries of prescribed behaviour exhilarating, if mostly futile.
I've been thinking more about this, still only in relation to the 1997 Funny Games. There is also the sense that if these passive characters did actually fight back and manage to escape from their hermetically sealed worlds of middle and upper class privilege they would be in danger of becoming outcasts themselves, unable to live outside the world they've created. I often wonder if the torturers in Funny Games are meant not only to represent an unknown 'other' that can come along and turn your life upside down, but also an unexpression of unconscious desires to escape the restrictions of an 'average' life embodied in the form of characters who are beyond the boundaries of the world of the rest of the characters, closer to the audience watching the film that they are creating rather than the characters inhabiting their world with them. In a strange way they could be trying to be liberators, in the same way Walter attempted to rape Erika "into independence" in The Piano Teacher - when the two lads break the father's leg with his golf clubs it perhaps isn't just a witty ironic joke but a full blown statement about destroying him with the tools of his middle-brow complacency - the same with invading the mother's kitchen and breaking her eggs - all building to the mini-climax of removing their child from the equation and 'liberating' them from their parental responsibilities in the worst way imaginable, leaving them alone in front of their television.

A similar situation occurs in the opening shotgun killing in Time of the Wolf, just to a different family member.

Although at the same time there is that feeling that, if Anna was actually allowed to get away with grabbing the shotgun and blowing her tormentors away, that would be that, the end of the game - she wouldn't be interested in doing anything more than getting back to what remains of her previous life - that would reaffirm 'family values' and the importance of vengeance, so it is telling that she is not allowed to break the cycle (In an interesting way it also puts the lie to the actions of the tormentors pushing the family into independence and makes the tormentors seem even more 'going through the motions' in the already predetermined, pre-written, pre-filmed outcome of the film - very much self-aware characters who are happy because they've been told by the director that they won't die during the course of the film and then suddenly pissed off when he tries to include a scene in which one of them gets blown away!) The rewind sequence underlines in no uncertain terms that she and her family are meant to be the perpetual victims, just as the tormentors have no personality that humanises them more than being perpetual villians. It is a calculated reduction of the possibilities of the film that is probably used to point out how pointless these victim/villain fight scenes in action, thriller and horror films are if they are just used for the spectacle of a fight with a nice cathartic outcome for the audience that reaffirms the status quo and shows the guilty being punished.

These types of characters 'outside' the narrative occur not only in Funny Games but also in Code Unknown (which I feel is the best of Haneke's films so far, a film that seems to contain all of his themes in minature inside its 'incomplete tales of several journeys') with the farmer's son trying desperately to escape the world his father has pre-planned for him - once he finally does escape he is never seen in the film again. He has entered a different space from the world Haneke's films take place in - similarly the teenage boy in Time of the Wolf distances himself from everyone else by refusing to enter the waystation - he is trying to create a new world for himself, not return to whatever is left of the old one he probably didn't fit into in the first place. That is why he gets victimised more than the people who killed Anne Laurent's husband at the beginning of the film when they turn up near the end - they want to rejoin what is left of society, the boy does not and so has to pay the price until he is strong enough to become like the lads in Funny Games, take the initiative and destroy first. But because he is a character existing in Haneke's world he is subject to Haneke's decisions over which characters are allowed to be able to escape from his world to take a more omniscient perspective and control of events.

User avatar
margot
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am
Location: nyc

#95 Post by margot » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:08 am

Could they try to be ripping off the trailer for A Clockwork Orange any more blatantly? Also nice Straw Dogs-esque poster. It looks really good though. Should I wait to see this version before seeing the original?

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#96 Post by Cold Bishop » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:10 am

Raoul Duke wrote:Could they try to be ripping off the trailer for A Clockwork Orange any more blatantly? Also nice Straw Dogs-esque poster. It looks really good though. Should I wait to see this version before seeing the original?
I guess it depends on how closely you want to watch the same film twice? If you could make it to it on opening night with (hopefully) large crowd, then that would be the time to see it.

User avatar
Galen Young
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm

#97 Post by Galen Young » Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:20 am

There is a new "age-restricted" trailer up at Warners, right here. "You must admit, you brought this on yourself." :lol:
Rated R for terror! I hope they shove this out into every mall multiplex in America.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

#98 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:32 am

I saw the trailer for this in theaters. I had a seat in the first row off the floor (basically, the front row for people with regular necks), and it was almost overpowering. I started laughing at the end. I'm glad Hall Of The Mountain King is getting some play, too. Hopefully the movie is as wild and ludicrous as the trailer, which is really the only way I could see it working.
Oedipax wrote:The remake trailer is reminiscent of Kubrick's trailer for A Clockwork Orange
Probably my favorite trailer of all time. It's witty, funny, satiric, musical, exciting, bizarre, Beethoven, frightening, metaphorical, political, thrilling, comic, and sardonic.

Link to Clockwork Orange trailer

Link to the redband trailer for Funny Games. This one probably could've benefitted from Battles' Atlas.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#99 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:56 am

Did I hear it right that this is a shot-for-shot remake of his earlier film?

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

#100 Post by Cde. » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:11 am

You heard right. Even the trailers are remarkably similar.

Compare this to the non-redband trailer

Post Reply