Funny Games and The Idea of Violence as Entertainment

Why do we do it? Why do we watch movies that glorify violence? Sure, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a brilliantly made movie. Its effective credibility makes the film even more disturbing.

Why do we read Edward Lee or Jack Ketchum? Are we sick?

Some people reject that notion. Others gleefully embrace it.

Last night I watched the Funny Games remake. I had seen the 1997 original back in '98. I liked it quite a bit, and I've been meaning to watch the remake for a long time. As I understood it, the Funny Games remake was a shot-for-shot imitation of the first. So I felt that I wasn't in a real hurry to see it. But two good actors appear in the remake: Naomi Watts and Tim Roth. Last night was the right time for it.

Have you seen either film? If so, you owe it to yourself to try. That's right, try. Whether you make it through to the end is questionable.

Funny Games is an endurance test. You ask yourself, Will I be able to continue to watch this? Or, perhaps more importantly, Why would anyone want to watch something like this?

The story is simple. A wealthy couple and their young son go to their vacation home. Soon they are visited by two young men. These guys are clean cut. They dress like preppies. Their speech is cultivated. They are ruthless sadists. But they are polite ruthless sadists.

The family is held hostage and the games begin.

Austrian born Writer/director Michael Haneke studied psychology, philosophy, and drama at the University of Venice. His films confront, provoke, and often alienate viewers. With Funny Games, he attempts to make a statement about excessive violence in film. He has been quoted as saying that if viewers walk out of Funny Games, they do not need its message. If they sit through to the end, they need it.

Then there are those of us that crave intellectuality in film. Oddly, I see Haneke's point, and I agree. To a point. But I also like a lot of extremely violent movies.

Funny Games polarizes viewers. I've seen horror fans outraged at what Haneke is trying to say with the film. I don't quite get that. I don't mind being disagreed with. Especially when an argument as well-made as Funny Games is presented.

I've heard Funny Games called evil, foul, subversive. I've heard it called brilliant, astonishing, a revelation. Stephen King called it the fifth best film of 2008.

Let me hasten to say that none of the violence in Funny Games is shown onscreen. You don't need to see it for it to be effective. In fact, the aftermath of the horrors is possibly more disturbing than actually seeing it.

Like Funny Games or hate it, few can argue its artistic merit. The photography is stunning. Haneke uses long takes and allows the camera to follow the scenes in detail. This brings far greater realism to the film. Much more than the trendy jump cut editing that is so popular among so many vastly inferior filmmakers than Haneke.

I look back at the original Funny Games. Released in 1997, it seems amazingly prescient. This was well before the so-called Torture Porn subgenre of films like Hostel Saw, and The Collector were even conceived.

If you've seen Funny Games, regardless of whether you liked or hated it, I'd love to hear your thoughts at the forum. If you haven't, I think you owe it to yourself to give it a try. Buy a used copy of Funny Games, or rent it. Sit down and see if you like it or if you hate it. Then ask yourself why you feel the way you do about it.