I had a rough night last night, PopWatchers. Against my better judgment, I went to a midnight screening of Funny Games. I’m still in shock and probably will be for some time to come.
I really have no one to blame but myself. I knew what I was in for. A few years ago, my husband was watching Michael Haneke’s original German-language Funny Games, in which two young men terrorize a family in their country home. He suggested I stay away from the film, since I have a very low tolerance for brutality and cruelty in entertainment (and, of course, in real life, too). So I never watched it. But here at Sundance, I somehow convinced myself that I would be able to handle Haneke’s new, shot-for-shot remake of his own movie, this time starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth (watch the trailer here). Honestly, I was curious. So I joined Greg Kirschling and Christine Spines at the Egyptian Theater. I took an aisle seat, in case I needed to leave without disturbing the rest of the audience. I wish I had.
After the Sundance rep introduced the film, saying he hoped the movie would “f— us up” as much as the original did him, the audience fell completely still, presumably feeling the same wave of anxious nausea wash over them as I was. I won’t go into details about what happens in the film, but I will say that it is the most disturbing movie I’ve seen in recent memory — if not ever. As those of you who are familiar with the original know, Haneke’s goal in making both Funny Games is to challenge us to reexamine how we consume violence as entertainment — particularly the Hollywood variety. None of the violence happens on camera. But trust me, this does not soften the blow one bit. On the contrary. I’m not sure I’ll ever again be able to see Michael Pitt — an actor who creeped me out to begin with — as anything but the insidiously sadistic psychopath he plays here.
I’m not usually one to succumb to drama, but after the credits rolled, I left the theater in tears. (Which freaked out poor Greg and Christine. Sorry, friends.) The horror of what had just unfolded on screen, combined with the fact that I sat there and watched the entire thing, just appalled me. At the same time, the movie is extremely well made. I’m grappling with how I feel about Haneke’s position as filmmaker in this matter: Do I want to be told how I should or should not be consuming “entertainment”? And how is he any bit different than the rest of us? How does he get to take the moral high ground here, when his movie uses a lot of the same shock tactics he is criticizing?
This may be the most depressing PopWatch item ever. So I hope I’m not totally bumming you out. But if you’ve seen the film — either the original or the remake — please share your thoughts. Hell, even if you haven’t seen it, I’d appreciate any and all suggestions for coping. In the meantime, I’m calling my shrink.
Comments (1-30) of 43 Add your comment
Wow! That movie sounds awful. I think it’s strange when a film tries to be preachy, but only end up using the same tactics they criticize. I won’t be seeing this film.
I haven’t seen the remake, but I have seen the original. Although it was tough to watch, it wasn’t even NEARLY as disturbing as Haneke’s “The Pianist.” I kind of wanted to die after watching that movie.
I just watched the trailer…there are people who suffer thru this in real life and its not entertaining whatsoever…two Dartmouth university professors were killed after inviting two young men into their homes…I wont be watching this movie and I think I might need to string up a can of paint over my front door, just in case some hick comes a callin’…yeehaw…
Haven’t seen the movie. I did watch the trailer. I feel that in remaking the movie shot-for-shot, the film-maker loses all credibility vis-a-vis his position regarding the consumption of violence. Clearly he’s putting it out there to be consumed. By remaking it in english he’s just demonstrating his willingness to be exploitative of the public’s willingness to consume. But hey, film-makers gotta eat too.
I just do not find violence and cruelty entertaining at all. This world is so horrific and violent – just read the news : people planting bombs, blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace, killing in name of Jesus or Allah or whoever, driving drunk and killing people, rapists, murder-suicides, parents killing their children, men killing their wives, the list goes on and on.
Why in the world would I want to sit throught a violent film? Especially when it seems there are so many films that WANT you to be titilated by the violence and turned on – instead of being repulsed. I think it is truly frightening and reflects what is going on in our society. We have all become so blase and numb to the violence. Another school shooting? Shrug. Another shooting at a mall? Another workplace murder? It is sickening.
It makes me think of those two men who held that entire family captive, raped the daughter and the mother and then set them on fire. I don’t want to see anything like that..
The original is a total mind %@!& It never backs down and constantly pushes the envelope. A great commentary on violence both on the screen and in real life. I am glad to hear that the director didn’t soften his American version.
this movie’s been on my radar for awhile, and Joblo.com rightfully declared it the best trailer of 2007.
i want to see this movie, and i have no idea why.
Micheal Pitt has always freaked me out too. I’m certain I will avoid this movie like the plague.
I’ve been intrigued about this movie since I heard about the original and especially when I saw the Kubrick-like trailer for the American remake.
Not really sure what that says about me that I’m anticipating something that, by all accounts, is awful and abhorrent to look at. All I can say is that I like seeing talented artists work and I especially love to see someone push the boundaries and produce challenging work.
Micheal Pitt has always freaked me out too. I’m certain I will avoid this movie like the plague.
Man, the trailer for this film is the creepiest thing I’ve seen in ages…but honestly, I am looking forward to seeing it for pretty much the same reasons Ceballos mentioned. Plus, psychopath or not, Michael Pitt is extremely watchable.
“Moment of Truth” and “Funny Games” – yep, keep driving those nails in the coffin.
After considering the possible arguments, pondering the accuracy, or lack thereof, of equation abhorrent = challenging = good, and passing into a rumination on various theories of aesthetics, with a passing thought as to violence in art vis a vis violence in real life, I have decided I do not want to see this movie, because that actor on the right is not cute.
If the remake is exactly like the original, I just don’t understand how do you not get that it’s completely tongue-in-cheek. Haneke may be a misanthrope, but he’s a brilliant film-maker and categorizing his movie among the rest “violent trash” is just wrong. That’s exactly what this movie was ironically commenting on, a full decade before the “genre” became Hollywood’s goose with the golden eggs.
I watched the original film as a film studies student in college. This is first and only film I have ever walked out on. I can not believe they are remaking the movie. I will not see it.
I saw the original. I found it boring. I get disturbed if someone gets slapped in a movie (Zodiak freaked me out) but I didn’t buy one second of the movie. I thought it was silly. The psychos in their white sweaters weren’t realistic and the whole idea that there wouldn’t be any sexual abuse was ludricrous. The whole thing was too contrived and obvious.
Maybe this will help you cope. Think of Michael Pitt as the young teenage who was trying to woo Michelle Williams in Dawson’s Creek. He was a lot less creepy then. Intense, but not creepy. It was Dawson’s Creek, though. Who wasn’t intense?
I loved the original. I really did. It’s probably on my top 10 list. It’s the only movie I ever had to walk away from. I didn’t turn it off or walk out, but when Mr was waiting on Mrs to return . . . I couldn’t stand it. I had to walk in the other room. I was a little disappointed when I heard about a remake, but I’m torn these days.
I saw this trailer preceding “There Will Be Blood,” and turned to my companion and asked why anyone would ever, ever voluntarily subject themselves to that.
Missy–I say brava to your exploration of your true reactions and feelings to this movie. It’s o.k. to take things personally and to question not only your own responsibility and participation in what you’re watching but also the motives and morals of the movie’s creator. Aren’t those questions and impulses are at the heart of all art/theater? Finally, I just had to share that your situation reminded me of the time in college when my western civilization class was discussing Freud and sex. Overwhelmed by how distant and matter of fact the discussion had become I raised my hand and said “I just have to say that I think sex is special.” (ha!) While the rest of my class likely considered me the overly sentimental class virgin, I was and am proud that I said not only what I was thinking, but also what was in my heart (as cheesy as it sounds). So Missy, good for you, for feeling the way you do and expressing it so well!
I couldn’t even make it through the trailer just now. Which shrink are you using??
The beginning scenes (with the eggs) in the original (when you’re just starting to realize what the boys are up to) was the most anxiety-producing experience I have ever had while watching a movie … I loved every minute of it! I thought the rest of the movie kind of lost steam however -I mean; how could they possibly maintain THAT level of tension? A well-made psychological drama is NOT the same as torture porn. I ADORE Tim Roth, admire Naomi Watts (so good in Mulholland Drive!) and think Michael Pitt is just PERFECT for the role. And with the same director helming? Can’t lose … I’m planning to see it opening day…
The original was excellent, creepy and unexpected – especially the ‘rewind’ sequence which was just mind-blowing. However you may feel about the premise, Haneke is a master fillmaker and how can he lose with this cast? – and Pitt is perfectly cast, since I too have always found him sinister.
in order to cope with trauma, unfortunately, you have to relive it until it no longer has power over you. this doesn’t mean that you have to watch the movie all over again, but you need to talk about your experience for as long as you need to, re-experience the horror with someone you trust and then move on…i’m sorry you went through that…i have the same reaction to these types of movies as well, and people laugh at me!
ever since watching the trailer a couple months ago in front of some movie i can’t even remember i have wanted to see this. looks crazy good.
I got this movie. Hanneke took every convention of a thriller/horror film, took every expectation his audience had and completely reversed it. I’ll use as an example the death of one of the characters. In a typical horror film, we see the terrified look on the face of the victim, the grimacing malevolence of the criminal, with the background music building to a crescendo, followed by the crime itself. In Funny Games, we see the partner fixing himself a sandwich in the kitchen. Everything we expect and want in a film – hope, vengeance, triumph, drama – was snatched away by it. I still don’t know whether to love this film or hate it, though, because it almost seemed like a math equation: Audience expectation plus audience desire equals zero.
I just want to say Naomi Watts is such a fantastic and brave actress who delivers yet another great performance here that would put all those mediocre but hyped ones from over-rated actresses to shame. She is also the executive producer of this film.
Not only is it a shame that Missy Schwartz’s review has not used a photo of the lead actress/character, it’s also irritating that the talented and always underrated actress is once again overlooked here in this review as if she were nothing more important than the supporting Michael Pitt, not to say he isn’t good but the sheer disregard of Watts is an insult in light of what she has contributed to this project and the movie industry as a whole.
I’m surprised Ms Schwartz was so disturbed…is she a regular movie reviewer? Has she seen Clockwork Orange? (how ’bout those white outfits…ring any bells with anyone?). I happened to watch the original today, my husband Netflixed (is that a verb now?) it after seeing previews for the American version. I didn’t want to watch it particularly, but did anyway expecting a “twist,” that was supposed to alter my sympathies for the characters, but instead turned out to cheapen the movie…the whole wink wink at the camera thing and a “it’s not reality” ending. Didn’t care for it.
Schwartz and others who are “totally disturbed” and upset to tears should see “No End In Sight.” That’s much more disturbing and it’s real.
I loved the original verision and was afraid that the re-make would be a watered down copy but then was thrilled to realize that it was the same director making it. I think Michael Pitt is PERFECT to play the part and I CANNOT WAIT to see this.
And the poster with the close up of Niaomi Watts crying is GENIUS!
I was a Sundance volunteer this year working the Egyptian, and I had the wonderful task of ushering the same screening of Funny Games that you attended. I had never seen the original, nor do I want to or ever plan to. I was aware of the basic plot line and knew this film was not up my alley from the beginning but…alas. You summarized my exact thoughts, down to the crying during the credits (well, I had to bite my tounge until the theater was empty). A fellow volunteer summed it up well by saying “there is no God in any of his movies”. That night, I slept with the light on, the kitchen table in front of my front door and my precious dog at the foot of my bed. Funny Games was well made and well done. However, it took me two days to realize that and recover from the vile horror I had put myself through.