Funny Games (2008)

I will start with the film that inspired this blog. I had seen the original Funny Games (1997) about a year ago. I was horribly disturbed, but I thought it was great nonetheless. The filmmaking ability it takes to affect adults so deeply is nothing short of phenomenal. Michael Haneke is clearly no slouch when it comes to directing.

So why would Richard Roeper say "If there is one movie from 2008 you should avoid at all costs, that movie would be Funny Games."? This means that he recommends Meet the Spartans (2008) over this film... But let's give him a chance. Maybe he will intelligently explain why he hates this film so passionately. "Funny Games has some self-indulgent touches...but to what end? Are we supposed to consider this some kind of performance art, some kind of commentary on the nature of violence in the movies? You know what, by the end I didn't care...It's an ugly and pretentious film and offers no new insight into the psychopathic mind. Artsy garbage is still garbage." Ah-ha! That's the problem! This kind of film is supposed to offer up new insight into the psychopathic mind. What a ridiculous complaint. I suppose he also didn't like No Country for Old Men (2007) for the same reason, because this is apparently something he looks for perpetually.

Let's swing the focus over to Michael Phillips, perhaps, if possible, an even bigger idiot. "The original, in its own perverse way works...It's grueling as hell but it's a serious effort. I think this one feels like karoke." Where to start... So he likes the original. This is odd considering it is the exact same movie. The difference between them is, if anything, that this one is made with a much larger budget and quality (looks-wise). Roeper and Phillips

It seems these two have missed the memo that comes with this film to anybody who bothers to know what they are talking about. This film was made over ten years ago for an Austrian/German audience as a critique of the media's (and yes, the audience's) obsession with violence. Hmm...seems like something vaguely American. Of course, a German film that is this disturbing and gets next to nothing on American reviews, will not get much, if any play in America. When it does, it will only hit the arthouse crowd instead of the common movie goer at whom it is aimed. Of course, the obvious choice, once you have made it big in America with a film like Caché (2005), is to remake it for an American audience.

Many reviewers' complaints about the film is that is doesn't conform to typical suspense films. Some say it is just another in a long line of torture films, but stands alone in thinking it is art. People: films can only be; they cannot think. This film is only what you see, if you believe it is trying to be art, that must be because it is made with such talent that you recognize the beauty of it, but you also don't like how it makes you feel so you call it pretentious. God damn a filmmaker who wants to make a statement through a horror movie! These reviewers have taken their noses out of the air and put them head and all, right up their asses. Where they were once too good to recognize art in horror, they now see it and reject it.

After reading those reviews, one may think this is a horribly violent film. But did I mention that there isn't a single filmed act of violence in the film? Well there's one, but that doesn't count...you'll see. It is so psychologically affecting that it makes viewers think they saw something that they didn't. How is that not good filmmaking? Furthermore, it takes place almost entirely inside one room, with 4-5 characters throughout. Yet it is so gripping that you will actually sit and watch it with a turning stomach just from their conversations. There is no grotesque imagery, no cheap jumps, this is horror in the most pure form. If you thought Scream (1996) was all-too-possible, wait till you see this. The two lead boy tormentors are so creepy you will feel it in your guts by the time Tubby drops the eggs. You may not want to watch it again for several years, but you probably feel the same way about Schindler's List (1993). So give it a chance if you dare, I promise you won't hate it.

This film is only the newest in a long line of disturbing but extremely well-made films. It is obviously not for everybody. If you do want to see it or others that will leave you feeling like shit for many hours after viewing, see Reqiuem for a Dream (2000), Salo: 120 Days of Sodom (1975), or The Last House on the Left (1972). All of these films are so well made that you are thoroughly entertained and repulsed. They are unique in that they affect the viewer for longer than the duration of the film. This is a feat that few films can lay claim, but an important one to those of us who like unique films. P.S. The afore mentioned 4 films are all from competent directors that make a wide variety of films (they aren't just psychos).

Note: I do not advocate repeated viewings of any of the above mentioned films, nor do I advocate any viewing whatsoever of Meet the Spartans. I do advocate referring to Richard Roeper as "ugly and pretentious."