Can someone explain the remote rewind for me? Is it Ann's fantasy we see? Is it meant to be ours as the viewer wanting her to succeed and escape? I don't want this to spoil what is a great film!
@DurhamGooner Like Haneke say's it's another way to "alienate" the audience. It's not her fantasy, it's a tool that Haneke used on multiple levels to toy with the audience.
Haneke is right. by his logic, 'hating' the film because it's boring and obvious, hypocritical and maybe even stupid, seems to be the only way to escape the 'trap' that he has laid for unsuspecting viewers.
@CosmicD not that difficult. It's not about a dream or a fantasy, it's simply the fact that there's no way out. And the remote-control just reflects the fact that all this could be in our hands. Because we have a remote-control, too. And we could turn all that stuff off!
The film shows class power eating itself. It is within the very false egalitarian manners where a sense of propriety and distance are consistently re-produced at every moment (under the assumptions of "good and gentle manners", etc.) that a system of violence lives. The film proposes that this is just beneath the surface, and can possibly take on extreme manifestations. The psychos are the upper class brats who went 'out of control'.
I disagree entirely. There is no 'acceptable' violence, or, anything remotely 'sexy' in this film.
Brilliant, disturbing, gripping, thought provoking, and, a breath of fresh air to counter the usual pap that comes out of the Hollywood movie machine.
Sick Michael Haneke has contributed to 'art'which anaesthesises people to violence implying its usual and maybe OK too.For 90min the audience is oppressed by being forced to watch 2 sick youths who descend on a family of 3 and torture them for 'fun' psychologically , physically and finally kill them all. The violence is not shown explicitly but you imagine it which is a lot worse!Film cuts as they're about to do the same to yet another family. We hope for justice but none comes. Protest on this!
Haneke says: "I wanted to demostrate how we always become the killer's accomplice when watching this type of film -- NOT self-reflective films like this one, but films that portray violence in an 'acceptable' way."
The problem with this remark is that Funny Games DOES portray violence in an "acceptable," indeed "sexy" way, just like a Hollywood movie.
That last line is arguable. I personally don't think the violence in this movie is acceptable at all. Definitely not sexy. This is the kind of movie you watch once. I won't rent it or buy it or go to see it again, but I'm glad I saw it once.
Taking any one line of what Haneke has said of out context can be easily misconstrued. You must listen to the whole interview (not saying you didn't) and remember everything he has said at once. Some of it is paradoxical/hypocritical...
but are we judging his reasoning, or the quality of the movie? It's not a typical movie because it tries to provide the viewer with an experience and a thought process, not entertainment... this is another concept which is very hard for people, understandably.
Chastening satire can be entertaining, XM. This film is very entertaining, it is also very disturbing. You are quite wrong to say it is not intended as entertainment. See all his other films too, if you haven't already. They are similarly compelling the gratuitous violence is unswervingly self-conscious. You seem to be taking a very rigid line of what constitutes entertainment or enjoyment.
If Haneke REALLY wanted to make an anti-violent movie, he could have used the approach seen in the films of Godard and Fassbinder, where violent scenes, such as gangster shootings, are shown in a schematic, highly stylized way, almost pantomime-fashion. In other words, those two artists truly eliminate all the bloodlust from movie violence... so you can look at it objectively, and not get caught up in its attraction.
But he didn't want to make an anti-violent film, he wanted to make an anti-VIOLENCE film. True enough, he lathers on the hypocrisy by being so brutally outright with the movie and not 'artistic' as you say, but herein lies the point. This is a movie for the type of person that thinks he/she loves torture porn. Haneke is trying to punish that person (ie with the several interruptions and the ending) into not liking it, even though, as already stated, it is the same film of the kind he is against.
The fact that people are not realizing is that this film, like any film, can be viewed in any way a person wants. If someone is truly sadistic enough to get pure enjoyment out of this, than so be it. Hopefully that's not many of us. He wasn't trying to cater to those people when he made the original (although I still think it's bull that he pawned off the same movie twice). Nonetheless, he does have a specific point which is that he is against this stuff... don't let a few idiots ruin it for you
Even more so, the conventions that the movie takes (or doesn't take) and the way in which it is done IS artful, if not the same kind of art that is portrayed by Godard. This kind of art is holistic in nature and requires knowledge of the setting in which it is shown, particularly in anthropological knowledge of the modern society. Without this, you're right, it's crap. With those thoughts and backdrop, which he clearly wants you to think about, it's a whole different story.
Haneke rather shows typically stylized, Hollywood violence. And in so doing, he appeals to the bloodlust of the viewer: viewers who like violent torture-porn movies also like Funny Games.
Now, if Haneke was a real film artist, like Godard or Fassbinder, he would be true to his premises and make a film that had no appeal to torture-porn buffs.
But he's a phony who's far more interested in making a hit film than in making art, and has compromised himself accordingly.
And this is, fairly enough, the important half. It's not easy to justify such interruptions in the development of the film, but I thin Haneke points very good points... and erases all possible critics to the excessive weight of chance along the script.
sarcastic and arrogant. i like funny games, though.
Nitruix 3 months ago
Its very difficult to understand for me (my englisch is not so well) but I think Haneke is really a genius. I love this movie! And he is german!!!
Affenzunge 9 months ago
@Affenzunge inwiefern ist he german?
kralle7611 4 months ago
Can someone explain the remote rewind for me? Is it Ann's fantasy we see? Is it meant to be ours as the viewer wanting her to succeed and escape? I don't want this to spoil what is a great film!
DurhamGooner 10 months ago
@DurhamGooner Like Haneke say's it's another way to "alienate" the audience. It's not her fantasy, it's a tool that Haneke used on multiple levels to toy with the audience.
tdhtv 9 months ago
@DurhamGooner It shows how chanceless the family is. It's not like in other movies - the committer-victim-role doesn't change. It stays unfair.
moviemomo93 1 month ago
Haneke is right. by his logic, 'hating' the film because it's boring and obvious, hypocritical and maybe even stupid, seems to be the only way to escape the 'trap' that he has laid for unsuspecting viewers.
You almost got me Haneke. close but no cigar ;-)
lamentate07 2 years ago
The problem is that when you first watch the movie, Haneke doesn't make any of his motives clear enough for you to care that much
hopkins4545 2 years ago
So if i understand correctly , the remote control scene is a manifestation of ann's fantasy of killing him but it represents this as a fantasy?
CosmicD 2 years ago
@CosmicD not that difficult. It's not about a dream or a fantasy, it's simply the fact that there's no way out. And the remote-control just reflects the fact that all this could be in our hands. Because we have a remote-control, too. And we could turn all that stuff off!
moviemomo93 1 month ago
hehe, squabbling old nannies, chya! i hated funny games at first, but now that i have a better understanding, i am in love with this director.
mandalandala 2 years ago
The film shows class power eating itself. It is within the very false egalitarian manners where a sense of propriety and distance are consistently re-produced at every moment (under the assumptions of "good and gentle manners", etc.) that a system of violence lives. The film proposes that this is just beneath the surface, and can possibly take on extreme manifestations. The psychos are the upper class brats who went 'out of control'.
TasteMouth 3 years ago
man, Haneke is a bloody genious!
dahfshx 3 years ago 15
What the hell are you guys yabbering on about, like a pack of squabbling old nannies. geez louise. Settle down
PeterHXII 3 years ago
I just watched the US version yesterday.
I disagree entirely. There is no 'acceptable' violence, or, anything remotely 'sexy' in this film.
Brilliant, disturbing, gripping, thought provoking, and, a breath of fresh air to counter the usual pap that comes out of the Hollywood movie machine.
One of the best films I've seen for a long time
PaulGappyNorris 3 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick Michael Haneke has contributed to 'art'which anaesthesises people to violence implying its usual and maybe OK too.For 90min the audience is oppressed by being forced to watch 2 sick youths who descend on a family of 3 and torture them for 'fun' psychologically , physically and finally kill them all. The violence is not shown explicitly but you imagine it which is a lot worse!Film cuts as they're about to do the same to yet another family. We hope for justice but none comes. Protest on this!
bzeliotis 3 years ago
Haneke says: "I wanted to demostrate how we always become the killer's accomplice when watching this type of film -- NOT self-reflective films like this one, but films that portray violence in an 'acceptable' way."
The problem with this remark is that Funny Games DOES portray violence in an "acceptable," indeed "sexy" way, just like a Hollywood movie.
(Continued)
RoosterCogburn 3 years ago
That last line is arguable. I personally don't think the violence in this movie is acceptable at all. Definitely not sexy. This is the kind of movie you watch once. I won't rent it or buy it or go to see it again, but I'm glad I saw it once.
Taking any one line of what Haneke has said of out context can be easily misconstrued. You must listen to the whole interview (not saying you didn't) and remember everything he has said at once. Some of it is paradoxical/hypocritical...
XavierMac 3 years ago
but are we judging his reasoning, or the quality of the movie? It's not a typical movie because it tries to provide the viewer with an experience and a thought process, not entertainment... this is another concept which is very hard for people, understandably.
XavierMac 3 years ago
Chastening satire can be entertaining, XM. This film is very entertaining, it is also very disturbing. You are quite wrong to say it is not intended as entertainment. See all his other films too, if you haven't already. They are similarly compelling the gratuitous violence is unswervingly self-conscious. You seem to be taking a very rigid line of what constitutes entertainment or enjoyment.
Zarathustra06 2 years ago
(cont.)
That's why, in the clip threads, you can see so many comments from YouTube viewers who LOVE the violence in this movie.
For example:
- "I loved it. They blew Georg's head smooth off!!!"
- "omg i love this movie sooooo much! cant wait to see the remake... yay! lol"
- "Dude this looks so cool... And that little wink to the audience, priceless."
(Continued)
RoosterCogburn 3 years ago
(cont.)
If Haneke REALLY wanted to make an anti-violent movie, he could have used the approach seen in the films of Godard and Fassbinder, where violent scenes, such as gangster shootings, are shown in a schematic, highly stylized way, almost pantomime-fashion. In other words, those two artists truly eliminate all the bloodlust from movie violence... so you can look at it objectively, and not get caught up in its attraction.
Haneke, by contrast, does nothing of the kind.
(Continued)
RoosterCogburn 3 years ago
But he didn't want to make an anti-violent film, he wanted to make an anti-VIOLENCE film. True enough, he lathers on the hypocrisy by being so brutally outright with the movie and not 'artistic' as you say, but herein lies the point. This is a movie for the type of person that thinks he/she loves torture porn. Haneke is trying to punish that person (ie with the several interruptions and the ending) into not liking it, even though, as already stated, it is the same film of the kind he is against.
XavierMac 3 years ago
The fact that people are not realizing is that this film, like any film, can be viewed in any way a person wants. If someone is truly sadistic enough to get pure enjoyment out of this, than so be it. Hopefully that's not many of us. He wasn't trying to cater to those people when he made the original (although I still think it's bull that he pawned off the same movie twice). Nonetheless, he does have a specific point which is that he is against this stuff... don't let a few idiots ruin it for you
XavierMac 3 years ago
Even more so, the conventions that the movie takes (or doesn't take) and the way in which it is done IS artful, if not the same kind of art that is portrayed by Godard. This kind of art is holistic in nature and requires knowledge of the setting in which it is shown, particularly in anthropological knowledge of the modern society. Without this, you're right, it's crap. With those thoughts and backdrop, which he clearly wants you to think about, it's a whole different story.
XavierMac 3 years ago
(cont.)
Haneke rather shows typically stylized, Hollywood violence. And in so doing, he appeals to the bloodlust of the viewer: viewers who like violent torture-porn movies also like Funny Games.
Now, if Haneke was a real film artist, like Godard or Fassbinder, he would be true to his premises and make a film that had no appeal to torture-porn buffs.
But he's a phony who's far more interested in making a hit film than in making art, and has compromised himself accordingly.
RoosterCogburn 3 years ago
And this is, fairly enough, the important half. It's not easy to justify such interruptions in the development of the film, but I thin Haneke points very good points... and erases all possible critics to the excessive weight of chance along the script.
Capitel 4 years ago