Funny Games

When I found out that the 2008 version of Funny Games was a shot-for-shot remake of the original, and even read things that said that you needn't bother with this one if you had seen the 1998 version, I immediately dismissed the idea of ignoring it, simply because of how engrossing and well-made the 1998 film was, despite minor flaws. I thought that the idea of there being no room for comparison between both films was ludicrous, because there is always room for differences in terms of how well certain scenes are shot, and there's also obviously room for differences in terms of the performances, seeing as all the actors in this remake are different from those who starred in the original. With that said, I've given the 2008 version a 7/10 rating, which is the same rating I gave the original. However, that doesn't mean that the films are 100% identical, nor does it mean that there isn't anything interesting to be said about Michael Haneke's U.S. version of his own film.

Both films are disturbing as hell, but in a way that it is very hard to look away from the screen. If we actually SAW the gore and violence on-screen, that might lead us to want to turn away (like some often do during scenes of graphic violence in other films), but since we don't actually see any of that in Funny Games, we are left absolutely enthralled by what we see on screen, and sometimes by what we can't quite see because it isn't quite in the camera's range, but we can still hear it and feel it. I've said it when talking about films like The Blair Witch Project, and I'll say it again, it is soooo much more effective when things like this are left to the imagination. Way more horrifying when you don't see something that is meant to inspire terror, since it leaves it up to your mind... and playing with the mind and the dirty scenarios it often comes up with is exactly what Haneke sets out to do.

The performances by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart as the three members of the family that is terrorized are pitch-perfect and equally as great as those given in the original by their counterparts (Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Muhe and Stefan Clapczynski). I had no doubt that Watts, who always gives great performances (even in so-so movies like the recent Eastern Promises, which was way overrated), would pull off the critical part of Ann with no problems, and that's exactly what she does. This character is in nearly every scene of the film and the movie rests a lot on her display of emotions, so it may have been disastrous had a less-than-stellar actress been cast.

As for our villains (who are undoubtedly the reason why this is such an engrossing movie-watching experience)... well, the actors who play Peter and Paul in both films cancel each other out in terms of their performances. Frank Giering played Peter in the 1998 version, and he is slightly more successful than Brady Corbet at being the sidekick of the film's central evildoer. Arno Frisch did an adequate job playing Paul in the 1998 film, and his sly, malevolent nature was always palpable, but Michael Pitt is absolutely diabolical in the 2008 version. It never ceases to amaze me how a great director can actually get an actor who has given horrendously bad performances in other films to do amazing work. (I recently watched Silk, a film that could've at least been a decent dramatic period piece were it not for Pitt's lead performance, which was incredibly bad and devoid of any emotion) In both films, the first time that the "fourth wall" is broken and Paul interacts with the audience is when Anna is looking for the dog and Paul is messing with her, saying "warmer" or "colder" (depending on how close she is to finding the dog). In the 1998 version, Frisch's Paul gives us a wink that gives us an idea of his sly nature, but in the 2008 version, Pitt's Paul looks at us without winking, but he does so with a dreadfully haunting smile that is far more effective. Likewise, the last time that he breaks the "fourth wall" is actually the final shot of the movie, which remains on a still shot of Paul smiling while the credits come up on the screen. Frisch gives us a knowing smile that is adequate enough, I suppose, but there is no comparison with the look on Pitt's face, which is nothing short of purely demented. He's that good.

What makes both Haneke films very good movies that still don't quite reach the level of greatness? The extended interlude we get midway through the film when our villains disappear from the stage for a long time, leaving us with the family members who are still alive. I realize that moments such as the long take in which the TV is on while the victims are struggling on the floor are meant to be uncomfortable, but they get to a point that they are too long and boring, which is not at all what this film is about. Eventually, tedium that is meant to get under the skin turns into sheer monotony that no longer gets to you emotionally that much. The film would be better if its two vile creatures were on-screen during this interlude, still playing their sadistic games. In fact, I wonder why Haneke wanted to provide this respite to us. If he wanted the film to be a constantly disturbing experience, he wouldn't have given us a chance to get a breather like that. Still, both versions of Funny Games certainly represent a unique filmmaking achievement. The 2008 version, while equal in quality to the original, is certainly still worth seeing for its performances and for the simple fact that it stands on its own as an emotionally-arresting film.

7/10