My Conundrum about Funny Games

Let's talk Funny Games. I've been wanting to post something about this film for awhile, but I still couldn't process my feelings about it. I needed to try to wrap my head around the fact that I really like it and really don't like it at the same time.

My introduction to the film was pure chance - or perhaps it was fate. I had not heard word one about it prior to running across the snazzy cover at the video store. I've now seen both Michael Haneke's original version and the American version, but the one I blindly picked up at the video store that day was the American one and that will be the one I'll be referring to in this discussion. Haneke directed both movies and the American version is a shot for shot, line for line, and action for action remake of the original, so they are basically the same movie.

Anyway, like I said, the DVD cover is what attracted me to the movie. It's a plain white cover with gloved hands resting on a bloody golf club. That combined with the oxymoronic title of Funny Games (okay, the name itself is not oxymoron but rather an oxymoron to the picture, I mean) made me pick it up and look at it. I read the synopsis, saw that it starred Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, and thought it sounded like a good thriller.

Mmm, not so much. Instead what I got was something completely different. Don't get me wrong, I saw the skill of the movie right off the bat. This is one of THOSE movies; one of those artsy-fartsy, never gets a single shot wrong kind of movies. There is no music save for the credit sequence. Every shot is meticulously and methodically set up and executed. Every action by every actor and every line they say is precisely and specifically planned out to milk an expected reaction out of the viewer. The technical skill is obvious and that is why I like the movie so much. It's a good movie.

But I don't like what the movie says - or what people have interpreted it to be saying. To be clear about what issue I'm addressing here, here's a true story: My initial reaction to the film was that it was emotionally exhausting, but again, a good movie. So when I found it a the video store for cheap, I immediately picked it up for purchase. My sister was with me at the time and asked what the movie was about. I told her - family held hostage and crap by these two psychos blah blah blah and here's what she said: "Does the little kid get killed?" "Yeah, actually, he gets shot in the head." "Why do you want to watch a movie where a little boy gets shot?" HARSH. And she said that with all seriousness. I actually felt really bad, like, almost dirty. I know she was probably only saying that because she has a young son of her own (well actually she has two now) and so she is probably more personally affected by that than I am at my point in life, but still. Her comment had me seriously considering if there was something wrong with me.

I've scoffed at such perceived notions of horror and other violent film fans in the past. But the nature of how the violence was depicted in Funny Games and my liking it coupled with my sister's comment made me look into the issue more. I read many discussions on the internet regarding this movie and its message. A lot of what I read interpreted the director's meaning as a comment on violent movies and why people watch them. Funny Games' synopsis promises a lot of violence but never actually shows it. The constant breaking of the fourth wall and the rewind scene tease the viewer about what they are going to and not going to see, and we should know right away from these scenes that the good guys are not going to win in this situation. The bad guys had the control from the beginning and throughout, so it seems like the movie is asking, "Why/Are you going to keep watching this? You know it's going to turn out bad for the good guys. Do you want to see them die?!"

The experience of watching Funny Games for the first time was frankly rather unsettling, uncomfortable, and a trip to a place I didn't want to go, personally. I didn't want to be labeled a villain for enjoying violent movies, nor did I want to be confronted with why I like watching them in the first place. I haven't been hardcore into to horror for as long as I have been into more intense and dramatic media overall. The harder to watch, the more emotional... the more I wanted to see. In real life, I'm one of those emotional-bottlers. I may be feeling a lot of serious stuff, but I'd never tell anyone about it. So I learned that I could feel any and all things by experiencing them vicariously through film. Once you do that, however, you basically have no choice but to become emotionally involved in almost everything you watch (or at least anything serious enough to evoke such a response).

And so because of the story of Funny Games and the superb way it was acted, of course I was emotionally invested in the characters and their plight. Sure, I wanted to see some violence if it was presented, but not against the family. In this sense then, the director failed. Putting the most insane violence in one movie - with limbs flying off, decapitations, death by saw or whatever - doesn't do anything for me in the least emotionally. But kill one child off-screen with a shotgun and I'm a wreck. It's all relative to the situation put before you on the screen.

From "7 Days"

Typing this now, I am also for the umpteenth time watching 7 Days, one of the most cold and depressing and emotional movies I've seen in a long time. But at the same time, it is an absolutely gorgeous movie. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, and it deals with a lot of tough issues. Another true story: My brother-in-law borrowed The Last House on the Left 2009 from me, and when he came back from watching it, he was like, "You like this movie?! That scene where the girl is raped?" Again, I felt bad, but I had to tell myself that yes, I do like this movie - love it, in fact - because I think it is a beautifully done picture, including the rape scene. Art is not The Forty Year Old Virgin. Art is those pictures and movies that dare to show you the real world and its harsh realities. The intent of art is to get those emotions out of you and really make you feel them. Funny Games, 7 Days, and The Last House on the Left all do these things very well, but the dark places they get into and the issues they force you to confront make some people very uncomfortable. And they don't understand why others do actually like watching that kind of stuff.

I'm talking in circles, I'm sure, but Funny Games and my sister's comment to me about it have been bothering me in the back of my mind ever since it happened. I know that I'm no serial killer and watching a hundred horror films will never make me go out and kill a person in real life, but why do I get all giddy and think it's awesome when a guy's head is chopped off and blood spurts everywhere? It's all part of the gag and the fun and escapism these movies provide and not because I think violent death is "cool.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you have ever asked yourself that serious question of you like to watch dozens of people getting killed on screen, ask yourself how you react to a movie like Funny Games. Stories of real-life violence or violence in a movie that is presented in a more realistic way should still make you sick and disgusted, and if that's the truth, then you're okay. Go out and watch all the horror movies you want and know that it's alright. Most of you have probably already gotten over this issue, but in the weeks it has taken me to write this post, I know now that other people don't have to be okay with me watching these movies. I do. And you know what? I know I'm fine.

Movie Review: Seven Days (Les Sept Jours Du Talion, 2010)

My introduction into the amazing Halloween month of October will (sadly) probably be no different than my previous posts. I do not have the confidence to make lists of the best movies to watch on Halloween night or anything like that, for I readily admit that there are still huge holes in my horror movie watching experiences. Perhaps this month I can continue with my Catching Up On The Classics thread of reviews, and by the end of the month, my horror-lover cred will have a few more points than it did at the beginning of the month.

But that's for later. My first review of October is not a classic horror film, but rather a brand spanking new revenge film from those wonderful Canadian folks called Seven Days.

First of all, a nod to James at Behind the Couch for reviewing this film a few weeks ago (read it here). I caught the synopsis and his thoughts about it and was very intrigued by the plot. I'm always into revenge stories - but perhaps more so the ongoing and never-ending debate about morality with revenge. Both sides are justified, and yet neither side is justified.

Seven Days is the methodical and quiet tale of Bruno and Sylvie Hamel, a family broken by the rape and murder of their daughter, Jasmine, only eight years old. Despite the police catching the killer, Anthony Lemaire, Bruno decides to take his own kind of justice. He kidnaps Lemaire and takes him to a remote cottage where he will keep and torture him until killing him after seven days, on his daughter's birthday.

Once happily married, now torn apart by tragedy.

For me, this is ultimate revenge tale setup. We've had revenge movies of guys whose wives or girlfriends were killed by drug lords or whatever, but those scenarios are not powerful enough. This one - the loss of life and innocence of a young girl and her father taking revenge - is the perhaps the only revenge tale I would understand. Why always the father? Simple. The mother is supposed to be the mother. She's supposed to be nurturing and understanding and not wanting any harm to come to anyone, either the perpetrators or especially her own family. She never wants her husband to do anything rash to get him into trouble. Maybe it's that age-old thing of women and girls wanting a man there to protect him. Maybe it's the showing of real raw emotion when a man lashes out against someone who hurt someone he loves.

I give the movie credit for that, but at the same time, this is the not the most original revenge story. Seems like there have been a lot of avenging fathers in films recently (The Last House on the Left, Taken). And yet it seems to work all the time, at least for me. And original or not, I still think this film is effective on a high level because of the different issues it brings up related to revenge and morality.

Legally, of course, Bruno is completely in the wrong. Taking the law into your own hands is a no-no, but what I think this film did that was interesting was having Bruno kidnap and torture Lemaire AFTER he was in the custody of the police, with overwhelming DNA evidence as to his guilt. Sure, he might have been able to get away with a lesser sentence at trial but I'm thinking not many would show much leniency to child rapist/murderer. Bruno would almost undoubtedly have gotten justice for his daughter, yet he chose to think he knew better than the law and take him before he could be tried by a judge. This makes it hard for the audience to side with him.

Pretty fucking brutal.

The rapist himself even gives a convincing argument against Bruno's actions. During the torture, Lemaire tells Bruno his tale of woe, of being abused as a child. That certainly wasn't enough to get me on his side, but then he said something that was like a smack in the face. He said, "I need help. Don't try to teach me a lesson by introducing more violence into my life. More violence is not going to solve my problem, but only make me worse." Not verbatim, I know, but that was the gist of what he meant. Even if Lemaire was lying about his abuse, I believe he's right. Violence against one's abusers may feel good for the moment, but it doesn't solve anything. But then again, child molesters are not generally known to be rehabilitative. They are the ones most likely to slip. So there we are again, going back and forth on the issue.

Bruno's wife never thinks what he did was right, although that could be her harboring some anger at Bruno for his (supposed) negligence in first noticing their daughter's disappearance. Frankly, I didn't like that bitch. They are both grieving tremendously and yet she always manages to slip in a comment about how he didn't listen to the messages sooner and that it was basically his fault that their daughter was dead. I know it was probably just the hurt talking, but there was a time, during their screaming match on the phone, that I truly believed that she thought it was his fault. And I cannot forgive an accusation like that.

The torture scenes are at times brutal but not overly graphic. I read one review that compared this film to the Saw franchise, The Devil's Rejects and Wolf Creek. Nonsense. Believe me, Seven Days has nothing in common with any of those films. There's a sledgehammer, off-the-cuff surgery, and a severe whipping with a length of chain but it is nothing that most viewers wouldn't be able to handle. It's the words coming from the rapist's mouth and the father's uncontrollable and almost insane grief that will make this film hard for some people to watch.

The ultimate loss.

The most disturbing part of the movie for me, however, had nothing to do with the torture. Before the title credits roll, we have the whole set up of the girl going off to walk around the neighborhood by herself to deliver invitations for her birthday party. She never makes it back. When Bruno is showing the police the route she would have taken, they discover her dead body. Nothing is left to the imagination as the father hunches dumbfounded and grief-stricken at her side. He sees the blood on her thighs and skirt. He sees her underwear around her ankle. And worst of all, he sees - and therefore, we see - the blank stare of death on her blue face, open-eyed and afraid. That was the worst part of the movie to me. The close-up shot of the girl's dead face actually made me shut my eyes and look away.

Another interesting thing this movie brings to the table is Bruno's refusal to speak to Lemaire even while he's torturing him. I was expecting him to be spouting off obscenities and saying things much in the style of Christopher Meloni on Law and Order: SVU. "Do you like raping little girls?" That kind of stuff. But he doesn't say a word to him. He just goes into the room were Lemaire is strung up like a pig carcass and starts the day's work. Does he prefer to let his actions talk? Or can he just not bring himself to say to the man all the things he is feeling about him and what he did? Is it too hard for him to do that?

Detective Mercure.

There is also a subplot dealing with the detective who is trying to track Bruno down (having kidnapped Lemaire right from a police transport van and leaving his own car behind, he really didn't make it all that difficult for them to figure out what happened). This detective, Mercure, lost his wife recently when she was shot in a grocery store robbery. We see him obsessively watching the surveillance footage of her murder in every scene where he is at home. You would think that he would be the most conflicted about the situation, to agree with Bruno or not, yet Mercure goes after Bruno hardcore, insisting that it is Bruno he is trying to save and not Lemaire.

At the end of the film, as it should be, we are given no answer. Bruno is taken into custody himself by police and asked by a reporter if he still thinks vengeance is right. He says no. He is then asked if he regrets what he has done. He says no. I don't think that it's that he hasn't learned anything from his experience and the conflicting opinions around him. There's just no right or wrong answer to the issue. Legally it's wrong, but the heart and soul has more power over any law, and people have a hard time making up their mind on what they really believe. Bruno's dreamy vision of his daughter suggests that he realizes the pointlessness of his actions because she will still be dead, but then his last line of the film tells us that he would probably do it again the same way if he had the chance. Back and forth on the issue again.

Seven Days is shot beautifully. No music whatsoever to get in the way of the emotional journey, and washed out colors bring a very cold and detached feeling to the film. There is no warmth and no relief from the horrors you are witnessing. Shots are well-composed and linger just long enough to really milk the emotion out of the viewer. The acting is superb by all main characters, including the little girl. Two very big thumbs up.