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.

My favorite horror remake

The third and final classic horror film remake on my list is my personal favorite, although not necessarily the best. The Last House on the Left remake is perhaps a better film cinematically in my belief, however, I still contend that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the best because it was much more successful and popular and appealed to a much wider audience.

This is probably going to be very long because I love this movie so much, so I apologize right now!

The Last House on the Left is another Wes Craven classic and was in fact his very first feature film. He had a very intriguing story inspired by an Ingmar Bergman film (The Virgin Spring), but perhaps not all the resources at the time to make the best adaptation of his vision. The resulting film was a shocking and violent gore-fest that put the country in a tizzy. People went absolutely nuts over this movie. It received an X rating when first sent to the ratings board and was banned in several countries for many years. Roger Ebert, however, liked the movie (yet he railed against I Spit on Your Grave - I don't get it), and over the years it has gained more credibility and admiration and is now considered a classic.

But classic or no, there was definite room for improvement on this film. Another first film by a first time director with a low budget and no-name actors. All of that turned out well, though. Some of the actors were in fact very impressive in their roles - David Hess as the leader of the gang Krug, and Lucy Grantham as Phyllis stand out the most to me. No, the biggest problem I have with the film is in terms of story.

Okay, for those that have been reading this and have no idea what this movie is that I'm talking about, here's a synopsis of the original. Two teenage girls, Mari and Phyllis, go into the big city one night to go to a concert. Trying to score some weed from a guy on the street, they end up in the clutches of a murderous little "family" of convicts. After some rape and humiliation in the woods, Phyllis is stabbed to death and Mari is shot. The convicts are left without a car and seek help at a nearby house which happens to be the house of Mari's parents. The parents discover what happened to their daughter and seek bloody revenge on the gang.

In my opinion, this basic storyline is a fantastic one to explore. However, Craven misses a few beats along the way. First of all, the scenes of rape and humiliation are interspersed with comical scenes of two bumbling sheriffs as they search for Mari, who has been reported missing by her parents. Craven has explained, and I certainly understand, his intent with these scenes - to create some uncomfortable-ness in the viewer by juxtaposing these horrific acts of brutality with an almost Three Stooges reenactment, with some wacky 70s music to go along with it. I don't think this was the best choice for the film. The second part of the film, the revenge by the parents, is completely dependent on the initial crime. It would have been so much more effective to concentrate on getting the emotion out of the audience for what happened to these girls, to make them so sad and pissed off at the people that hurt them that they will totally go along with the father taking a chainsaw to the guy who raped his daughter.

This is the main part where the remake succeeds. The story was stripped down to the basic emotional elements - here's the crime and here's the revenge. The first scene is the murderous gang busting Krug out of a police car and brutally killing the two police officers, so we immediately see how despicable these people are and just what they are capable of. The Collingwood family seems very loving, but have experienced some trauma recently from the death of a son. Mari does not die in this remake, so their revenge on her rape and attempted murder is more about protecting her and salvaging the remaining parts of their already torn family.

The other part of the film that was greatly improved upon was the scene of the discovery of Mari after her attack. In the original, Mari's dead body is found by her parents near the lake. The scene is literally less than minute long with hardly any real believable emotion by the parents over their daughters death. Boom, she's dead, next scene. They spent longer on the scene where the sheriffs get a ride from the chicken lady! The remake takes the scene much more seriously. In both films, the father, John, is a doctor but he actually gets to use his skills to try to save his daughter's life in the remake. This makes for an extremely emotional scene of him cauterizing her bullet wound, sticking a tube in her side to fixed a collapsed lung, and, as he's checking her for other injuries, discovering that she was raped.

Tony Goldwyn is fantastic in this scene, in the whole movie really. He's a talented actor that I had all but forgotten about and I'm so glad that he chose to do this movie (he was hesitant at first because of the violence). I'm still on the fence about Monica Potter in the role as the mother because at times it seemed like she almost didn't want to be there, to be in the movie, but then at times her crying and emotion was very believable. I'm not sure if it's not just her style of acting, though. She gives the same kind of awkwardness in the only other movies I recall seeing her in, Saw and Con Air. Going into the movie, I was most excited to see the actor playing Krug and if he could be as good as David Hess. Garrett Dillahunt does not disappoint as Krug. He's apparently played a bad guy before and it seems to be his forte. A mustache and beard and some black hair and totally looks the part of a bad-ass - but thankfully, not a bad-ass that you sort of like, which would have ruined the movie. He is a bad guy that you never like right from the start. He taunts the policeman in the beginning as the man is dying, he treats his son horribly, it's his decision not to let the girls go when they have a chance, he stabs Paige, he rapes Mari, and he shoots Mari. He has no respect for human life, therefore the audience has no desire to see him live. I would love to see this actor in more stuff.

I could go on and on about the directing and cinematography in the film as another way it improved on the original. I think, however, that the improvements in story were more important in the remake being about 10 times better than the original. I will say that I was incredibly impressed by the camera angles, composition, coloring, and just overall cinematography in the film. Some people look at me weird when I call this a beautiful film, but it really and truly is. There are also other things I could talk about, like responding to the controversy about the violence in the film, but that is perhaps left to another blog.