Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...
Celebrating 17 Years of Film.Biz.Fans.
by Michael Koresky
March 11, 2008 5:37 AM
4 Comments
  • |

REVIEW | Dead Again: Michael Haneke's "Funny Games"

Michael Haneke's 1997 "Funny Games" always seemed more like an instruction manual than a thriller, with the famously dyspeptic Austrian auteur hesitantly going through the genre motions only to teach us something he feels we really ought to learn. Now, as if to put all doubts of his intentional didacticism to rest, Haneke has returned to the scene of his crime (against art?) for his first English-language film, a stringent remake that, in theory at least, takes the guise of the sort of Hollywood product he always intended to deconstruct. The implication is that those who most needed this movie medicine (namely us mindless drones known as Americans) didn't swallow the first time, so perhaps now, unencumbered by nattering subtitles and unfamiliar European faces, we will unwittingly flock to the multiplex for a punishing lesson in audience humility and media critique posing as a home-invasion suspenser.

The problem is that even if one fell for Haneke's limp tsk-tsking the first time around, ten years later his nasty little games of viewer barbarism seem musty, even quaint. What's worse, the entire project suffers from the gall Haneke shows in not only remaking his own film for the "edification" of a wider audience, but in trusting his own original vision so fundamentally and without question that he has chosen not to append or alter it in any significant way.

This speaks to an astonishing artistic hubris, but also of Haneke's refusal to engage with his own work and legacy; one would hope at this point in his career, especially after the refinement of his craft in films such as "Code Unknown" and "Cache," that Haneke would want to slash this old canvas with a razor. Instead, he offers it up again, like a paper written in freshman colloquium, without changing the text. (He'll undoubtedly get a free pass for his own carbon copy while Gus Van Sant's problematic but more artistically honest "Psycho" remake will continue to be trounced for daring to plunder hallowed work. The latter spied quizzically at its own creation and process; Haneke asks no questions of himself, positioned immutable as moral taskmaster.)

Naturally the film has altered inasmuch as it features a new cast, this time of reliable name actors, being put through the psychological ringer. Here, it's Naomi Watts and Tim Roth as the basically anonymous, white married couple being mentally and physically tortured, along with their young, blond (natch) son, in their Long Island summer home, at the hands of Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett's unnamed gruesome twosome, who, as in the original, wear immaculate golf whites and disconcertingly polite smiles as they enact their terrible deeds upon the family (or more palpably, us).

To give credit where it's due, Haneke is masterful at setting up his horror-film scenario, at mounting tension in the initial encounters, and at establishing the space of the home (even if he does banally identify it as balefully bourgeois with its catalog pastels; as "Juno"'s Jennifer Garner would ask, "Custard or cheesecake?"). And the cast comes through--Watts, with her customary, terrific transparency; Roth, with his neutered, hangdog ordinariness; Pitt, with his measured, baby-blue calculation. If Haneke's greatest feat is simply in harnessing these actors' well-rehearsed talents for his own well-rehearsed project (we've all witnessed Watts's intense phlegmatic crying jags in "Mulholland Drive" and "21 Grams," and Roth's blood-gurgling mewling in "Reservoir Dogs"; and Haneke must have seen Pitt's narrow-eyed psychotic calm in "Murder by Numbers"), then it only magnifies this endeavor's overall fish-in-a-barrel feel.

Yet even these good-natured actors fall prey to Haneke's mind-numbing provocations, none more glaringly than Watts, who is forced to undergo her cruelest physical gauntlet (an endless single take in which she must make her way across the house, her body contorted in duct-taped bondage) clad only in sweat-and-blood soaked bra and panties -- one of the very few notable changes from the original film. Further rubbing our noses in our own prurience, or Haneke's wryly cynical way of getting viewers to keep watching? This is, after all, a film that actively encourages us to walk out, so completely does it deny traditional satisfactions and table-turning comeuppances (such as in recent "torture porn," like the "Hostel" dreck) and so often does it harbor audience-punishing conceits (like blasting, without warning, ear-splitting death metal).

For Haneke to pull the same tricks from the same worn hat implies that he thinks we need them; yet perhaps he's really the one who needs it -- in order to certify his vitality, to ensure that he leaves some sort of cultural imprint. Perhaps, then, the most fitting criticism of all is to admit the obvious: the U.S. remake of "Funny Games" will likely remain as rarefied a title as its predecessor, a naughty Netflix rental that gets its greatest word of mouth from curious teenage boys who've already worn out their copies of "Saw IV."

Michael Koresky is co-founder and editor of Reverse Shot and the managing editor and staff writer of the Criterion Collection.]

4 Comments

  • bellygirl | June 9, 2008 2:38 AMReply

    Thank you, Daniel. You took the words right out of my mouth!

  • daniel hui | March 19, 2008 12:12 PMReply

    I won't talk about Haneke's hubris or intentions as they're immaterial to me when I watch a film. But I find it interesting that Haneke is criticized for the 'message' in Funny Games, while critics hail other 'manipulative' masters like Hitchcock, Kubrick and Spielberg because they manipulate for entertainment's sake. If Funny Games were manipulative but its 'message' were hidden under layers of 'cinematic thrills,' - like Spielberg's 'Munich' or even the latest Palme d'Or winner '4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days' - I wonder how critics would take to his work instead. Would everyone praise him for delivering white-knuckled suspense? Indeed, I don't see any of the 'messages' in these films being addressed.



    The question here is not of the evil of violent movies, but of the audience's willingness to be manipulated. I find it ironic that audiences are so eager to be manipulated, and yet when a film makes the manipulation its text instead of its subtext, it is criticized for being too didactic. Funny Games is no more a message film than many other Hollywood films.

  • michael koresky | March 13, 2008 7:44 AMReply

    Thanks, Jordan. I would never distrust or doubt the intentions of the great Pasolini, Fassbinder...or that matter, any number of great, hubristic filmmakers who have made unparalleled works: Herzog, Coppola, even occasionally Von Trier. My point isn't that a filmmaker can't be hubristic, but that in this particular case, Haneke shows such an irresolute character in trotting out the exact same ideas he lay down ten years ago that it betrays a certain lack of willingness to wrestle with even his own ideas. One would assume in the time hence, when he put forth such provocative films as Code Unknown, Cache, even Time of the Wolf, that he would want to revise some of the juvenility on display in this early work. All I'm saying is that I slightly distrust an artist who so forthrightly believes in his own work that he doesn't question it himself...and certainly for a film such as this, where it would have benefited greatly from a filmmaker who needs to turn the camera on his own intentions a little. Fassbinder, if you need to raise the comparison, spent his career revising and updating his own ideas, constantly calling the task of remaking and reconstituting history into question. Haneke doesn't seem willing to do the same thing.

  • jordanmattos | March 12, 2008 5:15 AMReply

    Great review Michael. Cept I find it problematic that you consider a filmmaker trusting his vision "so fundamentally" an issue. I get what you mean, but I don't think Haneke's hubris is illegitimate, and actually, so many of my favorite filmmakers actually - Fassbinder, Pasolini - were dripping with it. I saw this at Sundance, and will gladly sit through it again when it comes out.