Review of Funny Games (1997) by Erik T — 08 Jul 2008

Funny Games seems straight-forward in its description: two youths torture a family. But that really doesn't prepare you for what this film is about: making us examine our role, our assumptions, and our expectations as passive observers of entertainment violence. Towards that end, Funny Games breaks a lot of rules about character development, plot, the fourth wall, even logic itself, but it does so towards a useful goal; jarring us a little, and making us question just what it means to be a movie goer.

The film is, at heart, a thriller, and a decent one at that. The mood slowly boils, and there are a couple of scenes and shots that are nearly accusations as Haenke puts us in the shoes of the perpetrators. It is an excellently designed thriller that is also a critique of torture horror. Funny Games not only establishes a thick, tension-filled atmosphere, but also takes every opportunity to chastise you for your desire to see more. Haenke knows your rooting for the "good guys", so his direction takes several opportunities to show that he is God of this universe, and he'll do what he wants with his characters whether you like it or not. Along the way, Haenke violates our expectations as film watchers, even veering into surrealism to make his point.

Still, it isn't all rulers-across-knuckles. After he's done violating you, he invites you to question the validity of what he's done through a small exchange of dialogue at the end of the film. The two protagonists argue over what is and isn't acceptable within a narrative's structure, specifically related to sci-fi plot where a man is trying to return to "reality". As one of them points out, the man can't return to "reality", because no matter what realm he is in he is still in a fictional one, and so, anything goes. They don't come to agreement, so it's up to us to decide: is anything a film does, no matter how manipulative or pretentious, justifiable within its own ruleset, or is there a superset of rules for all fictions that dictate what is narratively acceptable? How you answer that will probably tell you if you'll if this film is your cup of tea or not.

I apologize for being short on details, but I feel there is much to be gained by watching this movie in an absolutely clueless state. The less you know, the more it will pull you in. I'm also trying to keep the review succinct; I could go on for several pages about tiny parts I love and what I think they contribute to the film's thesis. Ultimately, though, that would be to nobody's benefit. :).

Anyway, if you can't tell already, I highly recommend this film (or the 2008 remake, which is virtually identical). I'm not saying you'll like it. My best friend, who recommended it to me, hates it. In fact, nearly all of his fellow screenwriting students despise it. But see it anyway. It should grease your cinematic thought gears and give you something good to argue about with your fellow cinema lovers for at least a couple of weeks.