March 15, 2008
FUNNY GAMES
As expected, the reactions to Micheal Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games have been as entertaining and frustrating as they have been revealing. Wasn't that part of the deal, seeing that this was always a film to polarize and be discussed?
For a film that has had its acting and technical craft work applauded it sure is hated. Does anyone remember so many prominent film critics getting so angry at a film in recent memory? Not even Norbit got reviews so scathing and full of hate. It is pretty funny actually, and I am hoping Haneke is laughing at the critics as much as they think he is laughing at American film goers. Just read Rex Reed's review. Pathetic. It reveals just how out of touch reviewers are. The existence of this remake is justified in this alone.
To sum up, the reviews have pretty stated, "How dare he judge the great people of this great country?" and "Doesn't he realize how much has changed since 9/11? "
Critics seem to be taking Funny Games as a personal affront since the film stares back at viewer more than the first time around. How can it not? I am going to go out on a limb and say that the self-consciousness that was around a decade ago is indeed still self-consciously self-conscious seeing that this is a fucking REMAKE.
Was it truly necessary to make this film to begin with? Well no. (what American isolationism?) And, perhaps, yes. Why can't Americans understand that there are people in other countries who may hold some sort of resentment towards the United States. I believe that the Bush reelection might have soured some people, but that's just me. It is amusing watching American liberals clench their assholes once someone makes any kind of judgment about something that relates to them in some way. How dare they! Only American liberals can judge.
Truth be told, I share a lot of the anger that Haneke might have. I say might have because he made it pretty clear that it was never his idea to remake this movie and that the only reason he did it was to work with the great actors he has so much respect for. (Naomi Watts is the best thing to happen to Hollywood in a decade.) Isabelle Huppert's mesmerizing performance in the Piano Teacher offers enough proof to say that, despite appearances, Haneke is not a mere masochist and that he loves his actors and just wants to lead them through difficult, yet extraordinary, and important, journeys. Why can't it be said that he does this to his viewers as well. Code Unknown is one of my favorite films because of the amount of respect it gives me.
So is this one respectful? The question is interesting since my answer relates more to my viewing of the original film. It was a rough experience and it felt like a slap in the face. But since when is that a bad thing? I don't think that anyone can argue that the film was spot on the first time around. I just think that the cowboy administration that we elected to represent us is enough reason for us to have to just shut the fuck up and take any criticism we currently get. We ARE violent (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions, and legalized torture anyone?) and we indeed fucked up, so let's own up to it. Getting back to the point: in the introduction to Code Unknown in the R2 dvd, Haneke, in discussing themes in his films, talks briefly about informing the viewer of any sort of manipulation within his films. He feels that this is important because of his general overriding theme of the search for reality. Though we are clearly manipulated in Funny Games, the acknowledgment of the viewer in it is some way a sort of respect (this is, after all, one of the ways this movie can be separated from the Saw films). You can compare this to something by Lars Von Trier--say Dancer in the Dark--in which the viewer is emotionally put through the wringer for the sake of just that.
I don't buy the smugness attacks, or rather, smugness in film has never bothered me, and I would never take it as an insult. Frankly, I think we need more of it. Art is about observation after all, and one cannot necessarily control what one sees, and therefore, one's reactions to it. I am proud to say that I prefer art house cinema to entertainment cinema, and yes, I do judge those who don't somewhat. Always have; always will.
This perhaps sums up the attitudes toward Funny Games. You were either already with it or you aren't. The critics really don't know what to say because It is beyond a film and is more of a theoretical social experiment. What the hell is wrong with that? I sure in hell have more trust in Michael Haneke than I do in Michael Moore. Chris Coen, the producer, is a man will balls and I sure as hell hope there are more out there like him. If not, we are doomed.
No matter the massive repercussions this film will surely bring, Haneke remains one of my favorite directors. He has done what he set out to do: light a fire under people's asses. Again. Now that's entertainment!
Posted by Fran at March 15, 2008 10:33 PM