My review of the film "Funny Games"

There’s No Fun in Funny Games

Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke went back to the drawing board in 2007 and redirected an American version of his previous film Funny Games shot-by-shot. Known for arising social issues in his work, Haneke takes a crack at deconstructing violence in a particularly reflexive manner. Falling under the horror/thriller genre, the conventions are frequently subverted and criticized throughout the film. Haneke demands his audience to watch a moving picture of the genre, while analyzing it simultaneously.

Funny Games is an incontestable battle between two theatrical genres, the first being Aristotelian tragedy. It implies a terrible occurrence befalling innocent unsuspecting individuals. It doesn’t focus on tragic events, but on how they affect the protagonist(s) and determine their fate. By empathizing with the film's victims, the viewer is allowed to better understand the consequences of violence. At the same time, Haneke makes use of Bertold Brecht’s distanciation technique found in Brechtian Theater, which in turn shatters the cinematic “fourth wall”. Distanciation is employed in order to interrupt the viewer’s process of identification with a particular character and allow room for contemplation instead. Here, the audience feels little or no empathy. Instead, one watches the violence as a distanced observer, removed from the actions taking place entirely and immersed in the mindset of “It’s just a movie”. This film is purely about duality. It is contradictory through and through. We are constantly asked to empathize with the characters and the next minute we are forcefully detached.

            The majority of film-goers want their entertainment to be a fun – or in this case funny - thrill ride, completely free from any sort of responsibility. In Funny Games however, the struggle occurs within the viewer rather than the fictional characters. Haneke makes us pull back and question "What exactly entertains us?" And even pushes it further..."What is entertainment?" The director dares to involve his audience in his work, inciting us to react to extreme situations. We have no choice but to feel the pain of the physically and psychologically tortured Farber family and then we are suddenly distanced and asked to reflect upon the events. The film is not meant to be mere entertainment, but a critique of entertainment in and of itself. This is the reason behind entertainment and pleasure being the answer to Anna Farber’s frequently asked question "Why are you doing this?" The violence being critiqued in Funny Games is the same that can be found in the thousands of horror/thriller films that are made for the sole amusement of audiences. Nevertheless, this is clearly not a motion picture that one watches to obtain leisurely pleasure, but to reflect and ask "What pleasures me and why?" In result, Haneke’s vision cannot be pigeonholed as a horror film because it brings much more to the proverbial table.

Funny Games also deals with the topic of complicity. Peter is considered the sidekick. He is present and participates in all the violent actions towards the Farber family. He however doesn't personally harm any of them. This makes the audience reassess their role in society by nonchalantly taking in violence in a practically apathetic manner. Are we ultimately all "Peters" participating in and accepting violence? “Why don’t you just kill us”, asks Anna and the perpetrator replies, “You shouldn’t forget the importance of entertainment.” Although being a clear protest against violence, this dialogue is directed directly to the viewer. Yes – it can imply that society these days is gluttonous, never satisfied, and always wants more to a disturbing level, but these characters are abusing their victims for our pleasure. In sum, we the audience is taking part in crime.

The director wishes to trigger us and urges us to react to violence and its current portrayal in modern cinema. In accordance with his previous film Benny's Video (1992), Heneke prides himself in making a social commentary on violence and the way the masses take it in and consume it as if it were any other generic theme or topic. He chooses to film television sets as mediators when violence occurs. In Benny's Video, you are prodded to stare at a film within a film of a murder, while in Funny Games you are incited to watch a Nascar race on a blood-drenched TV; all this amid hollers of agony. Haneke denies the audience’s expectations of ketchup-blood and gore by making almost all the violence occur off-screen, leaving the viewer with nothing but sounds of struggle and pain. Hence, what we don't see creates a more powerful effect on the viewer. We are left with a more gruesome image; the one we concoct in our minds. With one sense being denied, another's intensity is heightened. Heneke creates meaning by ultimately NOT giving the audience the desired image.

Another intriguing instance in the film is once the Nascar "film "(or televised event)-within-a-film scene is over. We are immediately pulled back at a distance in a full shot during a long take of Anne Farber struggling; only to press the television's off button rather than tending to her murdered son. Here, Heneke decides to strip away all numinous elements of parenthood. We as viewers are again denied our expectations.

He subverts the conventions once again in his selection of “the bad guys”.  Paul and Peter appear prim and proper and come off too cordial for comfort. The duo is enrobed in strictly white garments that traditionally symbolize purity and catharsis. This color is usually associated with the good. Heneke though decides to camouflage his culprits by anglicizing them by their names and colors of their clothes. Also, the offender’s golf gloves can be regarded as symbols of belonging to the middle-upper class, which is not common for most criminals. The well off tend to not get their hands dirty, but this emblematic piece of clothing can also hint towards the “criminal”. The two refuse to take responsibility for their actions and don’t feel any remorse. A spectator can easily be baffled by a polite murder, hence Haneke gives a new meaning to the saying “Kill with kindness”.

On the topic of sound, Heneke evidently manipulates his audience. The sound and music found in Funny Games is mostly diegetic. During the opening credits, the Farber family is playing a guessing game of classical music on their car ride towards their country house. Another example is when Paul is chasing Georgie Farber in the neighbors’ house and puts on a record. Other than that, the film is basically composed of room noise to install the viewer in the action and make them a part of the film living with the characters. The only instance of non-diegetic music is that of Naked City’s Bonehead. It is out of context but used as a distanciation method to alert the viewer that this family is going to have an undesirable upcoming fate. The song is further employed when Georgie is prepared to shoot Paul with a rifle. We are cued to feel anxious and pushed to the edge of our seats until we see that the gun is unfortunately not loaded. 

On a cinematographic note, Funny Games, although being an American carbon copy of its European version, stays true to form. The film isn’t a plot weaved together by “shot - counter-shots” and quick cutting. Haneke utilizes the long take to keep us locked in the moment and appreciate engaged performances through close ups of facial expressions depicting real human emotion. A striking scene is that of a golf ball slowly rolling down the hall and into the center of a mid-shot of the doorframe as the father, George Farber, automatically associates this image with the return of the white-dressed torturers from the tormented look in his eyes. This asserts that Haneke doesn’t give you all the answers and images you want or expect to see. He doesn’t guide the viewer, he trusts his viewer as a meaning-producer.

All things considered, Haneke doesn’t desire to please his spectators. He’s not the least bit interested in giving you the plot on a silver platter, nor patting you on the back in the end telling you “it’s OK”. His main concern is conveying an idea and producing a responsible film. He is undoubtedly an auteur because he does this by subverting the conventions of the genre at hand and creating a cinematic dichotomy that shakes the viewers and breaks the illusion.