Review: Funny Games (2007)

by

20, January 2012Horror, Michael Haneke, Reviews, Spotlight

Cast: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt
Director: Michael Haneke
Country: France | Austria | Germany | Italy | USA
Genre: Horror
Official Trailer: Here

The following review continues Ronan Doyle’s Michael Haneke Director Spotlight.

Haneke’s 1997 Funny Games remains his most controversial film, its combination of the bleakness of his darkest works and the caustic indictment of its own medium’s violent voyeurism earning it a key place in the annals of film history. Ten years later, the intermittent arrival of the widespread fetishisation of violence and the proliferation of the so-called “torture porn” in mainstream cinema in some ways proved Haneke justified in his concerns, prompting him to remake the film shot for shot, but this time in English with an American cast. The idea of Funny Games had always been to critique the way in which the majority of audiences engaged vicariously with violence in cinema, particularly those in the United States (the very fact that the original, despite being in German, was officially entitled Funny Games is a telling remnant of this original intention). With the benefit of a critically acclaimed body of work behind him, Haneke was at last at a point after the success of Hidden where he could finally find the financing to make the film according to his original vision.

The rationale behind Haneke’s re-exploration of ideas he had first articulated a decade prior is the most interesting aspect of this Funny Games, and one that says much about the man as a filmmaker dedicated to disseminating his message. With the prestige of multiple awards at Cannes and other festivals behind him, Haneke was by 2007 in a prime position to do almost anything he wanted. His decision to use this growing influence to cast big-name stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Michael Pitt in an Americanised Funny Games reflects a deeply admirable aspect of his commitment as a filmmaker. In its first incarnation, it was an unexpected breakthrough work that demolished any vicarious expectations of horror audiences. His effort to bring this message to those who, as he saw it, were most in need of it is an extremely respectable pursuit, demonstrating just how much of a vocation cinema is to Haneke. Commendable though the reasons behind the film are, however, there are a number of inescapable realities that detract from the effect of their outcome.

His decision to use this growing influence to cast big-name stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Michael Pitt in an Americanised Funny Games reflects a deeply admirable aspect of his commitment as a filmmaker.

The problem with the American Funny Games lies in the simple fact that it is, all things considered, unnecessary. Haneke’s aim was to reach that same mainstream market he had missed out on with his original, the kind of audience which would not have seen a subtitled foreign film. The remake, however much its profile might have been raised by the presence of Watts and Roth, was never to be the kind of film that would make it any further than the independent market (a reality corroborated by its ultimate box office failure). Funny Games was Haneke’s most difficult film, an intellectually motivated mental exercise come viewer indictment that should be considered more a didactic text than a piece of entertainment. It was never going to be something that would reach an audience outside of the arthouse theatres. The moviegoers most likely to find this incarnation of Funny Games are, for the most part, those same ones who would have been among the audience of its predecessor. Funny Games was never to be a multiplex movie on the scale of the likes of Saw and Hostel, those franchises it sought to criticise and condemn. It may be a film as haunting, striking, and meaningful as the first, but it was never one that would find the distribution required to have Haneke’s message fall on the ears he sought.

It may be a film as haunting, striking, and meaningful as the first, but it was never one that would find the distribution required to have Haneke’s message fall on the ears he sought.

Standing alone, this Funny Games is a film as effective in its implementation as the original, just as successful in deconstructing and condemning the voyeurism of violence in modern cinema. Yet taken for its intent of reaching a wider audience and spreading the message to those for whom Haneke envisioned it, it stands as an undeniable failure. Many have called this Funny Games not only Haneke’s worst film, but his first bad one. My respect for the important ideas the film articulates and the thinking behind its production prevents me from agreeing exactly, though such an argument is strong. It’s not a bad film, but making it was a bad idea, and leaves it as Haneke’s least interesting work to date. It’s hard to criticise or condemn, but there’s equally little to praise about it. This is a film honourable and admirable in its intentions, but inarguably ineffective in actually achieving them. Those who discover it without knowledge of its predecessor will doubtlessly be just as impacted, shocked, and affected, but the vast majority of these viewers are the same who would have found their way to the original anyway. This considered, Funny Games stands as a waste of time for Haneke, an unnecessary return to a previously treaded path, and a lost opportunity for the great director to bring forth something new, and I can’t help but begrudge it that.

65/100 - Funny Games is a film honourable and admirable in its intentions, but inarguably ineffective in actually achieving them; a lost opportunity for Haneke to bring forth something new.

Ronan Doyle
Visit My Website / View My Other Posts


Having spent the vast majority of my life sharing in the all too prevalent belief than cinema is merely dumbed-down weekend escapism for the masses, I was lucky enough to turn on a television at the exact right moment to have my perspectives on the medium completely transformed. Those first two and a half hours marked the beginning of a new life revolving around—maybe even depending upon—the screen and the depth of artistry, intellectual stimulation, and emotional exhilaration it can provide.
  • http://justatad.wordpress.com/ Corey Atad

    I disagree completely with your premise based in the fact that Funny Games US was my first exposure to Haneke and I loved it and it made me seek out his other films. Useless indeed.

  • http://twitter.com/baronronan Baron Ronan Doyle

    Well like I said, it functions just as well as the original in getting its ideas across if you happen to see it first. But it’s very much an independent film you most likely have to be something of a film lover to come across, and had it not existed it’d only be a matter of time before you encountered the original, or indeed any other Haneke. As independent film goes, he’s a big big name on that circuit, you’d have discovered him sooner or later even without this.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    It’s hard for me to put a finger on it, but I took a lot more away from the US version than I did the original. Maybe it was mood, or maybe it just like watching again for a second time. I found Pitt’s performance to be even more effective and sadistic than Arno Frisch’s of the original. It’s essentially the same films, but the extremes in Pitt’s performances is what elevates the US version to something more than a simple shot for shot remake of the original.

  • http://twitter.com/baronronan Baron Ronan Doyle

    I must say I have heard that from a few people. For me, they’re pretty much on a par as regards performances, maybe it helps the original’s case with me a little better that I saw Benny’s Video first, so there’s the Arno Frisch as a terrifying murderer child connection there. I appreciate your point though, the remake is more focused than just being a lazy rehashing.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    I do get where you are coming from though, as no matter how you look at it, it is a waste of sorts. As moviegoers we have to wait typically two years between films from our favourite filmmakers. If Tarr or Hou or Wong Kar Wai all of a sudden came out and said they’re going to remake one of their own works, it’s disappointing. We want something new, something fresh, and not something we’ve seen before with a more notable cast.

  • http://justatad.wordpress.com/ Corey Atad

    Yeah, I can see how in that respect it’s a waste, but I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say that he reached even a slightly wider audience. My dad, for example, accidentally watched it because he saw it on my Blu-ray shelf. I’ve also shown the film to different groups of friends who probably would have been more hesitant had the film been in German. I don’t know, i just figure a great film is a great film and Funny Games US is a great film.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    He definitely reached a broader audience, folks like your dad who are turned off by subtitles (my own dad hates them!). I just don’t know if it was enough to justify remaking it. In terms of the film’s quality, you’re completely right, it’s a fantastic film. So no argument there!

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    Whether you’re discussing this film or the original, just how caught off guard were you when that sudden eruption of heavy metal music kicks in during the film’s opening moments. I still have nightmares!

  • http://twitter.com/baronronan Baron Ronan Doyle

    Originally I had a paragraph in here about remakes themselves and the difficulty of reviewing them but it was a bit baggy so I chopped it. For me, if a remake’s greatness comes from copying what worked in the original, then that’s not enough to justify its existence (part of the reason I think remakes should be saved for bad films). The classic example is Let Me In: it’s a very good film, but it’s only good because it copies Let the Right One In’s good aspects, it brings nothing of its own to the table. It’s a matter of context too, by itself this is an incredibly effective and powerful film, but looked at within the framework of a Haneke retrospective it has these external issues. Then again, maybe I’m just being a prude with something against non-subtitle readers! (my parents fall in that camp too, sigh)

  • Jason Coyle

    It is an interesting debate. The original astounded me when I saw it but I did head to the cinema to see the US version, I really liked it but ultimately couldn’t understand the need to remake it. People who didn’t want to watch the original had no reason to see the remake. It is all to do with the type of films Haneke makes rather than the fact that a film of his is in English. For me probably the best filmmaker working today but people I know can’t watch his films.

  • http://twitter.com/baronronan Baron Ronan Doyle

    And there’s that really creepy way it’s screaming away with the family smiling happily to each other, oblivious. One of my favourite opening scenes, as it happens.

  • http://twitter.com/baronronan Baron Ronan Doyle

    Agreed completely about it being the type of film rather than language. The trailer actually says a lot: it doesn’t make it out to be a Saw/Hostel-style torture fest, it even shows the famous wink shot, and Haneke’s name is played up. These are more marketing issues than problems with the film itself admittedly, but it tells you all you need to know about even its distributor’s lack of confidence in finding a wider audience: it just wasn’t happening.

  • Jason Coyle

    In some ways I am glad he made it though. For some people wanting to get into Haneke the language may well make it an easier point to begin, and that can only be a good thing.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    You and Ronan have hit the nail right on it’s head! The majority of audience (yes, there are exceptions) who saw the original was the exact same audience that saw the remake. He sort of double dipped with his previous fan based picking up a couple new viewers a long the way.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    Never thought of it that way. Almost like a warning, saying ‘you know what, you might just want to turn right back around!’.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    I’m glad Haneke made it too, As I said earlier, I prefer it to the original, and it did expose Haneke to a new audience. The trick is to now get that new audience to watch more of his work and not being afraid of subtitles, which for some is a challenge.

  • http://twitter.com/NextProjection Christopher Misch

    And that is where remakes in the likes of The Departed and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo differ, as they brought just enough new elements, whether that be story or technical in nature, to justify their existence.

  • http://justatad.wordpress.com/ Corey Atad

    I think I might have to write a blog post in response to all this. But here’s the thing. I’m a bit weary of remakes because I too question “the point”, but Let Me In is a good example of a film where things get complicated for me. On the one hand, did it need to exist? Maybe not. But then neither did Cars 2, but at least Let Me In is good.

    Also, it’s a matter of what you get out of it. For example, I have some problems with Let the Right One In that I actually think Let Me In solves. (Cats, anyone?) And I also happen to think Let Me In bring enough of its own Spielberg-influenced take on childhood that I found it did separate itself, and in some ways I think of it as the better film.

    No doubt, it questionable whether it even could have been a great film without having a previous great film to copy from, but then we start getting into all kinds of philosophical conundrums. Which is why I tend to just go back to the “if it’s good or great then it’s justified” line of thinking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/blevo Matthew Blevins

    I’ve been saving a viewing of this film for when I had some distance between this one and my viewing of the original.  I’ll try and give this version a viewing tonight! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/blevo Matthew Blevins

    I’ve been saving a viewing of this film for when I had some distance between this one and my viewing of the original.  I’ll try and give this version a viewing tonight! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/blevo Matthew Blevins

    I’ve been saving a viewing of this film for when I had some distance between this one and my viewing of the original.  I’ll try and give this version a viewing tonight!