In Continuum.

First and foremost, I have to apologize to Mr. Michael Haneke, despite not knowing him, for dismissing him a few months ago when I made an entry about movies regarding torture. I didn't know the premise of this film, which was why I filled in the gaps and drew my own conclusions about this film as well. I cannot be blamed, however, because this film is the way that it is on the surface if you refuse to read between the lines and to draw your own conclusions from the intended messages hidden within. Funny Games is a film that demands your attention because it does not follow the path of the ordinary that has been the case for all the other films we have seen in the cinemas over the years. Predictable endings, even films that bank on their unique twists and turns towards the end, are not all that unpredictable anymore. If you know that a twist is coming up, then what kind of twist is that? Funny Games, however, is not your typical torture movie that involves ridiculous amount of bloodshed and then tries to teach you a lesson towards the end, whether or not the message gets to you by the time you walk out of the theater doesn't really matter. Funny Games sits you down, tie you up, and lectures you. 

An interesting point to note would be the fact that director Michael Haneke is remaking his own film by the same name, from more than ten years ago. The original film was in German however, and this American version of his own movie is not your typical adaptation at all. This is a frame by frame, dialog by dialog copy of the original with different actors living in a different country. Some might wonder what is the point of remaking your own movie in a different language when everything else is the same? Well, to get to that, we'd have to look deeper into the core message of this film - which would naturally reveal a few spoilers. So if you do intend to watch this film in the theaters, it is about time to turn back now and close this browser. 

Funny Games begin with a happy family traveling to their summer retreat at the countryside for a vacation. George (Tim Roth) is the father, Anna (Naomi Watts) is the wife, and Georgie (Devon Gearhart) is their young son. Moments after they have arrived, they are visited by two harmless looking young men who called themselves Paul and Peter, played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. It began with Peter asking for eggs, and then more eggs, and then even more eggs, and the whole event escalated to a point of no return when George slapped Paul across the face, and that triggered the two young visitors to begin their deadly game. For the next twelve hours, the family was told that they'd be part of a game, and the objective of the game would be to survive until tomorrow morning, it is as easy as easy gets. It does sound like your typical torture movie, doesn't it? Well, Funny Games is anything but typical. 

The film begins with the family traveling down a long stretch of road with opera music in the background. George is talking to Anna about opera, quizzing each other about the song playing on the car's radio - everything is normal so far. That is until the director decides to take away the opera music in the background and replace it with a German thrash metal music, with the shot of the happy family talking and laughing still rolling on screen. From that moment on, it was not difficult for me to realize that this film was going to be quite an experience. Throughout the film, the director used various different unconventional methods to put forth a certain message which would seem to be pointless at the beginning. The actors, at some points in time, even looked into the camera to directly address the audience and to ask us questions. At one point, the film even stopped and rewinded to reveal an alternate ending to the film entirely. As you might have already guessed, this film is really quite something.

I don't think that in the context of European movies, this manipulation of the audience is anything new. Manipulation as a tactic of the director has long been a tradition in European cinema, and to put it in a purely American context was probably the effort by the director to bring the filming style to a much wider audience out there, whether or not they can stomach the film or not. This film does not emphasize on the kind of torture you would expect in normal torture movies that involve elaborate devices chained to innocent victims - of course, they have usually committed some kind of crime in life and got away with it previously, only to be found out by the psychopath somehow. Anyway, much of this film's supposedly 'torture' scenes happens when the camera is not focused on it. That is to say, if you are somebody who cannot take blood and gore, this film is probably not going to disturb you very badly because everything happens off screen. However, that is not to undermine the fact that the film was haunting and unnerving on a completely different level. 

Some may argue that the film was too long and slow-paced, but that is something I'd like to stand up against. I feel that much of the film was perfectly paced to build up the intensity of the situation, something that is not found in normal horror films these days. People want back to back action and scares, but that is not the route that the director wants here. Like I said before, Funny Games is anything but conventional, so you shouldn't expect to go into the cinema and then come out of it the same way you would after watching an ordinary movie. This film is going to feel like a sucker punch, because not only are the techniques used in this film completely different from anything that I have seen, the ending of the film is definitely going to be quite a shocker to the people out there, despite not trying to package it to be a twist or whatever. This film is a film that says "Screw you, normalcy!", and then presents itself in a manner that is out of this world.

Performance wise, it was excellent across the board. I've always loved Naomi Watts, and to see her in just her underwear and bra throughout the most part of the film was definitely a guilty pleasure of mine. However, to see her being tortured was definitely something that caused my blood to boil. Tim Roth was excellent as the helpless husband, and this time he took a step back in order for Naomi Watts' character to shine. And as for the two killers responsible for this whole nightmare, they were brilliant in their own rights as well. They were probably the split up version of how Hannibal Lector must have been like when they were young, with their polite smiles and their cold stares. Michael Pitt was the star of the film, the center of the attention. He was creepy enough to look into the camera and send shivers down my spine, and it is a wonder why he isn't more appreciated to the mainstream audience. 

There has been a lot of debate as to whether or not it was necessary to have the characters look into the camera and address the audience, or to have that whole rewinding sequence played out in the film. A reviewer I read thought that the director might have been overdoing it, despite applauding his courage to portray his film in that fashion. Personally, I feel that the technique was absolutely necessary in putting forth the point the director was trying to make, the point that our society has been numbed to violence in the media so much so that we are now cheering for the murderers instead of the victims. We like to see violence just because it is in a movie right now, when it really shouldn't be something that we put our hands together for. 

This film is an aggressive and uncomfortable piece of work. Everything from the thrash metal music, to the droning sound of television in the background, to the monotonous and cold-blooded voices of the killers. Everything is unnerving and uncomfortable in this film, but that is exactly what the director wanted in the first place. This film addresses a social problem that has been conveniently ignored by everybody just because it has become such an ordinary thing to do. If there is a video of a girl being beat up by her friends on the internet, we want to watch it. If there is a piece of news about a man being beheaded by his friend in the backyard, we want to read about it. If there is a reality show that involves people doing dangerous and stupid things to themselves or each other, the ratings are going to skyrocket for one reason or another. Violence is something that humans have taken into account as part of their everyday lives, like going to the bathroom or eating at the dining table. It is almost as if the director is trying to have the audience question ourselves," Is this what you want to see? Are you enjoying this? Is this how you want to be entertained?" I thought the fact that the director managed to make me question myself, was masterful and brilliant. 

The director is trying to give us a lesson here about our society's perversity, that violence - even in the cinema - shouldn't be something we applaud or pay money for. If you paid money just to watch Funny Games, then you have already fallen into the trap of the director. But the end of the film is not going to satisfy you either, because it does not end with the family fighting back and killing the people responsible. You are not going to think that you just paid your money for a good movie, but then that is the whole point. This film is not entertainment, it is a lesson, an experience. The experience, however, is not meant for anybody out there at all. In fact, I am not even going to recommend this film because not a lot of people are going to appreciate it very much. This is reflected in the bad ratings across the board, but I still gave it a shot in the end. It is either you love it or you hate it for this one, and I guess I belong in the former category. This film is definitely something which all moviegoers should expose themselves to, simply because of what it stands for - a raw in-your-face lesson that grabs you by the throat and never lets it go. 

8.5/10