Pajiba

I bet beneath the veneer of civilization, man is a brutal animal too. *eyeroll*

Pretty much the only unexpected, shocking thing left to do in a movie is show people being kind to each other.

Great review Daniel.

I have been looking forward to this for a while now, and am even more anxious to see it after this. I enjoyed the original, and Haneke is such an interesting filmmaker even when not considering he is duplicating his own film.

Since I cannot remember what is playing on the bloodied television in the '97 version, can anyone help me out with that one?

I'm glad you saw it the way I saw it. I watched the original and thought it was a very unique piece of cinema as well as a taut thriller. The violence was unsettling and mostly off screen.
This movie is getting too many bad reviews that call it torture porn and say that Haneke is a sick man, when they just did not understand it. And if more people watch it, they will realize hopefully how sick Torture Porn really is and it will die out.

Michael Pitt is date-rape on legs as far as I'm concerned. He just has that look.
Having said that, I'd let him slip something into my drink anyday.

I want to congratulate this guy on further enabling the American movie-goer to reach new lows of laziness...that he would remake his entire movie, shot for shot, just so we won't have to read subtitles...sweet merciful Zeus.

Didn't Kubrick give us this lesson like, forty-odd years ago, in one scene in A Clockwork Orange?

You make watching this movie sound like eating your Brussels sprouts: virtuous and utterly nasty at the same time.

Me again. Sorry to double post but something just came into my head after reading K.F.'s comment.

I was thinking to myself about why Haneke would want to remake his own work, when the original was such an accomplished work. Bouncing off Daniel's insight about Haneke's statements on American consumerisms and Kamakaze's comment about Torture Porn, it dawned on me that perhaps this film is his response to the torture porn era.

He felt it necessary to demonstrate to a massive audience, hence the American remake, that you don't need to show the torture in all its bloody disgust in order for a film to be successful and terrifying. It's just as viable to create a well paced, deliberate thriller minus the stomach turning focus on dissection and disembowelment.

Much like Manet's "Woman with a Parrot" feud with Courbet, "Funny Games" is Haneke's rebuke to what he finds offensive: American Torture Porn Tripe.

Oh my God! I'm not in the hinterlands of the comments! I feel...powerful! And now I'll actually go, er, read the review.

SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER I just can't watch the aftermath of a child murder. I can't. SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER

This sounds like an arthouse version of lowbrow torture porn - kind of like calling stripping "burlesque."

Well, with the review now read; I have mixed feelings about this movie. I unabashedly wanted to see it from the previews, being a sucker for psychological-crazy-family-torment, and Tim Roth has been in my books ever since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But the echoes of torture porn are unsettling. Any and all examples of that abomination make me want to gouge out my retinas (sort of ironic, really). I don't know if the drama is potent enough for me to want to subject myself to the brutal violence (even if it is off-screen). Hmmm. Further consideration is required.

" . . .Peter (Brady Corbet) tells Ann he's staying with their neighbors and needs some eggs for dinner. "

Anyone else read this as, "Peter Brady tells Ann B. Davis that he's staying with their neighbors and needs some eggs for his exploding vocano school project."

Also, I guess whiter than whitey white Aryans are the only hoodlum type that people won't get all up in arms about making their culture look bad. I don't like the way I wrote that sentence, but you know what I mean.

BWeaves - that's an interesting perspective. Could you elaborate on it?

I remember Sophia Loren's protests as jury president (or was it member) at the Cannes film festival, where the 1997 version won the Golden Palm.
She didn't want anything to do with praising the film.

Does it classify under that godawful term torture porn if there's no graphic bodily harm shown? I figured it's a number-one criterion. Dan's review claimed most of the torture took place off screen.

Should we otherwise dismiss all movies about torture? Closetland? Death and the Maiden?

Haneke still tries to inject some social commentary into his films, be it that not everyone will be susceptible to it, and if they do, will agree with him. It's a thin line, trying to make something clear to your audience without scaring away the majority horrified. It happened to the first version, it happened to The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael and C'est arrivé près de chez vous. In time, slight acceptance grew and the message became more transparent. After the dust settles, you know...

Adere : Another great example to add to your list is Peeping Tom.

I want to see this, and yet, I feel that it will be a horrible mistake, due to my tendency to be easily traumatized. Hmm. I think it's an interesting concept, the critique of the torture porn genre, but as the review states, it will likely never reach its intended audience. Perhaps the desire to draw in a "Hostel"-type crowd has something to do with the misleading way it's being marketed in some previews.

I would say the movie is less like torture porn and more like "extreme Hitchcock."

Films that are made almost as a medium to show what horrors we're capable of as humans tend to stay with me for a long time...this movie looks incredibly unsettling, I was uncomfortable even during the trailer.

No chance I'll ever see this, but I do like Michael Pitt. I think he must be a sociopath in real life, because he's just too good at playing them.

Will Michael Pitt be stuck playing teenage sociopaths for the next twenty years? I've never seen him do anything else.

Thank you, Julie. You've summed up my feelings about this film more coherently in two sentences than I did in a paragraph. Also, I think what may be part of the reason it's so unsettling, for me at least, is that I do want to see this movie. A part of me knows I'll probably enjoy it, despite the violence. Gwah, I am incoherent today; I should really leave it to others to be eloquent. That's what I get for chugging three bottles of NyQuil.

I can't help but be intrigued by the torturer/killer's own sadistic background in movies like this. I want to know how he got to be that way. Did someone kick his puppy when he was little? Run over his toy fire truck? Send his favorite cousin through a wood-chipper? I just want to know why. That's really the only reason I want to see this.

Otherwise, I'm not sure if I can. The suspenseful nature of it sounds right up my ally, but I've never been partial to torture porn (even if it is self-aware torture porn).

Someone once told me that Michael Pitt has pillow lips and I haven't been able to think of anything else when looking at him since.

Isn't this like Straw Dogs? I might be going crazy, which I am, but I was just wondering.

Coveredinbees-two things:

1. Your username makes me giggle every time I read it.

2. Michael Pitt looks like a twelve year old girl who dressed up in her father's clothing and then took a bath filled with roofies and petchulance.

Michael Pitt attractive? He looks like the kids in my daughter's class that I refer to as the weepy-eyed boys. A sign of weakness in my book.

Just watched the trailer for this and it does look disturbing. I also would have a hard time seeing something bad happen to the son. I don't think I'll be seeing this. But then again I don't find violence gleeful in the way other Americans do, so I don't feel the need to be preached to with this movie.

Ha! Petulance...the spelling monster is drunk on Guinness.

Sarabelle - It's usually called anti-social personality disorder, and happens most commonly in males. If anyone was kicking puppies and sending cousins through wood chippers, it was probably him.

Should we otherwise dismiss all movies about torture?

Um, yes for me thanks. I'm not averse to violent movies (A History of Violence, for example, or Fargo.) but a movie that's entirely 'A' tortures 'B'? No use for it. Anything it could possibly tell me I've already seen in either Clockwork Orange or Kill Your Boyfriend.

I don't watch slasher pics for the same reason.

Should we otherwise dismiss all movies about torture?

Um, yes for me thanks. I'm not averse to violent movies (A History of Violence, for example, or Fargo.) but a movie that's entirely 'A' tortures 'B'? No use for it. Anything it could possibly tell me I've already seen in either Clockwork Orange or Kill Your Boyfriend.

I don't watch slasher pics for the same reason.

Argh, I also dismiss double posts!

Samantha: I guess what I'm getting at is that if the hoodlums were black in black outfits, blacks would complain that they are always portrayed as the bad guys and it makes the whole race look bad. If the hoodlums were middle eastern, there would be middle easterners who would complain that they are always portrayed as the terrorists and it makes the regular guys look bad, etc., etc. But make the hoodlums so white you that they practically glow in the dark, and which ethnicity is going to complain? I mean look at these guys. They're blond, they're pasty white, they're wearing white shirts and gloves. You can't make them any whiter without having Tom Sawyer come over with a bucket of whitewash and pretend they're a picket fence. Who's going to say, "Oh you're disrespecting white people?" Nobody. It's safe.

P.S. Torture porn in German language children's books has been around for centuries. I got read "Struellpeter" and "Max and Moritz" as a child, and those books from the 1800's are damn disgusting. I'd love to throw those in with a batch of modern PC children's books and watch the horror on the parents faces.

Darn tootin' Bweaves. I laughed hard through my nose at the Tom Sawyer comment and am now picking boog clumps off my screen...

Michael Pitt's got an interesting backstory and I think he's done a great job at picking his roles and generally flying under the radar... His head is gigundo, though...

PPS. Sorry, it's Struwwelpeter.

http://bugpowder.com/andy/e.hoffmann.html

http://www.fln.vcu.edu/mm/mmmenu.html

Read this as a child, and you grow up and make Funny Games twice.

BWeaves, well, I agree that hetero white males generally have the luxury of not being pathologized, unlike everybody else. They can act as individuals whereas people who fit into most other categories would have their actions chalked up to that category ("Another bitter/hysterical woman" "Another dangerous black dude" "Another fundamentalist Middle Eastern").

Julie, you totally summed up everything I felt about this movie upon first glance. The preview alone made me feel squicky, there is no way I could watch this without terrible nightmares. That said there is something about Michael Pitt that makes me feel like playing with fire...

Well, Pitt played a sexually confused rockstar in Hedwig and the Angry Inch who didn't murder anybody... I can't find him attractive though, because his eyes are a bit too close together and that's all I see when I look at him onscreen.

I think I'd see this. Has anyone else seen Caché? After that deeply disturbing movie of Haneke's, which brilliantly forces a self-consciousness in the viewer (presumably the French middle class), it's very difficult to believe he's just pandering here to the lowest common denominator. Don't you think by keeping the violence off screen he's both denying it and questioning our desire to see it? Maybe he's questioning our own ambiguous relationship or passive acceptance of torture porn by remaining ambiguous himself? Maybe he's just saying that having to watch NASCAR is the real torture here.

I kind of want to see this... I just need to know a few things:

1. Is there any blood or torture on screen at all?
2. Is there anything comparable to the ankle-breaking in Misery?
3. Do any family pets meet their demise?

If not, my love for Michael Pitt may overcome my weak stomach.

(Also: In The Dreamers, he didn't kill anyone, nor was he at all psychopathic-- just obsessed with old movies and Eva Green.)

I'm going to see both versions. For the handling of the violence. I think what 's interesting about Haneke is not what he thinks he's saying with this, but rather what he's saying about himself: "I'm really drawn to and am very good at making violence cinematically compelling. And I hate that about myself." There's something compelling about that.

Ranylt: Or Series 7. Or the Korean film The Isle.

Jeez, you just had to bring up The Dreamers, didn't you? I hated that movie, despite Green's hotness. I swear, I'd rather the Russians stole our precious bodily fluids than to have to see them all up on the screen like that.

Who gives a fork if the violence is offscreen, does that actually make that much of a difference besides lowering the Hershey Syrup bills in production? Instead, we get to watch someone torment someone else, and listen to it all. I'd feel less like an audience member and more like a victim. Blegh.
/Wall-E out in theatres yet?

Julie good thing I didn't make my user name cuuuuuuuuvered in beeeeeeeeeeees. I thought about it, I won't lie.

I liked The Dreamers because I am also mildly obsessed with Eva Green and old movies. The part with blood squicked me out, though. Also, as far as I recall, Pit did not kill anything on Dawson's Creek. . .except my will to live. GET OFF THE SCREEN AND BRING BACK PACEY. That is all.

SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER I just can't watch the aftermath of a child murder. I can't. SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER

I thought that too, Samantha. I just can't handle that.

I actually think that insinuating violence rather than showing it directly can have more of the "thriller" effect, not horror. To me, those are two very distinct genres--horror is visual: blood and "jump out from the bushes to make you scream" tactics, while thriller is mental and emotional.

It's easy to throw the "torture porn" tag out to umbrella everything that contains human on human violence, but that simply isn't true. Fargo is a great example of a violent film that doesn't even come near the "torture porn" arena. Lately it seems that the way some people on this site have been defining torture porn, Fargo would be lumped in.

I guess my point is this: Please think before you label. Otherwise we are in danger of giving a different life to violence in film.

Great review, Dan. It puts into words the mixed feelings I had about the film coming out of the theatre. Watts was amazing, the fourth wall stuff was a little cheesy/heavy handed, but I liked parts of it.

The great Tim Roth, yummy indie baby Michael Pitt and the cinematographer of "Delicatessen"? Hell, I'll see it!

When I was in high school I used to babysit this 3 years old named marta who was quite bossy and not exactly pleasant, the only thing that would entertain her and keep her quite was when I pretended that her huge stuffed white bear was eating me alive. She would gigle in pure delightment. 3 years after she started going to school. She hated all her schoolmates since her mum wouldnt help her learn any italian (she was born in the states but was in italy at the time I meet her) and she would bring the bodies of the kittens she would kill with her bare hands in a shoe box to show everyone. Her mum provided the showbox.

So now I can watch movies stuffed with any kind of violence, psychological or physical, whatever. That was my vietnam, there is no going back after marta.

Rio - Um, wow.

I'm with boo on the whole "hold off on labeling things" idea. We're becoming a little too willing to label any horror movie with on screen violence as "torture porn". As someone said earlier, to fit that definition wouldn't the violence have to be on screen?

Some of the dialogue in the film is stilted, and some of the motivations are questionable. But I've seen both versions, and both are incredibly well acted, and that fact alone makes it harder to watch. Not one single instance of violence is directly shown on the screen the whole movie. Every one of your expectations is messed with (once in a very particular way that made people in the theatre with me gasp), and nothing happens the way you think it should. It's upsetting, and disturbing, and very well made for the fans of slow burn dread.

As to the question of their threat as white villians, the point was made, and is accurate, that any other race would lend itself to automatic assumptions as to the killers' motivation (fair or not). The point is very specifically made that the motivation of the two men isn't what matters, and that even if you knew it, would it really change the horror of what you're seeing them do? Does it somehow lessen the impact and awfulness of the violence when you know their background?

Haneke stated in an interview I read a while back (can't remember where, sorry) that he was remaking it shot for shot because he felt that the original never hit his intended audience (Americans), due to the U.S. audience's tendency to shun subtitled movies. He's being pedantic and trying to be all "Learn from enlightened ol' me, you crass American children", and instead he should just let the movie speak for itself. It has a lot of power in its own right.

A side note about Michael Pitt. After The Dreamers and Last Days, I've become completely enamored of him as an actor. However, I will never be able to shake the fact that the first thing I ever saw him on was Dawson's Creek.

What in the holy hell?

Breaking the fourth wall is irritating at the best of times, but to actually ask the audience who they're betting on? That sounds annoying as fuck.
The whole plot concept sounds revolting, not least because a child is involved. I'm not sure if I could give this movie a chance.

Oh, and I thought Cache was boring.

rio:

WHAT?! I'm not being flippant, but is she working her way up to people or something? There has to be some sort of protection agency to look into that case.

BWeaves:

The genre you're talking about is called 'Schwartzepedagogik', not to be mistaken with 'schwartze', which earns you an automatic golf club to the knee.

ian:

I read that this movie was going to go forward, with his consent or no. So he decided that if his movie was going to be re-made, he should be the one to do it.

Regardless, as well-made as I keep hearing it is, I'm not watching a movie about people being tortured and killed, Mmmkay? Mmmkay. And having Rear Admiral Didactic and the Charge of the Spite Brigade tut-tut me for it would be awesome, I'm sure. But I'm going to sit this one out, Mmmkay? Mmmkay.

Holy crap, Rio. That's the worst kid-sitting story I've ever read/heard. No way in hell I'd go back to that place.

You fucking misogynists and your retarded torture porn! It makes me want to kick a infant into a puppy.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that this movie and everything that's gotten the ol' wide brush of torture porn may be distantly related, but I don't think Funny Games talks to that side of the family anymore. Haneke obviously set out to make something a little more clever than "Let's rip out someone's fingernails with a pair of pliers because it's so gross we're fucking awesome high-five!" Which consequently I saw this weekend. When I watched Syriana. Which was nominated for Oscars.

We're all smart enough to understand the difference between something like Captivity for its splatter-splash sensationalism and Rendition where it's happening to make a valid and arguable point, right? But seriously, can we stop referring to it all as "torture porn"? Honestly, pornography is subjective to the viewer, so there are probably just as many lonely old trenchcoated men watching Horton Hears a Who and spanking the trunk because animated elephants really get them off. I know there are a few of you fistfuckers among us.

I have more respect for people like Jo Mama who actively say, "No thanks. I'm taking a pass. It's not my thing." then the folks who start banging the gong and giving everything with some violence a liberal tar-and-feathering and banging their tiresome gong.

can't help but be intrigued by the torturer/killer's own sadistic background in movies like this. I want to know how he got to be that way. Did someone kick his puppy when he was little? Run over his toy fire truck? Send his favorite cousin through a wood-chipper? I just want to know why. That's really the only reason I want to see this.

Actually the pendulum is swinging back, now kids are not just jelly moulds that are buffeted and changed by every twinge in their environment, but people with stable personalites that remain the same over time, complete lack of compassion included where relevant. Some peope may just be made that way.

It's an interesting example of how names can be important, before the 20th century, and in the words of Miss Marple, you would have said some people are 'pure evil', nowadays its ' anti-social personality disorder'. Same difference.

Pretty much the only unexpected, shocking thing left to do in a movie is show people being kind to each other.
Actually that's just what I was thinking in that film where Scotland is one big quarentine. I was sure that some people, knowing they were doomed to die, would spend their last few days trying to help others (at least their friends and family). The bad guys would be too busy looting to care one way or the other (until they dropped dead).

Word, insertclevernamehere, word.

jo mama
I have no idea, italy usualy leaves you develope your monstrous soulless tendencies in peace and quite and then get the pope to blame it on homosexuals and jews. But she is now back in the states, so I assume the CIA got already a hold of her and she's now in training to be a hitman.

I too have to agree with insertclevernamehere. Although the execution may not be perfect, this film in no way fits into the same genre as Hostel or the like. I saw the original when it first came out in 1997 and recall that the film left a bad taste in my mouth. I did not find it entertaining, but it was interesting.
I was compelled to watch, hoping for a happy ending. Time has obviously clouded my memory, because I remember it being graphically violent. Obviously by not showing the violence, the film has still left an impression.

SPOILER For those who think that breaking the fourth wall can't be done well, I disagree. Although it has been some time since I saw this film, the one scene that stands out promises retribution and offers relief to the viewer, only to have one of the characters address the camera and reverse the sequence of events. The scenario is then again played out but this time with the antagonists being the victors. This scene alone drags the viewer into the game. We inadvertently become victims as well, manipulated by this scene with the two little bastards building up our hope then tearing it all down. The effect is quite evocative and obviously memorable. END SPOILER

Nice comment Mr. Morgan - very well-written.

I hit Wikipedia to see the synopsis ($5 dollar word right there), of the original, and then checked out the website for the remake... I've never been into the whole torture-porn genre, but found that on occasion (and usually after several drinks) I can handle watching one o'them gut-churners, laughing at the absurdity of it, and promptly forgetting it.

After visiting the website, I really don't want to see this flick. It looks like it's been done well - stellar cast, good writing (fuck the fourth wall - pbbbth!), and a genuine thriller - actually, I'm not sure thriller is even the right word... Anyhow, it looks good, but I'm afraid it's the genuine human suffering that takes place in a movie set too close to the "real" world, that'll prevent me from checking it out... Seeing things like that linger... whereas bullshit torture-porn is a passing fad.

Case in point? "Gummo" fucked me up bad - I can never forget some of the shit I saw in that flick - and it was a piece of shit flick to begin with...

This seems like one of those movies that there's never really a "good" time to see it... And unfortunately, that's probably why I'll be passing on tis one...

KICK ASS REVIEW BY THE WAY!!! (triple exclamation points mean I really mean what I say...)

I was really excited to see this, but scared at the same time because I knew it could easily go into the torture porn genre. So glad that it didn't! I knew it was a remake, I just didn't figure it would be frame-for-frame the exact same. Slightly odd...

For those of you talking about how bad it is when a child dies in a movie, I bet you aren't this bad: My now 32 year old sister walked out of Titanic because children were drowning.

Maybe it's because I was born in Canada and spent my entire life moving from country to country (dad's jobs demanded it), and therefor lived in countries around the world that are as prone to consumerism as America - just less likely to be called out for it (hello, Japan!) - but these European "critiques" of American habits elicit little more than an eye-roll from me. Pick me out a European country, I could probably name you more than a few films as violent as Captivity.

Saw? Banked as much overseas as it did in the US. Brits proved as likely to see it as their American counterparts, followed by the Italians then the Germans. Saw 3? Made more overseas than in the US. Again, Britains proved as likely to see it as the Americans. Rinse and Repeat for Saw 4- more banked overseas than in the States. Brits take second place again, followed by the Spanish.

If you pull up the numbers for Hostel? It's the exact same thing; they banked either as much or more overseas. Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany were the biggest markets. The second Hostel was a flop- The Other Boleyn Girl, which is sinking like a stone, has brought in more than that did.

Captivity banked a whopping $9 million globally. $2 million was from America. The UK contributed as much, followed, *again*, by Italy.

Anyway, pardon the brainfart above. Maybe it's just that these projects always seem so smug. These are movies. We are watching actors. The violence isn't real. I see one kind of person at the screenings of such films, and that would be the type who think 10,00 B.C is historically accurate. We are talking about "intellectuals" making films that are aimed at the lowest fucking denominator. What is supposed to be impressive here? This is a guy pointing out that a freak is a freak. And?

What annoys the shit out of me about these Haneke types is that the only people who are going to understand what they are aiming for, ALREADY GET THE FUCKING MESSAGE.

"What annoys the shit out of me about these Haneke types is that the only people who are going to understand what they are aiming for, ALREADY GET THE FUCKING MESSAGE."

Too true, but I think that it's not the people that "get it" that they're aiming for, but the people that'll get caught in the crossfire - some dippity fuck that thinks it looks cool and walks away disturbed at what they've seen...

Then again, I think tomato soup can oly be eaten when there's a grilled cheese sammitch involved, so my opinion is, once again, like as asshole... Maybe a little more groomed than others (hell-O BeDazzler!), but everyone has one just the same...

WHAT THE FUCK DOES "OLY" MEAN?

gawdihatemyaself...

Shoulda said only...

Skits, I'm fairly certain a minor typo involving the letter N will not be of nearly as much concern to the general populace as just how, precisely, you've chosen to bedazzle your bum. Is there a pattern involved? Some sort of artistic arrangement of hearts and flowers for which you used an ass template? Or does it just look like you're farting glitter?

These are the things I am pondering at this moment. Please excuse me while I scrounge around for a sharp instrument with which to pierce my skull.

children die in real life by violence. if this movie is truly meant to be the horror that it is...the true nightmare...you can't have the audience lie to itself saying that "don't worry the kid won't die...they don't kill kids in movies"

it just goes to show that this director wasn't afraid to really make us aware that he wasn't following the rules. i liked this movie, and i definitely am not lumping into the whole "torture porn" backlash group. it's disturbing and got under my skin...that's the reason to like it. not the other way around.

Ranylt, the 1960 Peeping Tom? I'll see if can find it.

The "rewind" scene is undoubtedly the pivotal point in the movie (and quite a gory one), it will get some of the knuckleheads who paid to see a psycho thriller deeply disturbed.

If you want to see eurosmug commentary on American society, no-one tops Lars Von Trier. The question if it's legit does not really matter. Europe enthousiastically adopted a lot of US culture during the last half century, it shouldn't come as a surprise some directors wish to react.

"Europe enthousiastically adopted a lot of US culture during the last half century, it shouldn't come as a surprise some directors wish to react."

Europeans (the ones that care at least) would argue that american consumerist culture was forced on them, following the post-ww2 economic colonialisation of europe by the US.

Is the differance between the US and europe actually so big that you need two movies, which are exactly the same in everything but the language and geographical setting, to make yourself understood by the entire western world?
I don't think so, its probably more about money grubbing
(argh i have no idea how to make my comment look all pretty and structured, stoopid internets)

C. Tannenbaum: Europeans (the ones that care at least) would argue that american consumerist culture was forced on them, following the post-ww2 economic colonialisation of europe by the US.

I know, but since this place is crawling with yankees, I didn't want to scoff at them. Besides, if wasn't for the forcing/adopting US culture upon/by Europe, I wouldn't have anything to talk about here and probably go jabbering on Minitel.

The moneygrub argument holds up of course. As it does in almost every discussion about regrettable decisions.

I think this is a movie that I need to watch, at least once. There are many films in my collection that are deeply unpleasant viewing experiences (hello, Mysterious Skin and Hard Candy) but have enriched me for having seen them. I think that's the essential difference between a film like this and something like Captivity, you get the impression that the violence in the Hostels or the Saw IIIs of the world was included as a means of titilating the audience - as is evidenced by its presence front and centre on screen throughout the proceedings. I think Funny Games instantly becomes a more valid commentary on the genre by keeping the violence off screen (of course I haven't seen it yet, I'm just pontificating based on the review). Once you take the focus away from the shiny blood, guts and gore and push it instead onto the human motivations or reactions to the acts being depicted you have a much more "acceptable" piece of cinema. And if that ends up disturbing some of the masses that stumbled in to watch a gore-fest so be it.

I agree with jessie marie's point that the feelings of disquiet are often what makes me like a movie (and with the fact that the second you start defining what a movie can and cannot do based on establish tropes you wade into very murky waters indeed). Personally, I relish the occasional films which have the power to shake me to the core.

Once you take the focus away from the shiny blood, guts and gore and push it instead onto the human motivations or reactions to the acts being depicted you have a much more "acceptable" piece of cinema. And if that ends up disturbing some of the masses that stumbled in to watch a gore-fest so be it.

Great fucking point, Alex.

That is all I have to contribute.

"children die in real life by violence"

Yes, and generally by far more mundane means - you know by a relative, stepfather, or boyfriend. Or war. You seldom see that addressed on film, though. I guess it's just not as exotic and interesting as some one-in-a-million nihilistic psychopath breaking into your house and murdering your child. If I recall, the original offers absolutely no motivation on the part of the killers. When I saw it, I thought to myself that it was a bit cheap in that respect. A blank slate of a character is just that. I found that to be profoundly lazy filmmaking.

I guess that's what bothers me about these kinds of movies. Because the situation's an outlier, it gets some kind of free pass from criticism. Just because some filmmaker "went there" doesn't mean he or she has no responsibility to the material. If you kill a child (or anybody, for that matter) in a film you'd better have a damn good reason for it. Using some shtick of implicating the audience just didn't justify that for me.

I kind of want to see this simply for Tim Roth (I think he's awesome, loved him since I saw R&G Are Dead and Reservoir Dogs). But I am the biggest wimp when it comes to horror/thriller. I read Stephen King, but it can still scare me (IT terrified me for weeks, I read it when I was about 15). Films are even worse, because then my mind keeps playing back the visuals. Hell, Cabin Fever scared me, when they show that girl with half the flesh gone from her face and she goes, 'help me...'.

Also, Skitt, your comment about the be-dazzled asshole made me think of a (fake) commercial I saw on some site or other about Clitter: glitter for your clit.

Saw the trailer for this before There Will Be Blood. I muttered, "Lame!" and heard guffawing around me.

Like others said before, this isn't my thing. I would probably leave the theater and beat the shit out of the first mopey adolescent I saw.

Where I live, sometimes teens come around my neighborhood "selling magazines to make money for a scholarship". For those who don't know, it's a scam! Those kids are runaways who are driven to places by their magazine pimps so they can fan out and collect money (cash only) from gullible saps. These kids are unbelievably skeezy and turn vulgar and angry when you tell them that there's no soliciting here and get the hell off my property.
After knowing about the plot of this movie, I think I'll just greet them with a rusty shovel next time.

I see one kind of person at the screenings of such films, and that would be the type who think 10,00 B.C is historically accurate. We are talking about "intellectuals" making films that are aimed at the lowest fucking denominator. What is supposed to be impressive here? This is a guy pointing out that a freak is a freak. And?

Wow Sara, does that sense of moral superiority keep you nice and toasty in the winter?

I'm confused, samantha t, as to why you consider a lack of motivation on the part of the killers to be lazy filmmaking. If the whole film is supposed to be a commentary on the nature of violence in entertainment, couldn't the lack of motivation be a furtherance of that commentary? Couldn't the filmmaker be saying that regardless of motivation, the violence isn't justifiable, so why have any motivation at all? Much of what happens in real life lacks motivation, so why can't that be reflected in film?

Continuing the thought, as the entire film is supposed to subvert the audiences' expectations, then the fact that the child is the first to be killed plays right into that idea. In most movies, the death of a child is taboo, so audiences have come to expect that the kid will live to the end. Instead, Haneke had the kid killed first, further emphasizing to the viewer that no, there are no easy answers here. The happy ending you were looking for? Doesn't exist.

Yes, the points he's making are lost on the people who need it, and obvious to those who don't. Does that mean the point isn't valid?

Anybody here seen SALO? Same message. Probably much more over-the-top in its presentation. I can't recommend it.

I've not seen Salo, but I read about it, and it sounds like too much even for me.

I've not seen Salo, but I read about it, and it sounds like too much even for me.

insertclevernamehere:

Thanks!

rio:

That's scary stuff. I hope for everyone's sakes that some kind of prolonged counselling can crack this girl's psyche open, and re-wire her motherboard.

SamanthaT:

I once saw a review for the original film, I think it was late last year. What the critic said about your criticism made sense to me. It was something to the effect of, explaining the motivations--or even giving the characters motivations negates the true horror of the circumstances. Sociopaths can very slickly insinuate themselves into respectable society, and then, ka-boom.

Now if you're one of the 'Won't someone think of the children!' people (I'm not, bit I understand the argument), that thinks that modern culture has had a corrosive effect on youth, then I guess these kids are the result of too many violence films and games, and not enough old-timey parenting. So it's kind of robbed them of their humanity, and left them empty husks. Empty Aryan husks.

I haven't had corn on the cob in a long time.

The connection that exists in my mind would be to THE BIRDS (I film I love). Why did they attack, when, or will they stop? No answers or understanding means no control, and that's truly scary. Now they're making a re-make, and the attacks are going to be explained by way of some mother nature fights back revenge tale. Anyone can feel free to disagree with me, that I think that move will only serve to deflate the tension and drama. And Michael Bay only serves to deflate the quality and interest-level.

Secondly, I've read that there aren't supposed to be any well-developed characters in the film. So maybe it's an exercise in ratcheting up the fear and emotion in the viewer, because the expectations for these character-types, and the conventions of this film-genre are constantly subverted.

I guess this is why a genre like mystery is so enduring. Even though bad thinngs happen, you're comforted by the fact that events are unfolding as they should, and that things will resolve in a certain fashion. Anyone who actually has seen the film will obviously have something more intelligent to say though, this is mostly speculation.

Sara:

I've never even been to the States, and even I find the finger-wagging directed at Americans on this topic to be tiresome. It seems like it's just the easy thing to do. I'm asking this out of ignorance, not spite: If someone like Haneke can chastise American filmakers and audiences for films like HOSTEL, why doesn't it go both ways? Or does it? What I mean is, why is someone like Dario Argento let off the hook? Or is he? Are there artistic merits in his oeuvre, or in that of European horror filmakers at large, that invalidates my question? Have they tapped into something, or portrayed something with deft sensitivity and tact that is rudely bludgeoned in America? Or is there a current of smug hypocrisy under all of this? Or is it both?

I've got seriously delicate sensibilities, so isn't something that I can investigate on my own, but I would be interested in someone's response if they feel like offering any.

I'm going downstairs to buy Skittles.

JustBill- might I ask which part of:

"I see one kind of person at the screenings of such films, and that would be the type who think 10,00 B.C is historically accurate. We are talking about "intellectuals" making films that are aimed at the lowest fucking denominator. What is supposed to be impressive here? This is a guy pointing out that a freak is a freak. And?"

struck you as me acting morally superior?

Jo 'Mama' Besser: If someone like Haneke can chastise American filmakers and audiences for films like HOSTEL, why doesn't it go both ways? Or does it? What I mean is, why is someone like Dario Argento let off the hook? Or is he?

Maybe because - most, nuance - US filmmakers and studios don't really care about responding or chastizing European audiences? Who in the USA cares about or even knows of Dario Argento?

A typical reaction of an American exec to a non-US horror/thriller/splatter drama would be: "Wow, this is vile, eeew, disturbing, God, this is scary. How can anybody enjoy this? Call Gellar's agent, see if we can do a remake."

Ok, it's just a caricature, don't take this too seriously. Point is, I don't feel a lot of finger-waving coming from the States towards here, at least not through movies. Or am I wrong about this do I just look away?

Sara: Maybe I misread your comment, and if so, I apologize. But when you said "We are talking about "intellectuals" making films that are aimed at the lowest fucking denominator. What is supposed to be impressive here? This is a guy pointing out that a freak is a freak.", I took your use of the word films to represent movies like this one, Saw, and Hostel. Calling the audiences who watch those movies the "lowest fucking denominator" is painting them with a rather broad brush. I LOVE horror movies, and so will see just about anything in the genre. I love the creativity and imagination that goes into the storylines and effects, and I love to support the filmmakers.

Now I'm not saying those types of films are inherently full of value. But I consider myself to be at least moderately intelligent, interested in wide variety of pursuits, and pretty damn far from the lowest fucking denominator or a "freak". I don't think 10,000 B.C. is historically accurate, and I don't want to commit violence against women, children or puppies. I love my mother (the appropriate amount), I'm not interested in deviant sexual pursuits like horse-fucking, I don't get off on violence real or imaginary and I'm against the war. But the prevailing attitude around here is "Well, if you like this kind of movie, you're screwed in the head," and frankly it's one I'm tired of seeing and trying to defend myself and fellow horror fans against. It's patently untrue and debasing.

However, as I said, I could have misunderstood what you meant, and if so, I apologize for calling you out like I did. I think you might have received the brunt of some built up frustration.

Stripping is to burlesque as an '86 Yugo is to a 1970 In Violet 440 'Cuda.

Not a chance I'd EVER see this movie. Don't know what happens to the kid, but it doesn't sound good, so no can do. I mean, if we want to see torture, extreme violence, people behaving like animals, then just turn on the frigging news. It's all right there for us to see, a gift from our friends in the "media."

Um, I know who Dario Argento is.

I also love horror movies, and will see just about anything horror related unless it just seems too bad to waste my time on. You can be a fully functioning memeber of society and still watch Land of the Dead everytime they show it on TNT/TBS.

But there is something that has been bothering me lately. There is a movie that just came out, I think, called Murder Set Pieces. I think I first read about it over at Cinematical. So, it's one of those underground, torture porn movies that is supposed to be so bad and disturbing and whatnot. So, I went to it's imdb page and read every dumbass post from people who said that they're favorite scene was of a child being killed. Really? Your favorite scene of a shitacular (apparently) movie was of a child being killed. Why not just say most memorable scene? I just found that a weird statement to make. And more than one person said that. More annoying were the people who got so upset over the fact that there were some people who didn't like the movie as a whole or found that scene disturbing. I haven't watched MSP and I don't plant to. It seems like one of those movies where they just try to be so over the top that it isn't shocking it's just stupid. I wouldn't mind seeing Funny Games, even though Michael Pitt annoys me for some reason.

I just searched for Struwwelpeter on Wikipedia. It seems as if they were to be some sort of moral tales. A more disturbing sort of Aesop's Fables. After that I searched Cache and one of the characters in that movie is named Georges. So maybe that explains Haneke's use of the name George, Georgie, idk.

B: check, that's one. Not that I'm keeping score.

And I was wrong about the 97 version winning the Palm at Cannes, it just ran in competition.

Sorry about that.