Cell phones ringing. Babies crying. Poor projectionists. All of these problems pale in comparison to the true dark side of the film lover’s hobby: remakes. Disastrous remakes rival poorly cushioned seating as the ultimate pain in the ass of the cinematic experience. Michael Haneke’s Funny Games, however, is the exception to the remake rule – in the same way that Gus Van Sant’s Psycho was.
Remember when Gus Van Sant remade Psycho in a shot-by-shot imitation? Remember how that was received? Not too well (even though cinematographically it was identical). Well, Funny Games suffers from the same condition, except this time it’s being remade by the person who made the original. That’s right – Michael Haneke remade his OWN movie. I’m still trying to decide whether this is a sign of deep-running egotism, a severe self-confidence deficit or a media whore.
But first, we’ll discuss the movie’s plot and acting. Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth) and their intolerably annoying son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) drive up to their lake house to spend a nice quiet weekend with their equally rich neighbors. Unfortunately, the perfect little unit finds itself the host of Peter and Paul who enjoy playing sadistic games with the families they’ve taken captive. Things begin to boil when Ann gets fed up with the white-clad duo over a bunch of eggs. Why are women so protective of their eggs? Sheesh.
From there on out people get hurt, some people try and run and the ever-elusive fourth wall takes a few hits so Haneke can make attempts at film-created artistry. Don’t get me wrong, the tactic of forcing the audience to imagine the terror inflicted upon the family was a genius concept – 10 years ago. But since the introduction of Saw and Hostel, the film’s political statement has taken a severe blow in effectiveness. No longer is forcing the audience to accept their complicity in a society of brutal violence enough to carry a film’s message – in fact, the way Haneke illustrates the point, I’m not even sure it was enough back in 1997 when the original German version debuted. The methodology of his message would prove a more shocking experience back in the 70s or 80s. Artistic, yes. Moving, less so.
Now here’s a tricky question: when a film takes the original’s shot-by-shot blueprints and simply copies them exactly, can you give credit to the actors in the newer version? After all, they’re simply studying the older film and reproducing the expressions and mannerisms – the emotions created may be slightly their own, but the timing belongs to their predecessors. The basic point of what I’m driving at here is this: shot-by-shot remakes which do nothing to update the message or style are meaningless. Van Sant’s failed. Haneke’s failed. Only Haneke’s is more humiliating because he actually tried to remake his already useless film.
Now despite me thinking the thespians of Funny Games 2008 deserve little credit for the carbon-copy they’ve created, we’ll judge them all the same. Tim Roth, does well, considering after the first 15 minutes he does nothing be scream and breath heavily. Naomi Watts, does well, considering she does nothing but scream, strip and run after the first 15 minutes. Michael Pitt, however, playing the part of Paul – the evil twin in charge – is really fun to watch. But that’s exactly the point of the movie, in a way; the evil characters simply have more character than their hapless victims. Pitt’s partner Peter, played potently by Brady Corbet, offers up a slightly more human side to the torturous team. Corbet and Pitt give the film the little bit of spark that makes it even slightly worth viewing.
Again, the film has little in the way of redeeming qualities considering it’s a remake made by a(n) _______ (egotistical jerk/insecure director/whorish media mongrel). Fill in the blank. Funny Game. Get it? Like Mad libs…sorta.
What social commentary Funny Games does offer (or did offer ten years ago) has since faded in comparison due to the gamut of horror/psychological thriller films that we’ve seen since. While I’d like to call Michael Haneke a narcissistic ass or insecure fool, I’m convinced at this point he was simply trying to cash in on the one decent film he ever made by rereleasing it into a bigger audience. I can’t blame him as much – but I’m not going to support him for laying down the same piece of crap a second time over – that kind of talk is reserved for the Pocket Snails.
As a sidenote - I loved his recent Cache, so while this review seems super-critical, I know Haneke's capable of making great material. Why he regressed confounds/angers me.
"Funny Games" opens February 15, 2008 and is rated R. Horror. Written and directed by Michael Haneke. Starring Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet.
