Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2008)

[Antoine Doinel]

He points out American racism (among many other foibles including fundamentalism and their skewed sense of democracy) because unlike Denmark or even France, the United States has made it a priority to influence and be felt in major political, economic and social actions around the world. Von Trier, more than anything else, is attempting to point out the many hypocrises of American policy. Of course these problems exist throughout the world, but they are none the more glaring or pointed when coming a from country that in Bush's words (this morning, no less) wants to "spread freedom".

[miless]

More than anything, it's Von Trier's smug attitude that I dislike more than his films. His assertions just seem naive, as it's very easy to blame something, someone or some place that you've never seen, met or been to.
I think he does have a valid point about the United States' political, social and economic coercion of the rest of the world, but he just goes about it by being an asshole.
and I am truly depressed by any, and all of, Bush's remarks regarding a. the rest of the world, and b. everything else.
I have been embarrassed to be an American for years.
My other question is: who is the intended audience of Von Trier's 'American Racists' series? It's the art-film crowd, who are certainly aware of all the problems raised. Those whom he seems to be targeting wouldn't be seen within 10 miles of an 'art-fag' theater.

[Antoine Doinel]

I loved Dogville and thought Manderlay was flawed, yet interesting but I agree he is pretty much preaching to the converted. However, he criticisms of America go well beyond "racism" (not quite sure what you mean).

As for the fact he's never been to America - I don't think it makes much a difference as plenty of Iraqis have never been to America either but I'm sure they have some very strong feelings about Americans.

[toiletduck!]

Wow, pretty blatant cribbing of Ebert's "It's not a movie, it's a thesis!" talking point. I think it's kind of bullshit, even though I'm extremely suspicious/contemptuous of this film and Haneke's intentions behind the remake - this notion that there's inherently something unacademic or antipedagogical about film as a medium confuses me.

I'm down with portnoy on this. The appeal, and the only reason I am going to Funny Games this weekend, is to see how it goes over with Haneke's intended audience (which not us, p.s.) -- this is the problem with all of the critical response I've been seeing: everyone is pointing out how this is less a film than an experiment or a thesis or a what have you. I agree completely, but am confused by why this is inherently bad. If a film is not attempting what we think film should attempt, is it the fault of the film or the fault of our narrow scope of what can constitute a film? If you don't like the experiment, I can understand that, but I don't feel comfortable criticizing Haneke for not doing something that he never intended to do.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Mr Sausage]

I agree completely, but am confused by why this is inherently bad.

The simple answer is that film has been throughout its history so predominantly narrative driven that people who don't spend time reflecting on the medium have knee-jerk reactions against a film that does something outside of their general experience.

From another perspective: no one would give a damn if a poem was making an argument.

[miless]

His films are more complex than I give them credit for (and my arguments have mostly been about Manderlay). I don't quite get Manderlay's criticisms of American culture per se. Racism (causing and resulting from slavery) being a replacement for slavery, but being institutionalized by the black community?

Dogville is a fairly interesting view of xenophobia (sort of), and Manderlay does have some merits, as well, but I just can't get past Von Trier the filmmaker.

I also think that the style of these films further pushes them into the sphere of art-films, which given Von Trier's intentions, would further alienate those the film was intended.

Actually, the one film of his that I've truly liked was Boss of it All, simply because (in his own words) it is a "silly little film", and he's not trying to shove troubling subject matter in our face.

also, the argument about Iraqis having a reason to hate Americans may be well founded, but they don't really know the Americans. They are making an opinion based upon government employees who are doing the government's bidding. If they were to actually meet 'normal' American citizens (not armed soldiers), I'm sure many minds would be changed. Just as if the American people could meet the citizens of any number of countries/cultures/religions maybe we would understand that the problem arises from authority and fundamentalism not from 'normal' folks. but there'll also be those whose minds will never be changed (like the KKK'ers here, or those willing to use terrorism over there... or our government)

back to the subject at hand.

[domino harvey]

Wow, pretty blatant cribbing of Ebert's "It's not a movie, it's a thesis!" talking point. I think it's kind of bullshit, even though I'm extremely suspicious/contemptuous of this film and Haneke's intentions behind the remake - this notion that there's inherently something unacademic or antipedagogical about film as a medium confuses me.

I'm down with portnoy on this. The appeal, and the only reason I am going to Funny Games this weekend, is to see how it goes over with Haneke's intended audience (which not us, p.s.) -- this is the problem with all of the critical response I've been seeing: everyone is pointing out how this is less a film than an experiment or a thesis or a what have you. I agree completely, but am confused by why this is inherently bad. If a film is not attempting what we think film should attempt, is it the fault of the film or the fault of our narrow scope of what can constitute a film? If you don't like the experiment, I can understand that, but I don't feel comfortable criticizing Haneke for not doing something that he never intended to do.

The film is a lesson by someone who presumes to be in a position to give lessons to the audience, but rather than proving his mettle via a film that provokes thought, he produces a film that merely provokes an extreme response. I had a professor once who said that he didn't think much of the ability to elicit a response in a given text-- he gave the example that he could go to the front of the class and start drowning kittens and it would generate tears or anger or whatever-- but a text that makes you think, that's what's hard. Heneke doesn't trust his audience to think so he does it for them by making sure there's nothing but the simple lesson on display.

[ptmd]

From another perspective: no one would give a damn if a poem was making an argument.

I have to strenuously disagree here. If a poet wrote a poem as strident and didactic as Funny Games, he would be taken to task by anybody seriously interested in the form. There are, of course, great filmmakers with a pedagogical inclination (Rossellini, Straub and Huillet, Kiarostami), but they are all open to the world and its possibilities in a way that Haneke, at least in Funny Games, is not.

[denti alligator]

From another perspective: no one would give a damn if a poem was making an argument.

I have to strenuously disagree here. If a poet wrote a poem as strident and didactic as Funny Games, he would be taken to task by anybody seriously interested in the form.

You have a very limited notion of poetry.

[toiletduck!]

The film is a lesson by someone who presumes to be in a position to give lessons to the audience, but rather than proving his mettle via a film that provokes thought, he produces a film that merely provokes an extreme response. I had a professor once who said that he didn't think much of the ability to elicit a response in a given text-- he gave the example that he could go to the front of the class and start drowning kittens and it would generate tears or anger or whatever-- but a text that makes you think, that's what's hard. Heneke doesn't trust his audience to think so he does it for them by making sure there's nothing but the simple lesson on display.

Here's where the demographic argument sinks home for me -- and it's hard to speak towards this end without sounding elitist (which is one of the flaws that I would apply to Haneke as well), but this film is intending to make the movie-going masses think. I feel fairly confident assuming that Haneke has no interest in an audience familiar with the original. The other type of review I've been seeing is summarized by J.R. Jones pan in the Chicago Reader, decrying the fact that Haneke hasn't evolved the film at all in a decade. Well, of course not -- lucky Haneke has suddenly gotten (something that at least approaches) the audience he was only wishing he had the first go around. Bottom line, this is a movie for Dumb Americans, not academes, cinephiles, the intelligentsia, or anyone approximately approaching those categories. And there is a certain substantial percentage of Dumb Americans that may have a big enough struggle thinking through this text.

As much as I enjoy von Trier's work and as frustrating as both can be, this is where I have to give Haneke props for at least having the gall to preach to the unconverted. And in this experiment, it's not really the text that interests me; it's the fallout (or lack thereof... we'll see).

-Toilet Dcuk

[Robotron]

I agree completely, but am confused by why this is inherently bad.

The simple answer is that film has been throughout its history so predominantly narrative driven that people who don't spend time reflecting on the medium have knee-jerk reactions against a film that does something outside of their general experience.

From another perspective: no one would give a damn if a poem was making an argument.

Thesis filmmaking has been around long before Haneke, and most people are open to the idea; criticisms are generally as I'm aware are that his thesis is idiotic and puritanical, I certainly think it is. It's also pretty revealing that most people who are interested in the movie seem to be so because of what they expect the mainstream audience reaction to be, abstractly something like:

"Oh boy, those filthy masses sure won't know what to make of daring sophisticated shit like this!"

[domino harvey]

It's also pretty revealing that most people who are interested in the movie seem to be so because of what they expect the mainstream audience reaction to be, abstractly something like:

"Oh boy, those filthy masses sure won't know what to make of daring sophisticated shit like this!"

They're also forgetting that "stupid people" (which is I assume being used synonymously by this forum and elsewhere for "mainstream audiences") aren't smart because to some degree they don't have any inclination to learn. What makes anyone think this film is going to have any sort of effect on a viewer who's already made up his mind to not use it? At best, Joe Dumbass will see Funny Games and say "That was a dumb/weird/crazy/(insert thoughtless, immediately dismissive adjective) film" and quickly move on to the next movie without any retrospection or thought to the film. Funny Games is an exercise in superiority for the filmmaker and the masochistic art house viewers "attuned" to the film, a problem since it's main goal is to give lip service to the "mainstream" viewers it will never attract/retain.

[ptmd]

You have a very limited notion of poetry.

Condescension aside, can you give me any examples of a poem that is as aggressively punitive towards its readership as Funny Games and is taken seriously by either poets or critics? This whole analogy breaks down pretty quickly because Funny Games is most certainly not trying to be a poem, but my point was simply that a lot of the criticisms being leveled against Funny Games are more than just knee-jerk reactions against non-narrative forms (quite the contrary).

[toiletduck!]

"Oh boy, those filthy masses sure won't know what to make of daring sophisticated shit like this!"

What, may I ask, is the difference between that (insanely reductive) conclusion and this (insanely reductive) conclusion:

At best, Joe Dumbass will see Funny Games and say "That was a dumb/weird/crazy/(insert thoughtless, immediately dismissive adjective) film" and quickly move on to the next movie without any retrospection or thought to the film.

Personally, I hope mainstream audiences have a positive reaction to the film; either way, I'm curious to see what the reaction is. My interest in the film (I'm not going to speak for anyone else -- you and domino have that covered) is not in hopes that Haneke's swindles the unwashed masses or that thousands of people suddenly see the error in their ways and become one of holy cultural proper. It's purely sociological -- this particular film mashed up with this potential particular audience could make for an interesting outcome. Now that I'm talking more in depth on it, it strikes me that this aspect of the film is actually very similar to my interest in 300. I could give fuck all for the film, but without the film I couldn't watch the people watching it, so I'll back it.

-Toilet Dcuk

[domino harvey]

You have any idea how condescending that sounds? Oh how noble of you to go slumming!

[toiletduck!]

You have any idea how condescending that sounds? Oh how noble of you to go slumming!

Only on this forum would other people be automatically read as lesser people.

-Toilet Dcuk

Edit: That's not fair to the forum. Only from certain members of the forum seeking to be the official court jester for dismissiveness and condescension would other people be automatically etc. etc.

[Robotron]

Bottom line, this is a movie for Dumb Americans, not academes, cinephiles, the intelligentsia, or anyone approximately approaching those categories. And there is a certain substantial percentage of Dumb Americans that may have a big enough struggle thinking through this text.

As much as I enjoy von Trier's work and as frustrating as both can be, this is where I have to give Haneke props for at least having the gall to preach to the unconverted. And in this experiment, it's not really the text that interests me; it's the fallout (or lack thereof... we'll see).

Only on this forum would other people be automatically read as lesser people.

I'd say more but there's really nothing to say.

[Mr Sausage]

From another perspective: no one would give a damn if a poem was making an argument.

I have to strenuously disagree here. If a poet wrote a poem as strident and didactic as Funny Games, he would be taken to task by anybody seriously interested in the form.

You have a very limited notion of poetry.

Well, there goes your namesake, Denti [=Dante]. He has been thrown into the dustbin by everybody "seriously interested in the form" (which apparently is neither you nor I).

I certainly think it is. It's also pretty revealing that most people who are interested in the movie seem to be so because of what they expect the mainstream audience reaction to be, abstractly something like: "Oh boy, those filthy masses sure won't know what to make of daring sophisticated shit like this!"

Just to make things clear, I have no notion of whether or not Funny Games is good or bad, and have no interest in either seeing or not seeing the movie. My own comments were a simple way of trying to account for (what I have also perceived as being) the strange dismissal of argument in film as being inherantly bad. I'm not making a judgement about certain people, but about certain lines of reasoning--reasoning that does not require a positive judgement of Funny Games.

[toiletduck!]

Bottom line, this is a movie for Dumb Americans, not academes, cinephiles, the intelligentsia, or anyone approximately approaching those categories. And there is a certain substantial percentage of Dumb Americans that may have a big enough struggle thinking through this text.

As much as I enjoy von Trier's work and as frustrating as both can be, this is where I have to give Haneke props for at least having the gall to preach to the unconverted. And in this experiment, it's not really the text that interests me; it's the fallout (or lack thereof... we'll see).

Only on this forum would other people be automatically read as lesser people.

I'd say more but there's really nothing to say.

How can I extricate myself from this discussion before it gets any uglier, 'cause I'm having a tough time not going there now.

Quite plainly... the first quote was my assertion of Haneke's intent. I'm curious to see how it plays out and if it's anything like he had planned. I'm not 'rooting' for Haneke, but I think he has provided for an interesting situation. When I go to Funny Games to see how people react, it won't be any different than when I watch people on the train after work everyday. I always assumed that there were plenty of other people who simply enjoyed observing others. I also assumed there were a bunch of them on this board. Maybe not -- but that doesn't make my intent any more malicious.

If I can't express an interest in Haneke's work and ideas without automatically ascribing to and being associated with them, I'll back out right now. Because I don't agree with everything (or many things) that the man says or does. But they're almost always decisive and polarizing. And I enjoy decisive and polarizing.

Whew... I made it through without personal insults (sorry I got a little more trigger happy earlier, domino). Is that at all clarifying?

-Toilet Dcuk

[denti alligator]

Sure, Dante is about as "strident and didactic" as it gets, no? And pretty fucking arrogant to boot.

I was thinking of some of the more political poetry of the 60s and 70s, or even Brecht at his most political and didactic.

[John Cope]

The problem with this whole "experiment" as far as I can see is that Funny Games is not getting a very wide release after all. Here in Milwaukee it's only playing at the Oriental and even in Chicago it's playing very few screens. Toiletduck, are you seeing this at the Century Centre? If so, I'm not sure if you'll get much of a gauge of "mainstream" reception; unless, of course, we mean the mainstream of people on Clark Street.

[toiletduck!]

Nope, I'm headed to the cineplex in Evanston... but it's also playing the River East 21, which is good, because you're right. This playing in an art house is no different than the original playing in an art house.

-Toilet Dcuk

[miless]

Sure, Dante is about as "strident and didactic" as it gets, no? And pretty fucking arrogant to boot.

I was thinking of some of the more political poetry of the 60s and 70s, or even Brecht at his most political and didactic.

I would argue that Howl is very didactic (if only inhow long and annoying it is).

and if we're going on writing here one can't get more 'strident and didactic' than the holy scripture, and look at how many people follow that.

[ptmd]

Sure, Dante is about as "strident and didactic" as it gets, no? And pretty fucking arrogant to boot.

I was thinking of some of the more political poetry of the 60s and 70s, or even Brecht at his most political and didactic.

Brecht I'll give you, although I think that Dante's attitude is more complicated than you're giving him credit for, but regardless, everybody you've mentioned has been criticized for their more strident/didactic elements (and that certainly includes Dante). That doesn't mean, of course, that saying a work is preachy or excessively thesis-driven is the same thing as saying that it's without value, but simply that it's a legitimate line of criticism. What I was arguing against was the suggestion up above that nobody would care if a poem was thesis-driven when, in fact, that is a major part of poetry criticism and has been for centuries. I don't see why films should be treated any differently.

[Oedipax]

We were 'lucky' in my town to get it at the local multiplex by the mall. I saw the 7:20 showing tonight - 4 walkouts. There was a perverse amusement watching people as they came into the theater, clearly with no idea of what they were in for. When the long take of Naomi Watts bouncing around the room came up, people just dispensed with any notion of etiquette and started talking amongst themselves (no real choice commentary, just a lot of annoyed grumbling). An interesting way to spend a couple hours.