Lane on "Funny Games"

email this story
read comments (15)
post a comment

"If this movie knows it's merely a movie, and concedes as much, why should we honor its mayhem with any genuine fright?," asks New Yorker critic Anthony Lane about Funny Games.

"When Michael Pitt turns to the camera and asks, with a smile, 'You really think it's enough?,' or 'You want a proper ending, don't you?,' we don't feel nearly as chastened or ashamed as [director Michael] Haneke would like. We feel patronized, which is one of the worst moods that can beset an audience. Would Psycho have been a more profound film if Norman Bates had turned off the shower halfway through, adjusted his dress, and said to us, 'Don't worry about the blood. It's chocolate sauce'?"

"Funny Games"<< previous | next >>Bush sings

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM

comment #1

Jay T. says ...

Not that I really care, but it sounds like this could use a spoiler warning if this happens near the end... just saying.

Posted by Jay T. at March 11, 2008 4:29 PM

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

Second verse, same as the first. I had huge problems with the first version, probably skip or wait on this one, which is a shame because Naomi Watts is my number 1 alive, but I'm in no mood to see her degraded (except by David Lynch).

I've never bowed at the altar of Haneke, but CACHE snuck up on me on cable only a few months ago. Now why is it that movie is so much more unsettling? I'm sure even he knows the answer. I really don't get this remake at all.

Posted by BurmaShave at March 11, 2008 4:34 PM

comment #3

Jay T. says ...

Okay, nevermind, sounds like a warning wasn't necessary in this case.

Posted by Jay T. at March 11, 2008 4:36 PM

comment #4

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

"which is a shame because Naomi Watts is my number 1 alive, but I'm in no mood to see her degraded (except by David Lynch)."

HAHA! Totally agree Burma!!

Posted by Jeffrey Kunze at March 11, 2008 4:38 PM

comment #5

MilkMan says ...

Anthony Lane is such a bitch. Haneke isn't interested in the audience being "scared," if he was, he would shoot and edit his films accordingly. Just as in the Piano Teacher he wasn't interested in the audience being turned-on, although with Isabelle Huppert on screen, that's kind of hard to do, even if she is stabbing herself in the chest with a giant knife. I'm not quite sure what Haneke is interested in from his audience other than the audience's rapt attention, and I think that's what gets people all in a lather. You mean, he wants me to look, and listen, and think about what I'm seeing? How dare he, how pretentious! Or maybe all he wants is for the viewer to be disturbed, and if that's the case, then it sounds like his remake has hit the target once again. The guy's not a philosopher, he's just a filmmaker, and his point is that if he gets any kind of reaction out of you other than a flaccid, goony, popcorn coma stare, then he has done his job.

Posted by MilkMan at March 11, 2008 5:13 PM

comment #6

oranthal james says ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c2U9kcpepoo

Posted by oranthal james at March 11, 2008 5:28 PM

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

MilkMan is apparently the actionman of Haneke. Good, passion is always admirable.

Posted by BurmaShave at March 11, 2008 5:39 PM

comment #8

astrophore says ...

I'm with MilkMan on this one. Anthony Lane is a deft phrase-turner. Just ask him. Sir Tony L. oozes the smug superiority like Jeff Daniels in Squid and the Whale. "Don't bother...it's minor Haneke."

But here's the point, right? Jeff just devoted the last several posts to this little film, and only recently managed to squeeze a Clinton reference out of it. It engenders conversation, and it's meant to engage or enrage an audience. How is this not a good thing?

I saw the original version years ago -- Tony, dude, if you're reading this, I'm the one in the Janus Films T-shirt -- and it's a harrowing experience. It's also a bit of a harangue, if a necessary one. The only way I would see the remake is in the environs of a middle America multiplex. Certain people need to be disturbed by the movie, and have it stick with them. As Haneke himself said, those who need to see the movie will see it, and those who don't need it will never go.

Lane's coquettish mockery of the film does nothing to disarm its power. And I think his rhetorical question turns back on itself -- if we know it's a movie, why does it still disturb us?

Why is that?

Posted by astrophore at March 11, 2008 7:26 PM

comment #9

JacksOrBetter says ...

Mister Brecht, I'd like you to meet Mister Haneke.

Posted by JacksOrBetter at March 11, 2008 11:16 PM

comment #10

George Prager says ...

"Certain people need to be disturbed by the movie, and have it stick with them."

And why is that?

Posted by George Prager at March 12, 2008 6:02 AM

comment #11

Krazy Eyes says ...

"Sir Tony L. oozes the smug superiority like Jeff Daniels in Squid and the Whale. "Don't bother...it's minor Haneke."

A minor work is still pretty good when you're talking about the filet of directors.

Posted by Krazy Eyes at March 12, 2008 7:27 AM

comment #12

Mark says ...

More Funny Games! More Funny Games....

Posted by Mark at March 12, 2008 10:59 AM

comment #13

korryer says ...

I've seen this photo on wealthysoulmate.com. It's a dating site for celebrities and wealthy singles. Got no idea who posted it up there.

Posted by korryer at March 13, 2008 1:12 AM

comment #14

Legowombat says ...

Great - now Hollywood isn't just recycling movie ideas, it's repeating the advertising hooks, and related critical discourse.

The shocking 'endurance test' hype and moral outrage here is just a recycling of the kerfluffle over Wes Craven's 'The Last House On The Left', and that was 36 years ago.

I'm so bored of pretentious filmmakers who think they're preaching some grand insight into human nature than the rest of us already figured out years ago. As long as writer's need conflict to create drama and forward momentum in a story, violence, (or the threat of it), will be used as a dramatic device - unless you're making boring arthouse films without narrative drive or climax.

Let me get this straight: 'Funny Games' is a film that revels in the use of violence in an exploitative fashion, whilst having a character awkwardly and patronisingly point out to the audience how moronic / psychologically-suspect they are for viewing it, (whilst ignoring turning the light of scathing insight back onto the filmmaker thought it was worth the time, effort and expense making said film - in this case, twice), creating a combatative response in the viewer that makes them want to yell obscenities at the filmmaker and leave halfway through?

That's a damn accurate description of the recent 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin howler 'The Condemned'. No-one thought that was art. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by Legowombat at March 13, 2008 4:56 PM

comment #15