Everything about Funny Games (1997) works in Funny Games (2007) because Haneke chooses a path of meticulous replication. Haneke speaks directly to American audiences through Paul, keeping the metatextual commentaries about how we’re participants in the violence on screen. Haneke agrees that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it - down to a hungry dog trying to raid an open refrigerator.Īs an identical sibling film born a decade later? Yes, Funny Games (2007) is a well-acted psychopath’s getaway that generates all the same icky-awful feelings as Funny Games (1997). Funny Games (2007) allowed Haneke a second chance to see his first intentions become a reality, using the same blocking, frame selections, and props where possible. It’s said that Funny Games (1997) might have been intended to be an English film from the start, then thwarted by budgetary issues. I’m always harping on filmmakers to find their voice while paying respect to someone else’s source material - but that’s not Haneke’s objective. It’s a complex analysis because Funny Games goes against everything I believe about remakes. Before “Because you were home,” there was “Why not” - all we can do is voyeuristically watch as coincidental torment unfolds. Peter and Paul ask the Farbers for eggs, their request turns out to be a ruse, and they spend the movie holding them hostage until a teased execution deadline. If you’ve seen 1997’s original, you know what transpires because it’s copied and pasted like clip art. Stepping in as the film’s vile torturers in snow-white collared shirts are Brady Corbet as Peter and Michael Pitt as Paul. The queen of American horror remakes Naomi Watts and Tim Roth star as Ann and George Farber, doomed vacationers heading to their lake house with son Georgie ( Devon Gearhart). Bless a filmmaker with the confidence not to question a single choice they once made, essentially insisting a movie so stupendous doesn’t require second guesses. There’s so little altered outside maybe how many pounds of steak are thawed (“three” versus “four,” curse our American greed)? Otherwise, Haneke doesn’t see any weakness in his wall-breaking narrative. Avant-garde musical rebels Naked City get to hear their song “Bonehead” reused over the credits. From the overhead highway opener to the closing hold on a deviant murderer staring back at the camera as a freeze frame. Although, does shooting the exact storyboards like they’d been shipped overseas classify as a good remake? Haneke’s involvement is the trump card, because we’ve all seen what happens when a lesser filmmaker takes someone else’s script and creates something inferior (cough cough Cabin Fever cough cough). Why wouldn’t he? A proud filmmaker saw an opportunity to help his bundle of anti-joy reach a wider audience, only made more relevant by the popularized 2000s period in horror history with “torture porn” leading the charge. ![]() Haneke jumped at the chance to make an American version of his Austrian commentary on the media’s exploitation of violence. ![]() My inner masochist couldn’t skip on tackling one of the stranger entries into Revenge of the Remakes, as two equally competent home invasion thrillers played out like a case of knife-twisting déjà vu. ![]() Watching two Michael Haneke features back-to-back doesn’t sound all that outrageous, right? What if they’re Funny Games (1997) and Funny Games (2007)? You start with one of the more disturbing flicks in Criterion’s closet, then immediately follow it with an American shot-for-shot remake that relives the same nightmare.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |