If there’s one thing that writer/director/provocateur
Michael Haneke’s remake of his 1997 film, Funny
Games, did for me, it was prove just how much of a
masterpiece the original was. Based on that line, one might
reasonably assume that I didn’t like this update. I did. The
main problem with the new Funny
Gamesconcerns its relevance. It is a shot-for-shot,
line-for-line (translated from German to English) remake of the
original film – kind of like if Gus Van Sant’s Psycho had
been made by Alfred Hitchcock in 1970. The only surprise in
store is the fact that the movie isn’t boring for those who have
seen its predecessor. Indeed, the American version of Funny
Games loses
hardly any of the power of its source, but is there any reason
for it to exist? The original is widely available on DVD, and it
would likely be just as sellable as this one if its distributor
were to re-launch an ad-campaign and stock the shelves of
Circuit Cities with copies.
Sure, it’s kind of interesting to see
the lead roles filled by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Brady Corbet,
and Michael Pitt. The four provide interesting takes on the
characters, even if they don’t exactly deviate from what the
original actors did. Much of the punch of the new Funny
Games lies in the
audience’s need to accept that household names must confront the
horrors presented by the twisted plot. There’s something more
shocking about the material for the American viewer when they
must watch Watts and Roth grapple with two psychopathic killers
torturing them, even more so when those killers are Pitt and
Corbet. In fact, to a certain extent, this does work to enhance
the movie’s themes about media-violence: do we superficial
American consumers find ourselves sympathizing more with the
film’s protagonists (or even its villains) because we “know” the
actors who play them? (Yes, a few of us knew who the late, great
Ulrich Mühe was when we saw 1997’s Funny
Games, but most Americans wouldn’t recognize him.)
Still, as much as the new Funny
Games has going
for it based on the mere idea that
it exists as an American product, Haneke never really uses this
to make statements that extend beyond surface-value. Everything
I’ve mentioned thus far seems to fall within the obvious
direction that the film could’ve been taken in, as does Haneke’s
choice to make the film’s central gimmick (one of the killers
addresses the viewer directly throughout) more pronounced for
American audiences. Even if Haneke imbues this Funny
Games with enough
of a fresh touch to make an argument for its existence, there’s
nothing that can really be gained from watching it that can’t be
from doing the same with the original. Yes, viewers may come to
realize a thing or two about how violence is viewed in America
versus in Europe based on their relationship with each movie
(how’s that for a little meta-on-meta?). But is this really a
substantive enough reason for an entire picture to exist? The
original Funny
Games worked
because it transcended experimentalism and formed a truly
horrifying experience unto its own. When viewed within a
cultural context, Haneke’s new take on the story can’t boast the
same. In fact, the characters still let off more of a European
vibe than an American one, anyway. It must have something to do
with those white short-shorts that Corbet and Pitt wear.
If I were to have not heard of the
original Funny
Games and ended
up seeing this one because of its broad theatrical distribution,
then I’d probably be grateful for its existence. Because the two
pictures are practically identical, there’s really no definitive
edition that those experiencing the story for the first time
need to watch. Then again, if I were an ordinary viewer who knew
nothing about Haneke or Funny
Games, then would I know about the remake, either? Probably
not, and in this exact paradox lies the reason why this
otherwise good film may just be utterly insignificant.
-Danny Baldwin, Bucket Reviews
Review Published on: 3.18.2008
Screened on: 3.15.2008
at the Edwards San Marcos 18 in San Marcos, CA.