Funny Games

I saw Funny Games (1997) when it was released at the cinema and always maintain its impact was heightened because I knew nothing about the film. Also, I was just passing a couple of hours while I waited for a friend who was at a gig. It's the only film I've seen at the cinema where I've really considered walking out. It was horrific and part of this was the surprise element. Of course, Haneke revels in surprise moments. Think of the moment in Hidden (2005) when Majid stabs himself or in The Piano Teacher (2001) when Erika does the same, or Time Of The Wolf (2003) when the father is shot. His ability to jolt you is compounded by the distance he creates between subject and viewer. This distanciation process is achieved by focussing on the actions of the characters, as removed from subjective intention or the arousal of sympathy. The camera acts as a documenting device, often framing certain actions around the hands, excluding the face. The hands are enacting, controlling. Consequently, we observe them, to some degree, with objectivity.
This film had a similar impact to that of my favourite film, Rear Window (1954), which shocked and impressed me when I first saw it. They are similar, perhaps, in more ways than I thought. Both attempt to disgust the viewer with a sadistic voyeurism. Both seem to have a contempt for the audience, in that they wish to implicate them in the horror (Hitchcock, in this case, surprisingly, is warmer is his delivery, though Haneke is undoubtedly the lesser vain director). We are the viewers, we indulge in the what we should not see. Both directors make you aware of this. Is this what Brecht did? Haneke talked about how he wanted the family characters to have the broadest appeal possible. Most people who go to the cinema are middle-class and people generally associate most closely with the family, and this is how his characters were created - very specifically for its audience. So then, the characters on screen reflect the audience to create a bond and then their vulgarity is consequently reflected. The audience become implicated.
It's a film I've thought about a lot since I saw it, although I've never watched it again. This is partly in fear, for a long time after I watched it, I wasn't sure whether I liked it, or even approved of such shock cinema. I could never decide, though it had a massive impact on me. The person I went with thought it was excellent and I remember judging her for this - for taking pleasure in such a horrific film. Of course, you are meant to take pleasure in it, but certainly it was Haneke's intention to make people question why they were taking pleasure in it.
So on boxing day, I watched Funny Games U.S. (2007) with a friend who had also seen the original. I knew it was a shot for shot remake and that Haneke had directed it. It was good, though there was something missing in the translation. I think, ultimately, it was the performances which were weaker. This can only be attributed to Haneke's direction, and knowing that his English isn't very good, it makes sense that it hasn't transferred well. You seem to become aware of the dialogue at key moments. It's a little like when you read a translated novel and you become aware of the translation process. Something is stilted. Another issue could be casting. I'm still unsure as to whether Michael Pitt was a good choice. I mentioned on the phone to a friend that his campness was a quality that was missing from the Austrian original. However, as she pointed out, this does add to his terrifying nature. Ultimately, I became too aware of Pitt's performance. Naomi Watts was excellent, as was Tim Roth, despite his annoying face.
The film itself had a saturated feel, almost whitened, with heightened contrast, to indicate the terror of the subjects. This was noticably effective. The two terrorists themselves were always polite, smiling for the most part, untouched by the misery they inflicted, and as such, never sweated.