Michael Haneke's 'Funny Games' is the kind of film which splits viewers into two extremes. And no matter what people think of it, there's no denying that it's a brilliantly made film, and in my opinion, it's really clear in its point.
In the movie, we see two robbers/killers disguised as well-seeming gentlemen, who invade the house of a three-member family to torture and play "funny" games with them. And it's never clearly explored why they do all this, and that's the main point Haneke makes - "senseless violence". I'm not against every kind of violence depicted in various forms of art and media, and I don't think Haneke is as well. If the violence is explored in detail, serves a purpose, depicted in context, and not just as a random or stylized act in an action or slasher film, I'm okay with it. And as a rebuke to such violence, Haneke tests us by subjecting us to a movie with almost no plot and unexplained violence. He remade this film in 2007 for an English-speaking audience; I wish someone remakes this film in countries like India, where any sort of violence is okay on screen, but anything related to sex is still so censored.
Through the film, Haneke has an interesting dialogue with the viewer. The way Paul (on the the young men) winks at the viewers or asks them questions, catching one in a voyeuristic trance of violence and making one question the reason for their presence there, was really interesting. Whether it's just to see where the story goes, or to explore the true intentions of the two men, or to see if the family makes out safely after killing the two sadistic torturers, I actually found myself thinking these questions from time to time. And despite all that, Haneke plays with his viewers in exactly the same way the two men do with the hostage family, except maybe, the former has a purpose. Quite a few escape opportunities or situational clues are shown for us to assume them to be of some importance, but they are snatched away one by one and revealed to be red herrings.
The acting is really good. Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Muhe are incredible as the helpless couple, Frank Giering is commendable as the chubby and childlike Peter, and Arno Frisch is amazing as the calm, cold-hearted and sadistic Paul; he's so good that there numerous moments that provoke us to punch him on the face, or even kill him. And that's when I realized that the film, maybe, also tries to test our own morals and ask "What constitutes as a justifiable reason to kill someone?"
In the movie, we see two robbers/killers disguised as well-seeming gentlemen, who invade the house of a three-member family to torture and play "funny" games with them. And it's never clearly explored why they do all this, and that's the main point Haneke makes - "senseless violence". I'm not against every kind of violence depicted in various forms of art and media, and I don't think Haneke is as well. If the violence is explored in detail, serves a purpose, depicted in context, and not just as a random or stylized act in an action or slasher film, I'm okay with it. And as a rebuke to such violence, Haneke tests us by subjecting us to a movie with almost no plot and unexplained violence. He remade this film in 2007 for an English-speaking audience; I wish someone remakes this film in countries like India, where any sort of violence is okay on screen, but anything related to sex is still so censored.
Through the film, Haneke has an interesting dialogue with the viewer. The way Paul (on the the young men) winks at the viewers or asks them questions, catching one in a voyeuristic trance of violence and making one question the reason for their presence there, was really interesting. Whether it's just to see where the story goes, or to explore the true intentions of the two men, or to see if the family makes out safely after killing the two sadistic torturers, I actually found myself thinking these questions from time to time. And despite all that, Haneke plays with his viewers in exactly the same way the two men do with the hostage family, except maybe, the former has a purpose. Quite a few escape opportunities or situational clues are shown for us to assume them to be of some importance, but they are snatched away one by one and revealed to be red herrings.
The acting is really good. Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Muhe are incredible as the helpless couple, Frank Giering is commendable as the chubby and childlike Peter, and Arno Frisch is amazing as the calm, cold-hearted and sadistic Paul; he's so good that there numerous moments that provoke us to punch him on the face, or even kill him. And that's when I realized that the film, maybe, also tries to test our own morals and ask "What constitutes as a justifiable reason to kill someone?"