An Experiment in Violence

I fully admit to pilfering this topic from the Scanners blog, but I was very intrigued by the discussion over there, and knew it was unlikely that anyone who reads my blog would check it out just because I suggested it (I suggest a lot of things) so I decided to bring it over here and see if anyone has an opinion. (If you want to view the original topic, here's the link.)

This past weekend saw the release of the film Funny Games by experimental art-filmmaker Michael Heneke. (His other credits include the Austrian films Cache, The Piano Teacher, and Code Unknown.) Funny Games is an Americanized remake of a film by the same title that Heneke made in Austria 10 years ago. It's pretty much a shot by shot remake, although I'm told minor things are altered. It follows a yuppie family, father mother and son, at their vacation house where they are terrorized by two extremely polite boys, wearing all-white, including gloves. The boys bet the family they will all be dead by 9, and set about abusing, terrorizing, and killing the family for their own amusement.

Here's a niche trailer for the film:



This is a rundown of the basic argument - Obviously, there is a level of satire going on in that preview which is fully intended. Director Heneke has been quoted regularly and loudly about this film not merely being a demonstration of the fear and real effects of violence that is lacking in most torture-porn films, but a lesson in how violence is consumed in American media. People regularly troop out to see films like Saw and Hostel where innocents are rounded up, tortured and killed for motives hardly more complex than boredom. There's a big difference between Hostel and Funny Games as the behavior of the murderers in the latter is obviously intended as some kind of statement. Also, while both films show innocents being killed, Funny Games lingers on the aftermath of the violence (or so I've read), and doesn't just move on to the next victim. There is an emotion being demonstrated that the torture-porn films in general lack.

However, most people that will be inspired to go and see this film will be fans of the torture-porn genre. In attempting to refocus the effects of violence on the real emotions and not the gruesome deaths, Heneke may be noble, but the lesson is not one that most in attendance are there to learn. They will be there to see the family suffer and perhaps enjoy the cavalier attitudes of the killers. Which is of course Heneke's point, that we as Americans have a cavalier attitude toward violence, where it is about entertainment and not about reality. But as the film follows many of the conventions of a typically violent film, to see the film feels redundant to those of us who already understand this reality, and only further entertainment to those who do not.

All of that said, excellent reasoning aside, I find myself perversely wanting to see this movie. I feel really wrong about this. I saw the first Saw, which had a few interesting aspects to it, but is not a film I would care to see again. I also, unfortunately, saw the sequel Saw II, and have often said it was nothing more than a gore-fest set to constant heavy metal montages. I have not cared to see other sequels, any of the Hostel films, or any film that depicts tourists brutally killed while on vacation. There is a big difference between slasher films (which I also rarely care for) and films that focus completely on the calculated dismemberment of terrified human beings. That said, aspects of this film, specifically the satire, appeal to me and irrationally make me want to see it. What really scares me is that the satire will only serve to make the film more digestable to my palate as it will provide laughs where there should be none and perhaps allow me to forget the true horror that is actually occuring.

This is the extended trailer for the film, and it may reveal some spoilers:




I've followed a lot of the discussion of this film and it's honestly really interesting to talk about what violence means within our culture, and whether a film like this serves to draw awareness, or to encourage further ignorance. Jim Emerson, the writer of the Scanners blog, hated the movie and writes a very good review as to why here. On the other hand, the folks at Entertainment Weekly, generally a pretty tough set of critics, were engaged by the film and thought it was thought-provoking and effective. (That review here.) The Scanners blog also has other posts filled with quotes by Heneke about his motives for making the film and his opinions about violence, specifically American violence. Whether you agree or think he's a big tool, they are interesting to ponder.

So please, at least lemme know your reaction to the trailer. I've already noted that it intrigues me as much as it fills me with disgust, so I feel pretty conflicted. Also, if any of this is fascinating to you, as it is to me, do click on the link to the Scanners blog at the top of this post and also read both of the reviews linked above. Here are links to other posts on this topic at the Scanners blog: Here, Here, and Here. (If you do read the posts, scroll down and read the comments sections as well. That blog is frequented by a lot of really smart people, film fans and critics alike, and provides excellent analysis and discussion.)