The girl vomited in order to get her money back? Please. Looks like the last laugh is on you, my friend, if you believe a story like that.

JE: If she DID vomit just to get her money back it's an even better story!

So, if I'd vomited after Ron Howard's How The Grinch Stole Christmas, I could've gotten my money back?

JE: In that case, I would recommend something like what I suggested in my review of "Funny Games": Perhaps you should have stormed the booth and vomited on the platter. When I booked a little art-house movie theater in Seattle, our policy was generally that you didn't get your money back if you stayed until the end. Even if you puked. After all, we couldn't offer a guarantee that you'd LIKE the movie; you were just paying to rent a seat inside the theater while the film was playing. But if people left in the first half-hour or so, we'd usually give 'em refunds. My favorite time was when we were showing a newly restored print of "Jules and Jim" and a couple walked out before the feature started because we preceded it with a Pepe Le Pew cartoon (we showed 35mm prints of Looney Tunes before all our features) and they thought it was insulting to the French. They got their money back and we were glad to see them go.

I may have to bring some ipecac, so I can remake that scene at the box office for the remake of Caché.

I let out a huge fart after seeing the original. I never thought to ask for my money back.

JE: Didn't they give out free "Funny Games" whoopie cushions, X-Ray Spex and Doggie Dunits for the first version?

Walking out on a Pepe le Pew carton: Ladies and gentlemen...the most humorless couple on the planet.

The last movie I saw at The Market Theater was The Wild Bunch, I think not long before it ceased being a movie theater.

I didn't ask for my money back after The Grinch, but I did disown my niece and nephew for making me take them to it.

Ok, not really.

I remember reading about a therapist who had engineered a program to help people quit smoking cigarettes by way of talk therapy alone. The program failed horribly, because he realized that whenever the phrase 'Don't smoke' was spoken, all that the patient heard was 'smoke.'

And, that part in Cache where the guy necks himself is totally unrealistic. But it made me go out and buy a knife anyway. Knives are cool.

I'm a little too swamped to make it to the movies right now, so I haven't seen anything at all recently, but all these reviews are making me really want to go see Funny Games. It's such a fascinating thing to see the reception of a movie like this or the Hostel/Saw torture cycle, or Irreversible a couple years back, or the slasher films a few decades ago - films in which negative reviews typically didn't just condemn the film but its maker as well, and often anybody who likes it too (if you can find early reviews of slasher films, they often feature anecdotal evidence in which the reviewer is outraged and disgusted by a certain audience that enjoys the films). Evidently, Haneke didn't just make a bad film, but he's a bad person for having made it. I dunno, sounds intriguing to me.

I think it's what Haneke is saying that's so troubling. I can't see Funny Games as endorsing anything but pacifism taken to masochistic, thanatophilic extremes.

...Of course, that'd be assuming he's actually trying to say something about violence, and not just repeating the same thing every other uninformed European liberal is saying about us fat, gun-owning, Bush-voting, beer-swilling, SUV-driving Americans. I think that if Haneke was more concerned with violence in film, he'd be making a movie for the Asian market.

If Haneke really wants to make fun of his potential American audience, he should make a movie that mocks the arthousey crowd who come out of pretentious, cynical stuff like Funny Games pretending to feel anything but insulted. To paraphrase web cartoonist Chris Onstad, the venn diagram of people who watch violent Hollywood films and people who attend arthouse theaters like the kind playing Funny Games would look like an eight.

"Ironically, Haneke could soon get a taste of his own medicine: A Ron Howard redo of "Cache" is in development at U."

Jim, why do you think this is hilarious. I thought you felt "Cache" was a masterpiece? What if you found out Rob Reiner was doing a redo of "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada?"

I went to IMDb and didn't see anything on Ron Howard's to-do list that was concerned with Michael Haneke, so I sincerely doubt that this Variety article should be all that alarming. I realized the article was poorly informed when they said, "The heated response -- unmatched since Gus Van Sant's shot by shot re-creation of "Psycho" a decade ago."

Gman, you sound pretentious yourself when you state that the only people who admire "Funny Games" are merely pretending to admire it, but are secretly insulted. I was exhilarated by the original when I saw it, the same way I was exhilarated by David Fincher's "Se7en." There were people back in 1995, like Kate Jordan, who came out of the theater feeling like they had just been kicked in the stomach and condemned the film as "garbage" or "evil" or "nihilistic." Of course, David Fincher and Michael Haneke love these responses far more than those like mine who want to congratulate them for their daring and their refusal to conform to what is "appropriate."

The arthouse theaters like the kind playing Funny Games also play films like "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "The Kite Runner," "12:08 to Bucharest," "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days," "L'Enfant" and "Persepolis." These theaters shelter creativity. You do know that people who attend "arthousey" films aren't actually sneering, snooty, beret-wearing snobs with upturned noses?

I come to this website to see people embrace new ideas in cinema, to appreciate artistry and sophistication, but find posts offended by avant-garde cinema and flippant, callous remarks about Majid's devastating suicide in "Cache.”

You may not like "Funny Games" but it would be foolish to dismiss Michael Haneke as a director because you were insulted by one of his films. He has 8 others, and combined, they are an invaluable addition to the world of cinema.

"Arthousey crowd?" Jesus.

That last post was rash and incoherent, and after reading what you wrote again, understand that you may not have been mocking arthouse theaters.

But Haneke seemed to do everything he could to ensure a wide audience: the star is Naomi Watts, of the $100 million grossing "The Ring," "The Ring 2," and "King Kong." Unless you know for certain that he directed the film for limited release only, you can't get on his case about the point of his film not reaching its intended audience. Maybe he expected it would get wide release, and perhaps it still will, due to the level of controversy.

That AV Club review of Funny Games was among the best I've read.

American audiences made "Norbit" a hit, Gman. There are some inescapable truths about our society that are just too scary to get around. Also, this
"torture porn" label was invented by guys like Haneke who think somehow one is morally deficient for enjoying a slasher film. In the words of Jay-Z: "It's only entertainment!" Nobody ever gave Johnny Cash flak for writing "Cocaine Blues". Or his fans for enjoying it.

Oh criminy. Stop beating around the bush and say it already: Haneke's an anti-american!

So frikkin' thin skinned, these Americans.

You know what I've been thinking you should do? You should do a piece on Funny Games. Seriously, think about it. I bet you'd get some good comments.

I had a strange dream a few days ago involving Ron Howard. I met him at some random social function and got sucked in as part of his entourage. He was really weasily though, not endearing like the real Ron Howard. We went to a mall, where he shopped around for sweaters. We went to the food court and he debated whether he could afford to buy a pastry or not. I said, "You made 'A Beautiful Mind'! You must have some money!" He said I was right, but then he couldn't decide which one he wanted, because one tasted better and one was bigger. I tried to explain to him that bigger wasn't always better, and he will get more overall enjoyment out of a smaller pastry that he actually wants to eat. He ordered it and was delighted, acting like a child. One of his entourage was getting jealous of the time we were spending together, and he led me away to try and intimidate me. I put him in a headlock and convinced him that he had to kill Ron Howard. He agreed, and I thought, "Wow, these Hollywood types are pushovers." Then we walked back out and that was the end of the dream. If I saw that dream in a movie, I would say that the symbolism was horribly trite.
Jim, I understand if you delete this.

I think Hanke will be proud of the "vomit review" if he reads about it.

When it comes out on DVD they should reprint that story on the box cover. It would be a more revealing blurb than the usual claptrap they put on there.

I haven't had the chance to see the film yet, but I figure I'll probably like it. I'm a big fan of Eli Roth and Gasper Noe though. I actually LIKE cynical, nihilistic films, just so long as they commit. I'm tempted to make a snarky comment about "The Passion of the Christ," but I'll refrain. (I think I just pulled a Hanke there...)

Keep it up, Jim, and in no time you will have devoted as much space to "Funny Games," and inspired as much curiosity, as you did for "No Country For Old Men."

Actually, I'm quite impressed that Haneke has willfully allowed himself to be antagonized by a notoriously defensive audience to initiate discussions like this. Just reading the reviews of "Dogville" - another film I may be alone among Americans for loving - it's pretty obvious that nothing raises American arthouse hackles like a European appearing to take a cheeky swipe at the red, white, and blue.

I think Steve Hyden is bang-on, though. "Funny Games" is simply too good of a film - too skillfully constructed, too viscerally well-acted, too attuned to the dynamics of suspense and pacing, too clever at turning expectations on their head, too wickedly entertaining - to properly enrage its audience. As an oft-squeamish pacifist who shares many of Haneke's sociopolitical views (which, admittedly, all of his other extraoridnary films serve better), I'd object to being pigeonholed as a braindead consumer of violence or a vicarious sadist, but I wondered if something was wrong with me because I actually enjoyed "Funny Games."

Then I looked back at an old film noir and realized that we've always been fascinated by cynical films that make us feel sick and dirty about the depths of depravity among the common man, as long as they have the skill to jolt us out of our indifference for a couple of hours. Up against that, I'd be honored to produce a piece of art that could still make some crazy American chick puke in public, even if it wasn't quite what I'd intended. Getting upset at a HORROR film for actually disturbing you? Wow, what a great way to prove its point!

So the Europeans lose a few points for accuracy in interpreting American pop culture. Why shouldn't we listen to them when they bite back? We've been overwhelming their cinemas with our crap for years, casting countless films interpreting their countries' history with our stars faking English accents, filtering the world's view of Europe through an American lens, and expecting the global pop monoculture to adapt to a distinctly American view of violence. Are artists abroad not entitled to a voice in this every now and then? Jim, Is Haneke really any more arrogant pr cynical for manipulating his audience for effect than the vast majority of Hollywood filmmakers who dump dozens of sloppy, manipulative, bland, and callously violent films on the global market every year for profit (and generally net more favorable reviews from this website)?

Jim, the way you and others carry on about "Funny Games", you would think it is the end of modern civilisation. Ok, you didn't like the film, we get it. Let's have all sex, violence, swearing and nudity out of all films. Better yet, run the films through the parental advisory board so that they can edit all "offensive" material. When exactly did this site become the Christian Film Advisory Journal? Have you guys seen "Irreversible"? I didn't find "Funny Games" offensive or sickening. We are adults right? I find films like "Redacted" and pretty much all of the Iraq war films offensive for their blinkered view of our soldiers who are doing many great things there (yes they are but you need to go beyond the NY Times for any good news about Iraq as western media only report death and destruction) and are being castigated for it.

It's flooring me how many people on the 'net and that I know personally are turning Funny Games into a sort of "Iron Man" competition to see who can offended the least.

I don't know what point *that's* proving, but I seriously doubt it was the intended self-awakening that Haneke had envisioned.

Long live the human tendency toward "Hey, this tastes awful - try some and see if you don't make a face!"

Jonathan Lapper,

How do you access the bold font face? Can you also get italics and Wingdings? Umlauts?

Marty:

What in the hell are you talking about? Which of Jim's comments would ever suggest that he wanted to take offensive material out of films? Which of Jim's comments would suggest that he was "against" violence, sex, swearing and nudity?

And if you'd read enough of these "Funny Games" posts before posting yourself, you'd discover that Jim and others HAVE, in fact, discussed "Irreversible" (it's been brought up many, many times just this week).

I don't want to see Funny Games with an audience, but the 1997 version is copied to my harddrive; and because of this situation, the film has undergone the same organic process that many other difficult works of art/entertainment have. First 20 minutes: the eggs sequence was brilliant. Subtle commentary on the psychology of powerplay and politeness, with many layers of physical and verbal acting (helps if you know German). Then the abrupt burst of violence completely ruined the intrigue and engage I had in the film, and soon I became bored, because I figured out exactly what was happening, exactly where the film was going to lead, and identified how much redundancy I would have to suffer through. There were still some great moments, like when the golf ball rolled into the room, when the skinny killer turned out the lights and planted the gun, in order to "play" with the kid: but aside from these two moments, everything from the first act of violence was without the necessary dynamic of great films.

However, days later, I kept randomly skipping to scenes, and each one became hilarious and intriguing in itself: right after the skinny killer says, 'actually, I made all that up: he's a spoiled little sh*t-face; look at him, he's smiling again,' there is a cut to the fat killer's pudgy, childlike face, which is absolutely HILARIOUS to me now, because of how stupidly childlike, and how comically abrupt the transition was. Now there are so many scenes like this, of such effective cognitive dissonance, where the absurdity created by the extreme clash of comedy/drama enables so much absurdist humor.

I have had a similar experience with other films. Whenever we experience any artwork, we first focus on the surface details, and, in the case of a movie like this, which lacks a pleasing surface, we either become bored or reviled: and usually these reactions inspire us never to exprience the work again; which is the biggest risk of difficult works.

Unlike most people, I didn't perceive any heavy-handed moralizing from Haneke -- I found the film more of an indifferent commentary on how easily we become desensitized to violence, than a condemnation of that process. And it worked: the second time I watched this film, I began to love the main characters, and think I myself should engage in such an experiment (if I had the stomach and time), since, if you can get away with it, and study the psychology of such extreme human torment, why not? After so many viewings, there is no longer any trace of discomfort or sympathy: but I think the proper audience for this film would be the killers themselves; anyone with a trace of morality will not fully appreciate the glorious nihilism.

However, as a work of art, there are many flaws: not nearly dynamic (editing/imagery/camera work mainly) enough to be considered great: but still a daring, comical picture, best in small doses (to avoid its greatest flaw: redundancy).

Funny Games is basically a movie dedicated to making fun of me for having watched No Country, There Will Be Blood, Kill Bill, and Rambo. I'm just pointing out that I don't see making fun of arthouse filmgoers as being any more childish than making fun of cineplex filmgoers.

And yeah, America made Norbit, but Europe made Life is Beautiful. Norbit was terrible, but it didn't sicken me to my soul like Life is Beautiful did.

Gman,

"There Will Be Blood?!" Do you even know what you're talking about?

There are only two acts of murder in the whole film and both are meant to be momentously important. Haneke is talking about films like "Commando" where hundreds of extras are shot down for excitement, and the audience feels nothing about the individual human worth of a single one. Murder is trivial. Haneke wants us to feel how the murder of just ONE person is HUGE and scarring. Just one.

If murder is treated soberly and without glamor, Haneke has no issue with it. He has no problem when a murder occurs in a film and that one murder is devastating and echoes throughout the rest of the film like the disturbing killing of Henry in "There Will Be Blood" and the apocalyptic explosion of violence in the Bowling Alley.

He is making fun of you NOT for watching, but for viewing killing as mere entertainment. Haneke understands nuance, and this is something all the offended "Funny Games" critics are missing when they assume his chastisement is a blanket statement against cinematic violence.

People are really quick to turn on Haneke. Even though I find "Funny Games" one his most amateur, obvious film, people act like he is just some dude who has no idea what he is doing and rubbing our nose in our own excrement (or that one viewer's vomit, although I am very skeptical if that is true...)

The thing is, and everyone here should know this if they have seen "Cache" or, frankly, any of Haneke's other work that this is a man who knows what he is doing. Even Jim's wonderful review recognizes Haneke's film as a type of thesis. Like what it is going for (or whether you think it is successful) or not, at least there is something going on in his films. I haven't seen this much of a reaction out of the film community in a long while. It is really fascinating to follow. And as a Haneke lover (and I met the guy once...he really is a lovely man) and "Funny Games" disliker, I understand a negative critical response, but don't like to see people turn on one of the most provocative, accomplished, and unusually complex filmmakers out there.

Amen, James.

There are so many ignorants over at the AV Club throwing around insults about him as a filmmaker, when it is clear they didn't know who he was until about two weeks ago. Some of the Peanut Gallery even admitted as much.

Michael Haneke is my personal favorite director and is responsible for a film I think is as revolutionary and significant as "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Eraserhead," "Stranger than Paradise," and "Psycho." You mentioned it, James, and I also happen to find "The Seventh Continent" and "71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance" to be mind-blowing transcendent works of art and meditations on existence.

But that's just my 'pinion, of course.

JE: Harry, I just saw Haneke's Austrian TV adaptation of Kafka's "The Castle" and it's wonderful.

Commando is so absurd that it serves as a comment on itself. For a movie to think it has to tell me that Commando is false and ridiculous is insulting.

Of course, maybe some people don't view Commando as a comedy.

Jim,

I'd seen all of Haneke's films except "The Castle" and "Time of the Wolf." I had purchased individual copies of "The Seventh Continent" "71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance" "Code Unknown" and "Cache" without knowing there was a box set available from KINO. So even though I already had 3 of the 7 in the set, I asked for it for Christmas anyway (Nothing says Holiday Cheer like the complete works of Michael Haneke!)

The set includes the three I had plus "Benny's Video," "Funny Games," "The Piano Teacher," and "Franz Kafka's The Castle."

Right now, I'm fully immersed in Season 2 of "The Wire," but when I'm finished with that, I'll get to "The Castle."

I've been reading the comments because I saw the original so figured spoilers weren't a problem. It could have undermined my objectivity, I guess, but what am I gonna do? Not read Scanners? There lies major withdrawal. Anyway, I've seen it now and I have to say if I hadn't heard all the Haneke quotes about what he thought he was trying to do I never would have seen it that way. Firstly, I didn't really see the connection with American movies. I think you could easily make a case for it as a comment on American foreign policy but I see pretty much everything that way these days. Leaving that out--it is a remake from pre-Iraq, after all--it seems more a "comedy" of manners of a sort which I wouldn't call typically American. I don't think the family's wealth or class was played up so much as their complacency and the weird politeness of the villains doesn't seem too connected to the so-called torture porn movies that have been mentioned. (Admittedly, I haven't seen many of these.) I saw the point to be about just how far "respectable" people would allow those with a veneer of that same respectability to go before they would question their actions. This is what I mean about the connection to foreign policy--it was as if the family was being forced to go from seeing foreign intervention from the safety of their living rooms and the common nationality shared with the intruders to seeing it from the perspective of the intruded upon. Again, all this may just be about where my head is at these days--somehow, the eggs brought the phrase "if you break it you own it" to my mind--but not just any movie can tap into that. I found it pretty effective in its visceral impact even though I didn't connect with the victims or feel convicted by the thesis. Yes, it seemed clinical and experimental but it also worked on my emotions in a way not directly attributable to what was happening at a given moment. I just had this odd dread from beginning to end that I only remember from "Eraserhead", strangely enough.

So anyway, I know none of us obsessives are going to stop paying attention to director's comments but from early Spike Lee to "Donnie Darko" to, maybe, this one, I try not to be too influenced in advance by what they say. The part of their brains that deal with interviews might be completely separate from the creative parts that make their movies. And I will almost guarantee that if this same movie had been made, even in Hollywood, even in English, in the 1930s everyone would have said it's obviously about the Nazis, no matter what the director said. (That's oversimplifying but I felt the need to sum up. I went on too long already.)

The girl who vomited sounds as if she has a severe mental disorder. It's a moderately violent film. It contains nothing in terms of content that cant be viewed for laughs or mindless entertainment on CSI or its many variations. To leave the cinema and vomit on the floor, while asking for your money back and distancing yourself from your social network is the sign of someone who needs to seek medical help, not someone who has seen a bad movie. Its a pretty simple film after all, in that it asks you to think about the enjoyment you derive from violence on film. If you find this offensive, how morally outraged are you by the glut of crime shows on television or action comedies in the cinema?

I can understand where all these strong reactions are coming from. This is too disturbing to watch. But that's exactly what Haneke wanted.

I was extremely disturbed to see the original, so much so that I don't feel the need to see the remake. That said, its a movie. Its not real. It is an anti-entertainment movie that provokes a reaction.

Haneke: Mission Accomplished.

I saw the original "Funny Games" a few years back and was deeply affected by it. Had no idea what it was or where it was going. I had seen "Cache" and lo-o-oved it. Brilliant film, and I think "Funny Games" is every bit as brilliant. Just maybe not as necessary...for us. We're all intelligent, law abiding citizens that come to Scanners, or we seem to be.

This movie isn't necessarily going to make it to the crowds that need to be reminded that violence isn't always necessarily fun or funny. Unfortunately, some peoples'ideas of what's acceptable and what isn't is too far gone. Kubrick pulled "Clockwork Orange" when people were cheering in the audience. I imagine if "Funny Games" got the same kind of play, in as many theatres, that type of mentality might be found among some audiences.

I almost left the first "Resident Evil" after the first 10 minutes. Watching people apathetically get chopped up by lasers just wasn't "fun" for me. But that's what violence in reality is. It isn't something you can turn the tables on and get a reckoning just because that's what is just and fair.

I haven't seen this American version, but I will. I remember clapping when the Mother turned the tables - "Yeah" I think I shouted, and then Haneke slapped me in the face. Not a welcome slap, but a thoughtful one.