Back when it was announced that director Gus Van Sant was helming a remake of the original "Psycho," film aficionados went ballistic, especially when they learned that it was essentially going to be a shot-for-shot remake. Things might have been different had Alfred Hitchcock been named as the filmmaker of the 1998 pic, especially since the fact that he would have been dead for 18 years at that point certainly would have added another layer of creepiness to the offering.
Of course, some purists might have cried that Hitch never would have remade one of his own films. With such an argument, they would have been wrong as he made "The Man Who Knew Too Much" twice (in 1934 and 1956). Others have since followed suit, but few have gone the shot-for-shot remake route. That is, except for Michael Haneke, an Austrian director not even that well known in his specific stomping ground, the art house circuit.
The video voyeur thriller "Caché" may be his best known pic with that crowd, but the film that put him on a decidedly small map -- and which some now consider the forbear of mainstream "torture porn" -- was 1997's "Funny Games." It was a tale of two psychopaths who take a family hostage and then do horribly sadistic things to them (those being the "games").
Like its predecessor, the 2008 remake follows the same storyline and, I've been told by those who also caught the earlier flick, truly is a nearly identical film, save for the performers, of course, and a few minor details here and there. And it serves the same purpose in supposedly examining moviegoers' lust for violence and the filmmaking world's exploitation of that very unsavory desire.
Accordingly, the "rules" of the genre are broken from time to time, with most of the actual violence occurring just off camera (as if to frustrate the viewer that he or she isn't allowed to see the mayhem and resultant special effects and makeup work), while one of the killers occasionally breaks the "fourth wall" and directly addresses the viewer about what's occurring and is usually expected of a pic like this. Heck, there's even a moment where an act of vindication is immediately followed by one psychopath picking up the TV remote and rewinding the film we're watching, all to rob viewers of the cathartic bit of comeuppance.
Okay, so we get the point, but in shattering the normal expectations, the writer/director also risks alienating viewers. And that's not only due to playing such tricks that distract the viewer and remove him or her from the proceedings, but also because this is a nasty little flick designed simply to make you squirm and otherwise be uncomfortable. That is, when not boring you to death with such lingering, static camera shots (a tactic also employed in "Caché") that you begin to wonder if the filmmaker, cinematographer and everyone else behind the set went out for lunch without telling their cast.
I understand it's the antithesis of Hollywood's quickly cut flicks, and that such views are supposed to build additional dread, particularly when we can hear but can't quite see what's occurring. But a little of that goes a long way, and whenever any given scene goes on too long, the suspense ends up evaporating rather than increasing. That's particularly true in the film's second half when we realize this is more of a cinematic exercise than a standard moviegoing experience.
That said, there's something about the film that did get under my skin, a reaction far more visceral than intellectual or even emotional. Aside from Tim Roth as the tortured dad in the flick (who comes across as acting rather than naturally reacting, when the latter is called for in this sort of role), the performances are generally good. Naomi Watts is believable as the wife who's subjected to humiliating and horrifying "games," and Devon Gearhart truly looks scared playing their young son.
While purposefully affected to varying degrees, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are appropriately and disturbingly menacing as the two seemingly proper young men who turn out to be sadistic psychopaths. The fact that they're dressed like preppy chaps, sport GQ type messy but stylish haircuts, and are very proper and polite (when not doing horrible things, that is) is supposed to make their acts all the more unnerving. That's true to a degree, but there's a certain purposeful or accidental artificiality to the characters that prevents them from going down in the annals of movie villainy.
The same will hold true for the overall film that one can only imagine was green-lit into remake mode after the wild but now thankfully waning success of the latest generation of "torture porn" flicks such as the "Saw" and "Hostel" installments. Arriving on the heels of those offerings that the original movie likely inspired, "Funny Games" feels somewhat old hat. It scores a few points for going against the grain, but in the end it can't escape the fact that it ends up being the same sort of exploitative experience it's supposedly condemning. The film rates as a 4 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
