I recently caught a screening of Warner Independent’s Funny Games and I realized something I had already known, but wasn’t quite ready to admit, and that is… Michael Pitt (that’s him on the left) freaks the shit out of me! I don’t say this as an admirer of his acting talent. I say this as someone who legitimately looks at this fella and is like, “Damn, there is something seriously wrong with this chap.”
The few times I have seen him he plays a psycho or just someone that I couldn’t imagine anyone ever actually speaking to. The first time I saw him was in Murder by Numbers and I thought he must be a really good actor to play such a freaky messed up kid, but as it turns out that is his niche. Even on “Dawson’s Creek”, when he played Henry, I always wondered why Jen (Michelle Williams) had any interest in such a weirdo. Then he disappears in the season three finale only to never return from football camp. What kind of crazy camp was that anyway?
I don’t say any of this to be disparaging. I simply say it with regard to what a crazy (not the right word to use here, but it is the one I chose) film Funny Games turns out to be.
You see, Funny Games is not a good movie. From an entertainment perspective this flick is severely flawed as two fucked up kids wreak havoc on upper-class families vacationing at their bayside summer homes. The film is a remake of Michael Haneke’s German flick of the same name, and reportedly it is pretty much a shot-for-shot remake, basically giving English speaking audiences a version of their own (damn those subtitles!). Oh, and Haneke is back to direct this one as well.
Pitt plays one of the fucked up kids I referred to and we are privy to the menace he is about to unleash on Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and their son. He does this with a buddy of his, the two referring to one another with cheeky nicknames such as Peter/Paul and Beavis/Butthead. The notes for the film say that Haneke likes to expose the consequences of media’s portrayal of violence and in the case of Funny Games he sets out to make audiences complicit by forcing them to see their own role through a series of emotional and analytical episodes.
Haneke is quoted saying, “I’m trying to find ways to show violence as it really is: it is not something that you can swallow. I want to show the reality of violence, the pain, the wounding of another human being.”
Well guess what, Haneke succeeds and he does it with an actor that I already believed was capable of such actions. You see, when most films go for reality you still realize it is a movie trying to act real. With Funny Games it really does seem real (at least not when the actors are talking directly to the screen). This reality is achieved by not showing the audience the actual violence and only giving us a taste of the leftovers.
On top of that Haneke intentionally gives no explanation for why the two boys are doing what they are doing. That is fine with me, killers are scarier when they don’t have explained motives (that was the problem with Rob Zombie’s Halloween) and you pretty much realize the two kids are fucked up anyway and that is explanation enough. However, outside of watching two kids torture a family of three, Funny Games offers nothing else.
Here’s the question: Do you want to watch people be tortured? If you answer that question with an affirmative, just wait for March 14th when Funny Games comes to your theater and enjoy all the torturous fun. Personally I think anyone that goes into this flick knowing exactly what they are in for, and still decides to watch, should subject themselves to hours of therapy. If you actually enjoy it, and I mean enjoy what you see on screen, not find some metaphor to attach your interest to, then you should possibly be committed or just turn yourself in. Finding joy/entertainment in watching people undergo a reality based torturous event is something that should make you question yourself. This isn’t Saw and it isn’t Hostel, this is a completely different beast.
Once actual reviews are out they are going to refer to the film as unnerving. They are going to say you might find it hard to watch. I didn’t find it unnerving or hard to watch, I found it to be pointless, at least in terms of entertainment value, which is why I think most of us go to the theaters. You could say Haneke wants you to find enjoyment in watching the terror, presented in a traditionally, censored nightly news format. He understands people tune in nightly at 5 and 11 PM for the latest broadcast in which “if it bleeds it leads”.
You could also say he shrewdly offers audiences a sense of reprieve only to yank it back as if to say, “Oh no you don’t, you won’t find satisfying blood and guts here… now back to our regularly scheduled program.” You could say that he achieved that moment and I wouldn’t argue with you. There is a clever moment in the film that will have many scratching their heads, but this is what he is doing. Just imagine, taking away our blood and guts! Just imagine, being more comfortable with blood and guts than with what Haneke actually offers. Yeah, fucked up shit. (Spoil yourself with the moment I am talking about from the 1997 film here.)
What Haneke has accomplished with Funny Games is that he constructed a perfectly conceived film that no one will enjoy watching. It’s one thing to discuss violence in media, but, when presented as it is here, finding any level of entertainment in its deconstruction is virtually impossible.
When Funny Games began I expected something of a parody on violence in film. The credit sequence set it up that way, and perhaps that was the intention… let’s get them comfortable with a moment of off-beat comedy through clever music. If that’s the case, then it worked, because the film I expected compared to the film I got were two different things. Funny Games is too realistic to be entertaining, it’s what violence actually is. Real violence isn’t entertaining, at least not to normal people, it’s messy and not at all flashy. There are no big guns blowing people off their feet in blood splattered glory. It’s a dull thud on the floor and silence, sans techno bass lines and clever one-liners. (However, even Haneke finds need to add background noise in the form of a television. What, was the silence too uncomfortable Michael?)
Funny Games is meant to play games with the minds of the audience, and it does it very well, but that doesn’t mean it is a good film. While I appreciate cerebral movies this is one I just can’t get on board with. I can respect it, but I don’t have to like it. At least it wasn’t Saw 12 or Hostel 9.
One thing I can tell you, I have confirmed, to myself at least, that Michael Pitt will always scare me. I understand he may be a nice guy, and if that is the case then he is a nice guy that freaks me out. Take a visit to the IMDb message boards and the users there will tell you he’s not creepy, he just has “full lips”. One thread in particular gave me quite a laugh titled “Utterly Repugnant” in which a user named stella_heystella says:
I am aware that this topic is going to prompt a torrent of abuse, but I find him to be completely and utterly vile.
He was sweet and endearing as Henry in Dawson’s Creek.
But then he disappears for a while and decides he’d rather pout than smile, is too “grunge” to be remotely affable, and acts as though he is too “obscure” to participate in interviews in a coherent and reasonable manner.That, and he’s just got one of those faces you want to punch.
First let me say this, I find Michael Pitt to be creepy, not vile, and I don’t want to punch him. I have never met him or even seen him in an interview, so I can’t say anything about him personally. That said, I found this comment strangely comical (please excuse the poor grammar, it is IMDb after all):
Never saw Dawson Creek so I guess I only seen him when he was “grunge” and “obscure”.
When he smiles or cries he looks like a sweetheart.
When he pouts and vacant he looks like a pet abuser.
For more on Funny Games click here, it hits theaters on March 14th. The red band trailer is just below…
