Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>--- Patricia Molloy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I'd also include Haneke's Funny
>> Games come to think of
>> it.
>>
>Patricia,
>
>Can you explain why?
Sure - I've only seen the film once so details are hazy, but there are a
couple of moments in which we're reminded that we're 'just watching a
film', the most obvious being when the terrorized mom grabs the gun and
shoots one of the intruders, the film stops, rewinds and the intruder
addresses the camera/viewer and says something to the effect that this
couldn't possibly happen because we're only half-way through the standard
90 minute feature. There's another moment when in an outdoor scene one of
the intruders looks directly into the camera and winks, thus addressing
and implicating the viewer (in the action and the text). I have to say
that that film was the most terrifying (and paralysing) 90 minutes of my
life (and I've seen all of Haneke's films), but nothing creeped me out
more than that wink. There's no relief for the viewer in being made aware
that 'ok folks this is just a film', but more like 'this is just a film
but why the hell are you watching it?'. So for me, the title Funny Games
was less the games the intruders 'played' with the family, but the games
Haneke plays with the audience. I saw FG at the Toronto film fest - I
skipped the next film, had to take a walk around the block, and go have a
drink while I waited for my heart palpitations to subside (seriously). And
it was my no. 1 film of my top ten that year.
>
>
cheers
Patricia
>
>
|