Breaks the most important rule of storytelling...

*SPOILERS* (obviously...)

A bet. "Will the heroes survive their ordeal and defeat their adversaries?" It's a bet we make each time we watch a film, and there is an implicit contract with the storyteller to offer catharsis, some sort of emotional release coupled with reassuring closure, so that we can safely resume our lives after willfully undergoing the rigors of any good story. This conflict and tidy resolution is the essential component of any drama. The subversion of this contract in Funny Games explains why the film remains to this day such a controversial and frustrating work. It is also exactly why Funny Games is such an essential piece of cinema.

Haneke's willingness to challenge and provoke his audience is astonishing and daring. He breaks the fourth wall with Brechtian techniques and makes his audience complicit in the violence that they consume. For that reason, it is no wonder that this film elicits such strong emotional reactions. Take for example the cruel scene where Anna is forced to strip by her captors in front of her family. The direction of this scene is masterful. The camera keeps tight on her face, already painfully swollen with tears, as she is debased and degraded. It's an undeniably moving human moment that fully expresses the pain of being exposed and completely vulnerable in the face of inhuman cruelty. Considering the level of hostility directed at this film with its reputation of cruelty and senselessness, what's most impressive about this moment is the tenderness and sympathy with which it is directed. Haneke spares Anna the humiliation of being exposed before the audience by stoically keeping the camera on her face throughout the ordeal, forcing the audience to contemplate the effect of pornography on women. Whether you agree or disagree, many feminist critics argue that pornography is a form of media violence against women, and it is interesting that for all the critical discussion of media violence generated by this film, pornography usually doesn't enter the discussion. The infamous remote gimmick which denies the audience the cathartic pleasure of killing the bad guy stands out, but the subtle condemnation of pornography during Anna's ordeal is just as provocative. Consider that during the cat-in-the-bag game, the audience is denied the ability to derive pleasure from seeing a naked woman until she changes clothes after her son is brutally murdered right before her eyes. At that point, any eroticism that could be generated is lost and anyone who sought it during the earlier scene would likely be ashamed. I believe that this is another example of Haneke's brilliant mockery of the consumption of violence that seems to be lost in the discussion of the film.

Another layer is added to this by the fact that the child's eyes are covered by the antagonists, "to preserve moral values." That is an incredibly astute satire on the idea of censorship for the sake of the children and the assumption that making children blind to the violence around them prevents them from being affected by it. The child in the film was not only not blind to what was going on, he was perversely made to be part of it.

I'm having a hard time collecting my thoughts or even shaping a coherent analysis after seeing this brilliant film. I'd love further discuss and to hear anyone else's thoughts on the film, whether they loved it or hated it...and what you thought were some interesting themes and points raised by the film.




And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!