MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (1998) Discussion > Peter and Paul Theory

Peter and Paul Theory

posted 11 years ago by TheCineSinge
8 replies | jump to latest

I watched Funny Games U.S. after having watched Funny Games for the first time last month. It was an utterly boring and tedious experience.

Nevertheless, it did give me time to develop a theory on Peter and Paul.

Based on Haneke's apparent disdain for American cinema the theory is this: Peter and Paul are supposed to represent American corporate studio executives - the kind who make the film instead of the writers and directors; they say, "you need to have this and that in the film, (the 'entertainment value, the 'plot development', the nudity) some of these, a lot of that, none of this etc" - basically controlling the content of the film from their office chair, ticking the boxes to put bums on seats, please the audience and make the maximum amount of money possible.

When the family - the director or other cast and crew - disobey their demands, they are reined in (when Anne doesn't play their game, they punish George) and Peter and Paul get everything their own way (remote control scene)

Basically it's more of Haneke attacking mindless blockbuster filmmaking.

Those are just a few examples, though there will inevitably be more that could apply. Thoughts?

[–] Goofy_Elfman 11 years ago

I don't think that villainous movie executives are the correct analogues here. It's more than that. Haneke is addressing the very structure of storytelling. The pacing of plot developments, the set ups, the turns... he's still using the same mechanics, he's just addressing them at the same time.

If Haneke is making a moral stance on anything, it isn't on the bloodlust of audiences (even if he says so); it's on the very conventions of storytelling themselves and how we've come to respond to them. That's what makes Funny Games so compelling. It's that it manages to balance the true impact of the film's events while at the same time revealing the inherent fabrication of story. This is the very tension the success of the film is based upon.

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 11 years ago

If Haneke is making a moral stance on anything, it isn't on the bloodlust of audiences (even if he says so)

are you saying that Haneke was lying when he said that, or are you saying that, although that's what he was striving for, he failed at it?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 11 years ago

gotcha.. thank you for the clarification :) i hadn't seen it that way - i thought he was simply making a point about society's desire for violence in our entertainment and he just so happened to be a master storyteller - but this is the only film of his that i've seen, so it's difficult for me to tell. you may be quite right!

[–] Goofy_Elfman 11 years ago

Ooh no, I'm not saying he failed at it. I can see where I expressed that. Perhaps I should have said that Haneke's stance on the conventions of storytelling and our response to them is more important than his moral stance on bloodlust... at least to me. The violence is there, but honestly it's about tension. It only works because he tells a perfectly paced plot with characters that directly address the conventions of storytelling. It's about that as much as it is about violence... maybe even more so.

I think there's been a rape up there!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jeorj Euler 9 years ago

The choice of names is interesting too, in the sense of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[–] TheCineSinge 9 years ago

Or, now you bring it up, in a religious fashion which on reflection would seem to make more sense.