MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (2008) Discussion > A defense of the rewind scene.

A defense of the rewind scene.

posted 11 years ago by la_cinematheque
18 replies | jump to latest

The rewind scene doesn't work for a lot of people because it seems gimmicky, silly, and out of place, but I think that's the point. It serves the same purpose as Paul's asides the the viewer: to break up a fairly brutal portrayal of torture and suffering with moments that remind you you're watching a movie, presumably for entertainment.

This movie doesn't give you the gratification of enjoying a killing. It doesn't show Peter and Paul's violent moments so you can get a cheap thrill out of seeing a head blown off. Then it does show you an overblown fantasy retaliation kill (complete with the bad guy flying through the air) that pretty much any viewer would be rooting for, only to say "Sorry, that didn't really happen."

I guess the rewind tactic didn't work, judging by how many people thought it was stupid or lazy, but at least there was a justification for it that falls in line with what the director was trying to say. The validity of his message, however, is an argument for another day...

[–] BadSurge 11 years ago

I'm surprised the rewind scene needs to be defended.

It's arguably the most important scene in the film.

Desensitization. Cinematic violence vs. actual violence. Gratification of violence.

Lazy and stupid? Really?
That explains the low imdb rating on the American one. More American viewers watched it and were hoping it would end like Scream or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

I'm American, but I loved this film and understood the relevance and validity of that scene and the film as a whole. It shocks me how many others seem to not.

[–] la_cinematheque 11 years ago

To give the average viewer of the American Funny Games some credit, it was marketed as a regular horror movie, not a critique of violence in film. The trailer (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-70W_K77U) pretty much makes it seem like a comedy, setting you up to expect a bunch of one-liners from the villians and to get a kick out of watching a family be tourtured for sport. They even play up Naomi Watts' partial nudity and tell you the movie is "sensual." It's a complete bait and switch, and I don't think it's clear at all what the movie is trying to do if you go into it blindly.

Point being, I agree with you that it's the most important scene in the film, but I understand why it goes over many people's heads. Best case scenario is that this movie intentionally seeks to insult smart viewers who pick up the theme by going, "Oh, you wanted this to be funny? Violence isn't funny, nor is it a game, and shame on you for wanting to see it that way!" Worst case scenario is what seems to have actually happened with most viewers—that this felt like a really bad attempt at torture porn that had a super random suspension of disbelief moment with the rewind scene.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shagath 10 years ago

Very well said. :)

[–] FirstBlood1982 10 years ago

I fully understood the intended message and why it was there, but still find the film to be thematically asinine.

There is no reason whatsoever that anyone should feel guilty about wanting to see a despicable, heartless, sociopathic scumbag like the villains in this film get blown away.

Haneke sees himself as a more compassionate person than the audience he's condescending to because he feels any and all violence is wrong and no gratification whatsoever should ever be felt from it regardless of who it's happening to.

When it comes to people as vile as the villains in this film, I think that view actually makes him less compassionate.

His view of violence when directed as sociopathic vermin is naive and downright stupid. If someone shoots a person in the head to prevent them from brutally raping and murdering a woman, that's bad according to him.

Personally I think it's far worse not to kill that bastard when your failure to do so results in him killing this woman and who knows how many other people.

He goes so far as to say on the special features of the original that the audience was "cheering on a murder" in that scene...absolutely absurd. There was no "murder" in that scene, there was an act of self defense.
The fact that Hanake can't distinguish between the two is a shining example of how thematically warped this film really is.

He also promotes the ridiculous notion that violent cinema/video games, etc... is directly linked to people committing acts of real life violence with the pretentious "it's just as real as reality" speech toward the end. This is a wildly inaccurate idea to anyone displaying common sense on the issue that was layed to rest a long time ago.

It's a technically well made and brilliantly acted movie, especially when it comes to Naomi Watts. If it weren't for how good the cast is however, this film would be nothing more than pretentious, condescending, ego-stroking nonsense from an arrogant filmmaker.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] blackbriar246 10 years ago

I don't think the point of the rewind scene was to shame us for wanting to the bad guys killed. It was to shame us for wanting to see his guts splattered on the wall behind him and cheering and clapping as he flies back in slow mo. We didn't just want him to die violently. We wanted to SEE him die violently. I think that's an important distinction to make.

All unlawful, intentional killing of a human is murder in the law's eyes. Self-defense is just justified murder. Kinda an uncomfortable thing, but that's the way it is, at least in America.

He probably is a really snotty person, but I think the director's point is still a valid one. Our culture glorifies violence. People came to this movie wanting to see violence. Peter and Paul, when given the ability to control reality, commit acts of horrible violence because they can. With our culture as it is, how possible is it that if teens from today were given the same powers as Peter and Paul, that they would do the same thing? Pretty likely I think.

[–] zimka 9 years ago

I think the point was not to shame the viewer for wanting to see the villain's violent death. The point was to shame the viewer for wanting to see protracted acts of violence at all, with the viewer's unspoken understanding that there will be a gratification at the very end in the form of villian's punishment. It's as if the general viewer says that any kind of violence is Ok as a form of entertainment as long as we get some sort of revenge at the end. The director says, nope, violence is horrific and at least this time you don't get to entertain yourself watching it. You voluntarily signed up to see it, well here it is.

====================================
This is your life. It is ending one minute at a time.

[–] rainybear 10 years ago

The most atrocious and ridiculous scene in film history. I honestly did not know whether to laugh or cry at how bad it was.

As if the movie wasn't bad enough at that point (tbf the first 20 or so minutes were intriguing and actually quite good). I was planning on being generous and giving it a 4 up until that scene. Now I just won't rate it at all cause you can't rate zero!!

[–] LionInWinter 10 years ago

The fact that you like the first 20 minutes but not the rest shows you're exactly who the film is criticizing. Hate it all you want, but you can't deny it's kinda right.

[–] jwhiskey89 10 years ago

I thought the rewind scene was a neat gimmic and I can objectivly say that this is a well made, smart and well acted movie. But I hate it. I hate everything about it. It just turns me into a sad, angry mess that wants to strangle someone.

objective rating: 7/10
subjective rating 1/10 (and since I rate all movies from my subjective viewpoint I gave it a 1)

[–] LionInWinter 10 years ago

Too bad, you're bringing down the rating of a criminally overhated movie even more, even though you admit it deserves better. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

[–] jwhiskey89 8 years ago

Well isn't the rating system here to get a general statistical overview of peoples opinion?

It is my Personal, emotional opinion that I hate this movie more than almost any movie there is and i wish I had never seen it. That is why it gets a 1 from me...

Of course I can see that the Avengers isn't an objectively stunning movie but it represents so much more in my geeky mind and created the whole shared universe so I gave it a 9.

I will not go through a rigorously objective method to rate a movie but instead use my personal opinion.

If that bothers you... then sorry I guess...

[–] LionInWinter 8 years ago

It's not abnormal but it is the reason why IMDb ratings say very little about a film's actual merits and value.

[–] jwhiskey89 8 years ago

That's a good point but I always believed that sites like Metacritic and RT gave you the scores by critics while IMDB is a representation of the average movie goer, in which case I think my rating system is appropriate.

[–] LionInWinter 8 years ago

That's true, the average joe will probably find IMDb ratings helpful so they're meaningful in that way regardless.

[–] scarsick 10 years ago

That scene doesn't need to be defended.

[–] nhomonko 9 years ago

In my mind the rewind scene shows who is really in control.

[–] Lyricant 9 years ago

It's a silly scene and a preachy message.
And I agree that it obviously is violence-loving shaming. People cheer for the escape of these people from a situation, not for the death of the people causing it. It's nature to root for the underdog which is why even villains can be empathized with. Make a movie that's pure torture with no message at all, and you'll get people walking out en masse ridiculing it as pointless, horrific torture porn. (Along with the people who still like it because WHY NOT? It's a MOVIE. Who even cares?)

It's kind of ridiculous to look at another culture and decide it's any sort of way for any sort of reason, and to completely bypass even bothering to research why this would be the case.

It sounds to me like he decided Americans (why so specific, even? It exists all over the world.) are barbarians, and left it at that.

And yeah, the scene doesn't need to be defended. He put it in the movie he created. So whatevs. (Wait, wasn't this a remake? Well, whatever...)