MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (2008) Discussion > The director doesn't understand the basi...

The director doesn't understand the basics of storytelling


I suppose Haneke hates roller coaster rides, skydiving, and haunted houses, too (all which serve the same purpose as horror films).

And certainly he must loathe war flicks, action films, most of Western classic literature, Beowulf, Norse sagas, the Iliad, the Odyssey, fairy tales, Shakespeare's canon, the Bible, Le Morte d'Arthur, and so on. All stories with humans suffering violence whilst fighting monsters.

He must also dislike the Greek dramatic idea of catharsis, which just so happens to be the reason horror movies are popular. Adrenaline plus catharsis.

I know he despises the structure of a story because he seems intent to eviscerate it with this so-called "movie." Drama is defined as conflict. Man vs. man or man vs. nature or man vs. himself. Within that conflict, s/he will experience obstacles. Sometimes that struggle results in violence.

Viewers do not "get off" on violence in movies because -- here's another storytelling fundamental Haneke seems to not comprehend -- we identify with the protagonist. So if s/he suffers violence, as s/he is our proxy, WE feel as though we suffer violence. We root for him/her. We want him/her to prevail. This doesn't mean there aren't worthwhile stories where the protagonist fails. But the good ones have a story/theme/message that honors the contract with the viewer. This Funny Games piece of dreck does not.

Don't tell me you're going to show me a thriller and then proceed to show me your freshman psychology class end-of-year project that stinks.

0/10

reply

Thank you. What kind of bull was this.

reply

You got it very blue! The standards that you compare this "movie" to are older and deeper than many viewers bother with. They aren't used to basics of storytelling(what with technology making up for actual thought). It's almost as if someone's finger slipped on an undiscovered button on a camera an proclaimed "I'm a genius".What about narrative?And calm?Conflict?Emotion?Thinking?Fighting back?Survival? Millenia of human behavior?I'm with you,blue.But unfortunately we are humanity,lost in gadgetry.

Fly,fly,fly little starling...

reply

There's way more than one way to tell a story and connect with an audience... By your rationale, every single person calling themselves an artist should paint paintings in the Italian Rennaissance style, or the Dutch Impressionists, because they present light and firm in a very particular way that set a particular standard. No deviation! Wow. So much for thinking outside the box.

Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the exact purpose of this movie: to play with the audience's preconceived notion of what a story- especially a "horror" story- should be.

You claim that the audience connects with the characters of a horror/thriller story through some sort of catharsis. In the context of a thriller/horror-antagonist/protagonist story, this entails the protagonist besting the antagonist in a fashion similar to what they were put through up until the climax where the roles are reversed.

Essentially, we, the audience, want to exact gruesome revenge on those that were preying on us. What this movie does a great job at asking the audience is, "isn't that just as sadistic...?"this is driven home in the the scene where one of the tormentors is blown away by a shotgun blast. After everything the family is put through, when either Tim Roth or Naomi Watts (it's been a while since I've seen the movie) pulls the trigger, you feel this strange sense of joy at this act of violence. It's a catharsis, yes, but should we feel joy and release after seeing someone get blasted away? The time reverse further proves how perverse this notion is, and how, in a real world setting, sometimes, there's no such thing as a hero.

reply

lol, you hated the film for not following a formula and being original.

reply

OK so the OP has heard of Greece. Let's talk Turkey now...

And cut out the bullsh-t.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply