MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (2008) Discussion > why some of the behavior is actually pla...

why some of the behavior is actually plausible

posted 11 years ago by emncaity
9 replies | jump to latest

Reposting from a response to another thread, so apologies if you've seen this already.

Quite a few people find the behavior of the adult characters implausible, particularly Roth's character. And I agree it's frustrating to the point of being infuriating at times. How could you do this or that? How could you let that happen? I never would. No way.

However, you can read news accounts almost every day of situations where somebody failed to even attempt a defense, in real-life situations where you can't believe somebody wouldn't.

A lot of it has to do with weird but readily observable psychological tendencies. If you asked some of these real-life victims before these violent incidents what they would've done if somebody had told them that their wives, kids, etc. would be threatened like this, all or nearly all of them would've said they'd sacrifice their lives. But there's something about the reality of violence, and to some degree the escalation of it through successive levels of compliance, that paralyzes most ordinary people. People who live normal lives aren't used to coping with it, and they always seem a step or two behind the perpetrator as things escalate. They fail to recognize quickly enough exactly where they are and what's going on, how extreme it is, so this kind of power relationship exists where they simply comply. Three out of four airplanes on 9-11 were taken over by hijackers without any apparent attempt by passengers to stop them. People let themselves be ordered into a car because a guy tells them to and threatens them from 10 feet away with a knife, even though it's absolutely clear to anybody who knows anything about these situations that your best chance by far is to run at that point (and throw your wallet or purse behind you), yell as loud as you can and attract as much attention as you can, because once you get into that car, it's probably over. And even if you do get stabbed or even shot in that situation, with people in the vicinity, you're likely to survive. (Not so likely to survive if you do get stabbed or shot in the middle of a dark field or the woods.) But people comply anyway. They allow the gunman to walk them right to the edge of the grave, or they allow the soldier to walk them to the place of execution.

In a slightly different situation, but with more or less the same mechanism, they end up in head-on accidents that could've been avoided easily by simply veering off the road -- but it takes the driver more than a couple of seconds to catch up with the idea that somebody is in his lane when he's not supposed to be. Plenty of time to avoid it if you don't have that delay, but people just don't catch up. People have conditioned themselves, or society has conditioned them, or both, to think that everything is going to stay between the lines, and the other guy's going to stay between his lines too. Part of the sociopath's game is to exploit this kind of powerful preconception in a way that keeps the sociopath always ahead of the ability of the victim to assess the situation accurately and respond appropriately.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Perhaps pointing out the obvious, but the 9/11 hijack example doesn´t really apply here though as there was no apparent physical peril that would´ve compelled the passengers to take any foolish risks (that´s talking of the first 3 flights).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

I get your point, but I'm not sure we know that to be true, do we? If we're making the best guess on available evidence (that I'm aware of, and I'm certainly not going to guarantee that I'm aware of all of it), it would stand to reason that at least some people on the planes would have some idea that they were being hijacked at some point before actual impact. However, you certainly could be right about the inapplicability of the examples, if the passengers on the three "impact" planes in fact were not aware of this.

At any rate, even disregarding that example for the moment, the fact remains that sociopaths, killers, rapists, etc., are operating on a different wavelength and at a different tempo than people used to the routines of daily life, and this really does give them an advantage that people who haven't been through those situations just don't understand. (Ask somebody about the suddenness of a street mugging, for instance.) Even the serious and present threat of actual violence or actual death -- not the hypothetical prospect of it, but two strange guys standing right there in your house with the capability of killing you, or at least putting you instantly in a real fight for your life -- does tend to have a paralyzing effect on people who never imagined it or prepared for it, or even sometimes if they have.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Oh I'm sure everyone on those planes knew they were being hijacked (although possibly/probably not that the pilots had been killed and terrorists were at the controls - until it was too late). However, the relevant problem here is that before 9/11, there was no precedence for a hijacked plane being used as a missile in a suicide mission - hence the best bet was to remain calm, wait for the plane to land and see how things would pan out in the negotiations between the terrorists and the authorities; in most cases, there were no casualties. Initiating some kind of tussle with the terrorists, especially when they're waving around an apparent explosive device, was rightfully seen as unnecessary risk liable to only make things worse (even the pilots had strict guidelines for such an occasion, according to which they were to comply with the hijackers, relay them whatever information necessary and avoid doing anything that might piss them off). It's precisely this element of surprise that made 9/11 possible, not any oversights in security or the like. Fortunately, this particular scheme, or paradigm, was viable only for about an hour - already on United 93, after passengers learned what had happened that morning in New York and Washington, a revolt fouled up the terrorist's plans. And these days, good luck to any would-be hijacker making it more than three steps up the aisle before being pummeled to the ground by alarmed passangers... because, after 9/11, `nobody` expects a hijacked plane to land anywhere other than the side of some building.

I certainly agree with criminals operating on a different wavelength and thusly being a few steps ahead of their victims - in fact, they usually very much count on the victims being startled, confused and therefore unable to act decisevely.

As for FG with its two murderous douchebags standing there... it's important to remember that, as far as a normal person is concerned, for them to want to kill the family didn't make any sense - so why would Tim Roth operate under the assumption that this is the likely outcome? It doesn't help that the two intruders were confusingly well spoken, -dressed and -mannered, not fitting the mental picture one usually has of recidivists.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

I'm gonna take your point on the hijackings, because it's a good one, and it might well apply to that event (although not necessarily so -- it's kind of hard for me to believe that absolutely nobody on that plane had any moment when they were thinking the plane might be used as a missile, but I could be wrong).

As for the intruders not fitting the profile of killers, that's obviously a really good point. (Cf. Ted Bundy -- "He was so intelligent, so well-spoken, not dressed like a killer, didn't act like one, etc.") Again, the fact that something like this is so completely foreign to the experience of the average civilized person going about his/her daily routine is exactly what makes that person so vulnerable to somebody who thinks and operates outside that circle of civilized behavior.

I can't remember whether I've mentioned this earlier in the thread, but one really good source on this is a guy named Gavin de Becker, who has written at least a couple of books on personal security. I'm not sure I always agree with his "your instincts are usually right" thesis -- that really hits me in the same spot where I wince at the theory of the rightness of "gut reactions," with intelligence and evidence standing in opposition to it -- but he makes a good point (and some scientists agree) that it's not really some kind of supernatural intuition, but the brain's native intelligence in putting together danger cues, that can give you this kind of so-called "instinct" about certain people and certain situations. Anyhow, even outside that central thesis of his, he has a lot to say about understanding how the violent criminal thinks. For instance, the point where a lot of people seal their fate is very early on in an abduction, when they haven't caught up to what's happening yet and aren't thinking clearly (as we're talking about here), and they get into the suspect's vehicle (or allow themselves to be ordered into it), after which their odds for survival go way, way down. De Becker and others are adamant that you should do everything you can to avoid such a circumstance. Even getting shot (more likely shot at) while running away gives you a better chance at survival than getting into the vehicle. (He advocates throwing your purse or wallet or a wad of cash in one direction and running in the other direction while screaming and attracting as much attention as you can, in any situation where that can be done.)

Anyhow, point is, following that kind of advice requires first that a civilized person assess and recognize the situation for what it is much earlier than most people are inclined or equipped to. It's easy in theory, but much harder for most people in real-life situations, as indicated in post-incident survivor interviews, which gets back to the original point of this thread -- whether some of the "implausible" behavior by the adult victims in Funny Games actually is more plausible than most laypeople think. I think a lot of people involved in law enforcement and criminal psychology would tell you that it is.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"It's kind of hard for me to believe that absolutely nobody on that plane had any moment when they were thinking the plane might be used as a missile".

I find it improbable that such an idea occurred to any of them as a realistic or likely scenario before the planes began their steep and sluggish high power descent towards NY or Washington. Until then though, why would they think such a thing? Because, again, it had NEVER happened before, not once, and was therefore firmly outside the box people were thinking in (until United 93, there had never been a passenger revolt against the hijackers, either). But let's say some may have suspected it at an earlier stage - there's still a huge leap from a thought to an action, or getting your fellow passengers to think likewise and cooperate. And then's the human tendency not to believe in a worst case scenario as long as there's absolutely no doubt - as was ultimately the case aboard United 93. If not entirely sure, would you take the of risk attacking a guy who's not only prepared for lethal violence, but also dangling an apparent bomb in front of you? I'd imagine only someone with nothing to lose would take a chance there (yes, it is highly unlikely an actual explosive device could be smuggled on board - however, "unlikely" is not the same as "impossible").

"Following that kind of advice requires first that a civilized person assess and recognize the situation for what it is much earlier than most people are inclined or equipped to".

And, just as with a plane hijack situation, there's the factor that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to know the true nature of the situation is, what are your tormentor's intentions. And, again, one is typically not wired to assume the worst - the abducters may have many different things on their mind, so will aggressive resistance be helpful or will it only be unnecessary risk that'll make things worse? What do these two effeminate as-holes dressed in white actually want? Will I, a civilized person whose natural reaction to situations is not violence, just assume right off the bat they're out to slay me for no apparent reason? Besides, the very fact that the two invaders in FG were so effeminate, seems to have prompted Tim Roth's mistake to slap one of the guys instead of decisevely charging them off his property (that's, of course, pretending for a moment that any of his actions ultimately mattered in regards to the outcome as Haneke had stacked the deck there a bit...). From then on, any decision to physically resist came doublly hard for he was not even able to stand on his two legs or get up from the sofa in less than 30 seconds... and revenge for any attempted assault was liable to have been visited upon his wife/son. Many seem to overlook that.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] RiverReeves 10 years ago

You're absolutely right. On so many accounts.

I'm not going to speculate or debate this situation in relation to the planes. But I can say that I have agreed with all your points on human behaviour in terms of how most of our rationality just goes out the door until we have time to realise etc.

I speak personally and especially relate on your point about sudden events. I witnessed a burglary (not that I realised it was a burglary at the time) while walking home one day in broad daylight talking on my phone, they must have freaked and thought I was calling he cops because the next thing I knew one of them had run up behind me and put his hands around my throat- he demanded my cell phone and all I could do was freeze and barely speak. He took my phone and got into their getaway at and took off.

Now INSTINCTS told me they were up to no good. But I ignored it, until that moment that you're involved you have absolutely no control over your initial response to the situation. I'm sure if at some point there was a struggle I'd have fought for my life or other self preservation mechanism would have kicked in. Other than that all I can say is the most powerful self defense/preservation mechanism is COMPLIANCE until you have a better chance at assessing your situation.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

In what way is it an "allegory"?

Besides, there are different levels and purposes for "realism." It's not an absolute realism I'm looking for; it's some reasonable level of plausibility that attaches the storyline to something other than farce or forced symbolism. If Hanneke is trying to say something about human behavior, whatever he's saying is going to tend to be less significant to the extent that what's going on with the characters is divorced from any sense of plausible reality.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]