Interpretations of "Funny Games"

[S-Man]

Just saw the movie, and i didn't get the plot at all. aside from that, it was a good movie. anyone want to share their opinions of what the villains' motivations were or where they came from?

[Smash Adams]

from the New York Times' review

Mr. Pitt, blue-eyed and baby-faced, appears to be the calm, ironical alpha predator, while Mr. Corbet, acting skittish and high-strung, looks like the weaker, crazier one. But that might just be part of the game they and Mr. Haneke are playing, since the whole point of Peter and Paul is that they function without identifiable motive or affect.

When asked by George — his leg smashed, his hands tied, his eyes wide with terror — “Why are you doing this?,” Mr. Pitt’s character responds with answers that parody the kind of facile back story usually applied in cases like this: unhappy childhood; sexual instability; class resentment; bad education. All of it is facetious, and none of it explains anything.

[Bob Payne]

It's a self-reflexive film, one that satirizes the way audiences perceive and consume violence. It simultaneously deconstructs the facets of the modern gore film, while also giving the audience exactly what it wants. The film manages to aim the mirror at its audience, and to ask the question, "Is this what you want?"

Also, S-Man, you completely missed the point of the film, which is great, because Haneke called it that you would.

[notoaststereo]

i liked the plot and the idea of the film. and most of the visual lack of violence was pretty good, but some of it was just so unnecessary and even boring. also the use of breaking the forth wall wasnt really good because it wasnt used enough to make it seem like its a natural part of the film. i understand that it supposed to satirize violence and everything else about horror films, but it doesnt do it well.

[colorlesscliche]

Worth seeing?

[Bob Payne]

Worth seeing?

Meh. Definitely won't meet your movie theater expectations, and it isn't much of a film to watch in a group. Best bet is netflixing it.

[colorlesscliche]

Good deal, I'll pick it up on DVD.

[notoaststereo]

Worth seeing?worth seeing but not worth the money.

[AShannon04]

It's a self-reflexive film, one that satirizes the way audiences perceive and consume violence. It simultaneously deconstructs the facets of the modern gore film, while also giving the audience exactly what it wants. The film manages to aim the mirror at its audience, and to ask the question, "Is this what you want?"

Also, S-Man, you completely missed the point of the film, which is great, because Haneke called it that you would.

Your post in another thread made it seem like you didn't even know who Haneke was before this film, so you seem to hardly be in a position to be quoting him and acting condescendingly towards other people about "missing the point"

[Bob Payne]

Your post in another thread made it seem like you didn't even know who Haneke was before this film, so you seem to hardly be in a position to be quoting him and acting condescendingly towards other people about "missing the point"

It takes one viewing of the film, and maybe half a brain, to catch the underlying theme.

[IAPAI]

just finished watching it.. I don't think there's really much to interpret, the last conversation between Peter and Paul about the fictional world and the real world, and the fictional world still being real as long as you can perceive it, basically shoves the message at the audience.

I don't think I would want to watch it again, but I'd probably recommend it to a film student, movie buff, or horror fan.

[Bob Payne]

just finished watching it.. I don't think there's really much to interpret, the last conversation between Peter and Paul about the fictional world and the real world, and the fictional world still being real as long as you can perceive it, basically shoves the message at the audience.

I don't think I would want to watch it again, but I'd probably recommend it to a film student, movie buff, or horror fan.

I'm all 3 and I didn't like it.

[buysoap]

...how did anyone not understand what this movie was about? Michael Pitt looks at the camera periodically during the film, breaking the fourth wall and flat out explaining everything.

[Rawrrr]

I love it when movies/television breaks the fourth wall.

[FstFtsVsFences]

...how did anyone not understand what this movie was about? Michael Pitt looks at the camera periodically during the film, breaking the fourth wall and flat out explaining everything.
That's one of the things I hated most about the movie. Don't insult me as an audience member and spoon feed me your message when you're making it abundantly clear anyways.

[notoaststereo]

I'm all 3 and I didn't like it.same.

[buysoap]

That's one of the things I hated most about the movie. Don't insult me as an audience member and spoon feed me your message when you're making it abundantly clear anyways.
Well, spoon feeding it was kind of the point as well. It's a very well crafted execution really. Haneke re-did his own film like this because he felt that it was more geared to American audiences. Anyone that saw the trailer for the movie and didn't already know what it was about based on the original most likely went to the theater expecting a sadistic bloodbath, but at the same time being kind of snobbish because "Ooo, I'm seeing an indie film!" And here's Haneke basically shoving it all in their face and calling the cinema goer an idiot for their expectations of what happens in the movies. I can tell that I'm the only one in my theater who understood this because I was laughing at a lot of the "jokes" and most people in the audience seemed pretty appalled, and I think one woman asked for her money back haha