I just saw Funny Games by Michael Haneke, (the 1997, original, Austrian version) and I was utterly blown away. Granted, I’m not much a movie watcher nor do I normally like movies that much but this movie has a lot going for it … that is to say, I can appreciate it and the statements that it makes and the complexity with which it makes them.
As such, I endeavored to do some internet searching and see what other people have said about this movie—at least in public—and I have to admit I was extremely dismayed by the reaction. Everyone seems to have read a critique of the horror genre and more globally, of violence in the media. Sure. That’s there. I read it loud and clear and there’s hardly any mistaking it. Funny Games has things to say about what characters we identify with when we watch a horror movie, about our lust for blood based on these identifications, about the way movies in this genre make us long to see violence and ache to see some sort of salvation at the end.
Some critics loved this, and, yes, I would fall into this camp if I had to pick sides. The other side found it annoying. One critic moaned about being blamed by a violent movie for liking violent movies and about how terribly reductionist such a “metacinematic critique” was. Well I think the reductionism is in limiting the project of this film to a genre-based (re: generic) critique. If you view it that way, then, yes … it kind of is moralistic and heavy-handed even despite its subtly.
**At this point I have to warn readers who don’t like plot elements of movies given away before they see them that I’m about to give away a whole lot, so, you know, just stop reading if it’s that big a deal and watch the movie, then read the rest.**
Anyway … so much of the film’s “metacinematic critique” derives from the fact that the main tormentor, Paul, is self-aware as a character. And if you’ve seen the movie, you know exactly what I mean, but for those of you who braved the spoilers without seeing the movie, Paul occasionally talks directly to the audience via the camera and even at one point rewinds a bit of the action to literally reverse a reversal of fortune and play things his way.
On the one hand, it means that in relation to the other characters, Paul is the ultimate sadist. His power within the world that he inhabits is absolute—his only restriction is that he still has to struggle to find the remote for a second in order to rewind the action.
Furthermore, this makes him not only the antagonist within the narrative in his relationship to the poor protagonistic family, but also an antagonist to the audience itself. Paul denies the viewers what they want—namely a satisfactory climax—in the same way that he denies the family any escape from his sadistic games except death.
In other words, there is a completely different narrative underpinning the horror narrative of a family being tortured and murdered by two sociopaths—a character has undergone an existential crisis and realized his existence only as a character. His sheer will to power over others—perhaps a two-dimensional character trait—has led to his realization of himself as a fictive character and has enabled him to declare himself the victor in the end.
The second level narrative is the one in which an audience and a set of characters are posited as characters in interaction with each other. This is the level in which Paul winks at the camera, tells us the film is not yet feature length, etc.
The most important scene in the entire movie is when Paul and his servile counterpart Peter discuss a particular paradox in something that Peter has read or seen in a movie or on TV wherein one Kelvin is trying to warn his family of something, but, “the problem is not only getting from the world of antimatter to reality, but also to regain communication …” at this point, Paul notices that Anna—the wife—is trying to cut herself free from her bindings, and the situation is defused. Anna is brought up to sit between Paul and Peter as they steer the boat and continue their discussion.
Peter likens the situation of the character he’s describing to being in a blackhole. “Gravitation is so strong that nothing can escape it: absolute silence.” Paul then unceremoniously dumps Anna, the last victim to die, over the edge of the boat, and the two move on.
Peter continues his exposition, meanwhile: “When Kelvin overcomes gravitation, it turns out that one universe is real, but the other is just a fiction.” To which Paul asks,”And where is your hero now? In reality or fiction?” The answer? “His family is in reality and he’s in fiction.” —But the fiction is real, isn’t it? — How do you mean? — Well, you see it in the film, right? —Of course. —So, it’s just as real as the reality which you see likewise, right?
There is more subtly to what Paul is saying about truth and fiction than simply that when you see violence in a movie what’s to separate it from seeing violence in reality. Of course, there is the phenomenon that when something catastrophically violent happens to someone, the reaction is always “it seemed like a movie.” (Remember how many people said that on September 11, 2001?). But the critique does not lie solely at the feet of violence and horror, though horror happens to be the particular vehicle of the message.
The point is that images of reality are indistinguishable from images of fiction. Paul’s (and clearly Haneke’s) point wasn’t that the line between reality and fiction is blurry (otherwise, Haneke would be himself culpable for having made the film in the first place).
What are we left with, then? The message is about manipulation, power, and agency. The sadist, Paul, is the only character with agency, who follows a higher script that requires him to battle with the figure of the audience in order that his version of events comes out in the end.
But, ultimately, even this narrative is fictive. The fiction/reality opposition ends up being more like dreaming of being a butterfly—it is an illusory paradox. Just like the dreamer, as a butterfly, never wonders if it is really a man, Paul is incapable of thinking or doing anything that hasn’t been scripted for him. Paul, though the all-powerful sadist in the world of media, is ultimately completely powerless. He can only effect us by getting us to love his tormentees and to hate him. Doesn’t power in a mediatized world work the same way?