Funny Games is the work with which Michael Haneke, the brilliant Austrian director, made himself known to the masses, bursting onto the scene at the Cannes Film Festival (year 1997, I believe) with this cruel and perfect film. A chilling film built on a series of details and symbolisms with which the author constructs a parable of horrifying and senseless (apparently) violence. Violence that is never truly displayed, never pulp, but palpable like in few other films. The plot is sparse, but the film, even in its long silences and voids, is somehow "charged."

The opening is emblematic. We see a car, filmed from above, racing along roads cutting through vast green spaces, with a boat hooked to it. Then the interior of the vehicle is examined. A classic bourgeois family: mother, father, young son, and dog, exuding serenity and well-being. Presumably, they are going on vacation. To pass the time that separates them from their destination, the three entertain themselves with the car radio, inserting CDs strictly of classical music, and each taking turns guessing which aria or symphony it is. A pastime for refined palates, exclusively for a bourgeoisie that can only be well-off, cultured, and refined. Suddenly, the dialogue of the happy family is no longer audible to the viewer, covered by an outburst of drums and electric guitars (Signed by John Zorn and "Naked City"). But they don't know it. They continue talking, as the viewer sees from their unwavering faces and lip movements. The metaphor is clear. Soon, something will burst into their institutionalized harmony and sweep away everything about them, their order without any forewarning. Here they are, arrived in the pleasant tranquility of the countryside near the lake, where they presumably have their vacation home. The family head pulls the car over next to the gate of some villa neighbors. The homeowner seems busy with a young man, unknown to our protagonists. They have a brief and insignificant exchange of pleasantries, then the car moves on. "It must be a nephew..." says the mother and wife about the unknown presence, noticed and underestimated by the couple. The viewer will understand only during the course of the film that this apparently sterile scene will be essential to describe the circle of pain and human subjugation that the director is drawing for us. Later, our protagonists are at home, the woman is preparing dinner, probably expecting guests. A chubby, grotesquely awkward young man appears at the door. He introduces himself as a friend of their neighbors and asks for some eggs. The woman, more out of formality than genuine courtesy, fulfills the increasingly clumsy and sweaty boy's request. Predictably at this point, the tremulous-handed guest drops the bag prepared for him, along with all its contents, on the floor within seconds. Maybe he should give up, but insists that the now visibly irritated lady give him more eggs. The young man continues creating a mess, now accidentally dropping the cordless phone into the sink, irreparably damaging it. Pay attention to this detail; it will prove crucial when our friends are besieged in their home, their territory usurped. Now, while the incredibly clumsy boy is still in the house, the young man previously spotted by the family father at the neighbors' villa arrives at the door. Both young men wear a sober sports outfit, with shirt, shorts, and white gloves. The latest arrival is slimmer and more confident, with a clean face and polite manners. They seem like a pair of butlers, but in reality, they will initiate the "funny game" which involves the slow killing of the family through calm psychophysical torture. The aim of the game is soon revealed: the three family members must be dead within 24 hours. Yet, the process of annihilating their persons must be progressive and impeccable.

The film has several deliberate question marks. What is the aim, nature, and process that led the two boys to become the family's tormentors will never be explained. This amplifies the abstract nature of the film's construction, which clashes with the cold and realistic setting where the violence unfolds. In this sense, the comparison with Pasolini's "Teorema", suggested by some critics, is apt. In that story, without a clear and logically linear script, a young man entered a middle-upper-class bourgeois family, upsetting their order. In that case, the weapon used was eros; here, it is violence. Violence with a somewhat Kubrickian flavor, but while the American director crafted a broad and airy film in its ruthlessness with "A Clockwork Orange", Haneke writes a compressed story, even more claustrophobic, if possible. And where every act of physical domination stays off-screen. Haneke supports the entire film with minimal camera movements. In fact, often the framing is fixed, like when it immobilizes on the two parents gagged and tied, while the two tormentors have left the house. They could be saved at that point, although now internally mutilated by that absurd experience. Yet, they do not know how to react, freeing themselves too slowly, and the two torturers return soon after, introduced by a golf ball rolling into the room, preceding one of their voices, off-screen: "It's time to play again now." Well, there is no more escape. Another recurring object in the story is the father's golf set that the two murderers take possession of at the start of their intrusion. In this case as well, the metaphor seems quite clear. Yet, the details on which this film is built, as I said, are numerous, and much more could be said if we wished to conduct an even more detailed analysis of this story. Still, the review seems rather long-winded thus far, and I don't want to reveal further surprises to those who have yet to see this film. A film that many loved, others hated. In my view, an underrated masterpiece, a film where not a single shot is out of place, where everything is consistent with a well-defined film project, and where everything lives on the wings of continuous directorial insights. One curiosity to conclude: last year, there was talk of Haneke's intention, who recently gained acclaim with "Caché", to create a Hollywood remake with international stars.

Loading comments  slowly

Other reviews

By Apple_of_sodomY

 Paul often asks the viewer questions, to integrate them as I mentioned earlier in the film.

 The dialogue between Paul and the family is wonderful, where he describes Peter and insults him!


By The_dull_flame

 Haneke crafts a chilling thriller-horror without staging amputations, monsters, ghosts, or loud music: he permeates the silence, the silence of normality.

 Haneke is mocking you: there is no salvation, no happy ending, there’s only the nightmare, even if you’re on the good side, the victory will be for the bad guys.