Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Funny Games U.S.

Those that have heard me speak for any length of time have almost certainly heard me utter the opinion that one should have opinions and principles roughly the height of a stepping stool. This way, the constant getting on and of a not particularly high horse can have somewhat of an aerobic positive effect.

However, there are some opinions I hold dear, and will defend to a -if perhaps not the- very end. I will grant you that there are not many, but there are at least some. I believe that there is no situation that asks for snapping one's fingers for service, and that berating wait-staff or chefs should be done only after any opportunity for spitting into food has passed. I believe there is no excuse for cruelty to animals, and that you should never kick something unable to kick back. I believe a lot of things.


Among my slightly less vehemently guarded measures of life is the fact I really do not approve of pirated or otherwise illegal copies and performances of music, books and films. This is not a principle I usually uphold all too strictly, I prefer to watch a “real” DVD to a pirated one and will not swiftly buy a ripped copy of a CD, but I do have a play list on youtube of my favourite music videos, and I do not have all those on CD or otherwise. A little hypocrisy goes a long way in these matters.


That said, my long-held opinion that watching a pirated movie detracts something from the experience has been giving a polish and shine this weekend when I had a chance to watch Michael Hanake's remake of his own movie “Funny Games”. Having first watched this as a down-loaded version and now in a official movie theatre, it gave me some measure of comparison. Granted, the down-load was of bad quality, but still, that goes some way to proving my point, actually.


Some context is required for understanding the really quite large differences between the two viewings. I had heard of the classic original version only in a far away way. The remake drew my attention because it stars the actor that seems destined to play me should my life ever warranted filming, Michael Pitt. But upon reading up on the movie, it seemed a good start to a night of thrillers and horrors. The story, a well-to-do family terrorised by a pair of polite, handsome but insane young men, allows for interesting ruminations on politeness and a good meditation on trusting your neighbours.


Watching this movie in a room filled with movie-buffs and in bad quality did not do well for the experience. The shocks and thrills seemed second-hand, and open for mockery, and it all seemed done before and made one feel tremendously blasé.

Watching it, however, in a movie-theatre, surrounded by people who do not analyse every movie to it's bitter end, and in a much better quality, suddenly the movie seemed to change. Much like showing your town to tourists will make you see the town in a whole new light, I saw this catalogue of displacement in a whole new light. Along with my co-watchers, I suddenly found the chance to wonder what I would have done in similar situations, and I bristled with them at the atrocious cheat perpetrated halfway through. Suddenly, the movie's implications became personal, the occasional breaking of the fourth wall more than a clever trick, a personal indictment.


For those who do not know the original or the remake, the story is simple, a family on holiday is trapped in their house with two psychopaths, who bet them the family will not be alive in twelve hours time. Simple, and we have seen it before. The psycho's seem polite and genteel at first, but so did Hannibal Lecter, and it doesn't hit home immediately. But the two also make use of the insular community of friends and neighbours they seem so easily and obviously to belong to, suddenly bringing the danger much closer to home.


The original is known as a classic, the remake, by the same director, with much the same dialogue and scenes, might not, but if it doesn't it is only by virtue of it's status as a remake. Viewed as a separate entity, the acting is mostly very well done, the subdued, actually never shown, horrid violence is wonderfully portrayed still, and the menace remains as true now as when this movie was made first.

I can advise any body to go see this, but there is a certain requirement for a willingness to discuss them movie and it's themes afterwards, so I advice bringing a group of argumentative friends, and adjourning to a good bar swiftly afterwards. And stocking up on eggs.



Back from the dead, I promised to do better this time,


Kevin