Funny Games (2008)

I'm with you on the "shot for shot" remake holding little value. Unless the first film was awful, there's really no value-add to anyone who has seen the original. Unlike "Psycho" though, this original is an obscure foreign film unseen outside the horror elite circles, so there's obviously a market for it. Seems odd though to offer nothing to the very people who made the remake possible in the first place.

I don't really have an issue with this as Funny Games has a distinct message in it, and I don't know how much of the original film one can chance without stripping away that message (they certainly can't change the ending). When you allow big changes to a remake of a great film, you end up with The Vanishing.

Michael Pitt as one of the antagonists was great casting, BTW.

A fair point. I'm thinking more in adding some variety to the film without making drastic plot changes that offer something new to those fans of the original aside from an actor and language change. Shot for Shot means the camera work won't, and I read elsewhere they even are using an exact replica of the original house, so not even the scenery will change.

Have you seen the film, Surge? I only ask because my impression from it is that adding new camera shots goes against what the movie is trying to say. I'd rather not turn this into a spoiler thread, but the film itself isn't really something you're meant to enjoy, and particular camera or aesthetic changes partly plays into the ideas the film is railing against.

Just to pick up on something from the article - Watts and Roth are both fantastic actors and I'm sure they'll be great in this. But they aren't exactly superstars. Sure, they aren't unknowns, but they certainly bring the requisite acting chops needed for this flick. Plus, you need someone recognizable in the cast. The original is such a weird and bleak flick, they are going to need something to get people in seats.

Anyway, I certainly could have done without this remake. The original is pretty perfect. But, I can see why Haneke would want to remake this for an American audience. Be interesting to see what Haneke does indeed tweak. It certainly could be a carbon copy with English-speaking actors and work just as well the original.

By the way, I'm happy to see that Roth is picking up more and more work these days. Guy is one of my favorites.

This is a bizarre stylistic decision. Same exact house? I'm struggling to even grab the thematic significance.

I'm not saying they should move the camera sequence back so you can SPOILER ALERT: watch the son being shot, as the original pan back to the aftermath was incredibly effective. It's more about adding some different sequencing and events that don't really change the film, but do offer something new to those who've seen the original. Additionally, there's also a culture difference to where I would expect an American male (Roth's part) to act a bit different than the ultra polite Austrians of the original, although that's a sellable similarity. Without any changes, the only reason to see it is for the character performances, and as I found the original ones to be quite good, there seems little incentive for me to watch this remake.

I think the reason to remake it is so that American audiences (who would seem to be a primary target of the film) will see it. The film isn't being made for those few Americans who saw the original (just as any foreign remake is made for those who haven't seen it - that's why they remake it).

THEMATIC SPOILER

If the movie is about audience implication, adding new scenes for the sake of entertaining those who already saw the film means that the director has bought into the type of actions he's railing against in the film.

And why would an American act differently than an Austrian? Besides, I don't really think the Austrians were being that polite. All she did nicely was give him eggs, and after that she was very obviously annoyed with them and after long enough they asked the boys to leave.

A point I completely understand. I said I'd like them do something to make it worth the while of those who've seen the original, not that I would expect them to do so. It's not a requirement for a foreign to U.S. remake to provide something different than the original, but just telling the same story with different sets and actors can make it a new experience. Attempting to mirror image the original from the sets down to every camera shot is basically providing expensive English language dubbing where the actor's lips match the words.


There's a desensitation and reaction to violence that Americans possess that make reactions to various circumstances different. That's not saying there aren't people here who wouldn't mirror the original actions, but that the audience themselves might expect them to act differently. Now that might just be me, as I'm completely opposite the characters in the original (well, the victims anyway) so allowed the presumption that some of the leads inactions were due to cultural differences regarding violence instead of character.

"Layer Cake" was a good example regarding that presumed cultural difference, as the entire situation about having/using guns would be a bit absurd here, where we expect all of the bad guys to have guns and use them with impunity.

One for the "where the fuck have I been" file

So I just watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games for the first time the other day and now I've come to find that he's remade it - shot for shot? I found out when I asked my brother if he had ever seen the movie. His reply was "I will never watch that movie nor the remake. I don't want to waste my time with crap like that."

"Remake?" I replied. He then proceeded to say that films like Funny Games and Hostel "all those types of movies" aren't worth his time. I tried to explain to him that Funny Games is the anti-Hostel, but he wouldn't listen. He said that the two are inherently the same because they feature torture as the main attraction. I thus tried to explain further, but my brother is stubborn, and therefore just didn't get the point.

So, not only has he made me feel like a sick, depraved person for actually liking (no fuck it, I think it's a devastating masterpiece of a flick) Funny Games, he actually turned me against the remake for reasons I can't explain.

Anyway, I just can't believe I didn't know this remake was in the works. I'm quite stunned actually. Watching the original left me emotionally drained and disturbed. It affected me quite a bit, and even though the experience wasn't pleasant, I do encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to check it out.

Word from someone who's seen this is it is indeed exactly the same film as the original. Very strong performances from all, but the only value-add to someone who has seen the original and doesn't speak German is that you don't have to read sub-titles.

As the trailer for this is so misleading, I actually just want to hang out in a theater lobby on opening night to watch normal people's expressions after seeing it.

I did indeed watch the trailer last night after I made my most recent post and I'm not quite sure what to think. I think it'll get the exact people into the theater that Haneke wants in the theater.

Surge - how is Roth's performance compared to Ulrich Muhe?

I have read that Haneke has stated that anyone who has seen the original doesn't need the remake. How true do you think that is?

I haven't seen it yet, but the guy who did claimed everyone in it does a fantastic job, with Roth really delivering.

He also noted it's such a carbon-copy of the original, that if you've seen that, you've seen this one as well, so Haneke is apparently accurate in that statement.

Ah I see now. I misread your previous post and thought that you were the one that had seen it. That's what I get for hopping on here directly after waking up!

Well, in any case I'm completely intrigued.