« Kirsten Dunst to leave Hollywood? | Filmstalker | G.I. Joe for fans only? »


Haneke talks Funny Games remake

FunnyGamesUS.jpgIt's unusual that Michael Haneke would say much about his films, but he has said a few words about his U.S. remake of Funny Games (Filmstalker review), or as some would call it Funny Games U.S., indeed even the film's titles call it that.

Whichever the title I wholeheartedly recommend you watch it, and Haneke agrees that perhaps it's the U.S. version that's the better.

Michael Haneke said of the film and the U.S. remake:

"I'm trying to find ways to show violence as it really is: it is not something that you can swallow. I want to show the reality of violence, the pain, the wounding of another human being.

Recently a friend and critic who recently watched FUNNY GAMES US said to me 'now the film is where it belongs.' He is right. When I first envisioned FUNNY GAMES in the middle of the 90s, it was my intention to have an American audience watch the movie. It is a reaction to a certain American Cinema, its violence, its naiveté, the way American Cinema toys with human beings. In many American films violence is made consumable."

I think he's hit the mark totally with what he's set out to do, and I shan't go into all that now, instead I suggest you read the review of the film and understand just why this is a film that talks straight to the American audience. It's definitely something you should see.

The film tells the story of a family who head to their holiday home and are held hostage, tormented and tortured by two young men and stars the great talents of Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

To give you a little taster I have two different teasers for you to watch. There's the one entitled William Tell [QT:L:Stream] and the other is called Charming [QT:L:Stream].



Please get the cast order right. This film stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Naomi Watts is the official lead, as Suzanne Lothar was in the 1997 version. Tim Roth is not lead , he is supporting like both Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

I never said he was, and if fragile egos are affected by the order names are listed then they need to sort themselves out.

@steandric... are you serious?

At any rate, I don't understand why this movie was made. It's a shot for shot remake of the original, so what's the point? Is it just to get American audiences to experience it? Once you've seen the original, what's the point in sitting down and watching it again; just with different actors? Lame.

I really have to see the original to comment on that, but seeing this version I have to think that there's something worthwhile in it...unless this is scene by scene, word for word.

I think it's valid that it gets another outing if it means that it will get viewed by an American audience - after watching the film I understand what Haneke means when he says that.


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34