tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241337005807314849.post4603785794539163018..comments2008-06-14T06:48:31.252-04:00Anil Usumezbashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17320438983105774241noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241337005807314849.post-34652061646641151792008-06-14T06:48:00.000-04:002008-06-14T06:48:00.000-04:00Evan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by again. I have checked both your reviews and the 'Doubleshot' feature you have run in your blog. I have also commented there but then I realized it's been a couple of months since you posted them, so I wanted to c/p my comment here as well, just in case:<BR/><BR/>"I think I must say I agree with kristena who commented on the 'REVIEW: 2ND Opinion: Funny Games' entry: "I don’t know that you two see it that differently. It seems more like you just aren’t offended by the mind games, whereas Evan was angered by them." Both of you have quite valid points, nearly none of which I disagree; yet when it comes to personal grounds you are at odds with each other. I think your arguement is based more on personal tastes and approaches to the notion of 'art' rather than the quality of the film itself. Seems to me there is nearly nothing that you disagree with each other when it comes to what the film is and what it's able to achieve.<BR/><BR/>I think one important arguement of Luke was lost in the midst of all the action: "And so what if Haneke is engaging in manipulation? Every Hollywood film ever made does so—should I accept the emotional manipulation of Sleepless in Seattle, Schindler’s List, and Die Hard but reject that of Funny Games?" This would be my only criticism to your standpoint; because, honestly, making a film is all about manipulation. Michael Moore manipulates you into symphatize with his own political agenda using humor, Schindler's List abuses hard-to-digest historical facts for emotional manipulation, Requiem for a Dream is mainly an anti-drug propoganda nourished by unique visuals and innovative use of music. I love both of these films but that doesn't change the fact that art of filmmaking is art at its most manipulative.<BR/><BR/>Now, Haneke is simply more honest and blatant with this, he pulls the curtains and shows you that when watching a film, you are actually being toyed with all the time. That's why I think the fact that this film is playing tricks on you should not be enough reason for you to dismiss the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>As for Luke's arguements, all the things that he has written so far are valid reasons to like the film; I can say he listed explanations for all of the 6 stars I have seen fit for it. However, the simple reasons as to why I distance myself from Funny Games (namely the unimpressive mission statement, ridiculous similarities with Kubrick films and the fact that Haneke's film was vastly overshadowed by A Clockwork Orange and other films that he admires etc.) were never among the things he mentioned. The discussion seemed to have revolved around the 'experimental' nature of the film and how it should be perceived. That's why, despite agreeing with nearly everything he says, I still cannot be as optimistic as he is about this film."<BR/><BR/>About the issue of experimental vs a film that is experiment, I think I see what you mean. I will defend my opinion whenever someone calls Funny Games 'experimental' but I guess I must concede it was really an experiment (so yes, that made sense)Anil Usumezbashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17320438983105774241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241337005807314849.post-24523563724106991982008-06-12T18:47:00.000-04:002008-06-12T18:47:00.000-04:00Anil, <BR/> This is one of those films where the value lies not in the film itself, but in discussing it afterwards. We actually spent quite a bit of time discussing this remake over at MovieZeal. My colleague and I saw it together and we had radically different takes on it, and we essentially conducted an extended debate on the film's merits or lack thereof. For the record, I hated it and Luke appreciated it. Would be interested to hear your perspective on our perspectives. <BR/><BR/>For the most part, I agree with your take on the film. It is extremely successful in some ways (in its use of color and its ability to achieve wrenching tension with nothing more than ordinary household objects). I also agree with you that it cannot be labeled "torture porn for the arthouse crowd" or anything of that nature. That statement, in fact, is pure idiocy. This film and <I>Saw</I> have nothing in common, although Haneke would like you to think that they do. <BR/><BR/>On your critique of those calling it experimental, I disagree, however. Actually, I do agree that it is not an <B>experimental film</B>, not in the same way <I>koyaanisqatsi</I> is. However, I think there is a difference between an <B>experimental film</B> and a <B>film that is an experiment</B> (if that makes sense). What I mean is that in Haneke's mind he is conducting an experiment, with the audience as his own little guinea pig. The movie isn't the point...the point, rather, is whether or not you'll sit through the whole thing. An experimental film is different in that the film (and the 'new' thing it is trying to do) is the whole point. Here, the film is just one method for Haneke to interact with the audience in his little grisly experiment. He could also have conducted this experiment using literature or poetry or television or art. He chose film as his medium, but again, the film itself is not the point. His experiment is. <BR/><BR/>I hope that made sense, as I'm pretty sure I was rambling. <BR/><BR/>Look forward to part 2.Evan Derrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717664805927242148noreply@blogger.com