Have you ever blanched at the sight of a remote control? Slam the door in the face of an overly smiling neighbor who came to ask you for eggs? No doubt: you are a victim of Michael Haneke and his propensity to traumatize the viewer. Funny Games is, in the heavyweight category, almost unbeatable, because one scene in particular increases its implacability tenfold.
Nanni Moretti is pissed. In addition to manipulating the president of the jury Isabelle Adjani to shape the Cannes prize list to his idea, he poses a clear veto: if the least price amounts to Funny Gamesthe tape is a scandal. Ironically, fifteen years later, it was as president that he awarded the Palme d’Or to Michael Haneke for Amour… But then, why so much hatred in the spring of 1997?
It’s true, the film scattered the Croisette like a puzzle. The perversity of the device and the way he pulverizes the family cocoon left many spectators stunned. But one scene in particular has secured its place in the pantheon of shocking works.
The methodical destruction of the fourth wall
If the key scene of Funny Games has such an impact because it was carefully prepared. When the viewer reaches this point, the story has already damaged it quite a bit. Let’s rewind: the film tells how a very ordinary couple (played by Ulrich Mühe and Susanne Lothar, married in the city) arrives with a dog and a child in their country house.
The neighbors are friendly, the view of the lake is idyllic, in short: everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. At least until two young men in white gloves intrude into their home and turn their lives into hell.
Of course, establishing a peaceful context to better shatter it is a classic starting point. But Funny Games stands out for the gratuity of the ordeal that he throws out to us. Who are these two torturers? No idea. Why do they act like this? And why not? they would retort.
The first dent in the fourth wall comes after 28 minutes, a little over a third of the way into the film. While the mother is plunged into a macabre treasure hunt to find the remains of her dog (when an animal is sacrificed, it is the ultimate proof that the story will stop at nothing), his jailer turns towards the camera and winks at us.
Rebelote about ten minutes later: the two intruders bet with their victims that they will not survive until dawn. Then one of them, always the same, turns to us and asks our opinion. “ Are you on their side? » he asks, sarcastically. And much more really, and that’s the whole problem.
When a character speaks directly to the viewer, they inevitably form a connection. Certainly, the process is not the prerogative of the virtuous : The Wolf of Wall Street, The Freedmen, Fight clubthe series House of Cards among others, they resort to it with individuals who are at the very least ambivalent. But we can understand them, to a certain point: their vices and faults do not dilute their humanity, unlike these young people without motive or past.
That this forced connivance comes from perfect sociopaths makes the blood run cold. Suddenly we are accomplices, projected against our will towards the side of the aggressoreven though our empathy connects us to the victims.
The story continues, cruel display of helplessness pierced by rare (false) hopes. It is not without reason that Isabelle Huppert, who had seen others (and who will turn several times for Haneke) had declined this role which frightened her. The outcome is looming, the horror is total.
For the third time, while his wrung out victims cry out for mercy, one of the torturers addresses us. “ Do you think that’s enough? I mean, do you want a real ending? » At this point, the fourth wall is nothing more than a field of ruin. But the spectator is far from suspecting what awaits him.
The death of hope
Then comes the pivotal scene. After an hour and thirty-six hours, the mother managed to catch the loaded rifle by surprise, takes aim at one of his torturers and kills him without further ado. Certainly, at that moment, the irreparable has already been done, the end can only be bitter. But this little revenge finally restores the beginnings of moral balance, outlining the possibility of catharsis.
The relief is short-lived. Disconcerted by this unexpected twist, the second attacker becomes annoyed and begins to… look everywhere for the remote control, which has not yet constituted an issue at any point in the story. After a few seconds of feverish searching, he pulls her from the sofa and press the fast rewind button.
The image freezes for a few moments, then the film rewinds before our eyesscrolling backwards to what we have just witnessed: the search for the remote control, the young man’s body thrown backwards, the rifle… Finally Funny Games heading back in the right direction. Except that at the decisive moment, the attacker is this time more prompt and defeats the attempt to seize the weapon.
The trap set for the spectator is formidable. The scene occurs almost at the end, at the moment when a possible happy end. Earlier, it would have generated skepticism. As it stands, on first viewing, it is impossible to anticipate such a twist.
Of course, in retrospect, repeated sledgehammer blows into the fourth wall set the stagejust like certain meaningful dialogues between characters who are a little too aware of having to ensure the smooth narrative flow of things. But how can we imagine that Funny Games would go so far as to transgress its diegesis to take us by surprise?
Such a twist leaves the viewer completely distraught. In the manner of a Deadpool sarcastic, in addition to the effect of collusion, the meta dimension is often used by the narrator to show that he is aware of the codes… to better dismantle them.
The pitch of Funny Games brings it closer to home invasion, like The Last House on the left or Panic Room. To belong to a gender is to marry a set of more or less tacit rules to which the spectator can cling : what does it matter to him that the casting of a slasher be decimated since he knows he can count on the final girl ?
By his ostensible contempt for any form of narrative straitjacketHaneke leaves us in complete disarray. And paradoxically, it is at the moment when the horror reveals itself to be so openly artificial that it becomes asphyxiating.
The real culprit is us
Since the beginning of Funny Games, Haneke plays a lot off-camera to terrify us and frustrate us. He delegates the dirty work to our imagination, preferring to follow a man who goes to get a sandwich while an unspeakable murder is committed. Likewise, he carefully avoids the exploitative exploitation of the body of the actress forced to undress, only framing her humiliated face.
Except that in reality, the immense “off-camera” on which the film is based… is us, on the other side of the screen. This is why he never ceases to challenge us through his characters: the real subject of Funny Gamesit is the spectator and his appetite for violence. Have you ever thought about how many deaths you have witnessed in your movie-going life?
The rewind scene is crucial in this, because it definitively asserts the intention of the film. It makes us lose our status as demiurge by symbolically dispossessing ourselves of the remote control, when we thought we had control. Once again, we are brought back to the level of the aggressors. Horror penetrates the field of reality, in the same way as Samara in The Ring.
Haneke takes us trapped in our voyeurism. It is impossible to expect a happy outcome after this blow from Jarnac. Usually, even the most intractable situation leaves a bit of hope, and a flash forward tragic can be circumvented by a plot twist. Not this time: the director plays against the viewer.
In these conditions, why do we continue viewing, if not out of sadism? « Anyone leaving the theater doesn’t need this movie; anyone who stays until the end needs it« explained the filmmaker on the occasion of the release.
It is with a last mocking glance at the spectator that Funny Games ends, while a new massacre looms. When the US remake was announced, did some people give it a chance, naively hoping for a change in the story? Obviously, like the rest of the feature film, the filmmaker reproduced the scene identicallylike a final kick.
The problem is that Michael Haneke underestimated the resilience of our deviances. Just like for A Clockwork Orangehe could only note that some reveled in his work for its transgressive violencejust like an average horror film, even if it means betraying the initial intention. The director even considered destroying and disowning Funny Games… In short, he also really wanted to press the remote control!
