I just can't agree with there (Although I'll certainly concede if proven wrong.). No other genre has that selling point more than horror. Fargo is just one example (That's also blatantly false. There isn't even an attempt at stretching something even close to reality which numerous horror films such as The Strangers have stretched to an incredulous degree.) and compared to the numerous other examples of films themselves (Take any number of true crime films ranging from Zodiac to the most recent Ted Bundy biopic now in production). Now if we wanted to do a "ripped from the headlines" for police procedural on TV like Law and Order I'll concede on that point.Mr Sausage wrote:I'm not sure horror films are any more likely to market themselves with 'based on a true story' than any other kind of movie. Indeed, the most notorious example of this is Fargo, a crime thriller.
You say Hanake's aim is to point out that horror films are constructed. Ok. But to what end? If it's an end in itself, the critique risks simply being banal (to say nothing of unoriginal, given the existence of Luna's Anguish). If not, what? Is the film siding with the viewer against itself? Or is it against the viewer, like zedz says?
As I stated in a previous post the film doesn't have a point past pointing out artificiality. (Haneke has stated himself it's pointless and that if he had succeeded financially he would have failed.) There is no formula to art and that's why I think the film is so frustrating (And why we're having this discussion.). Take note of the sequence where one of the boys is brought back to life through the fourth wall breaking rewinding of the film. The logic of film causality is violated in toto. Everything is done right by the protagonist and yet they still lose due to artificiality of literal fourth wall breaking interference. No doubt many audience members got angry because they were denied a happy ending due to a violation of perceived cultural commitment (One person has to survive right?)! You have the recipe for a horror film yes, but you're reminded at least twice (One of the boys states that we're not even up to feature length yet!) that you're watching something that's constructed. Your immersion is intentionally violated for some Hanekian purpose (I cringe typing that).
My point is that I feel Funny Games only goal is to remind you it's artificial and there's nothing past that other than presenting this horrific masquerade. Can you imagine if this film was played straight? Whether that's a successful formula or a sort of "Nyah" moment is up to the viewer and I'm rather ambivalent even as I type this. I'm certainly now open to the idea that it's a "Do as I say but not as I do" sort of film though. It certainly feels really disingenuous the more I think about it.