(Funny Games opens in theaters this weekend; below is Cinematical's Review from the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.)
Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.
The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?
As the junior partner in the pair of white-clad killers in Michael Hanekne's English-language remake of his own Funny Games, actor Brady Corbet may be one of the lesser-known names in the cast, but his work as a smiling, shy sociopath makes for a haunting performance. At the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, Corbet spoke with Cinematical about Haneke's working process, what it's like to play someone who's already playing a role, and his take on Funny Games's combination of entertainment and commentary: "The first (version) asked the question 'Why are you watching this?' And the new film asks 'Why are you watching this again?'"
This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:
After a startling, striking debut in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Michael Pitt wound up having what many young actors would consider a dream career, mixing parts in big-studio films (Murder by Numbers, The Village) with parts in independent movies by legendary directors (The Dreamers, Last Days). As the ringleader of the murderous duo in Michael Haneke's Funny Games, Pitt combines charisma and coldness to create a truly unique and riveting villain. Pitt spoke with Cinematical about breaking the fourth wall, playing a psychopath and how while working with Haneke made him feel excited, it also left him more than a little bit nervous: "I was constantly on my toes ... just always working on it, always. I knew I needed to do that." This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:
Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.
The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?
It's the biggest honor a foreign film can receive ... no, not the Oscar or a fancy award. I'm talking about en English language remake! Forget that Michael Haneke's original Funny Games is a perfectly 'accessible' thriller (although perhaps a little too bleak for those who prefer thrillers of the Ashley Judd variety), but the movie has people speaking in German, Italian and French ... and obviously that just won't do for an American audience. We demand that all our entertainment come in English only, thank you very much...
OK, enough whining. At least the folks at Warner were smart enough to hire Haneke to direct the remake himself -- because we all know how great that plan turned out for The Vanishing and The Grudge. Anyway, Haneke directs Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt in a (second) story of home invasion, psychological torture and some not-so-funny games. If you happen to be at the Sundance Film Festival next month, you can check out the remake for yourself. Everyone else will have to wait for February 15, but feel free to check out this brand-new trailer. It's got a pretty shocking spoiler in it, and you're required to verify your age before clicking through, but it semi-proves that this remake is most definitely not treading any new ground.
Obviously I won't be making any judgments until after I've seen the movie, but it sure looks like the remake was made for those people who've never seen the original -- so those that have seen the original might just be bored stiff by the American version. Gotta love it. Then again, I could be completely wrong. Happens all the time.
So much for all those casting updates for (and comments asking about how to get cast in) Pinkville, Oliver Stone's latest Vietnam war movie. Thanks to the writer's strike, the movie is now delayed indefinitely, according to Variety. United Artists put the stop on the production because both Stone and Pinkville screenwriter Mikko Alanne are members of the WGA, and more script-tuning is needed. Apparently the film is fully written, but there were expectations that things would be changed while filming is taking place -- something Stone is known for -- and that's not allowed to happen during the strike. The movie now joins Angels & Demons (aka The Da Vinci Code 2), which was the first major feature to be delayed because of the strike. Yet unlike that higher-profile film, Pinkville may not be easily started when the strike is over. There are now possibilities the cast will change or that United Artists will be less interested in doing such a serious picture right off the disappointment of Lions for Lambs.
The cast and crew was set to begin shooting in a few weeks in Thailand, so now obviously there are a lot of people out of work who are likely praying for the strike to end asap. Once given a new greenlight, Pinkville will be Stone's fourth feature film to deal directly with the Vietnam war, following Platoon, Born on the Fourth of Julyand Heaven and Earth (unless he somehow squeezes another in before this one -- who knows how long UA will keep this on hiatus?). This time Stone is focusing on the terrible My Lai Massacre and the trial of the U.S. soldiers involved.
Oddly enough, The Hollywood Reporter has two new casting announcements today, despite Friday's announcement from UA. Jason Behr (The Grudge) is set to play Lt. Stephen Brooks, commanding officer at My Lai, and Cam Gigandet (Who's Your Caddy?) is cast as guilt-ridden soldier Fred Widmar.
I've been waiting for Michael Pitt to break out big for years now -- ever since Murder By Numbers, I think(he was noteworthy a year earlier in both Bully and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, but not quite as promising). He still has a chance, especially if he takes the part of Lt. William Calley in Oliver Stone's Pinkville. According to The Hollywood Reporter, he's currently in talks for the role, and if he's smart he'll just go ahead and grab it. Calley is the central figure in the Vietnam war film, which deals with the investigation into the 1968 Mai Lai Massacre; the Army officer was the one found guilty of giving the orders that sparked the incident. Pitt would join an ensemble cast that already includes Bruce Willis (or as I like to call him, Bruce Billis), Channing Tatum (another young actor continually teetering on the verge of stardom), Michael Peña (previously seen in Stone's World Trade Center), Woody Harrelson and Xzibit, who just joined on this week. Also joining the film is Toby Jones (Infamous), who will portray Lt. Andre Feher, the chief warrant officer who tries to convince Willis' character, Gen. William Peers, that the U.S. Army is responsible for the massacre.
With Pinkville, Pitt would be sure to make up for the mediocre year he's had. Between starring in Tom DiCillo's embarrassingly awful Deliriousand the apparently abysmal Silk(it has an astonishingly sad 8% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes), the actor has been really struggling to get his due notice. He does have other intriguing projects in the pipeline, however; next year he can be seen co-starring in Michael Haneke's Funny Games U.S., a remake of the filmmaker's own earlier work, and he's set to star as a young Christopher Walken (sorta) in Abel Ferrara's King of New Yorkprequel, Pericle il Nero. It seems that Pitt might prefer working outside of Hollywood, but the guy should at least do a good ensemble piece every now and then, and there's not many better Hollywood directors he could work with than Stone.
Silk demonstrates a growingly frequent conundrum of modern moviemaking -- namely, what do you do when the departures from the formulaic, repetitive, predictable mainstream are, in their way, just as formulaic, repetitive and predictable? Based on Allesandro Barrico's novel, Silk tells the story of a 19th-Century man who leaves France, and the woman he loves, to travel into the heart of Japan -- where few Westerners have been -- to bring back silkworm eggs to help stop a devastating plague that's wiping out the European industry. On his journeys to Japan, he becomes obsessed by the concubine of the local warlord -- so much that he returns again and again, despite the risk and expense, in the hopes of one more glimpse of her.
Silk is also, in less specific language, another in an endless series of pretty, vapid period pieces where the exquisitely tailored costumes hide racing hearts -- a by-now standard tale of passion under petticoats, strong connections under starched collars. It is also another period piece where a distant land and a distant love supposedly inflame our protagonist, but the ponderous, lumbering slow chill restraint in the staging sucks any connection and passion and heated risk out of the film. Finally, even with the stage set for globe-trotting clichés and reheated concepts, the film's dealt a mortal blow by the casting of actors who are, bluntly, out of their depth -- and not thrown a rope by director Francois Girard.
There are only a handful of examples out there of a director who has chosen to remake their own movie. But I guess if Alfred Hitchcock can do it, why not someone else? MSN is now hosting the trailer for Michael Haneke's remake of his own film, Funny Games. Starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, the update follows the same story as the original; a family vacationing at a remote country home is terrorized by a psychotic duo -- this time around it's Michael Pitt (Last Days) and Brady Corbet. Judging from the trailer, it's going to be a tough sell to North American audiences. Mainly because you can't tell whether the film is going for pitch black comedy, or a straight thriller. Not to mention (Warning, spoiler ahead), the ending might be a little hard for US audiences to take. Unless, of course, Haneke had some major changes up his sleeve.
This is just the first remake of a Haneke film slated this year. Rumors of Ron Howard taking on Haneke's thriller Cache with long-time production partner Brian Grazer surfaced back in February, although there has yet to be official confirmation. Haneke is also slated to start production on The White Tape or the Teacher's Tale, a period piece set in a German village pre-WW1. Since I haven't seen the original Funny Games, I can't say whether or not the remake is a good idea or not; although experience has taught me that most remakes can never live up to the original -- even if they are made by the same person.
Satire is not a blunt instrument. In the hands of an overzealous filmmaker, jokes and pointed barbs can readily fly over your head, leaving you to think "Hey, wait, was that supposed to be funny? Cuz it kinda was." (Or, even worse, the satire is presented in such a ham-fisted fashion that the insight ends up buried beneath moronic punchlines) Such is quite definitely not the case in Delirious, a poker-faced but insightful and amusing comedic drama that takes square aim at pop stars, paparazzi and stargazers without ever settling for the obvious joke or the predictable punchline. This comes as no big surprise to me, considering that the writer/director of Delirious is Tom DiCillo, frequent Jim Jarmusch cinematographer and rather astute filmmaker in his own right. (DiCillo gave us Johnny Suede, The Real Blonde and -- one of my favorite movies about filmmakers -- the excellent Living in Oblivion)
Delirious is the tale of a kind-hearted but depressingly unfocused homeless kid called Toby (played brilliantly by Michael Pitt) who starts an unlikely friendship with a fast-talking paparazzi photographer named Les (Steve Buscemi, as good as he's ever been) and somehow manages to find himself in close proximity to K'harma Leeds, a teen idol pop sensation who is as beautiful as she is obtuse. (As the pop star, Alison Lohman is nothing short of stellar; she avoids the really obvious digs on Lindsay, Brittney and Paris ... but she sure does nail 'em to the wall anyway)
The practice of adapting plays to cinema is as old as cinema, itself. In fact, many of the earliest narrative films were nothing more than existing plays, which were staged in front of a stationary camera. Aside from the fact that these films weren't much to look at, the absence of sound in cinema's first thirty years made for an awkward marriage between the silent pictures and plays, which typically feature a lot of dialogue. Fortunately the adaptations got better, not just because of the addition of a soundtrack, but mostly because filmmakers learned to open them up to the scope that cinema allows for. After a century, we've come a long way from those first moving dioramas that were passed off as a new medium, enough that we can even forgive all the talky, visually static films of the '90s. So, when a movie comes along that bears more resemblance to a filmed play than to a film version of a play, I feel that I must call it out as being format-inappropriate.
Such is the case with my feelings on Jailbait, a mostly inactive, primarily single-scene waste of film (or, actually, digital memory, as it was shot on video) written and directed by the playwright Brett C. Leonard. Although not actually based on one of Leonard's plays, or on a play at all, Jailbait stinks of the theater, and would most certainly work better on the stage rather than on the big screen.
It's the biggest honor a foreign film can receive ... no, not the Oscar or a fancy award. I'm talking about en English language remake! Forget that 
So much for all those casting updates for (and comments asking about how to get cast in) 
I've been waiting for 
There are only a 
Insert Caption: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian_thumbnail.jpg)
SCOOP: Spider-Man 4 and 5 Might be Shot at the Same Time!
Cinematical Seven: Disney's Awesome Live-Action Kid Adventures
