Editorials
‘Funny Games’ vs. ‘Funny Games’ – One of the Most Curious Remake Experiments of Them All
Watching two Michael Haneke features back-to-back doesn’t sound all that outrageous, right? What if they’re Funny Games (1997) and Funny Games (2007)? You start with one of the more disturbing flicks in Criterion’s closet, then immediately follow it with an American shot-for-shot remake that relives the same nightmare. My inner masochist couldn’t skip on tackling one of the stranger entries into Revenge of the Remakes, as two equally competent home invasion thrillers played out like a case of knife-twisting déjà vu.
Haneke jumped at the chance to make an American version of his Austrian commentary on the media’s exploitation of violence. Why wouldn’t he? A proud filmmaker saw an opportunity to help his bundle of anti-joy reach a wider audience, only made more relevant by the popularized 2000s period in horror history with “torture porn” leading the charge. Although, does shooting the exact storyboards like they’d been shipped overseas classify as a good remake? Haneke’s involvement is the trump card, because we’ve all seen what happens when a lesser filmmaker takes someone else’s script and creates something inferior (cough cough Cabin Fever cough cough).
The Approach
‘Funny Games’ (1997)
It’s the same. From the overhead highway opener to the closing hold on a deviant murderer staring back at the camera as a freeze frame. Avant-garde musical rebels Naked City get to hear their song “Bonehead” reused over the credits. There’s so little altered outside maybe how many pounds of steak are thawed (“three” versus “four,” curse our American greed)? Otherwise, Haneke doesn’t see any weakness in his wall-breaking narrative. Bless a filmmaker with the confidence not to question a single choice they once made, essentially insisting a movie so stupendous doesn’t require second guesses.
The queen of American horror remakes Naomi Watts and Tim Roth star as Ann and George Farber, doomed vacationers heading to their lake house with son Georgie (Devon Gearhart). Stepping in as the film’s vile torturers in snow-white collared shirts are Brady Corbet as Peter and Michael Pitt as Paul. If you’ve seen 1997’s original, you know what transpires because it’s copied and pasted like clip art. Peter and Paul ask the Farbers for eggs, their request turns out to be a ruse, and they spend the movie holding them hostage until a teased execution deadline. Before “Because you were home,” there was “Why not” — all we can do is voyeuristically watch as coincidental torment unfolds.
It’s a complex analysis because Funny Games goes against everything I believe about remakes. I’m always harping on filmmakers to find their voice while paying respect to someone else’s source material — but that’s not Haneke’s objective. It’s said that Funny Games (1997) might have been intended to be an English film from the start, then thwarted by budgetary issues. Funny Games (2007) allowed Haneke a second chance to see his first intentions become a reality, using the same blocking, frame selections, and props where possible. Haneke agrees that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it — down to a hungry dog trying to raid an open refrigerator.
Does It Work?
‘Funny Games’ (2007)
As an identical sibling film born a decade later? Yes, Funny Games (2007) is a well-acted psychopath’s getaway that generates all the same icky-awful feelings as Funny Games (1997). Haneke speaks directly to American audiences through Paul, keeping the metatextual commentaries about how we’re participants in the violence on screen. Everything about Funny Games (1997) works in Funny Games (2007) because Haneke chooses a path of meticulous replication. As a standalone, Funny Games (2007) successfully duplicates the agony, dismay, and delirium that stems from a movie that boasts its bleakness like a hole-in-one.
As a remake, Funny Games (2007) feels like a redundant experience for those who’ve already seen Hanake’s foreign-language shocker. There’s nothing to analyze beyond performances and dog breeds when watched in tandem, which becomes a question of tastes. Chances are, whichever you watch first will be your favorite because the following film will feel like cycling through repetitively morbid motions. Haneke cannibalizes his own market by trying to expand the story’s reach, which is still the right move considering how many Americans won’t “ruin” their movie experiences with subtitles.
Can you sense the conflict swirling in my head like a cyclone? Usually, I’d have all these comparison points about changes that either misrepresent or improve between sources and remakes — but Haneke does his damndest to leave no pebble out of place. Production took place mainly in Long Island, New York, which barely gives the “update” more of a wealthy American hideaway atmosphere. Still, besides some new driveway layouts and other minimal architectural differences, Haneke stays militant in his recreation. It works as an American version of an Austrian sensation that doesn’t skip a beat but feels needless if watched immediately after the original because there are no profound exploratory possibilities between either edition.
The Result
‘Funny Games’ (2007)
Funny Games (2007) is Haneke doing what he does best — again. Darius Khondji’s cinematography is merely crisper while reshooting the same angles with presumably better cameras (90s vs. 00s technology). It’s easier for English-language audiences to embrace a narrative without subtitles, but dialogue is nearly uttered word-for-word. Haneke avoids a situation like [REC] vs. Quarantine where Americanization fails the translation of international horror to stateside theaters, but possibly creates a new one that will frustrate fans of his first Funny Games ten years prior.
Performances from the English-language cast are the one aspect that helps set Haneke’s despicable exploitation apart and offer slim variations. Roth’s George isn’t a vocal screamer like Ulrich Mühe’s Georg Schober, bringing a broken quietness most appreciated after the whole sandwich-making distraction reveals its outcome. Watts matches Susanne Lothar’s Anna Schober, whether frustration or panic, paying homage to the original’s actress with chameleon abilities. Then there’s Corbet and Pitt finding more of a temperate threat level against original villain actors Arno Frisch and Frank Giering, likely to be welcomed into a residence due to their All-American appeal. Although, Pitt doesn’t play as coy when he talks into the camera during the fourth wall breaks, which has a fraction less fun with the twist — only super noticeable when compared side by side.
Neither is better. Both are successful as analytical presentations of violence to draw attention to our society’s sickest viewing habits. Both families endure the same unspeakable trauma, yet actors find borderline microscopic ways to make their performances their own. Haneke keeps the essence of his narrative pure in both versions, showing no desire to question his authority on the topic. The result is a rather impressive mimicry, for better and worse depending on your experience watching one Funny Games, or both, and how spaced apart you set your viewings.
The Lesson
‘Funny Games’ (2007)
I feel like I’m J.K. Simmons in Burn After Reading. “What did we learn here, Palmer? I don’t fuckin’ know either.” Month after month, I ramble on about how the best remakes manifest respectful reinvention. The point of a remake shouldn’t be to duplicate — and yet Haneke does just that for understandable reasons. Should more forgiveness be issued because the same filmmaker can cash in on an expanded market take that gives him access to new audiences? Again, “I don’t fuckin’ know either.” All I do know is Funny Games (2007) breaks my usual rules, and while it’s a worthless double-bill, isn’t wrong for its approach?
So what did we learn?
● Michael Haneke took full advantage of a situation few international filmmakers are given.
● Rules are meant to be broken every once in a blue moon, and Funny Games (2007) is a rare positive example of remake mimicry.
● Violent commentary against the media is unsettling in any language.
● You don’t have to teach an old dog new tricks.
Heed my warning and never watch both Funny Games movies in a row. It takes hardcore masochism to endure Funny Games (1997) and immediately chase that with the same nerve-shredding repugnance like you’ve just hit “Play Again.” There’s no reward for watching both, just a double-dip that’s oddly infuriating as the same events repeat in English. It’s the most curious experiment I’ve conducted here on Revenge of the Remakes (to date) because even the Cabin Fever ditto showcase a transparent quality dropoff. I’m baffled, annoyed, and enamored by Haneke’s ability to reshoot that same flippin’ movie, which I’ll never watch together again, but wholly defend as separate entities.
In Revenge of the Remakes, columnist Matt Donato takes us on a journey through the world of horror remakes. We all complain about Hollywood’s lack of originality whenever studios announce new remakes, reboots, and reimaginings, but the reality? Far more positive examples of refurbished classics and updated legacies exist than you’re willing to remember (or admit). The good, the bad, the unnecessary – Matt’s recounting them all.
Editorials
Before ‘The Blair Witch Project’, ‘Alien Autopsy’ Showed How Real Found Footage Could Feel
The line separating artist from con man is a lot thinner than you might initially believe. While I think we can all agree that lying for the sake of profit is actively malicious behavior, isn’t it also true that the faux documentary aspect of The Blair Witch Project is half the reason why that film became such a cultural phenomenon? After all, if there’s one thing filmmakers have in common with stage magicians, it’s that misleading and misdirecting audiences is simply part of the job.
That’s why I’ve developed a habit of mostly ignoring the moral quandaries behind many of film and television’s biggest “hoaxes” in favor of appreciating the narrative elements that drive productions like Mermaids: The Body Found and even Animal Planet’s highly underrated The Cannibal in the Jungle. However, if there’s a definitive case of a highly publicized broadcast fooling the world into taking it seriously, it has to be Fox’s infamous 1995 TV special Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction.
It’s been over three decades since that eerie footage first haunted television screens right at the peak of the ’90s ufology craze, and in that time, the video has taken on a life of its own. From countless parodies and references in everything from The X-Files to Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater (as well as John Dower’s recently released tell-all documentary The Alien Autopsy Scandal, which I’d highly recommend to genre fans everywhere), there’s no denying the legacy of the Alien Autopsy video. However, I rarely see the tape discussed as what it truly is: a highly convincing found footage film directed by a passionate stage magician and brought to life by masterful practical effects work.
That’s why I’d like to invite readers to join me on a deep dive into one of the most infamous broadcasts of all time in an attempt to reevaluate the footage as a fascinating narrative experience rather than a complete hoax.
The TV Special That Convinced Millions It Was Real
Ray Santilli next to Extraterrestrial replica in ‘The Alien Autopsy Scandal’
For starters, regardless of whether or not you believe that there was in fact an extraterrestrial crash in Roswell during the summer of 1947 and that some form of autopsy was performed on the victims, the producers behind the black & white recordings, Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield, insist that their video was a “restoration.” Though I’d argue that the proper word is “remake”of genuine footage that was too damaged to air on television. That’s why the duo went on to recruit filmmaker and eccentric magician Spyros Melaris and sculptor/monster designer John Humphreys to bring their version of the autopsy to life and sell it to the highest bidder.
This is where the story of the Alien Autopsy as a narrative experience really begins. Melaris claims that his approach to the faux recording consisted of striving for extreme period accuracy in both shooting equipment and setting while also planting subtle details that would initially seem like mistakes but could later be revealed to actually fit the time period. That being said, the filmmaker was under the impression that the short would be released for free as a PR stunt, with the team later producing and selling an informative documentary chronicling exactly how the footage was faked and commenting on how easy it is to manipulate public perception with a good old-fashioned magic trick.
This obviously isn’t how things went down, and that’s likely the reason why Melaris has since distanced himself from everyone else involved with the project. Yet, no amount of behind-the-scenes drama can undermine the genuine effort that went into making the short as impressive as it is. From the sourcing of real animal organs from a local butcher to make the organic part of the creature more lifelike to the highly detailed sculpt that made use of a hollowed-out underlayer that could be filled with fake blood and assorted viscera, there’s a reason why so many Hollywood specialists are still impressed with the artistry on display here.
Of course, the believability is only half the story, as I think that the best part of the autopsy is how Melaris builds on the existing tension by obscuring certain details and often embracing the chaos of what a real examination of extraterrestrial life could feel like. The camera often goes out of focus at just the right time to make certain effects hit even harder, and we can only speculate as to what the hazmat-suited doctors are gesticulating about during the operation. There’s a real air of mystery to the whole thing that almost makes it feel like a cosmically terrifying, cursed film containing forbidden knowledge that civilians were never meant to see.
So when Fox’s Fact or Fiction brings in the specialists to comment on the film and its otherworldly subject, it’s no surprise that we end up with one of the most memorable mockumentaries of all time – albeit one where the participants are unaware that the footage they’re commenting on is basically a large-scale practical joke. A joke that the network was obviously in on, as many participants claim that the TV special cut out significant portions where guests point out that they believe the footage to be an elaborate hoax.
The Lasting Impact of the Hoax Turned Cultural Event
Regardless, I remember going to bed terrified after watching reruns of the special and thinking about the respected pathologist who claimed that the body was almost certainly inhuman, with even effects maestro Stan Winston commenting on how difficult it would be to recreate some of these visuals through practical puppetry. That’s not even mentioning Jonathan Frakes’ dramatic hyping up of the disturbing imagery as if he was talking about the tape from The Ring, with his spooky demeanor here likely being responsible for his later role as the host of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction a few years later.
Personally, I’d argue that the Alien Autopsy phenomenon had just as much of an impact on me as a horror fan as The Blair Witch Project, a film that was almost certainly influenced by the success of this immensely popular hoax (to the point where they even produced their own TV special commenting on Heather’s found footage). Even if Fox didn’t intend to produce a narrative feature about the aftermath of the Roswell crash, the end product still holds up remarkably well as a highly entertaining mockumentary exploring the idea that we may not be alone in the universe.
While neither Santilli nor the rest of the production team has ever commented on this, I also think it’s very likely that the idea of a faux Alien Autopsy could have been influenced by Dean Alioto’s The McPherson Tape/UFO Abduction. I’ve already written about how this granddaddy of found footage was co-opted by rogue ufologists who began selling bootlegs of the tape at conventions as if it were real evidence of a close encounter, so it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that Santilli and company could have heard about this phenomenon and been inspired to come up with their own highly profitable hoax.
At the end of the day, it’s unlikely that the Alien Autopsy film is recreating any real footage from Roswell, but I can still appreciate the short and the accompanying television event as a standalone horror story that still influences the way we see found footage to this very day.
After all, the possibility that something could be real is often much scarier than finding out for sure – and that’s why I think Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction is still worth revisiting three decades down the line.
You must be logged in to post a comment.