A  month ago, I finally got around to watching Amour. As the credits rolled towards Michael Haneke’s name, I immediately opened his IMDb page – I had to watch his other films. That’s when I saw he sported the title of both writer and director to Funny Games. Funny Games centers around a family as they are taken hostage by two young men, Peter and Paul. The two then proceed to torment and torture them through their  inhumane “games.”

I couldn’t comprehend how the sensitive filmmaker Haneke showed himself to be in Amour could create the violent sadistic monstrosity that is Funny Games. I was in disbelief, I had to see the film for a second time. Perhaps I overlooked a metaphor or an underlying theme that would redeem the director’s choices. Well, I wouldn’t be writing a 500 word article had I found nothing–we’re not up to the full Talon-article length yet.

Haneke purposely angers his audience; Peter and Paul’s grotesque games aren’t unintentional or simply for the horror factor. He wants the audience to feel the family’s frustration feels every time their attempts to escape fail. I found that what prevents most people from enjoying the film are the heroic expectations that are constantly broken.  

SPOILER ALERT: The first person that dies is the son, going against the conventions that assert the child will survive until the end. Through most of the film’s running time, the audience feels hopeless for these characters. And just when Anne seems to get the upper hand when she shoots Peter, Paul literally rewinds time to undo her triumph. This may seem like a cheap move, yet, on the other hand, it suggests that Paul is more than a person. Eventually, the rest of the family is killed, leaving no protagonist to root for.