A Tale of Two Trailers

Funny Games comes out tomorrow. It looks like a pretty disturbing film from director Michael Haneke, in which two young men take a vacationing family hostage. As you may know, Haneke has covered this subject matter before. In fact, he made this exact movie before, in 1997, in Austria. The trailers go nearly shot-for-shot. A comparison -- and be warned, they really are disturbing -- after the jump.

First, the new U.S. version:

And the Austrian version.

Now one review notes that there may be talk of less-than-artistic motivations for making Funny Games twice.

Film snobs will sneer at the idea of Haneke remaking his own film as a crass money grab or bid for a bigger American audience. But Haneke has always seemed more interested in making movies than making money, and he could make any film he wanted anywhere he wanted...

So if it's not money or fame, what is it?

 

Comments (Send a comment)

It's not sporting to ask a question and eliminate the two most likely answers. Since the movie is also a shot-for-shot remake of the original what other reasons could there be? According to the reviews that are out nothing about the "artistic vision" has changed. This is good and bad. At least it wasn't dumbed down for American audiences like _The Vanishing_ was. On the other hand I am reasonably sure I wouldn't like the original either. It is hard to take seriously a film that ostensibly criticizes the violent excesses of horror/suspense films while trading in exactly the same type of violence for violence sake exploitation. I prefer movies like _Syrianna_ or _Hard Candy_ where the violence is a necessary part of the story, but not the central purpose of the film. Actually I prefer _Local Hero_ to any of them. It's more fun to watch, and I sleep better afterwards.

Sent by Dave Wiley | 6:08 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I saw this trailer the other night and oh boy. I'm not gonna watch it again and I sure ain't going to the movie.

Sent by Sarah Goodyear | 6:46 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Wow, what a creepy trailer. Though the movie looks interesting, I would be watching it through my fingers with a great deal of anxiety. I don't think I will put myself through that. I do know several who probably will enjoy the film.

But I do have a question. Why is making a movie for money or fame given a negative connotation? This seem to be true for any so called "artistic" endeavor. I guess artists are supposed to starve while the rest of the world benefits from their suffering. Please!

Sent by Susanna | 4:08 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.







 (privacy policy)

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.



   
   
   
null


 
E-mail this page Print this page
 
 
 

Host

 
 

Welcome to 'The Bryant Park Project'

The Bryant Park Project started as a blog in the summer of 2007 and ended as a radio show and online community in July 2008. Read our frequently asked questions and discussion rules.

 
 

BRYANT PARK PODCAST

The Bryant Park Project podcast logo.Get the entire show with the Bryant Park audio podcast.



» Podcast Directory

 
 

NPR Listens graphic.

 
 
 
Get My Vote promo

Share Your Story

What would it take to get your vote? Share text, audio or video.

 
 

 
 

Recent Comments

 
 

Contact Us:

Want to write us privately? Use our contact form.

 
 
 

Search 'The Bryant Park Project'

Search for the word(s):
 
 

Browse Topics

Services

Programs