In 1997, Austrian provocateur Michael Haneke made "Funny Games", one of the worst and most relevant films of his decade. "Funny Games" follow the plight of a canvas, a family of the upper class of three (Susan Lothar, Ulrich Mih, Stefan Klepcinski) while traveling to their lake cabin for a miniature holiday. As they settle, they receive a visit from two nasty young men to tennis whites and bracelets, demanding that they borrow a few eggs. The young are Paul (Arno Fersch) and Peter (Frank Gyring), and they clearly have a dark agenda.

As soon as the Matriarch Anna asked them to leave, Peter and a half grabbed a golf club and began to inflict injuries. They discover that they have already killed the family dog and that other family members are not allowed to leave. Peter and Paul are tied up and announced that they will play some games. These funny games include torture, mockery and death. At one point, Paul turns to the camera and asks the audience if the Jober family has a chance of survival. It won't be the last time "Funny Games" breaks the fourth Wallid.

Without finding out what is happening, "funny games" does not end well. However, Haneke not only makes a thriller for a home invasion of the mill. He torments the audience, deliberately. Haneke tells viewers as they watch the film, that they are responsible for the pain they testify. In seeing the horrors, you long for blood. Do you want to see the tortures to get their violent return instead? Isn't that just more audiences, Haneke asks? He implies you. He commented on the use of cinema violence.

And his thesis became clearer in 2007 when Haneke essentially a remake of footage of "Funny Games" in English with recognizable English -language stars. Naomi Watts played the mother, father Tim Roth, and the tortures played by Michael Pete and future director "Brutalist" Brady Corbet.

In the original, he teases the audience together, building what he looks like-at the beginning-movie for horror-chorine. Such horror films usually include innocent being injured, and audiences know that. Haneke has his killers directly in front of the audience, saying they are they, not the victims, that we are aimed at identifying ourselves. You came to see torture? Here it is. You, dear viewer, are sick. You are the wicked. You kill this family.

We, with that implication, are starting to look for just, explanatory reasons why the central family is so seriously punished. Is that because they are rich and boogie? It makes sense because their killers are dressed in tennis clothing, uniform of bourgeoisie. Paul and Peter are initially iteus, but also strangely critical for the Shobber family. They break the eggs they borrow "accidentally" and then look for more. Do they test the boundaries of the courtesy of the Shobber family? Are the Chobes tormented because they do not properly target this small test of courtesy?

And wait, are we not a little sick just by asking these questions? Then, of course, the thesis of "funny games" is to achieve catharsis in the testimony of the tortures faced by justice, right? If the family can escape, get their kidnappers fall and achieve retaliation in the blood, we, the audience, can be sure that justice is served. Sometimes, we can say comfortably on ourselves, violence is necessary to balance the stairs.

But then, Haneke does not allow us to have it either. The killers can break the fourth Wallid, so they have total mastery over the film itself. Even the longing for their death reveals their need for violence. There is no way out for us. We, us, viewers. We are a guilty party.

In redistribution of "Funny Games" in English, Haneke reduced the theme of his first film to more cutting. In the original in 1997, the director commented on functional violence in the cinema. For him, it's all cruel, and we, as members of the audience, rarely recognize the safety that the film offers us. When violence is false, we can distance ourselves, exclude large parts of our empathy. Human beings can separate anything.

But in 2007, there was an additional layer of comments. Haneke is now making film in English for American audiences. He throws recognizable stars as his victims of torture and publishes his film in a number of theaters than his original so far. The film in 2007 was a relative release of mainstream. Then, the comment now refers to the violence in mainstream American films. Haneke not only implies a cinema in the violence on the screen, but the Americans specifically.

In 2007, they remember, torture films were very fashionable. 2007 was The same year as "Saw I", For example. The Americans processed their trauma during 11.09.-Not to mention real-life prison photos, coming out of Abu Grajib-viewing torture on the screen. We removed the curse of real life violence by letting the fictional variety. It was a dark form of therapy. Michael Haneke, born in Austria, would not have allowed Americans to use his film to clear up by violent ideas. He was supposed to throw it out in our faces. Want violence? You get it. And, if it's disturbing or terrible, well, that's kind of you, right?

Both versions of "funny games" are great because they are largely identical.