Funny Games (film)

[Ezra]

I'm yet to see the original, and I probably won't for some time, since I saw this quite recently.

Ann: LSE



George: EII



Paul: EIE



Peter: IEI



The kid isn't worth typing. You don't really know what he is.

[discojoe]

Terrible film. It even failed at being disturbing.

Naomi Watts getting tied up in her underwear was pretty much the main highlight.

[strrrng]

Naomi Watts getting tied up in her underwear was pretty much the main highlight.

el oh el


Was this the movie about the dad who builds houses and the druggy, emo son?

[discojoe]

el oh el


Was this the movie about the dad who builds houses and the druggy, emo son?

No, it's about a vacationing family of three and their dog who are terrorized/tortured/etc by two psychopathic early 20s yuppie dudes. It's supposed to be disturbing and tense, but I found it dull and silly.

[Khamelion]

why the fuck do paul and peter look so alike. and someone is missing, according to peter's description. this is fucking annoying

[discojoe]

Paul and Peter are easy to tell apart in the movie.

[Ezra]

Terrible film.

Understandable. There was zero Fi.

And it was deliberate. The director made this film as a tool. He said "if you walked out of the cinema, you didn't need it; if you stayed, you did". It's basically a social experiment, which shows us that we are so engrossed in cinema violence - we've become so numb about it - that we have lost all sensitivity.

So, in essence, you're wrong when you say that it was meant to be disturbing and tense. Matter of fact is that this was never the original intention of film.

[discojoe]

Understandable. There was zero Fi.

And it was deliberate. The director made this film as a tool. He said "if you walked out of the cinema, you didn't need it; if you stayed, you did". It's basically a social experiment, which shows us that we are so engrossed in cinema violence - we've become so numb about it - that we have lost all sensitivity.

So, in essence, you're wrong when you say that it was meant to be disturbing and tense. Matter of fact is that this was never the original intention of film.

So it was meant to be disturbing... but it wasn't?

[Khamelion]

Understandable. There was zero Fi.

And it was deliberate. The director made this film as a tool. He said "if you walked out of the cinema, you didn't need it; if you stayed, you did". It's basically a social experiment, which shows us that we are so engrossed in cinema violence - we've become so numb about it - that we have lost all sensitivity.

So, in essence, you're wrong when you say that it was meant to be disturbing and tense. Matter of fact is that this was never the original intention of film.

He isn't wrong at all whatsoever. He DID mean it to be disturbing and tense...or else it wouldn't be much of an experiment. Make sense son....MAKE SOME SENSE.

If the experiment was behind the intention of the film's direction, than there would have to be an attempt at disturbing the guinea pigs.

[Ezra]

So it was meant to be disturbing... but it wasn't?

He isn't wrong at all whatsoever. He DID mean it to be disturbing and tense...or else it wouldn't be much of an experiment. Make sense son....MAKE SOME SENSE.

If the experiment was behind the intention of the film's direction, than there would have to be an attempt at disturbing the guinea pigs.

Duh. Who decides what is disturbing? The director? You as the audience? Is disturbing objective? Or was it disturbing to one person and not to another? I didn't find it disturbing; maybe this is why I needed the film. So was the director aiming to make it disturbing? And if you didn't find it disturbing then you needed it?

[unefille]

I saw about 20 minutes of the film before I lost interest and left. I found it unnecessary.

I really can't see why anyone would need to see a film like that? I have no idea how it ended, but my friend saw all of it , and said I made a good choice not to see the whole thing.

Why do you say he needed it and I didn't? (I haven't seen the whole film, so that might be why I don't understand.)

I think the premise is that if you stayed, then clearly you're so desensitized to displays of gratuitous violence that you need the movie - you need to be, in a sense, punished and awakened to your own desensitization.

Had you left immediately, you're not that desensitized yet and therefore don't need to see the message that Haneke is attempting to convey, which is essentially: you've become sick from the violence of our culture.

[unefille]

So there is a message to the audience or something like that in the end? You say I have to see it to understand it is art......? (Gross)

It's less of a message, but the absence of any reason for why this violence takes place. It's (my reading) intended to inspire feelings of repulsion - at the action, but also at yourself for being a 'part' of the action, for being 'audience' to the action and therefore implicit in it (since its performed for you).

There are moments in the movie where the fourth wall is momentarily broken, in the sense that Haneke seems to mock the viewer for hoping for any 'meaningful' resolution, as though 'meaning' would somehow justify and rectify this extraction of entertainment value from senseless violence. The idea is that 'meaning' does not change the nature of the violence committed. And if we find the movie sick, we ourselves (in watching it) are even sicker for 'buying into' the idea that violence can ever be 'entertainment'; can ever produce 'meaning' which we should 'sit it out' for.

[unefille]

I see. But isn't there a possibility that the people who actually sit through that crap will not understand? That they will not feel sick, as they are indeed blind to senseless violence? And thus will only think "boring movie" (and their dead souls will still be dead...)

To those Haneke would say, I think, alas. Too late.

In many ways, the movie is a touch on the pretentious side; moreover, it assumes its own effectiveness. I think that's why it's received poor reviews.

The concept is intriguing; the execution of it could not realistically hope to achieve that Haneke may have envisioned for it, for exactly the reason you identified. It was a movie calculated to anticipate audience reaction. Audience reaction often eludes directors, particularly those that want to preach to them.

[Ezra]

I think the premise is that if you stayed, then clearly you're so desensitized to displays of gratuitous violence that you need the movie - you need to be, in a sense, punished and awakened to your own desensitization.

Had you left immediately, you're not that desensitized yet and therefore don't need to see the message that Haneke is attempting to convey, which is essentially: you've become sick from the violence of our culture.

Exactement.

I see. But isn't there a possibility that the people who actually sit through that crap will not understand? That they will not feel sick, as they are indeed blind to senseless violence? And thus will only think "boring movie" (and their dead souls will still be dead...)

To you it's boring.

I really enjoyed watching those two kids terrorise the family. It really got to my sadistic side.

[Ezra]

Ouch. You are stepping on my Fi, do you mind moving?

Sorry. I don't listen to Ti PoLRs.

(... Betas are creepy ...)

lol @ this

Question for you; are you sure you're a 1w9 IEE? I'm not. IMO, you're either a 1w9 or an IEE; not both. IEE doesn't make a good fit for 1w9.

[unefille]

I'm sure I am 1w9. Completely certain.

IEE? Maybe not. But it fits the most, as far as I can see. If not, I would probably be one of these: EIE, IEI, ILE

And I kind of never made a good fit with me. I always seemed to be a walking contradiction.

E1 is the most correlated with an Ti-leading type. Therefore, it's very very unusual, if not impossible, that a Ti-PoLR could be an E1.

(... Betas are creepy ...)

*grows fangs and swoops down on Mimosa* lol

[Ezra]

I'm sure I am 1w9. Completely certain.

IEE? Maybe not. But it fits the most, as far as I can see. If not, I would probably be one of these: EIE, IEI, ILE

And I kind of never made a good fit with me. I always seemed to be a walking contradiction.

Why Beta NF?

E1 is the most correlated with an Ti-leading type. Therefore, it's very very unusual, if not impossible, that a Ti-PoLR could be an E1.

Actually, Fi base Ones exist in quite large numbers.

I know this, but my perfectionism has been on Fi, not Ti. That's why I had such a hard time finding my Enneatype. The videos of other E1s were all so stiff. I'm less stiff and I have a house that can look like a mess. BUT, make no mistake, I have bent myself completely out of shape to please people and to make them feel good, at the risk of loosing myself. Always because of a fear that they would find me "bad". And the anger it built inside... Well, let's say reading the E1 description now, makes me relate 100%. I'm a dreamer and an idealist... I know I am E1. I just think my perfectionism went Fi instead of Ti, and that's why I still think IEE is right.

I could imagine your being a Two or a Nine; maybe a Three, but unlikely. What about Two or Nine, eh?

[unefille]

Actually, Fi base Ones exist in quite large numbers.

I can see that, but I think overall, Ti-base fits even better given the competency harmonic style, particularly for 1w9.

Edited to add: NOT that I'm suggesting that you're Ti-base Mimosa! I just think it fits best, not that other types can't fit 1w9.

[Ezra]

I can see that, but I think overall, Ti-base fits even better given the competency harmonic style, particularly for 1w9.

Do you not think Fi base types work as well as Ti base types in the competency harmonic?

[unefille]

Do you not think Fi base types work as well as Ti base types in the competency harmonic?

E1s solve problems by doing what they think is right. To that extent, Fi works as well as Ti, because they can operate on Fi rules, not just Ti rules. However the E1 focus on placing subjectivities aside in order to produce a 'right' and 'objective' solution I can see clashing with Fi in some circumstances, particularly in a situation with given rules (such as an institution the E1 believes in and wishes to preserve) that require them to act against the Fi-rules; whilst such clashes are much less likely with a Ti-base.

[discojoe]

The only reason I won't say that Funny Games crossed the line is because it had this satirical, almost slapstick quality to it that made it seem more outrageous than disturbing.

A good example of a movie that does cross the line is Wolf Creek.

[discojoe]

I really enjoyed watching those two kids terrorise the family. It really got to my sadistic side.

This is really a sick statement.

[Ezra]

I'd rather question my socionics type.

I think this is a good idea. The fact that you said you are possibly Beta because you like them makes me question your socionics understanding.

Now, what do you think are your options?

E1s solve problems by doing what they think is right. To that extent, Fi works as well as Ti, because they can operate on Fi rules, not just Ti rules. However the E1 focus on placing subjectivities aside in order to produce a 'right' and 'objective' solution I can see clashing with Fi in some circumstances, particularly in a situation with given rules (such as an institution the E1 believes in and wishes to preserve) that require them to act against the Fi-rules; whilst such clashes are much less likely with a Ti-base.

Hold up. Surely a Fi base One could believe that their morals were objective. They'd have little knowledge of the Ti approach (obviously because of Ti role), and because of their gut-based energy, come from a thoroughly "this is the way to do it and I'm right because I am" approach.

This is really a sick statement.

I was surprised no one actually said anything against this - as if they ignored it - besides Mimosa Pudica saying "Betas are creepy..." for the third time in a row.

FTR, I was half attempting to stir up controversy with that statement.

Honestly though, it wasn't so much seeing the family terrorised that I gained pleasure from; more watching these two very entertaining Betas basically baffle a Delta family. They had no idea what these kids were about; their very ideals (or lack thereof) blew them out of the water. I think it's the principle that I enjoyed (and Pitt's acting), which I noticed as soon as I saw a trailer for it a while ago.

[discojoe]

I was surprised no one actually said anything against this - as if they ignored it - besides Mimosa Pudica saying "Betas are creepy..." for the third time in a row.

FTR, I was half attempting to stir up controversy with that statement.

Honestly though, it wasn't so much seeing the family terrorised that I gained pleasure from; more watching these two very entertaining Betas basically baffle a Delta family. They had no idea what these kids were about; their very ideals (or lack thereof) blew them out of the water. I think it's the principle that I enjoyed (and Pitt's acting), which I noticed as soon as I saw a trailer for it a while ago.

I can understand getting a kind of sick pleasure out of seeing certain types of sadistic imagery, (I think the Hostel and Saw movies are hilarious) but the whole point of Funny Games is to be hateful, and I couldn't derive any pleasure out of seeing these innocent people getting abused in such a nasty way, and I thought the two antagonists were pussies.

[Khamelion]

Duh. Who decides what is disturbing? The director? You as the audience? Is disturbing objective? Or was it disturbing to one person and not to another? I didn't find it disturbing; maybe this is why I needed the film. So was the director aiming to make it disturbing? And if you didn't find it disturbing then you needed it?

What a bunch of distracting nonsense.

[strrrng]

This is really a sick statement.

Nah, it really isn't, especially since it's coming from Ezra lol. When I read it, of course there was the immediate, ostensible effect (which was calculated on his part), but I then saw past it, to the fact that he was just curiously acknowledging his own dark side and stirring up a little controversy to validate this awareness. If something is sensed peripherally, people will typically do something to bring it into focus; Ezra pulled the typical SeFe bullshit lol.

[discojoe]

Nah, it really isn't, especially since it's coming from Ezra lol. When I read it, of course there was the immediate, ostensible effect (which was calculated on his part), but I then saw past it, to the fact that he was just curiously acknowledging his own dark side and stirring up a little controversy to validate this awareness. If something is sensed peripherally, people will typically do something to bring it into focus; Ezra pulled the typical SeFe bullshit lol.

You're not allowed to defend your dual against their supervisor.

[Ezra]

I can understand getting a kind of sick pleasure out of seeing certain types of sadistic imagery, (I think the Hostel and Saw movies are hilarious) but the whole point of Funny Games is to be hateful, and I couldn't derive any pleasure out of seeing these innocent people getting abused in such a nasty way, and I thought the two antagonists were pussies.

I'm not quite sure you've understood me. Basically, I don't really get any pleasure from seeing these people terrorised; more the way in which they do it; it's so laissez-faire about such a disturbing topic. It's like making a film about Nazis playing around with Jews before they kill them; I wouldn't find it pleasurable at all so much as highly fascinating and compelling. It couldn't be gratuitous like it is in Saw or Hostel (those films are indeed sick and actually very shit, and I derive no pleasure or enjoyment from them); it would have to be masterfully done.

ETA: it may be helpful to know that I myself don't fully understand the sensations or whatever that I derive from this film or any concept like it.

You're not allowed to defend your dual against their supervisor.

[strrrng]

ETA: it may be helpful to know that I myself don't fully understand the sensations or whatever that I derive from this film or any concept like it.

I gathered as much Maybe you should be more direct in your explanation. Don't be afraid to think scary thoughts; I won't call you crazy if you're honest about your feelings, no matter how fucked up they are.

[wasp]

i watched this movie last night and i loved it. what a creatively fucked up concept for a film.

i don't know what ann and george's types are but i thought paul was a clear-cut ILE. peter was fairly one-dimensional imo but given his chemistry with paul i could see xEI.

paul was absolutely wonderful though. i can't remember the last time i was this attracted to a fictional character.