影視英語聽力 第41期：Funny Games趣味游戲

喬治(Tim Roth 蒂姆•羅素 飾)和安(Naomi Watts 娜奧米•沃茨 飾)帶著兒子和愛犬來到城外島某別墅度假，原本美好的假期卻被兩個(gè)不速之客破壞。兩個(gè)打扮拘謹(jǐn)，文質(zhì)彬彬的年輕人敲開喬治的房門，向他們借雞蛋。安熱情地接待他們，然而雞蛋一次次被有意無意打破，他們的電話也被碰倒水中。安的忍耐到了極限，命令他們離開自己的房子。

年輕人非但不聽，反而變本加厲，開始對(duì)喬治一家展開毫不留情的折磨與屠殺……

本片榮獲2008年少年好萊塢獎(jiǎng)一種視角最佳男主角獎(jiǎng)(Brady Corbet)。

對(duì)話文本:
Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do.

In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beaten, made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual andartistic agenda. It doesn't want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular an American movie audience's, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violent brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite.

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective.

I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.