Funny Games Trailer

I wasn't going to post anything about this, but the concept has been literally haunting me every since I watched this trailer for Funny Games.  Apparently, writer/director Michael Haneke is remaking his own 1997 French film in English, starring Tim Roth, Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt. 

I can't really speak rationally about this without getting upset.  I am all for freedom of speech, and I will fight to my death for Mr. Haneke to have the right to make this film.  I have seen Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers, and Pulp Fiction dozens of times, and violence in film doesn't generally bother me.

However, (and this is just a theory) I think something happens to you once you have children.  I don't mean to be preachy or pedantic, and I deeply apologize if this comes out that way.  Something happened to me ever since the birth of my first son, and I now can't even remotely stomach the concept of bad things happening to children in movies (and when something tragic happens to a child in real life, I get almost physically ill).  It just feels as if there are some lines you can, but shouldn't, cross.  For example, Atlanta Football quarterbacks shouldn’t drown, hang, or electrocute dogs that don't perform, and horrible, torturous things shouldn’t happen to children in movies. 

Comments

[steandric]

Sorry, this film stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt. Tim Roth is NOT first billed. Regards.

[Craig Beilinson]

1) What does this have to do with the content of my post? Was I making a comment about who gets billed first?

2) What difference could this possibly make? Unless you are Naomi Watts' publicist or on her staff somehow...

[steandric]

I'm not Naomi Watts' publicist. I'm just a fan.
The difference you've made is, by listing Roth before Watts, which is the opposite of the widely published official listing, 1/ you've misled your readers to think Roth is the lead and his role or character is more important than Watts in the film; 2/ you've portrayed yourself as one of those people who, subconsciously, like or have to favor an actor or a male over an actress or a female. Regards.

[Craig Beilinson]

To all my readers, I hearby proclaim:

1) There was no intent to mislead you, as I couldn't possibly know which actor is more or less important in this film, given that I haven't seen it. I wonder how you define who is more important in a film... perhaps it's the size of their trailer on set, or their paycheck.

2) Steandric is correct. I absolutely believe that men are better than women at everything, they are more deserving of praise and recognition, and actors MUST be listed before actresses when listing the cast of a film. My apologies to Michael Pitt for not also naming him before Naomi Watts in my comments above.

Please note that I also believe in the Easter Bunny, Area 51, Barry Bonds had no idea he was taking steroids, and that the image of Mother Teresa on my Eggo waffle this morning was proof that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Regards.

[chumsley]

1)The 1st billed is obviously more important.

2)Are you saying you're a sexist?

[Craig Beilinson]

Come on people. I expect better than this from my readers.

1) I didn't check to see who was first billed, but my question still remains: how does anyone determine that order? How would the studio determine that? I still think it's either the size of their paycheck or their entourage.

2) It's called sarcasm "chumsley." I had hoped that spelling out my beliefs about the Easter Bunny, Barry Bonds, Mother Teresa, and Eggo Waffles might have clued you in on the joke, but it was apparently lost on you.