As a devoted gamer since the eight-bit Nintendo days, I know a thing or two about the industry. And when a character in a TV show or movie is depicted playing a video game, I notice. It catches my attention in the same way that a dog always catches the attention of another dog. I see some guy with a console controller in his hand, and my ears perk up, my tail wags, and I start barking.
Anyway, the thing that grinds my gears is that in most movies or shows, when gaming is depicted (if even incidentally), it's usually done in a totally incorrect manner. That is, almost invariably, something will be off on a factual basis -- the wrong controller will be used...the sound effects will be inappropriate...or someone will say something about the game that is simply ridiculous. These filmmakers are obviously ignorant of the real gaming world.
I first noticed this as child back in the 80s, when random sitcom characters would occasionally be seen playing games. The main problem back then was usually their hand movements. Some kid would be in front of a TV holding a controller, you'd hear electronic bleeps and blips, and he'd look just THRILLED to be engaged in the activity. So thrilled, in fact, that he'd be moving his hands all over the place, mashing the buttons on the controller at random, and even flailing his arms about. Meanwhile, someone else in the room would make a comment about Super Mario Brothers. Listen, Mr. Seaver, any gamer could tell you that if you're REALLY playing SMB, then you're NOT going to be holding the controller like that. A side scrolling platformer along those lines involves far more refined handling than base button mashing. Instead of banging on the thing like you're trying to cheat at Mortal Kombat, you'd simply be pushing the D-pad to the right, and hitting the A or B buttons intermittently. I've often wondered if the young actors portraying the kids playing video games actually knew this, but were ordered by their directors to liven things up by moving around more. "Listen, kid who plays Ben, I don't care if it's 'inaccurate' for you to depict Mario's controls this way. We've got a SITCOM to shoot here, and our brainless, bovine viewers won't know the difference. Now ACT LIKE YOU'RE ENJOYING THIS!!!"
Sadly, this trend has continued far beyond the 80s. Just the other day, I was watching a 2005 episode of the TV series, Angel, which featured a scene in which the vampire Spike is playing a video game. There is CLEARLY an X-Box on the top of his TV, and yet Spike is holding a Playstation controller. What's WORSE, though, is that sound effects we hear are obviously from Donkey Kong. Spike even mentions a barrel throwing ape at one point. OK, Joss Wheton. Lemme get this straight: Spike is playing a Nintendo game on a Microsoft console, using a Sony controller, eh? Absurd. The only way Spike would have been playing Donkey Kong on a modern console around 2005 would have been if he had owned a GAMECUBE. Even then, he'd need to unlock Donkey Kong while playing another title called Animal Crossing (one of my favorites, by the way), and I highly doubt that an evil-fighting vampire like Spike would have the time or patience to bother putting so much effort into such a game. You'd THINK that the producers of Angel, which has a fanbase largely made up of nerds, would have paid more attention to something like that....
Needless to say, the above concepts also apply to film. I can't count how many times someone in a movie has been playing a video game, and the director gets it WRONG. Dead wrong. Like, last night, I watched The Wrestler, with Mickey Rourke. Great movie (topless Marisa Tomei, folks!), but there was ONE problem: our hero Randy at one point sits down to play an old school wrestling game on the 8-bit NES with a neighborhood boy. Now, VISUALLY, everything in this scene checked out; however, THE SOUND was all wrong. Randy clearly is playing a NES sports title, but what we hear is, in fact, the soundtrack to Pacman. Friggin' idiocy. How could a director as talented as Darren Aronovsky not catch such a faux pas? I'm guessing that the sound effects guy screwed it up. He should never be allowed to work again.
Oh, and I don't want to hear excuses about copyrights. I know it's possible to depict video games correctly because SOME filmmakers, happily, are starting to get it right. I've noticed that anything done by Simon Pegg will show gaming in an accurate way, and the same applies to Judd Apatow. It's obvious that these guys are the real deal, and if they can get it right, so can the rest of Hollywood.
Anyway, speaking of gaming, today I have a capsule review for a film called Funny Games (yes, I know that this entry features a pretty weak lead-in). It really doesn't live up to its name.
Funny Games (2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808279/
"Anna (Naomi Watts) and George (Tim Roth) are enjoying a vacation with their son when a pair of sadistic young men, Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), breaks into their cabin and holds the family hostage. The psychotic duo plays twisted games with their prisoners, forcing them to comply to stay alive. Director Michael Haneke remakes his chilling 1997 German-language film as an indictment of the media's fascination with violence."
OK, so I was excited to see this one because I'd heard from multiple sources that it was disturbingly violent. Two mysterious 20-somethings break into a rich couple's home, and proceed to torture them in horrifying ways. Sounds interesting to me. Plus, the film features actor Michael Pitt, whose work I have enjoyed in the past (he deftly played a semi-fictionalized Kurt Cobain in Gus Van Sant's Last Days a few years back, and seems to have a knack for picking interesting, outside-the-mainstream sorts of projects, in general). Funny Games is a remake of a controversial German movie, and I was curious to see how it would translate into an American setting. However, when I finally got my hands on a copy, I was disappointed.
Where to begin? Well, first of all, the violence isn't REALLY all that shocking. I've seen far worse. I'm not sure what all of the uproar was about, considering that the yuppie couple here mostly just gets beaten with a golf club (and, let's face it, they probably deserved it, anyway). Sure, a rifle eventually comes into the picture, but really, it's not like they're being mutilated or anything. Plus, the two young men who victimize our "heroes" are hardly all that scary. They're, like, 140 pounds each, and look as if they belong in a Saved By The Bell episode. Being attacked by these guys would be about as scary as being attacked by two of ME. No self-respecting family man would let himself be pushed around by such losers....
And THAT'S where my real gripe lies. The main problem I had with Funny Games was simply that I can't believe how dumb the main characters are. The victims in this film display a shocking inability to defend themselves on multiple occasions. When Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet first let loose, all they've got is a golf club. One of them hits the husband in the knee with it, and the whole family crumbles. They're held hostage for the rest of the night while these two punks do as they please.
The poor, sheltered yuppie couple is so helpless that they can't even defend themselves against two wimpy 20 year-olds with a piece of sports equipment. At certain points, it becomes downright absurd -- like when the torturers actually LEAVE THE VICTIMS ALONE in the house for about an hour, and these idiots STILL can't escape. They find a cell phone, and the wife asks her husband, "Who should I call?" Are you serious? When she realizes, to her horror, that the cell phone battery is dead, the woman and her husband basically give up. They're in the OWN house, and can't figure out how to escape, even when left totally alone. I mean, it's not like they're tied up. Even their ten-year-old son figures out eventually that the windows can be opened, and gets out that way. I cheered him for abandoning his braindead parents. Time to find a new life, kid....
Anyway, it occurs to me that perhaps the entire point of this film is to comment on the helplessness of the modern upper class. The comfort to which such people have become accustomed has rendered them unable to fend for themselves in even a slightly threatening situation (I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Lisa wishes away all violence, enabling Martian invaders to conquer the Earth using slingshots and two-by-fours). If this was the aim of director Michael Heneke, then I suppose he has made an effective movie. Even if that 's not the case, though, I DO have to give Funny Games at least a little credit for reminding us that the insane and violent don't always make their true nature so obvious. Someone who seems perfectly harmless can be a serious danger. The film also inspires us to ponder the concept of modern gated communities -- if these folks had lived in a normal neighborhood, they wouldn't have been trapped so easily in their own homes. In an attempt to be safe, they've boxed themselves in.
All in all, there is little about Funny Games to make it a worthwhile experience. It might get you thinking a bit, but there are far better films that address the same issues.
2 out of 5.
b.
yer gay!
ReplyDelete