the nineteenth, captured on film.

OKAY, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, I HAVE THE MOST F-AMAZING FRIENDS EVER. THE BEST.

like, really, truly, the best. ever. in the world. pronto. thanks you guys. my little undead otters.

the zoo was fantastic, by the way. i finished two rolls of film there, and a roll the day before walking around my estate. we’ll see how the shots turn out though – especially, it being the first time with me and a slr.

okay, i have a bit of work to do and then school in the shiny morning.

have i told you my friends are spectacular?

omg my sister and parents got me a care package thing. it was brilliant.

it even had a colourful wind thingie! the stuff inside included an english-french dictionary and smiley face stickers THAT WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

“ma, it’s called widening my options.”

it’s not even the sunday party yet but this has been

THE BEST BIRTHDAY EVER.

thank you, my adorably insane and shameless friends. i’m still giggling, by the way.

ushering in the 19th with my favourite music, my family around the table singing ‘happy birthday’, my father going on and on about what gmail was supposed to be, and lovely wishes from my friends.

it’s all good.

aha, hello.

i came across something really fascinating in the paper today. a week ago, there was a cover spread on funny games. we all know the movie by now – there are a couple entries here about it. now, this two page spread, a write up on the movie, an interview with naomi watts and a review of the film, was done by ong sor fern and alison de souza.

ong, you’d know if you are a regular reader of the film section in the paper, is a film reviewer. i’ve always more or less agreed with her viewpoint, but not so much when it came to funny games.

i especially disagreed when she stated that the director, austrian michael haneke, was ‘(adopting) the moral high ground while dishing out his ethical rebukes’.

there was a reader’s viewpoint published today in the same section of the paper, rebuking what ong said, and i have to say, this time, the review was along the same lines as mine. oh, it may be good to note that i read ong’s review before the watching the film and of course, today’s review after.

today’s review was by ben slater. now, slater’s review was short and directly to the point.

slater brought up the fact that with the world we live in today (war, terror and torture porn in everyday pop culture), haneke’s film is ‘more relevant than ever’. something else slater mentioned that struck a cord with me was the one violent in-your-face scene that the movie had, and how much impact that was.

the entire film, safe for that one scene, had most of the action shot off screen. as the audience, you’ll be looking at a shot of the house or the stairway for a good ten, twenty seconds, while listening to the conversations the characters engage in. this, i feel, heightens your senses, and really, really leaves you on the edge, unsettled.

if all the torture and horror scenes had been filmed the same way in other moveis in the ‘torture porn’ genre, such as saw and hostel, i think that that one scene mentioned would have lost it’s impact. it would have just been another scene in another horror movie.

but because by that time, you, as the loyal audience who has stuck thus far, is already paranoid and well, unsettled (there’s really no other word for it), the scene catches you off guard and right where the director wants you.

from the get-go, you know how the movie is going to end. but the brilliant execution of the film forces you to stay and watch, no matter how uncomfortable with the silence and the politeness and charm of the two tormentors. i think that itself, the manners the two boys have, add on to the mix. had the boys been rude and horrific, you wouldn’t feel for them as much, i think. they say their please and thank yous and expect you to do the same.

i maintain that a lot of thought went into the planning and directing of the movie. i think that haneke really dished out what he felt would linger in the minds of his audience, and not have them leave the movie shocked and grossed out, but on their toes, paranoid and yes, unsettled.

violence in the media is something i’ve always written on and felt strongly about (i did a master thesis on it for one of my classes) and i think that teasing the audience and ‘torturing’ them mentally and intellectually, is a far better dish served that just feeding them run of the mill let-me-hack-off-your-fingers scenes.

something we’ve always discussed in class when it comes to the media is that a lot of directors are treating the audience as simple and incapable of higher thinking. a lot of shows on the tv and in the theaters are dumbing down the audiences with cheap humour and used tricks.

treating the audience as a crowd more intellectual, and rightly so, as haneke has done, will be more appreciated. sure, we could all use a jolt of fright every once and again, but i think i speak for many when i say we’d like to watch more shows and movies that will make us really, you know, scared, and not just gross out.

so while both ong and slater have shared the viewpoints on the movie, both justifiable in their own way, i say you should still go ahead and watch funny games. trust us, it’s worth it.

i cannot believe horatio’s wife died! eric’s sister! horatio and her just got married like what, yesterday? WHAT ONLY. this is so sad. i cannot believe she died. oh my god. and she just got better from the cancer thing. this is so tragic!

god, and i’m not even a csi fan.

title credit: she loved by mig ayesa.