Why? – He gives away crucial parts of the film. – He asks questions the actors can't answer, because the 'how and why' of the film can only really be answered by Haneke. – He doesn't even asks about their parts.
I don't understand why people are being so critical in the comments. I think both actors answered the questions to the best of their abilities and it's not Brady or Michael's fault that they can't answer for the director. They probably just don't feel like it's their place to say why certain things were done in some ways. I was really expecting some very bland or ridiculous answers from Michael after reading the comments but people are totally over-exaggerating how he acts in this. They both seem really soft spoken and that doesn't make either of them drunk or high or whatever other theories you pull out of thin air.
This is just a terrible interview. This interviewer spends 2 1/2 minutes talking about breaking the 4th wall, when it was such a small part of the overall thriller. When the interviewee has to ask "what's the question?" you know you're doing a shitty job interviewing someone.
These two actors are way to convincing in their roles…I wouldn't be surprised if they are like them in real life….I will never to be able to accept these actors in any other roles….They will always be Peter, and Paul….A truly disgusting portrayal of guys like this who really exist out there …Believe it they're out there….
That last answer Corbet gave is so important in film. You know you have a powerful vision for a script when that is the case. I feel like so many movies these days use cookie cutter frames, or over-expansive frames that cover an entire 2 miles riddled with so much CGI you really don't even "see" anything.
the important question is why haneke wanted to make a remake of this particular film. was it that haneke wanted to teach americans a lesson about violence? probably. haneke is a very smart film maker, but thematically deeply flawed. it is difficult to have space for 'imagination and self-reflection' while you feel strait-jacketed in your seat. maybe after the film is over?
That part in the film when she shot the dude I was so stoked I hit rewind to see it again and then that 4th wall part happened and caused my mind to be blown. So crazy
I watched this movie quite a few years ago and was very impressed with everyone's performance. The movie was disturbing and it went in a direction that was completely unexpected. I've only seen Michael Pitt in a few movies and I don't know why as he's an excellent actor. He manages to look spooky/beautiful in this movie. I'm going to try to find the original movie by this director.
they are just as creepy as in the movie!
michael looks drunk and high and… hot as fuck!!!
In think these guys are stuck, in character.
The interviewer sucks.
i strongly prefer the original german!…sorry…
You should be sorry, the original was austrian….
oohhh true true!!! austrian!!!…though i think most actors were from germany except the skinny psycho guy…
HIS VOICEE
These two guys are as weird & creepy off the screen as they are on!
Michael must change his hairtyle back to the one he had on the movie!
I like how laid-back Michael is, just his voice is very calm. I wish more people spoke like that, actually.
Is Michael Pitt related to Brad Pitt????
u mean Brady Corbet?? You're right…. he is fucking sexy!!!!!!!!!!
these are just as creepy sounding as their character
they are sooo cool
hairstyle is cool too
terrible interviewer
good questions, deeper than the average interview junket crap. Natch he is a Brit.
La escena del mando sorprende al principio, pero es la mejor, sin duda.
Looks like Mason Verger has been taking poppers again…
Asshole interviewer.
Why?
– He gives away crucial parts of the film.
– He asks questions the actors can't answer, because the 'how and why' of the film can only really be answered by Haneke.
– He doesn't even asks about their parts.
I don't understand why people are being so critical in the comments. I think both actors answered the questions to the best of their abilities and it's not Brady or Michael's fault that they can't answer for the director. They probably just don't feel like it's their place to say why certain things were done in some ways. I was really expecting some very bland or ridiculous answers from Michael after reading the comments but people are totally over-exaggerating how he acts in this. They both seem really soft spoken and that doesn't make either of them drunk or high or whatever other theories you pull out of thin air.
shoutout the interviewer for asking the actor questions that should be asked to the director
This is just a terrible interview. This interviewer spends 2 1/2 minutes talking about breaking the 4th wall, when it was such a small part of the overall thriller. When the interviewee has to ask "what's the question?" you know you're doing a shitty job interviewing someone.
He looks high as fuck haha
These two actors are way to convincing in their roles…I wouldn't be surprised if they are like them in real life….I will never to be able to accept these actors in any other roles….They will always be Peter, and Paul….A truly disgusting portrayal of guys like this who really exist out there …Believe it they're out there….
Actors are such retards…Absolute drivel …
i've always thought Brady Corbet would make an excellent joker in a batman movie
That last answer Corbet gave is so important in film. You know you have a powerful vision for a script when that is the case. I feel like so many movies these days use cookie cutter frames, or over-expansive frames that cover an entire 2 miles riddled with so much CGI you really don't even "see" anything.
2:00 "What's the question?…" hahahahahaha
the important question is why haneke wanted to make a remake of this particular film. was it that haneke wanted to teach americans a lesson about violence? probably. haneke is a very smart film maker, but thematically deeply flawed. it is difficult to have space for 'imagination and self-reflection' while you feel strait-jacketed in your seat. maybe after the film is over?
lop u michael i m ur huge fan..
That part in the film when she shot the dude I was so stoked I hit rewind to see it again and then that 4th wall part happened and caused my mind to be blown. So crazy
Correct. Its a golfboll
I love both actors Peter and Paul in the movie are handsome and so are both actors
he would play a perfect Joker
Not really a good movie. One dimensional and predictable. Just my opinion
The movie is perfect, I'm talking about the 2007 movie because they look like psychopathic killers.
They are beautiful, but Michael is extremely arrogant, probably drugged.
I watched this movie quite a few years ago and was very impressed with everyone's performance. The movie was disturbing and it went in a direction that was completely unexpected. I've only seen Michael Pitt in a few movies and I don't know why as he's an excellent actor. He manages to look spooky/beautiful in this movie. I'm going to try to find the original movie by this director.
Their real personalities isn't far from the movie parts. Strange guys.
i wanted to punch brady the whole time during funny games hahahaha
The interviewer is complete idiot. He also tried to break the 4th wall but he hurt his head in the process
The interviewer is asking questions that should be asked of the director
These are fuckin idiots
he look and sound like he just woke up
I feel like it took them a LONG time to break character after the completion of the film.
It seems like they both are still in character!
Brady and Michael look like they want to kill the interviewer:P I mean.. They have such a creepy eyes😱😱
does the dad get sexually assaulted?
I hate "celebrities" like Michael Pitt who act like they're too superior to give interviews