But that makes for a happy ending. Everybody wins in a competition like that! 
Excellent. Not a bit of redemption, but I would argue that this movie is the sort of movie lissiner believes von Trier makes … its ending is really ABOUT the audience’s expectations, rather than being a natural outgrowth in the story.
The filmmaker makes this quite clear by having what seems to be a happy ending occur toward the end of the film, then ‘rewinding the film’ and having the ending come out dark, as if saying, “No happy ending for you, silly audience.” Very European. Very dumb.
They either are doing or have done an American remake of Funny Games, it will be interesting to see what happens to the ending.
I see your point, but in the OP I did make an exception for revenge movies, which are sort of redemption-in-reverse. And if I didn’t make an exception for dark comedies, I should have.
Among lissener’s many odd points, he makes one good one – we can narrow the field so much that it’s self-referencing. Is it possible to have a redemptive Disney Hollywood light comedy that’s not a redemptive Disney Hollywood light comedy? The answer seems to be that even in those narrow contstraints, yes, sometimes it’s possible. Not as a matter of course, but on occasion.
Quick Change certainly seems to fall into the light comedy category, but is it redemptive at all?
Okay, I think we’re done with this hijack. spoke-, lissener has clarified his original comment, so that should clear up (hopefully) some of the problems you had with his post; if it doesn’t however, then move it to the Pit or just move on (my vote).
Please keep in mind that Cafe Society is not meant for discussion about other posters; it’s meant to talk about the arts. When the discussion veers off into how to interpet a poster’s attitude, it’s gone outside the purposes of Cafe Society and should either stop or move to the Pit.
First off, your last sentence describes Stephen King to a T: I wouldn’t change a word of it, and will probably quote it without attributiont the next time a discussion on King comes up. Second, movies certainly *can *be entertainment, strictly and solely. Nothing but brain candy and distraction. They can, however, be so much more. So to complain when they’re MORE, rather than just limiting yourself to watching the ones you like, strikes me as odd. How is a diversity of artistic intention a bad thing? Would the world really be a better place if ALL movies were NOTHING but brain candy and distraction?
Third, you don’t learn only from positive example. The danger in that is that you become accustomed to assuming that whatever you’re watching is a positive example, and you lose a sense of critical judgment. A good movie, fyask me, is one that is morally ambiguous, and leaves the audience in the position of having to judge for themselves. When it’s morally black and white, it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming the filmmaker’s morals as your own, rather than judging for yourself. This is my major problem with a filmmaker like Spielberg: he tells you what to feel every step of the way, so skillfully that it’s almost impossible to resist, and leaves you an entirely morally passive person. Von Trier was accusing those members of the audience who willfully give themselves over to that.
Huh. Well then it’s a good thing no one said anything like that, ain’t it?
For the record: I love a movie that’s nothing but brain candy and distraction, if it’s well done. *Con Air, Double Team, Romy and Michele, Tank Girl, Bring It On, Run Lola Run, *almost any Fred and Ginger flick, most of Hitchcock, Arsenic and Old Lace–come on, the list is endless.
But to condemn a movie for being more than that is ridiculous.