Cache- from Michael Haneke

I saw this last night in Portland with a packed house. Me and the rest of the audience really dug it, especially the last shot, which everyone was asking about as the film ended.

What struck me was that Cache (as a genre film, at least, not a political one) is basically a European Oldboy. They're both stories of obssessive, calculated revenge stemming from a childhood transgression. It's fascinating to see how directors from different parts of the world tell that story. Park Chan-wook made a very kinetic film, whereas Haneke made a very still one, and both are equally effective.

Saw this over the weekend on a visit to England. The film appears to be about both the suppressed memories of Georges and the suppressed memory of the Algerian war and France's treatment of its immigrants.
It is one of the best films I have seen in a long while, it engages the audience, it makes them think, and it invites interpretations.

As regards the final shot, my feeling is that it is either another surveillance tape, or it is an explanation of where the tapes come from.

I loved this movie, and everyone in the cinema seemed to be similarly transfixed. I especially liked the fact that there was practically no music in the film, gave it this stillness that really heightened the tense mood that premeated through the whole film. It's a film that doesn't present you with answers, but not in an unsatisfactory way. It just gives you flashes of information and leaves you to discuss the possibilities. It was also nice to see a film that didn't try and bludgeon you with its political commentary.

It's ineligible because Michael Haneke is Austrian and Austria didn't want to submit it because it's in French. Not because it was financed by Algerians (seriously, where the hell did that come from ?).

Whatever, it's a deeply fascinating picture.

It's "about" the Algeria War and the French "guilt" over the situation (one transposable to any instance of national guilt, tellingly). It's a "guilt" marked by a number of pictures from France in the last couple months (including I Saw Ben Barka Killed which confronts it head on) that use the war and its repercussions as a backdrop or device.

I think the recent French riots in Paris recently have little to do with Haneke's picture (as much as they have to do with French action picture B13 at any rate) but everything to do with an unstable racial agenda that proliferates some (not all) parts of the country's existence. And that's what Haneke's picture attempts, very succesfully, to address in a sensibly non-accusative and non-pajorative fashion.

You miss the point a bit though I feel: Autueil as "father" isn't the one solely to blame, nor is he an "innocent wronged". Haneke's greatest coup here is the strong possiblity that everyone in the film is lying in some way, that no one is telling the truth about everything going on (Binoche is possibly having an affair, their son Pierrot is staying out God knows where at night, the fathr and son BOTH deny taping events but the tape comes from THEIR apartment...) and that these little, unconnected falsehoods escalate (as George's "innocuous" blabbing years ago now has) into a tragically dramatic, abject situation.

Ask yourself this: what exactly do we see in the last shot ? The Algerian son and Pierrot meeting and talking on the school steps. They appear to know each other, that much is clear (though it's impossible of course to tell how much time has passed, and this could be a year or more later) and the inference is either that he is now targetting Pierrot (though this is unlikely given it's one of the trappings of the conventioanl thriller that Haneke has gone to some length to avoid) or, more likely, that Pierrot himself was involed in the tape activity.

Other, more transgessive and figurative readings are that it is Haneke, the filmmaker himself, who is responsible for the original tapes and now this one - notice how in a key scene about creator's influence, George himself manipulates what is meant to be an uninterrupted, "live" cultural discussion. Or, even more in line with Haneke's intelligently playful aesthetic, it's us sending the tapes, the audience keeping vigil over these characters and their predicament, as we did in Funny Games, [n]Code Unknown[/b]... Before you blow that off as over-analytical guff, consider that the characters names in Cache: George and Anne, names that Haneke has used in at least six of his films for the lead characters. We're watching these created people again, and this time, Haneke wants us to realise it.

A reading of the last shot that not many seem to subscribe to is that it's merely the two talking, that their relationship (whatever it is) is born from the situation between their fathers, but didn't necessarily exist before the film begins. It's a reading that makes the film a bit more optimistic -- the events within might not be repeated in a new generation -- and is in many ways more in line with Haneke's general attitude towards the tapes. I.E., their origin is irrelevant. That the information in the tapes exists at all is key, but who made them and how, not so much.

Haneke goes so far to avoid conventional thriller trappings and construction that I have a hard time believing he meant for both boys to be 'in on it' in any conventional sense.

And while I like the idea that everyone in the film is lying, to some extent, I'm more interested in a reading in which they're not. If that's the case, then Daniel Auteil's lies are even more powerful, more pervasive, because they weaken the truth universally. We know that he's lying, which makes it easier to suspect everyone else. The situation he creates makes it difficult to believe anything, as evidenced by the fact that we're ready to accept that the sons worked together to engineeer a plot involving these very strange video tapes.

I guess, as well, that the aesthetics of that shot - static, awkwardly framed and obviously persistent - are marked as different to that of the conventionally narratively shot parts of the film. It's obviously it alludes to the very subjective view of the camera/tape and of George himself in flashback (and the TV show cameras if we look further). It makes sense that it's "more" than just an optimistic resolution. Unless it's a final collision of the figurative content and the literal form or thr narrative strands and the techniques used to tell them, which it could well be.

Also, Haneke's such a humourless (if extraordinarily talented) bastard that such optimism is either a joke or a stretch for him, I think. The former would hold sway with his shaggy dog sensibilities, sensibilities however that are rarely unaccompanied by deeper levels.

Again all the lies are inferred (even the friend telling the story at dinner is telling something designed to unnerve and subvert rather than impart a narrative), but there's that very purposefully random moment when George comes back from the suicide and the friend is there, and leaves looking shiftilly back at the house. Neturally, he could merely be concerned with the odd behaviour of George, but coupled with the argument Anne has with Pierrot, it's hinted there's more there.

Which, of course, only goes to further illustarte the rich tapestry Haneke's created with Cache.

You don't happen to write for Sight and Sound, do you?

While I agree with your interpretation of the film, I also think it's slightly unfair that you seem to be chastising Fabfunk for not "getting" the film. The beauty of the film is that it doesn't seek to deliver a clear message by the film's end. Yes, it deals with France's inability to take responsibility for the role it played in the subjugation of races through it's colonial endeavours, specifically with Algeria, but isn't France's current state of affairs a product of that exclusionism and racism that has simply permeated French culture through the years? The intention may not have been the director's, but some of the scenes in the film are quite telling in light of recent events, and I don't think it's fair to say that aspect should be ignored.

As you said, the film offers up many possibilities and leaves the audience to decide who is responsible and who is the victim. It's interesting to note that almost all the information presented to the audience is through the eyes of one of the characters, which leads us to question the reliability of the images we are being presented with. The scene with Binoche's character at the restaurant gives the impression that she may be having an affair, but how can we make that judgment without being provided with a context for that scene? Much like George's flashes of his past which contrast with his confessions to Anne; we are told that the boy's bleeding mouth was an eloborate lie, but we are presenteed with a vivid image of the child bleeding, shot from a subjective viewpoint. When the film seemingly takes an outside viewpoint, the camera is off in the distance serving only to obscure the action.

You could also bring up the idea that this is an elaborate exercise in audience manipulation. As you said, there's a scene that involves the alteration of information to suit George's purpose; not only are the characters guilty of this, but so is Haneke. By creating such a sparse environment, you could argue that he is intentionally leading us down a specific path, and any notion of freedom to interpret is illusory at best.

I didn't say he didn't "get" it, I said he may have missed the point, purely by applying a quite rigid hypothesis to it - specifically one so US-centric. I don't doubt Haneke's intentions were to parallel, but also to have an obvious dig as well, I suspect.

I don't write for Sight & Sound no, but their article on the picture was very interesting, which I guess you thought too.

If those lies never happened - and George says explicitly they didn't, though I guess that could be a repressed double bluff, which would be a stratch - then that can only be George's (or Haneke's) viewpoint. He "dreams" again at the very end. Then again, he told no one of these lies, so who would even know about the the bleeding mouth to draw it ? The Algerian father ? Would a 9 year old Algerian orphan be told that ? Unlikely, which provides the hypothesis that George himself was drawing the very real pictures. Maybe even filming himself.

So many questions, you're right.

**EDIT** Possible spoilers ahead. Actually, if you haven't watched the film yet, you'd be better off going in completely cold.

That's true, and there's also the question of the second picture, where the child is bleeding from his neck. If the son was the sole perpetrator of these tapes, how could he have known that his father would do this? Why would he have even wanted to allow this to happen? So the Algerian father's innocence is questionable also. Or, as you said, it could be the director pointing out that this is all a fabrication for the audience's enjoyment.

I'm just glad that every screening of the film at my local cinema was sold out, so this film must be getting the exposure it deserves.

I may be wrong, but wasn't the second picture of a chicken bleeding from the neck?

I think you're right, I meant the last picture of the boy and it looks like he's bleeding out of his neck. I wouldn't have noticed it, but George refers back to it after the... thing happens.

Here's an article where the journalist asks Haneke five questions about the film.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...712723,00.html

I don't have much to add really, I just wanted to say that that is a cool article and there is some great discussion going on in this thread. Thanks everyone, especially Straxboy, for the intelligent analysis. This was an excellent movie that truly deserves this kind of serious discussion. I really need to see it again so that I can delve deeper myself.

I thought it was interesting how it seemed during Majid and George's first conversation in the apartment that they had had some sort of fight as kids. Majid says he recognizes Georges by his bent nose, pushing his own nose with his fist to illustrate. Georges also says that he did what he did because Majid was older and stronger than him. In his dream, Georges does not picture his younger self with a bent nose. The bleeding mouth kid might tie some how into that, or at least make you think that it might.

A marvel of a film. I have spoken to people who have described the film as frustrating, where my feeling is that this movie is as fulfilling as the viewer makes it. Hanek engages the viewer brilliantly, and while I don't have a lot to add to what Straxboy wrote earlier in the thread, I felt this was worth a bump in case anyone else has seen it in the last couple of years.

The sense of fear and dread conveyed is palpable, and the suicide hits you like lightning. The questions of perception, truth, memory and how we deal with things we have done remain as prescient as ever. Aside from the themes and subtexts of the movie, I also found myself drawn into the family relationships, and the way from the start of the movie there is a simmering undertone of unease between Binoche and Autueil, which of course is a contributary factor to the way we perceive the rest of the movie.

Masterpiece.

I've seen this and the US FUNNY GAMES remake. Haneke is...interesting. I love that he allows a single shot to linger on the screen for minutes at a time, but it's painful to watch. I don't mind a deliberate pace, but some of his stuff is just too long. (And I like Dreyer!) His films, in general, for me, tend to be ones I like after they're over and I can sit and think about it.

As for CACHE, I really like the different gags he pulls from the elegant premise. The suicide, final shot, and guilt-ridden story all work great. And it's really fun that the plot can be argued over and flipped over.

At the same time it's kind of a... Well, what I mean is that critics really love to dive into the film, but at the same time it's really only the cinematography which separates this film from regular thrillers. It has some interesting political, guilt, and voyeur (boy those film critics sure do love their voyeur themes!) themes, but so do a lot of cop movies. It's tricky, really good, but then I'm reminded of Robin Williams on the Actor's Studio: "The baby is smoking. Does this offend you!"

I like the movie a whole lot, don't think I could watch it again, love the invention and talent on display, but it's one of those films begging for an essay, and that kinda annoys me. Hm, like the film, hate the critics. Yeah, there we go!

EDIT: Oh, and Haneke absolutely inherited Hitchcock's crown.

This statement is just plain wrong. I'd like you to point to a "regular" thriller that covers the same themes so well, ends on an agonizingly ambiguous yet still satisfying note, and can unnerve on the same primal level this film does. It ain't just the way the shots are composed.

It's the only Haneke film I've seen, but I really liked it. That shock moment (you know the one) really hit me... drew audible gasps from the audience. A film you can watch again and again.

I don't mean that CACHE is on the quality level of a "regular" thriller.

What I mean is that I've seen quite a few retired cop movies featuring guilt as a theme. I know CACHE's protagonist is not a retired cop, but he's no more haunted by the past than those cop films' protagonist, right down to the fact that his mistake caused an innocent's death.

I've also seen plenty of movies with the stalking of families as the lead antagonism, even with the use of tapes/photography.

Plus, the number one question is "whodunnit?" which is a question which drives hundreds of regular thrillers. There's nothing special about any of those things.

What makes it all special is that Haneke uses still wide shots which last a very long time. And then he throws in a couple of red-herrings (or are they the keys???) It's viscerally thrilling at moments, and intellectually thrilling in other ways, which is why I compare him to Hitchcock. He's carried that torch, even moreso than...IDK, the Coens, b/c Haneke is so sincere about "making the audience suffer", as Hitchcock said.

I understood that you weren't comparing with regards to quality, but I still don't agree with what you're saying. There is no doubt that the wide shots and the length they're displayed add to the tension and atmospheric unease, but the cinematography is not the the only thing that sets Cache apart from a standard thriller. The dialogue, the structure of the plot, the way the characters are constructed, the ambiguous nature of their connections, the ending: if McG had filmed Haneke's same script with no change other than the shots, the movie would not be nearly as good, but it would still be unique. The whole enterprise, not just the cinematography, subverts the nature of a suspense thriller in much the same way that Funny Games does, if less satirically. "Whodunit" is a less about finding out who the culprit is as much as examining what makes one culpable. Saying it's just like a standard thriller except for the amazing shot construction elides the remarkable script.

I liked this one but not to the point where I'd call it a masterpiece like I would Haneke's latest, The White Ribbon. It's unique and I credit it for doing something different but the insane amounts of love that have been showered on it seems a bit superfluous.

Saying that usigg 'wide shots that last a long time' are what makes the movie special is highly reductionist. Also, while one of the first questions you ask may be 'whodunit'. it's really in no way the point of the movie. Honestly, I don't get the comparison to a conventional thriller at all- there isn't a bad guy necessarily (and it's not clear whose 'side' you should be on), there isn't a ticking clock, and it's far more concerned with themes than plot. Although 'Thriller' is such an encompassing term that it's tough to argue with.

I found myself riveted by it, and wanting to hear interpretations of it, which this thread has been good for, and will definitely be looking at more of Haneke's work (I also have only seen this and Funny Games US), and I get the impression of a director who is in total and abosulte control of his craft.