mr jelly

I read Svet Atanasov's DVD review of Cache at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=22169 and...

This award winning critically loved film was lost on me. Critics rave about its tight formulation, its actors, and its psychological and political subtext. If you like films that challenge you by positing questions and provide no answers, then you will love this. I dont necessarily need answers handed to me, but this film is not as deep as its fans would have you think. The plot is simple. Unfortunatley the director spends some time on the subplot of a possible romance with Pierre that goes nowhere, and the fact that the lame mystery in the film (who is taping) is never clearly resolved is simply stunningly stupid. Why dont the police follow up with video recording equipment in Majid's house? Because the director doesnt have an answer for the mystery - and admits himself in the interview on the DVD that its unimportant - its a tale about guilt - and how people deal with guilt when the events that lead into that guilt are not clear cut. The move was simple, overly-long, frustrating, and at times horribly boring. Hitchcock shudders in his grave at all of these comparisons.

pro-bassoonist

Well, I respect your opinion!

Ciao,
Pro-B

Richard Malloy

That makes one of us.

slop101

Worrying about who the video-taper was is like worrying about, for example, what was in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. It doesn't matter. The "videographer" is a MacGuffin used solely to precipitate events - it's an old filmmaking device used over and over by many great filmmakers, like Hitchcock.

flixtime

To the original poster - mr jelly, if you haven't already seen it, might I suggest another acclaimed foreign film which, as compared to "Cache", sort of flew under the radar with its Region 1 release this week. Maybe try "Ondskan" aka "Evil"...I mentioned it in the "What are you buying this week?" thread but I have a feeling it fell on deaf ears, so I'm giving it another shot here. And while it goes against the opinions of a vast majority of International Forum DVDTalkers I hold in high regard, I'd count myself as one who wasn't overly impressed by "Cache" either. Anyway, I just wanted shine some light on "Ondskan".

Teisco

Not my cup of tea, of course I don't like tea so maybe that is the problem.

SPOILER, DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE ( I don't know how to make those cute black mouse over boxes so this will have to do)

This is one of those movies critics love. It is an extremely well done and realistic portrayal of everyday life. Unfortunately most movie lovers like something to happen.

So we have a guy that did something terrible as a child and sweats at night because of it. Then we have a mysterious (well, really not that mysterious) video taper that has an invisible camera.

The director says this video taping is not important and lovers of this film say it is not important. It must not be important than. It also must be some great camera as the picture from the video looks the same as the movie. Funny how the video from his TV show looks like video but the hidden video does not.

It must not be important to the main character either because on return to the almost brothers apartment he did not look for the large HDTV camera that should have been sitting on the shelf pointed at him. I sure would have taken that place apart looking for that damn camera, of course it was not important.

Don't get me wrong, I was impressed by the director and his interpretation of a life gone wrong and covered up and what happens when all is revealed. I was also impressed (shocked maybe) by the two scenes perfectly timed to wake me up. I would rather not see a chicken get it's head cut off while eating my dinner but timing is everything.

I have seen Hitchcock films and this is no Hitchcock film. No real suspense for me in this film. Just set up your video camera on a street somewhere and make your own version, it might be more exciting.

Eddie W

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I too don't require everything spelled out for me, but at least wrapping the film up would've been nice.

I was really looking forward to this based on the reviews. It's not many films that leave me almost angry. At least in the MacGuffins in Hitchcock's films & Pulp Fiction, the derail led to something unexpected and even more interesting. Making the fact that you ever cared about the MacGuffin almost silly in retrospect. In this case, I'm left with a feeling of being cheated because the unexplained mystery was the only halfway interesting thing in the film.

I'd like to hear a theory on the ending, because that really left me scratching my head.

Squirrel God

Well, I loved it. Knowing who was created the tapes is not important as it's not the primary focus of the movie. Besides, the viewer is given enough information to construct their own theories and make their own mind up. I loved the interview with the director on the disc - very informative!

bdots48

Although it in no way "wraps up" the mystery of the film, I think the very last scene certainly gives a big clue. Haneke originally had dialogue for the 2 characters but decided to leave it out (ostensibly just to mess with the viewer).

Rypro 525

yeah, what did that ending mean? I am talking about the last 2 shots of the movie?

Dan1boy

boy, that's two hours of my life I'll never get back...rarely am I let down by the glowing accolades for a film by fellow DVDtalkers, but wow, this movie was a pretentious pile of nothing...waste of a perfectly good evening...

BuckNaked2k

Listen, I'm as intellectual as the next guy, and have enjoyed many, many European films, so I'm used to the "non-Hollywood" type of film.

That said, Cache just did not do it for me. The mystery wasn't terribly mysterious, and the characters' motivations were difficult to understand. I for one, do not believe that guilt should be carried around for life for actions commited at the age of six.

The two Muslim characters needed to accept some personal responsibility, and realize that life does not always turn out the way one wants. To accuse, blame, and persecute others for the outcome of your own life is facile and and just a plain cop-out.

I'm only happy this was a NetFlix experience, instead of a blind-buy.

Daytripper

Just got done watching the movie and I have a few questions. Spoilers to follow for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

So, are we to assume Anne and Pierre were having an affair? Was this the reason why Pierrot was acting strange? Was that what Majid's son told Pierrot at school? (In the last scene). And clearly it was Majid's son who was doing all the filming. But why did he lie about it? If it wasn't him, who could it have been? For a while there, I thought maybe Pierrot was kidnapped by whoever was doing this. And maybe molested him. He was just acting funny around his parents. Not wanting to be touched or talk to them (did anyone else feel this way?).

Overall, this was a great movie. Very unnerving. But because we don't know for sure who it was doing the filming and sending the tapes/pictures/cards, there was no pay off for me. I do find it odd that some people would say the movie was crap. It was very well executed and had some great performances. You want real crap? Go check out any number of movies at your local multiplex. At least this film makes you think.

Mordred

I too felt really let down after watching this film.

I didn't mind the languorous pacing of the film at all. It was beautiful to watch and the acting was uniformly top notch. Unfortunately, there was absolutely no substance to it.



I guess what upsets me most is that the opening 30 minutes are brilliant. That's scary stuff in just about the most passive-aggressive manner imaginable, but it's all completely wasted.

Feel free to assume I'm a dumb American, but my shelves are filled with foreign films, many of them French, and I think all of them are better than Cache. I'm just glad I didn't blind buy this one.

Richard Malloy

Anne denies it outright to Pierrot, but I think one would be hardpressed to accept her word on the point, particularly after the oddly tender moment that we witnessed between her and Pierre. Clearly, Pierrot thinks something's going on, and perhaps something more than a simple affair. Is the similarity between the names Pierrot/Pierre indicative of something more than an affair, that the one is in fact other's son? In the end, we don't know, but we know that some of the characters must know. It's potentially one of those complicating histories that remain hidden, and which would explain a great deal about one or a few of the characters. Here, the possibility emerges as only a shadow, but clearly it effects Pierrot deeply, and possibly Anne, Pierre, Georges, etc.

Again, hidden. Many possibilities arise, including that the two have been accomplices all along with respect to the tapes. Clearly, Pierrot has some outstanding issues with his parents, and the surveillance tapes may have been (among other things) to catch Anne and Pierre in the act of a secret rendezvous. Or maybe not. Perhaps Majid's son is feeding him a line about something, finding a new angle to work his grievances upon Georges' guilty conscience.

I think the only other reasonable suspect is Majid himself, who certainly could have done it all. After all, the drawing of the beheading of the rooster could indicate not just a shared traumatic memory, but Majid's suicidal plans.

The Antipodean

bunnydojo

Spoilers below

end of spoilers

Personally, I didn't like the movie. I like to think and be challenged, but when the movie consists of "Who was at the door?... A tape." "Why are you here?... I know you sent the tapes!" etc., etc., etc. you can say it was about guilt and its effects (or anything else you may think), but really, I want to know who did the damn tapes with at least a strong, relatively clear clue.

eXcentris

What bothered me wasn't not knowing who made the tape but the fact that this choice by Hanneke of not revealing who made it impacts the behavior of the main character, i.e. he was forced to react and could not take the pro-active measures (setup cameras of his own, hire a PI, search Majid's appartment, etc...) that you would expect a "normal" individual placed in the same circumstances to take. Hanneke says not knowing who made the tapes is irrelevant but it isn't in that respect. Moreover, he talks about the realism of the couple dynamics (by comparison to a US film) but his choice imposes limits on the realism of the behavior of Georges when he tries to solve the mystery. This, as far as I'm concerned, lessens the tension and the suspense because I kept asking myself why he was making such poor choices and acting so passively. That said, I still loved the film because it works on so many levels.

Richard Malloy

I confess I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Georges was unable to take "pro-active measures" because it was never revealed to him exactly who sent the tapes. I mean, you mention hiring a P.I., and setting up his own surveillence equipment, but I don't see how his knowledge of precisely who sent the tapes would cause those things to happen. I mean, why would he do these things if already knew? To pull off some sort of "sting" operation? I have no idea if this is what you have in mind, but something along these lines of "pro-activeness" sound more like the actions that a typical character in a typical film would take... not, IMO, a real person.

In fact, Georges does react in many, quite telling ways, not the least of which by not informing his wife about his suspicions. Why? The shame of having to tell her, even though Georges professes no shame to himself (or to Majid). But, as the audience, we're privy to his nightmares, and know otherwise.

And Georges in fact does confront Majid in his apartment - and subsequently lies to his wife about that. Of course, Anne busts him with the video of his confrontation, finally exposing Georges' past and forcing a reckoning. But, at the same time, we know (or suspect) that Anne is hiding some serious issues from Georges - or, perhaps, they both know and choose not to speak of it - but either way much else that is unspoken hangs over their discussion about trust and revealing things to one another. And, added to that, we know that Pierrot has certain suspicions along the same lines that cause additional complications and questions regarding who-may-be-doing-what-to-whom-and-why.

And I think that had Haneke provided "the answer" to this question in such a way as to provoke certain "pro-active" measures by Georges like those you speak of, the film would then have become a conventional, plot-driven whodunnit. That's not what we have here (to its credit, IMO). The arrival of the tapes provokes a crisis in the family. This crisis forces them to reveal certain things to one another (or, in some cases, only to the audience), or to strive to keep certain things hidden. It's their reactions to this shared crisis that reveals their hidden guilt, desire, fear, anger, and everything else that one suspects about the other in the course of the narrative. I've never seen a Haneke film that isn't somehow the same sort of exploration: a provocation that reveals something hidden that causes a moral reckoning.

The decisions and actions Georges does take are far more interesting to those not looking for a conventional, plot-driven whodunnit, but rather an exploration of guilt and conscience and the things we do to preserve ourselves, our relationships, and overall sense that we are somehow entitled to the good graces that have shaped our lives (or deserving of the negative fates that may befall us).

But how would Georges' reactions be any different, or any less limited, if either the audience or Georges is made aware of precisely who is taping whom?

And, for that matter, what more would you take away from the film if this were revealed? If you knew, for certain, that it was Majid, how would this change your view of the characters? Or if you knew for certain it was Majid's son? Or that Majid's son and Pierrot were somehow collectively complicit? What difference would that make?

IMO, it would cheapen the film. How? Whenever a single, terminal explanation is provided for an event, the audience simply stops thinking about it, stops grappling with the possibilities, and either accepts the explanation or rationalizes why it doesn't add up or isn't fair because the "clues" weren't provided to the audience. You know, the typical response to a typical plot-driven mystery. Rather than leaving the audience grappling with questions of guilt and conscience, and how we respond in moments of moral reckoning, we simply pronounce the narrative good-or-bad as a construct in itself (in the genre sense), in this instance as "a mystery".

One would be correct in pointing out that Hitchcock's best films are not about discovering who is the spy and what is the plot, but rather whether Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman overcome the complications of their (often secret) pasts and end up together... and yet in Hitchcock's films we still discover who is the spy and what is the plot! Well, Hitch was a populist, and his films are certainly intended to play on at least two levels, but I think even Hitchcock would think twice in this instance, and certainly some of his films are more open-ended than I've yet credited him for. "The Birds", in particular, leaves the pending apocalypse pending, having explored the oedipal and sexual issues that the film is really about, and "Vertigo" is arguably as open-ended, the audience having discovered "the answer" rather long before the climax, the details of the plot against Scotty taking on a decidedly secondary importance to his grand obsession.

One of the saddest quotes in all movie history, and one of the greatest, (for me anyway), is Octave's famous lament in La Règle du jeu: "everyone has their reasons". That's certainly true in "Cache", as well as life. And sussing out these reasons, those things that each of the characters struggle to keep hidden, is of course the point of Haneke's modern parable. Had he completed his film by supplying an answer (and, hence, "the answer"), I don't see how it wouldn't change our perceptions of the characters. With what we have already learned about them, we understand how any number of them might be compelled to undertake those actions, and for any of a variety of reasons that become apparent throughout the course of the narrative. It certainly wouldn't change our perception of Georges or his struggle with conscience. Nor would it change anything we learn about his relationship with Anne, Pierrot, etc.

And while I know this approach works against the usual payoff in films that seem ostensibly to be "mysteries", I can't fathom how being provided with "the answer" would add anything to my understanding of the film and its characters. But I'd like to throw the question back out there: what difference would it make in your personal understanding of the film and its characters if Haneke had supplied a single, terminal explanation of who recorded the tapes?

eXcentris

Hey it's a minor nitpick on my part and probably woudn't have changed my appreciation of the film's themes. To me it's a question of consistency. Hanneke makes claims of realism while imposing limitations on the behavior of the main character when he's trying to solve the mystery. I understand that the film is all about things remaining "hidden" and I also understand that the mystery aspect is really an accessory used to explore the film's themes, but I coudn't help notice how this choice impacted George's behavior and forced him to remain passive and to only react to what he saw on the tapes. If someone videotaped my building from a precise location and dumped tapes on my doorstep, I woudn't react by limiting my behavior to only watching the tapes and trying to find clues from said tapes. And I believe, neither would any "normal" individual. And I'm not talking about revealing who sent the tapes to the audience. This could have been handled so only George knows for sure.

Now, if we're arguing that it doesn't matter since Georges already knows, I'd disagree with that. He doesn't. Of course the probabilities are limited but he keeps confronting Majid and his son asking them why they made/sent the tapes, and their reply is always that it wasn't them. In reality he could have found out for sure if there hadn't been these limits imposed on his behavior. To me, this lessens the effectiveness of the mystery aspect.

Again, all in all, it's no big deal and as I said, I realize the mystery is just an accessory used to explore the themes, and I woudn't have wanted this to turn into a whodunit. I still think that part of it could have been handled better, but I also acknowledge the reasons why this choice was made. Perhaps Hanneke, and probably rightly so, decided that consistency in the "hidden" themes was more important than consistency/realism of the main character's behavior. Again, I'm simply pointing out that this choice had an impact, and that at times it took me out of the tension/suspense created by the mystery.

Richard Malloy

I'm still unsure why you feel the decision not to resolve that question has any impact on the verisimilitude of the characters' actions. I don't find their actions to be either problematic or lacking realism, and I think it makes sense, emotionally and psychologically, why each acted as he or she did given what was known to them at any point in the film. And, from the big picture perspective, it's certainly not unrealistic for things like that to go unresolved, and, after all, we have a pretty good idea regarding who comprises the very small group of suspects, and we also have a pretty good idea of each of their motivations.

There's one character that I don't believe has gotten much discussion here, but who's actions are arguably the most significant and who is perhaps the most personally culpable: Georges' mom. Her conversation with Georges is a crucial scene, and I think it's revealing on the film's other big issue, the tendency of the powerful and privileged to conveniently "forget" the wrongs it commits against the powerless and neglected. After all, there are issues of specific personal guilt in this film, surrounded by (and as a result of) this greater event of collective guilt, the 1961 Paris Massacre, in which Majid's parents are killed by Papon's police force. Good story on it here: http://www.washington-report.org/bac...97/9703036.htm

This event was itself apparently "hidden" in French society for years, the collective amnesia attributed to official repression of the story, but perhaps also a somewhat more intentional act of forgetting on the part of the citizenry. In a way, the belated recognition by the French government in 2001 or thereabouts of its complicity in the massacre is not so different from Georges', but is more like his mother's (though we do not see her struggle with anything more than suppressing her own memories of the time). After all, as Georges argues in his defense, he was only six at the time, and certainly didn't understand the larger issues. His mother, on the other hand, did.

Perhaps in much the same way as the tapes and drawings brought Georges back to the events of his youth, reports and stories on the '61 Massacre began percolating into the public's consciousness, causing something of a moral reckoning by French society. The placing of a commerative plaque may strike most as a rather feeble act of contrition, but the recognition of what occurred those many years ago is certainly something of a step forward. If we are to draw parallels (and I think we're meant to), then that's a step that Georges has arguably taken, though perhaps only to the same small degree as the larger society. And perhaps it's a step his mother's not prepared to take, preferring as she does that such things remain well hidden, buried in the past and of no consequence today... at least for her.

eXcentris

I think I adressed that pretty clearly. That choice has an impact of Georges behavior, limiting the actions he can take. He doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he can to resolve the mystery. He's forced to be somewhat passive and to react to what he sees on the tapes. Again, if someone videotaped your building, dropped tapes on your doorstep, made phone calls to your home which freaked out your wife, etc... (note that all this happened BEFORE Georges suspected who the culprit might be), would you react by simply watching the tapes and trying to get clues from them? I seriously doubt it.

I agree with you about the mother. She's an important character. When asked about Majid, she simply says "I never think about him". She represents the collective consciousness of a country refusing to come to terms with it's past. Hanneke mentions in the interview that the parents are more guilty than Georges since he was only 6. Georges also mentions that on several occasions. That raises some interesting questions: Do we inherit guilt from our parents (ancestors)? Are we bound to carry that guilt even though we had little to nothing to do with the original events? How do we deal with it? How long does it take (how many generations) for us to come to terms with it? Can the last scene represent hope, i.e. Majid's son and Pierrot talking? Or is it only false hope brought about by the innocence of youth?

splattii

If you need definitive answers for everything in life, then you don't have a mind to think for yourself.

Hollywood has allowed many people to expect concrete explanations around events, or as to why characters act as they do within film. In our daily lives, we don't have that luxury.

Why must we be given an answer as to who made the tape? Has anyone here ever been crank called? Have you always known in the end who made that crank call?

eXcentris

Is this a generic "you" or are you adressing someone in particular?

bunnydojo

spoilers
I don't know if this is a generic 'you' or I'm sticking my head into a one-on-one conversation, but in all fairness, this isn't a great comparison. Crank calls are nothing, but if I had been receiving tapes of mine and my family's actions, along with violent images on paper (and having such a piece of paper sent to my son at school), leading up to someone from my childhood performing a shocking act only a few feet from me, my story wouldn't end with me shutting the curtains and taking a nap. I'd want to find out who made the tapes. Unless Georges was taking more than just sleeping pills, the story wouldn't end there in real life... Even if no further tapes are sent, I would think that a certain character's death would lead to Georges being investigated (he was angry at him - a fact documented by the police - and his fingerprints were all over the place), probably leading to a discussion of the tapes, and probably leading to that matter reaching some form of a conclusion.