eXcentris

toddly, I'm just pulling you leg mate.

siegfried

Haneke's film's really need to be seen the first time in a movie theater to get the total communal bludgeoning effect. The bewildering vacuous sound of the audience as the end credits roll up is amazing. I went to see Cache at a trendy suburban Regal Cinema location, and wow,.... I found the ending to be powerful and I thought about it for days.

Tutut

Sorry, I'm late on this thread, I didn't want to intervene first, I think you don't see you could find many other aspects of the film.

It's about the way people feel the image on TV, Georges is more concerned about the videotapes because he's feeling unsecured
watching them and totally indifferent or passive when TV shows the conflicts in the middle east.

It's about the power of image and manipulation of audience, Georges edits his TV show to make people say the things the way he wants,
the medias are more focused on Iraq or Palestine than on Darfur for example.

There's a parallel between the personnal guiltiness or shame of Georges with Majid and the collective guiltiness and shame of the french
society about events like those of 1961. The french cops called ironically the victims NPB "Noyés Par Balles", "drowned by bullets" and Papon
who was in charge of the police in Paris was a man who helped the nazis for deportation of jews during WWII (read this link) .

The independance war in Algeria was the same as In Iraq, in Palestine or in Ulster few years ago, it is just about people fighting
against an occupation army.

Just to explain people could have different approach than yours to this film.

pum

of course it fit the Hidden better. I'm just saying what he showed on TV is not human suffering. It's the politic. And I already said that I don't share the same political POV as Haneke. So his provocation may be less effective on me. For example, Iraqi people suffered under Saddam rule, now they're suffering under terrorism threat. what difference? nothing. So I'm not sure what Haneke tried to provoke by this film. For politic, people will and always have differnt opinion, different need. And again, they will never agree upon these complicated geo-politic issues. And they will certainly not suddenly change whatever agenda they had because of the film. period.
And moral got nothing to do with it.
Third-world-country people don't want Western to mess with their internal politic anymore. Just like you said, colonialism is bad. So if you knew it, then leave them alone.

Interestingly, I haven't seen Path of Glory. Can't seem to find proper DVD edition of the film, so thank you for your suggestion of the movie. I also would like to know my reaction.

No, I never said that, and you know it. The Casablanca example is purely this: the political message can be convey by a few dialogue ("I bet New York is sleeping" or something like that). If people love the film, they will think about the message. You don't have to sacrifice the whole film for political message. And certainly you should not shove it to the audience face like that TV scene. If you think the Hidden is subtle, please see the scene of Auteil and black bicycler again. That showed racism very obviously it seemed out of place to the whole film.
Peter Bogdanovich said "Time is the best critic." We need time to see How Hidden stand the test of time. But obviously it can not change my political POV, and I'm a political aware person.

Like I said, the task of filmmaker is, and always will be judged upon, good story telling first and foremost. For politic, we always have many mediums that we can use to study.

eXcentris

On a related note, this film just opened here:

Nuit Noire, 17 Octobre 1961, political and historical drama directed by Alain Tasma, with Clotilde Coureau, Thierry Fontineau and Jean-Michel Portal.

The film specifically addresses the "massacre" of Algerian demonstrators in Paris on October 17th 1961. Attacked, beaten, and thrown into the Seine river, between 50 and 200 Algerians died that night surrounded by total indifference. Buried into the collective subconsciousness, it took decades for the truth about these events to finally surface. It got *** in my paper which concluded "Strong historical drama despite uneven acting and script". Note that the film was originally made for tv but was later released in theaters.

pum

No, you don't. I get all the points you mentioned in the film while watching it. My problem is only that I almost love the film (I like the way he's show us nothing for 4 or 5 minutes, that's great filmmaking ), but in the end I felt it lacked something.

pum

Is this the documentary that inspire Haneke to make Hidden?

eXcentris

It isn't a documentary it's a fictional drama based on historical events. And I'm sure that Hidden was long completed before this film was first shown on tv in October 2005.

pum

Ah. Thank you. I missed the word "drama".

eXcentris

Perhaps this is why you seem to be over-emphasizing a strong political message which simply isn't there? To me the mystery and the politics are just accessories used to explore the main theme which is guilt and how we seem to inherit guilt from prior generations.

pum

That's fine by me. And I think you're right, it may be better if it sticked to only that and leave modern situations out. Sometimes you have to trust people that they also have brain and can connect the missing dots.
And before anyone misunderstand me, I didn't say leave them all out. Imply it. maybe show it on TV when Auteil have coffee while waiting. Not Close-Up shots of Iraq news like he did.

Tutut

From a political aware person I expected more open minded opinions.

I've been discussing with a person who worked in the middle east during the 80's, he told me that Iraq had the highest standard of living in the region.
Women had the same rights than men and they didn't wear abbaya, burka or veils but occidental clothes and yes, the opponents were tortured
and killed in Saddam's prisons, but it was and still is practically the same in every countries in the region.

The US government propaganda worked well, I stop there, it seems Iraq or middle east countries didn't exist before the gulf war.

Tutut

An other event of this time was Charonne on 8 february 1962.
Charonne (in french)

pum

Yeah, tell that to Kurds and Shias (or even Sunnis who didn't get along well with Saddam) who got massacred, will you?

Have you ever ruled by cruel dictators? I give you a hint: it's not the outside (what we wear) that's matter, it's the inside.

The government is not the sole body to provide propaganda. Think about it.

pum

And to set record straight, let me clear this, IMHO, the movie has a very clear line of who and which is good, or who and which is bad. That's not provocation in my book. That's preaching.

marty888

Excellent overview of the movie - thank you!

In some respects, the political observations are gratuitous, in the best sense of that word, in that they give us more than the "plot" itself requires.

Tutut

I couldn't send you a private message cause we're totally OT, I think you missed some points (it's very long):

September 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.

February 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.

December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S. would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq.
Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement recognizing Iraq's use of these weapons.

May 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports ot Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.

May 17, 1987. Iraqi attack on USS Stark costs 37 American lives. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger declares, "We will not be driven from the gulf," and accepts Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's apology for the "unintentional incident."

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. (For confirmation of DIA involvement, check the New York Times, August 18, 2002). Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

August 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and Hughes helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September 1988. US Senate Foreign Relations Committee summarizes their knowledge of the victims of the chemical attacks: "Those who were very close to the bombs died instantly. Those who did not die instantly found it difficult to breathe and began to vomit. The gas stung the eyes, skin, and lungs of the villagers exposed to it. Many suffered temporary blindness. Those who could not run from the growing smell, mostly the very old and the very young, died."

September 8, 1988 U.S. Senate unanimously passes the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced. The act would have cut off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announces its opposition to the bill, and State Department spokesman Charles Redman calls the bill "premature.” Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State says, "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill dies.

September 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax to Iraq.

September 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulinum toxin to Iraq.

September 1988. December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond.
Your answer only shows you don't know what it means to wear occidental clothes for a woman in those countries and you know nothing about the way women live there.
So thinking the same way than the government means I'm right, that's great.

Tutut

Guilt is not the only main point to me, the "relative" feeling of safety is important too.

TheDude

Okay, recently re-watched Cache/Hidden & am resurrecting this old thread to discuss the film - since I didn't want to create a new one.

First of all, brilliant movie - it's Michael Haneke's best film. I remember seeing this in the theater back in 2005 & thinking it was fantastic then. However, after re-watching this several more times I noticed more details & appreciate the film much more than on my initial viewing.

The movie is a poignant & fascinating exploration of living with guilt, morality, history, and national identity. Prior to seeing the film, I had never heard of the terrible event that occurred in October 1961, in Paris - quite tragic & horrific.

So, I guess the ultimate question on everyone's mind @ the end of the film is - who sent the tapes & disturbing drawings to Georges Laurent & his family?!

-Well, I can say unquestionably that M. did not send the tapes or the pictures to Georges. He was obviously genuinely surprised to see Georges at his door, and the entire situation (being thought of as a suspect, etc.) was too much for him - which is why he ended up killing himself in front of Georges. He was obviously upset at having to dredge up a past, to the point that he couldn't handle it anymore.

So, that leaves a couple of possibilities:

-The very last scene of the film shows a panoramic scene of the outside of the school that Pierrot attends...we see Pierrot & M.'s son having a brief, intense conversation (that we don't hear). So, did M.'s son set up sending the tapes/pictures up with Pierrot, in order to get back at Georges? However, this opens up the door to even more questions, i.e.:

1) M.'s son apparently knew about the whole situation with Georges lying about M. when they were both kids, which resulted in M. being taken away from the house & going to the orphanage (due to Georges being jealous). However, even if M.'s son wanted to get revenge at Georges because of the way his father had been treated years before, why would M.'s son send the tapes to Georges (including the tape showing the location of M.'s apartment) if he knew Georges would confront M., and dredge up a past that M. wanted to forget? He should have known that M. would react badly - and, as it turned out, he ending up killing himself over this. M.'s son appeared to love his father, so I don't see him doing this....unless he really wanted to get revenge on Georges, and wasn't thinking it through - i.e., wasn't realizing how much this would negatively affect his father.

2) Why would Pierrot be upset at his father enough to do something like this to him?! Sure, Pierrot was obviously angry at his mother because he suspects - probably correctly - that she was having an affair with their friend Pierre. But, I don't sense that Pierrot has any great hatred for his father specifically. That being said, Pierrot knew that the tapes/pictures would cause problems with both of his parents, including his mother - so, he may not have cared how this affected his father.

3) And, how did Pierrot even meet up with M.'s son?! They obviously don't go together to the same school (M.'s son is at least high school age, or older).

-Other than M.'s son & Pierrot setting this up, the only other slight possibility I can think of is that Georges's mother sent him the tapes & pictures - since she's the only other person who would even remember the situation/incident(s) with M. from years before. However, I seriously doubt this - she's bedridden & infirm (as seen in the one scene when Georges goes to visit her) and it's unlikely that she would have the means, inclination, or motive to set up something like this. And, I doubt she would do something like this to upset her son.

-The least likely possibility is that Georges has another enemy that is doing this to mess with his mind. However, unlikely that it's a person we don't see in the film because it would have to be someone that knew about the situation from his childhood - and, the only people who would know would be M., his son, and Georges' mother.

What makes this even more mysterious is that it appears that even after M.'s tragic death & his son's confrontation with Georges Laurent (at Laurent's work) the house still has surveillance - as seen in that scene towards the end of the film. So, who is still conducting the surveillance?! Is it still M.'s son & Pierrot (if they were ever even doing this from the beginning)?! Or, is it someone else?!