So, upon the recommendations of my fellow bloggers, I put Cache on my Netflix list. My new little family (girlfriend and her daughter) saw it this weekend. I think the sound "Hmmmm" fits it well.
Synopsis: We open to a view of a house in Paris, for a few minutes. We find it is a video, delivered to Georges and Anne, the people within the house. No note. Nothing else to say who it is taping them. More tapes come, some of the house, some of Georges' childhood home. Some come with pictures - a crude childlike drawing of a boy, with blood coming out of his mouth. Then, a drawing of a rooster bleeding from his neck. Anne is mystified, frightened, the cops no help whatsoever.
Georges, on the other hand, is remembering. We see flashbacks, of an actual boy, not Georges, bleeding, of a rooster flopping and bleeding. He visits his mother, and we are clued in about a childhood story - Georges' family, apparently landowners, had Algerian workers. The parents were killed in a dark day of French history, the 1961 massacre in Paris. Their son was taken in by Georges' parents; Georges was jealous and 6. Lacking foresight, he schemed to get rid of his new competitor (the boy with the bleeding mouth - if he ever actually bled).
Flash back to the present. The tapes lead Georges to a low-rent apartment, where he is confronted by his past. The boy has grown into a man, Majid, but Majid denies making the tapes. Georges, not wanting to worry his wife, or perhaps to hide his sin, tells his wife there was no one in the apartment. Unfortunately, a tape arrives showing the encounter and revealing Georges' lie to his wife.
Events escalate from there, including a rather sudden tragedy. Georges (and we) try to understand who is making these tapes and what the motivation is, but to no avail. And so it goes, with a finale that is cryptic at best.
Cache is the French word for "hidden." On the DVD was an interview with the director, Michael Haneke, known in the US for his recent remake of his own film, Funny Games. It's funny, because I have heard interviews saying his works have no "idea," just that the work is itself. To the contrary, in the interview Haneke states that he wants people to discuss this film. What are the motivations of the Georges, of the Algerian boy, of his son, of Georges' son? The final scene - a long shot of the school where the sons of Georges and Majid speak - of what, we do not hear. In fact, per Haneke, half the audience never even notice the boys speaking, instead viewing it as a comment on daily life and how it continues despite each of us.
The creepy factor is played well by Haneke in first part of the film - the suspicious tapes, the eerie pictures. But I suspect that is never truly the director's intent. So, what does it all mean? I think Haneke uses the work as a giant Rorschach inkblot, telling more about the viewer and his or her view of the world than anything about the characters or even the director himself.
If you and your friends have the patience to make it through this work, and then to carry on a conversation about it, then you probably like the works of Bertolucci, Antonioni, and Goddard. If you prefer your films to have a point, pick something else off our Lists.
0 comments:
Post a Comment