"CACHE encourages us to look -- and then to look harder.""Contraian that he is, Haneke does a much finer job forcing questions than providing an answer."
-Lisa Kennedy, DENVER POST
"I pity the French Cinema because it has no money. I pity the American Cinema because it has no ideas."
-Jean-Luc Godard
The lack of resolution in CACHE can be maddening and exhilarating in equal doses. Either way, it would be difficult to argue that its lack of resolution is not premeditated and appropriate for the subject matter. This is a two part assignment developed from the above quotes. The first part: after watching the movie determine who you think is sending the videos with your reasoning. The second part comes from the purposed remake of CACHE, once rumored to be directed by Ron Howard. Just write a short paragraph explaining what changes you think might be made to make CACHE a Hollywood film or a Ron Howard film. Feel free to to take this in whatever direction you would like, you could even write out a description of a scene you think might be added or comment on what you think would be removed from the film. This is just an opportunity to creatively explore some of the specifics and ambiguities of the film. DUE 2.10.11-THURSDAY.
After viewing "Cache", the main feeling that everyone seemed to muster was frustration. "Cache" follows the story of a wealthy urban family who discovers they are being watched when a tape of their home is delivered to them. Their anxiety quickly escalates as more and more tapes are delivered to them with childlike images of violence attached. As the viewer, we perceive these drawings as a forewarning of upcoming events, but in reality they are actually connected to the main characters past. While watching this film, I was constantly reminded of paranormal activity minus the crazy killer demon. But unlike that film, the tapes of the home reveal nothing. Not a single violent image is associated with the tapes, they are just there to let the family know they are being watched from afar. This added to the anticipation of the film, the whole time while viewing the tape segments I was constantly searching for something hidden or a figure to pop out and scare the life out of me. Instead, I was treated with a long master shot of the families home. After watching two of Haneke's films, I've come to know that his technique is brilliant when it comes to playing against audience expectations. His use of long tapes really hit you in the gut with just how mundane and trivial they are. I had the strangest experience with this film, I kept drifting off, but insisted on waking myself up just to see what was going on. I was bored yet on the edge of my seat the entire time. I've never felt that mixture of emotions for a film and I believe only Haneke could pull it off.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh. This movie was so slow and boring yet exciting at the same time. The constant wait for something to happen bored me but also managed to hold me in suspense the whole time. I didn't like the long shots that exposed vague images as they didn't give the spectator clarity and made the audience really work to find clues.I guess Haneke used that technique to heighten the suspense and to convey the ambiguity of Georges memories. Overall the film was entertaining and I feel that it is a kind of movie that you can watch over and over again and always get something new from it.
ReplyDeleteI have two feelings toward who was sending the videotapes. At once, I got the sense that Majid’s son was the one sending the tapes. Only because he didn’t seem like a genuine, he seemed pretty hateful and spiteful (don’t know if I can blame him though when it comes to Georges). There’s something shifty in his nature that makes me suspect him. Like why was he talking to Pierrot. What could he possibly have to say to that kid that wasn’t manipulative? There’s a theory that Pierrot was in on it, but I don’t agree with that. He’s too caught up in his own petty world to really notice anything. There’s another part of me that feels like it’s someone outside of the world, dictating the world – like Haneke, although not sure if it is Haneke himself. There’s definitely a third party feel to all of this, and I point to the swim practice scene as evidence. It’s as though the ‘swim coach’ is the person behind the camera giving directions (Haneke?) Not to mention the tape where they drive up to Georges’ childhood home. It’s all very voyeuristic. Nevertheless, it’s all very philosophical really, and at the end of the day I actually don’t think it matters who’s sending the tapes at all. It’s really the consequences of the tapes that count.
ReplyDeleteI watched Cache with a friend of mine and he actually was dictating what would happen in the movie given his expectations of movies. And without any prompt from me, he added a lot of gunshots and sudden beats, which I suspect is what they would do to American-ise the movie. For instance, the scene where Georges first goes to Majid’s apartment and knocks on the door. No doubt there would be some sort of ruckus. Either Georges attempts to knock the door down himself…or maybe Majid opens the door wielding a shotgun (as you do) for protection. Not to mention, there would definitely be a ‘dark and ominous’ score throughout the whole thing, just to add some suspense. And Anne would find Georges in bed at the end with the pill bottle in his sleeping hand. He'd be rushed to hospital. And he would learn something from it all. The end.
I've always found Hanake's view of children very interesting and intriguing. As you were saying in class Trae, he holds a controversial fascination with how un-pure they are and can be, the multi-faceted sides to their personalities, a ruthless nature, and a seemingly inherent and repressed maliciousness that inevitably manifests itself in their behaviors and choices; after all, we are led to believe, when considering the film's final shot, that Pierrot and Majid's son were the main contributors to Georges and Anne's miseries. But perhaps in a more emotional way, the film's thematic concern of guilt and powerful/misshapen memory are the aspects that are most haunting to me, and the ones that touch a deep nerve. Specifically the way guilt eats from the inside out, the sequence of events it precedes and then helps determine, the inescapable grasp it can hold. Georges, in particular, is a very striking character, in that he acknowledges the mistake of his childhood lies and selfishness, yet he practically never exposes an underlying or vital interest in atoning for his sins. Along the lines of this "inescapable grasp" that guilt imbues on a particular person - in this case, Georges and Anne - is the "inescapable grasp" of time, specifically the past. The unsettling notion and tone of Hanake's film derives predominantly from a universal truth: the past is inescapable, a part of us, continually hovering above us. The parts of our past that are tainted in a negative light, and mostly because of our own doing, can reach forwards into our present and stay with us for an interminable amount of time, nudging at us incessantly. There are clear themes of voyeurism at the forefront of the film, and in much the same way that other films we have already screened portray this voyeurism, these acts force us to contemplate the different ways we receive pleasure in just watching, whether it be watching events from a distance, or watching people at their most fragile and vulnerable. There is a certain part of us that prevents us from merely looking-away, and our roles as spectators is meticulously scrutinized and criticized in most of these films as inborn functions and reactions to the world around us. I was also especially heartbroken by Maurice Benichou's depiction of Majid, as he is able to tap so directly into the character's desperation and sober lamentation. His suicide, horrible as it is, is the ultimate exemplification of a man who has been broken beyond repair or salvation of any sort. His exit is, perhaps, the film's most brutal, most shattering moment.
ReplyDeleteOnce again Haneke provokes his audience, forcing us to ask questions, and only partially (or not) providing the answers. Who is sending the tapes? Is it Majid's son? Haneke himself? Or is it-- as pointed out in class-- The Third Man?
ReplyDeleteBecause of the way the film is structured (even from the very beginning), at times making the audience believe we are watching an event in real time (when in reality we are watching a recording); and because the hidden camera is in plain view, yet never seen; I think Haneke is the mysterious person sending the tapes. After watching Haneke's style in "Funny Games", I don't consider it at all unusual that Haneke would again break the sacred "4th Wall". I think it would be impossible for anyone to place the camera in the positions it captures without it being noticed. Georges walks past it on more than one instance without ever glancing back at it.
American Remake: I shudder at this prospect. I loved everyting about this film, and I would hate to see Hollywood touch it. But, alas, if it must.... I suppose Hollywood could do worse than Ron Howard. I imagine the "Cache" remake would look a lot like one of his other films:
"Ransom". This of course would completely alter the pacing of the original. American audiences can hardly stand a film that takes its time, using long establishing shots with deep focus to shape a narrative structure. I'm sure the American remake would include a much faster paced editing style, and characters that didn't reflect quite so much. It would be interesting to watch, but I'm not sure I'd pay $9.50 for it.
1. I believe that Georges boss is sending the footage. He is the first outsider to bring up the tape without Georges or Anne revealing it. Also, they are looking to give Georges a distraction from the creation of his new show. Also, his boss just happened to destroy the tape sent to him to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. He knew about the tape because he had it filmed so that Georges would stop pursuing his new show. He saw the original tape and never required a copy; therefore there was no copy to be destroyed. All I know is that it was definitely not Majid’s son. That would be far too easy on both the film and the audience, and if there is one thing Haneke loves, it is making things difficult for his audience.
ReplyDelete2. First, let it be said that any remake of Cache by anyone except Haneke would be a big mistake. That being said, in this magical world where Ron Howard is remaking the film, Cache would only appear asa shadow of its original version. First, Tom Hanks would be cast as Georges, playing a concerned family man, but because of this casting they would have to cut out Georges unscrupulous past. There would also be an amazing soundtrack with emotional crescendos, whereas in the original the only music is the theme to Georges’ show. At some point there would probably be a high stakes chase scene through some sort of festival or celebration. Finally, the movie would finish with a Scooby-Doo like happy ending, where the bad guy gets caught and punished, the hero finds redemption and the answers he was looking for, and the final note of the film is hope for a better tomorrow.
Having thoroughly enjoyed “Funny Games”, I was very excited to watch our second Michael Haneke film “Cache”. As with his prior film we watched, from the very start of this movie I felt that Michael Haneke had carefully and deliberately crafted each scene throughout this entire movie. Admittedly, after the initial viewing, I did not enjoy this film as much as “Funny Games.” I thought the suspense and the actual execution of the movie was very well done, but for some reason the storyline in this film just didn’t grab me as much. Not to say the storyline was bad; I just wasn’t as engrossed in it (part of the reason being it was very hard to sympathize with George in “Cache”) as I was with the family in “Funny Games.” Also, it was a little annoying to invest nearly 2 hours watching this story unfold only to have little to no resolution and an extremely ambiguous scene at the end of the movie. Having said all that, after we started discussing “Cache” in class I began to appreciate all of the little subtleties a little bit more. First and foremost, where I was initially annoyed at not finding out who was sending the tapes all along, I realize that this is probably the best part about this movie. I really liked one of the ideas brought up in class about how one could surmise that Michael Haneke himself is sending the tapes. As Haneke is supposedly notorious for the use of “off-screen violence” I thought the two complimentary uses of onscreen violence was very well executed. Majihd’s suicide was definitely the best scene in the entire film. It was completely unexpected and jarring and awesome. One thing that bothered me is when Pierrot was finally brought home and his mother starts asking him questions. He seems extremely perturbed about something but never says what it is, completely ignoring his mother’s questions. He does make some kind of comment that suggests he thinks his mother is having an affair with Pierre, but I really did not feel like that was a sufficient enough reason to justify Pierrot’s behavior. I was similarly bothered when Majihd’s son corners George because he has something to say, and then he never really says anything. How fitting then that both of these characters should be seen interacting at the very end of the film, their intentions never known. All in all, I began to like “Cache” a lot more after discussing it in class, but I still prefer “Funny Games.”.
ReplyDeleteIn several scenes I noticed a creepy bald guy (once when Anne was crying in public to Pierre and once when George was in the editing room for his show). The only reason why I noticed this guy in the first place is because he looked strangely like one of my friends. In the restaurant, this bald guy kept looking suspiciously at Anne and Pierre’s table. And if this is the same bald guy who is editing in the studio this can explain his ability to set up and use video equipment. This was my initial thought. After discussing in class, I like the idea that Michael Haneke is sending the tapes infinitely more than my bald guy theory.
ReplyDeleteIf Ron Howard directed a remake of this movie, I could se several changes being made. First off, I think the family would receive DVD’s instead of VHS’s. Also, I think the pictures that accompany the recordings will be depicted as more sinister. I could also see the violent images being changed such as just insinuating a chicken getting it’s head cut off rather than seeing the whole thing. Also, when Majhid cuts his throat, I can see this being done offscreen with the blood splattering on screen. In addition, I feel that the movie would be much faster paced, and it would also have a less ambiguous ending. For example, the last scene can be Pierrot and Majhid’s son exchanging a video camera, a VHS tape, or a drawing.
This movie was not traditional in any sense. It's slow, the ending is unsettling, and the characters are not all that likeable. I believe this to be what makes this movie so appealing. People are naturally drawn into new and different things. While I liked this film I felt taken advantage of. I entered it with expectation of a payoff in finding who sent the tapes, but was disappointed when it wasn't made clear. It remained open ended and almost anyone could have been involved. However, this film entices you to conduct a meta-analysis and think long and hard about who done it. That is where the genius lies in this film. All the shots, pacing and acting are interesting, but not the major draw in this film. I did like this movie, but will most likely never watch it again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once you get fooled, you can't get fooled again.
ReplyDelete