Cache (Hidden) - A DVD Review
After several minutes of reflection, and some degree of informed but mitigated confusion I'm left confidant in the belief that Hollywood could never have made this film. Imagine all the La-La-wood producer phone monkeys, and power-lunch-taking studio heads reading the comment cards from the test audiences culled from the corners of Hollywood and Vine with the promise of a thrilling tagline, and saying, "what we need is a punchier ending", or, "I get it, but will the audience get it". I shudder to think. No, this is a french film. By which I only mean it was made in France.
Written and directed by Michael Haneke,and released in 2005, it's the story of a husband and wife being terrorized by the delivery to their home of videotapes showing them being surveilled by an unknown cameraman.
This is a great character study first and foremost.
Prolific french actor Daniel Auteuil (Sade) is Georges Laurent, host of a literary panel discussion program on public television. He is arrogant and stoic, and handles his bizarre situation with all the staid restraint of a man clearly in denial of his past.
Crossover french legend Juliette Binoche (Chocolat, The English Patient) is his wife Anne, the strong, outspoken but deceptively helpless mother of a pubescent son, Pierrot played by young Lester Makedonsky.
The film begins as the couple reviews a videotape; the first of several which are anonymously delivered to their home. On it they see several hours of their front door being watched by an unblinking eye. As they leave for work earlier in the day their movements are filmed and when they return home, voila, a tape to show they've been watched. Why? Who would do such a thing? Clearly it must be a joke, until more tapes arrive from different locales, all showing locations and acts very personal to the principals and accompanied by notes depicting crude but frightening drawings which leave the couple baffled... mostly.
Hints are dropped throughout about a motive for the stalking, from possible infidelity to repressed sexual longing, to good ol' fashioned revenge, but what's most compelling is the immediacy of guilt when one is confronted with what could be perceived as evidence. Evidence of what? Thats the rub. Is someone guilty of something? And if so, what? And if not, why feel guilty? But we do.
I think it's automatic, for me anyway, to feel guilty when confronted before even knowing what the charge is. Confrontation is scary, and now-a-days can convict even without base. Once people hear you're accused you may as well have done the crime.
What's interesting about this film is figuring who, if anyone, is guilty of something, and if they are, what is it they're guilty of?
Which brings me back to my initial assertion that this could never be a 'Hollywood' film. This isn't about resolution. And it's not about motivation. To me it's about how pervasive information has become. If you wanna know anything you turn on the news or look at the web. Someone somewhere is watching you, and wants to tell your story whether you're complicit in the telling or not. There are no laws against voyeurism anymore; not practical ones anyway. There's nothing you can do to stop someone videotaping you and letting everyone you know sneak a peek. But I digress...
Technically this is a cool, minimalist approach to the thriller genre. The amazing acting and super-tight editing move an otherwise quiet film along at a pace that allows reflection along with shock. Tension is built but not milked, and drama is felt but not dwelled upon to the point of becoming maudlin.
For me personally, I think about relationships and how much you know about the people closest to you, whether its the teenage son making you feel hated (but not really), or the lover you've grown comfortable with (too comfortable).
See this film without expectations. Don't ask it to entertain or thrill you; just watch it and enjoy it, and when it's over tell me what you thought. I loved it.
Not in a 'jumping outta my seat' kinda way, but in a 'film can be a great teacher' kinda way.
Does that make sense?
Written and directed by Michael Haneke,and released in 2005, it's the story of a husband and wife being terrorized by the delivery to their home of videotapes showing them being surveilled by an unknown cameraman.
This is a great character study first and foremost.
Prolific french actor Daniel Auteuil (Sade) is Georges Laurent, host of a literary panel discussion program on public television. He is arrogant and stoic, and handles his bizarre situation with all the staid restraint of a man clearly in denial of his past.
Crossover french legend Juliette Binoche (Chocolat, The English Patient) is his wife Anne, the strong, outspoken but deceptively helpless mother of a pubescent son, Pierrot played by young Lester Makedonsky.
The film begins as the couple reviews a videotape; the first of several which are anonymously delivered to their home. On it they see several hours of their front door being watched by an unblinking eye. As they leave for work earlier in the day their movements are filmed and when they return home, voila, a tape to show they've been watched. Why? Who would do such a thing? Clearly it must be a joke, until more tapes arrive from different locales, all showing locations and acts very personal to the principals and accompanied by notes depicting crude but frightening drawings which leave the couple baffled... mostly.
Hints are dropped throughout about a motive for the stalking, from possible infidelity to repressed sexual longing, to good ol' fashioned revenge, but what's most compelling is the immediacy of guilt when one is confronted with what could be perceived as evidence. Evidence of what? Thats the rub. Is someone guilty of something? And if so, what? And if not, why feel guilty? But we do.
I think it's automatic, for me anyway, to feel guilty when confronted before even knowing what the charge is. Confrontation is scary, and now-a-days can convict even without base. Once people hear you're accused you may as well have done the crime.
What's interesting about this film is figuring who, if anyone, is guilty of something, and if they are, what is it they're guilty of?
Which brings me back to my initial assertion that this could never be a 'Hollywood' film. This isn't about resolution. And it's not about motivation. To me it's about how pervasive information has become. If you wanna know anything you turn on the news or look at the web. Someone somewhere is watching you, and wants to tell your story whether you're complicit in the telling or not. There are no laws against voyeurism anymore; not practical ones anyway. There's nothing you can do to stop someone videotaping you and letting everyone you know sneak a peek. But I digress...
Technically this is a cool, minimalist approach to the thriller genre. The amazing acting and super-tight editing move an otherwise quiet film along at a pace that allows reflection along with shock. Tension is built but not milked, and drama is felt but not dwelled upon to the point of becoming maudlin.
For me personally, I think about relationships and how much you know about the people closest to you, whether its the teenage son making you feel hated (but not really), or the lover you've grown comfortable with (too comfortable).
See this film without expectations. Don't ask it to entertain or thrill you; just watch it and enjoy it, and when it's over tell me what you thought. I loved it.
Not in a 'jumping outta my seat' kinda way, but in a 'film can be a great teacher' kinda way.
Does that make sense?
posted by johnnykocktail at 11:33 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home