Caché

Plot synopsis:
We watch a street, and in front, a middle-house home. Suddenly, we hear the voices of two people, and the images move back. The comments lead us to know the situation.Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) is the presenter of a literary TV programme. The programme is going well and he's got many fans, especially female. He's married to Anne (Juliette Binoche). The couple has just received a mysterious video tape: for two hours somebody has recorded the street and the front of their home. We can see several passers-by, a biker, and Georges leaving for work. The tape had no other message, it appeared just inside a supermarket white plastic bag.The next day, the couple receives another tape. This time it's a night shot. The same as before, nothing much seems to happen. However, this time the tape was wrapped in a plain paper with a child-like drawing of a boy's face stained with blood. The couple decide to go to the police, but they will not do anything about it, because there has been not actual thread. None of the neighbours of the side street from where the camera must have been placed has seen anything or anybody, in spite of the recording lasting for more than two hours. When they leave the police station, deeply frustrated because of the lack of attention to the problem, Georges crosses the road without looking and has a verbal fight with a biker (Dioucounda Koma) who almost crashed onto him. It's Anne who has to tell them to calm down.Little by little, we see Georges' life: he leads his programme proffesionally; he's got a good social life, and his son Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky) goes to high school and belongs to the swimming team. In fact, he wins the swimming competition Georges and Anne attend as spectators.During a dinner with some of their friends, Georges goes to attend the door. Although it's really late, somebody has just rung the bell. When Georges goes out, there is nobody there. He shouts to the dark empty street "Show up, you coward". When he tries to close the door, he can't, because there is another tape on the floor. Anne tells their friends their present problems, to which Georges responds - really annoyed - by showing the new tape to everybody. This new tape shows somebody driving on a rainy road, through the countryside. The car stops and the camera turns to face a countryside manor mansion. This tape is wrapped in a paper with a child-like drawing of something similar to a hen with its neck bleeding.Georges goes to that manor house: it's the house where he grew up. His mother (Annie Girardot) is old, and needs help because she can't take care of herself. Georges doesn't like the housekeeper (Marie-Christine Orry), but he won't do anything about it.The reception and the vision of the tapes is intertwined with some images, some flashbacks of a boy bleeding through his mouth (Malik Nait Djoudi). Although Georges says that he doesn't know anything about the tapes or why they are being sent to him, little by little the viewers come to realise that these images are flashbacks.We finally come to know that Majid was a child Georges' parents adopted, but somehow he was sent back to the orphanage. Georges' mother doesn't want to talk about Majid, but we don't know up to what point she can't remember.The next tape happens again inside a moving car. Anne discovers the name of an avenue, and Geoges used that to find a particular door, number 049.Georges go there on his own in spite of Anne's disapproval. There, he finds a surprised and sad man. Although Georges doesn't recognise him at first, that man recognises him. It's Majid (Maurice Bénichou), the Algerian boy Georges' parents sent back to the orphanage, now a sad forty-yeared-old man. In the following conversation, the adult Majid denies to know anything about any tapes. He says that once, watching Georges by chance on TV, felt disgusted and about to throw-up. Georges talks to him in a cocky and aggresive way. He storms out.The next day, Anne sees at home the camera images of Georges talking to Majid. Majid was left for an hour, crying devastated, sat on a chair. As usual, everything had been recorded onto a tape. Georges says he doesn't feel responsible for Majid's loser life or for having taken away his possibilities of leading a priviledged life like his. He tells the story: Majid's parents were servants at Georges' parents' home. They went to a demonstration in Paris. At that demonstration, the police killed 200 people and threw their bodies to the River Sena, among whom both of Majid's parents were. Georges' parents adopted Majid, but Georges - at that time 6 years old - (Hugo Flamigni) felt jealous of having to share everything. He tells Majid to kill a rooster and he does so, beheading the poultry with an axe. Georges tells his parents that Majid did that to scare him.The tape was not only sent to Anne. Georges's boss (Bernard Le Coq) received the tape with a postcard with a drawing on the fashion of the rest of the paper drawings. His secretary spot the weird message and gave it to him. Talking about another programme which is taking longer to take off as an introduction, the boss explains the situation to the surprised Georges, who admits he looks really aggressive in that tape. The boss had destroyed the tape because it went against Georges' privacy and he doesn't want any scandals.Another event puts the Laurent family even more on edge: Pierrot has disappeared. Anne phones Pierrot's best friend, but he's not there. Anne and Georges phone the police. The police officers (Loïc Brabant) go to Majid's home, but somebody else, a younger man, opens up the door and lets them in. It's Majid's son (Walid Afkir). Everybody goes to the police station to be questioned.Suddenly, Pierrot appears back home with another woman. It's a nurse (Caroline Baehr). As she works the night shift, she doesn't usually know what his own son -another of Pierrot's friends- is about. Later, Anne tries to talk to Pierrot and asked why he had given them such a scare. Pierrot doesn't want to communicate at all, but one of the few things he says is that he thinks that his mother and one of her friends, Pierre (Daniel Duval) are lovers. Anne rejects that notion.Georges is called by Majid, so he comes back to is flat. When questioned on the reason, Majid says that he wanted Georges to see that. He takes a pocket knife from one of his pockets and cuts his own throat. He falls to the floor completely dead.Georges phones the police. The police believe Georges and realises that it was suicide. The next day, Majid's son visits Georges in his office. He says that he wants to see his guilty face and leaves without more ado.Georges comes back home and is alone. He takes some pills and goes to sleep. In his dreams, or in a flashback, he sees how an orphanage attendant (Paule Daré) and an orphanage driver (Nicky Marbot) who take Majid away to the orphanage by force in spite of the boy screaming his lungs off. Georges's mother (Annette Faure) watches all this nonchalantly.The last scene is a fixed shot of a camera of the stairs outside Pierrots' high school. He is talking and laughing with Majid's son.

Tags: suspenseful, boring, violence, haunting, romantic, revenge, storytelling, prank

Review:
Michael Haneke the austere Austrian director of such critically acclaimed films as "Funny Games", "Code Unknown" and "The Piano Teacher" has created in "Caché" (Hidden) his finest film to date.Starring Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche the film is a taut and tense personal thriller, which examines important subjects such as guilt and responsibility in the context of western comfort.Georges and Anne are a happily married middle class couple who both work in the arts.
As Georges fears for the safety of his family he suddenly has to confront his past and allow his wife to learn the hidden secrets of his past.Haneke's film plays on one level like a common thriller, but it has much deeper psychological echoes as the "hero" George is revealed not to be quite the upstanding family man his family believed him to be.
As his wife struggles to come to terms with the revelations their entire comfortable existence disintegrates.Haneke is not just interested in creating a thriller however and the auteur expertly dissects George and Annes bourgeois life and implicates them both in the treatment by western culture of the east and the third world.Acting in the film is terrific.
At the end of the film, Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) tells his wife Anne (Juliette Binoche) that he will be "caché," hidden, and he takes off his clothes, closes the curtains, and buries himself in bed.
Writer/director Michael Haneke plays visual tricks on the audience as voyeurs from the opening shot, much as he did with "Code Inconnu," as he coyly plays with technology, building on the pervasive surveillance potential of our times.The comfortable upper middle class life of married intellectuals Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche is more and more disrupted by spooky video and drawings from some kind of stalker.
With a bit heavy-handed constant background TV news coverage about terrorism and other violence in the MidEast, as well as too much irony that Auteuil works on TV (evidently in yet another book discussion show like the central narcissist in "Look At Me (Comme une image)"), race is quickly introduced as a flash point in contemporary Paris from a brief street confrontation and reinforced with Auteuil's flashback dreams of his youth.While the political angles are obvious, the Hitchcockian tension is very effectively built up (though not narratively resolved even as some secrets are revealed that lead to other inscrutabilities), not just as we see Auteuil repeatedly lie and Binoche practically disintegrate from nerves, but through sudden violence.While we never understand who all is lying and who isn't, the film further plays on the truth that visual images don't in fact communicate the reality of a situation and can be misleading about relationships, particularly once paranoia has destroyed trust.
Cynically, but perhaps honestly as opposed to in "Crash," here there is no easy resolution of acceptance of guilt and responsibility in personal lives any more than there is in the legacy of colonialism and racism.Not only is the past never dead, but the film keeps repeating issues of not just am I my brother's keeper, but the sins of the father are revisited on the sons, such that it's important to keep watching even as the credits start to appear at the end (there was much shouting when some folks got up to leave too soon, blocking cryptic clues to those behind them).The subtitles are very poorly done, with many scenes having them white on white, instead of the much easier to read yellow..
If you really enjoyed the film but struggle with the answer (which is turns out to be different depending on whether you view it as a psychological thriller or as a polemic/work-of-art), you can go to the official website (which saves me revealing it!) - at which point you will probably want to watch it again to see the details you missed from inattention.Hidden is a remarkably accomplished work.
We soon come to realize we are actually watching a videotape of the home of Georges (Daniel Auteuil) a TV personality with a book chat show on French Television and his wife Anne (Juliette Binoche) and their 12-year-old son Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky).
I don't except this plot confusion as intentional like Syriana, nor does it seem like the world weariness experienced at the end of Chinatown with the line; "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", where the implication is that some things are completely unknowable.Majid and his son constantly deny that they are making the videotapes, but they seem to know about them and how is it possible for a tape to have been made inside Majid's apartment of a conversation between Majid and Georges without Majid knowing about it?
As I left the theater, three masterpieces immediately came to my mind: Clouzot's "Le Corbeau" (a political statement disguised as a thriller and a probable inspiration for "Caché"), Antonioni's "The Passenger" (ditto, and also for the long, breathtaking, "open-meaning" last shot) and Resnais' "Marienbad" (the seminal film of multi-layered possible interpretations of "reality").
Can't wait for his next film -- but while I do, I'll watch "Caché" one more time, and understand that hiding (Georges hiding his past and his feelings, nations hiding shameful parts of their history, Haneke hiding evidence, explanations and conclusions) can be a form of powerful revelation...and self-revelation..
It also points out how Georges, after many years of living with a terrible burden, comes to be reminded of the harm he caused.Daniel Auteuil makes the film more enjoyable.
While there is a racist element in the original crime that Georges Laurent perpetrated as a child, an act that leads to the action of the story, it was one rather fuelled by his need to maintain his standing in the family unit.Haneke deals with the questions of guilt, remorse, responsibility, secrecy, intimacy and more, in an intelligent and succinct manner, aided by excellent performances from Auteuil and Binoche.
So?" variety, a trivial, meaningless event that took place years before and is never really explained (You know, so you can read whatever you want into it, maaaaaaan) Implausible situations pile upon implausible motivations: people say things they would never say, do things that no real person would ever do, conversations consist merely of people shouting at each other and never actually answering the questions they're asked merely to prolong the shouting match (not for any dramatic or realistic effect).Do yourself a favour: skip this pile of Emperor's New Clothes, because it's time you'll never get back, time you'd be better off on far more fulfilling pursuits, like clipping your toenails or trying to staple yourself to a plank..
Watching for details such as the TV newscasts, facial expressions and the timing of the appearance and disappearance of key characters will easily allow the viewer to solve the mystery, but it does not take away from the tension the situation creates.This is a pretty solid thriller, but not in the class of Francois Ozon's "Swimming Pool" from a couple of years ago.
Unfortunately I was left scratching my head at the end of the movie wondering why the director decided not to complete it.Without giving too much away, this film does engage the viewer psychologically with almost exclusively claustrophobic scenes (even the external scenes are rather claustrophobic) mixed with long drawn out shots from a surveillance camera used to record/spy on the protagonists, played by an often awkward Daniel Auteuil and a rather good performance by Juliette Binoche.
It is clumsy film making at best and is obviously a pathetic attempt for writer/director Michael Haneke to admit that he kinda feels a great amount of guilt for something he had done as a child...
The film ends with no-one taking any blame or feeling any guilt for anything that was done to anyone at all, even to the point of there not even being a culprit for the "threatening" tapes and messages, which was the main plot line.This film apparently cost eight million euros and somehow got a lot of praise at Cannes on its release, , but looked more like a college project and it seems reason was shared by word of mouth, because it didn't even get half the money back.
This is a drone movie in the classic french melodrama genre, and I suppose that one must be French to understand it, or pretentious enough think that there is some sort of intellectual meaning here.George and Anne are confronted by a feeble attempt at terror, VHS cassettes surveillances their middle class Parisian home, nothing more menacing than that, except for the fact the tapes are wrapped in a disturbed child's drawing.
Suddenly, another tape appears and Georges finds clues that lead him to the apartment of his childhood companion, a farmhand's son whose family used to work for Georges Parents some 40 years earlier.If going on that pretentious intellectual journey that one is supposed to "think" while viewing french films -there are 3 levels on which this movie revolves.
Later at the end of the movie the film results back to a racist theme when the son of George's childhood friend says that George had denied his father a good education, that at the orphanage they only teach you hatred.
Everything seems to hinge on Something Bad that happened in the main character's past, and the info is doled out in tiny bits; when the truth comes to light, it is not very satisfying or dramatic.This film may have some artsy conceits (mostly just long fixed camera shots in which little if anything happens of consequence for minutes at a time), but the characters are so lifeless and the plotting so barren, they do not create an atmosphere which draws the viewer in.
Check out an early Jim Jarmusch film if you want to see how to create a beautiful, evocative movie with deliberate pacing and scenes which run long in a naturalistic way..
However, Daniel Auteuil performed like he was trying to learn lines for his next movie while filming this one - if he said 'what?' one more time in response to dialogue I was going to leave.I DID like the way that details of the story are implied rather than stated explicitly.
Caché means Hidden in French and is a clue to the mystery in this excellent film by Michael Haneke.
Georges goes to investigate and in doing so must face up to long forgotten problems that have never really disappeared like he thought they did.The most striking and clever thing about the whole film is not so much the story, which is a common theme for a thriller, but rather how it is presented.
However you take it, this is a very clever piece of storytelling.The principle actors are also top notch, but Daniel Auteuil is particularly impressive as a man who is forced to deal with something he wanted to forget and how this problem, which isn't totally his fault, can delve into a life where one has forgotten problems of the past, but they haven't forgotten you.The movie's last success is its lack of sensationalism, and when compared to an American production is it more like 'One Hour Photo' rather than 'Joy Ride' or something that goes over the top with serial killer nonsense and stuff.
Unlike the other reviewers, although I would agree that here we have the outline of a good story and there is a certain degree of polish overall, I also felt cheated at the end by there not being a tying up of loose ends, and ultimately, especially after watching the DVD extras about the incredible directorial control Haneke exerted on his cast and crew, I experienced an unpalatable pretentiousness about this film, unfortunately.I remain puzzled by what was implied as having happened, as this cannot really be simply explained as being unclear.
Sadly though I felt like i did when the first 10 minutes spilled out and that would be that I should turn it off, but for some strange reason it makes you sit in your seat and watch something for 2 hours waiting for the clues or trying to pick out an actual destination this film is heading for.
It puts YOU in the spot of the "watcher" you feel a part of the story, not detached...This is a study of guilt - how the woman lives with her guilt (current) and how the man lives with his (past) - how it affects their lives and their marriage...pay special attention to who is talking in front of the school at the end..It has little to do with the Algerian war - although it is referenced, and many North Americans are not familiar with French or African history, but all one really needs to know is this: there was a peaceful demonstration organised by the Algerian FLN (Front de Libération Nationale) in Paris on October 17th, 1961 during the Algerian War of Independence from France and the police attacked them under the orders of Chief Papon (who was later convicted of WWII crimes)...the death toll is much disputed and hard to verify, but estimates of about 200 Algerians seem to be accepted.But the point of the film is NOT who is doing the surveillance - it is the study of GUILT...for North Amreicans renting the DVD, it may be helpful to watch the interview with the director..
It is one of the most mysterious films I've ever seen that looks like a thriller but it is not, it is much more interesting, dramatic, and deeper.Haneke's camera fixes on a successful French couple, Georges and Anne and uncovers (at the same time leaving a lot hidden) a lot about them, about what it means to live a life with the feeling of never ending guilt that would always stays in the memory no matter how hard one tries to hide it.Georges and Anne begin receiving strange videotapes with the footage of their house, disturbing cards, and phone calls.
She is furious at him for lack of trust even though there are some secrets in her life as well.Dreams and flashbacks of Georges' childhood reveal the mystery that goes as far as not only examining the jealousy of a young boy to another boy, a stranger from different culture and backgrounds with whom he had to share love and attention of his parents but also controversial racial and political relations between two countries that have not improved by now and would they ever improve as the new generations grow up remains one of the many questions that this uncompromising masterful film brings up but would not and could not answer.I've watched the enigmatic film over and over during the weekend and I am fascinated by Haneke's craft, by his subtlety, by his ability to say something new in a very original way about subjects that are anything but new.Outstanding film-making at its best..
He merely gives us the visual evidence of dysfunction, allows us to watch it without explaining it, and in doing so he makes the viewer an integral part of the film experience.CACHE is a tough movie, one that requires total concentration on the part of the viewer, and one that presents the secrets and guilt of the characters by allowing us to watch instead of depending on their explanations of their etiologies or resolutions.
Watching CACHE is an exciting and stimulating experience - and at the same time it is a film so impressive that it lingers in the mind long after the film is over.Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) and his wife Anne (Juliette Binoche) are successful professionals, living with their prepubescent son Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky) in a Parisian home of comfortable means.
The perpetrator of the videos is not explained, the schism between Georges and Anne is not addressed, Pierrot's transient disappearance is not fully explained - and the film ends as we, the audience, sit and watch a view of Pierrot's school as parents come to pick up their children.
Some rate Cache for its thought provoking qualities but most people leave a mundane life behind when watching movies and need a little more than an open ended diatribe on Frances hidden shame in the Police massacres of Algerians in 1961.
Maybe the world-audience reactions would have been different should they have had such a dramatic reminder of the very issues so masterfully pulled back to light in this movie.Michael Haneke's most recent film "Caché" was nominated in Cannes and enjoys box-success in France, so it rightfully appears on the program of established international film festivals...mostly to the viewers' misunderstanding or dismay.The names of the star lead-actors (versatile Daniel Auteuil and true Juliette Binoche) somewhat mislead the foreign audiences to expect the entertainment import, which it is not, as it's Haneke 100%, so the audience's conformism (mindful or cultivated) is his target to hit.Unfairly described in reviews as a thriller, this movie is rather a masked exposée of not just the shameful and terrifying event (happened in Paris back in 1961 and carefully wiped off the pages since then), but also of the cultivated hypocrisy and imperial arrogance that still keeps denying its maladies, while continuing to impose its superiority on others.Too late on this board to quote the Director in his remarks to the festival press:"If you write criticisms of this film, good or bad, please don't tell the story of the film".
The movie is actually quite straightforward.The story is about a TV talk show host,Georges Laurent whose quiet family life is disturbed by a person who sends video tapes of their house(as if someone is watching them constantly).
At the end of the 'movie' most of the audience ended up speaking to each other to ask if they had missed something.I mean, the film just suddenly ended.However, I will say this, I have read some of the other comments, and I must confess that I am thinking about it a little more, and yes, maybe there is far more to this than meets the eye - but come on!