Talk:Caché (film)

message: It’s natural to want to know who sent the tapes, we spend the whole film wondering, but in the end I don’t think it’s that important.  You could argue that the person sending the tapes is us, the audience, and that the whole thing stems out of our voyeurism.  That argument would kind of be supported by some of Haneke’s other films, but I don’t fell that that is the case here.  
There are certainly some techy people working at Georges’ TV station that would have access to cameras and equipment, but why would they do it and how would they know where Majid lived.  In my opinion it was Majid’s son sending the tapes.  There’s no one else who really could have or would have.  
The last shot of the film shows someone who at least looks like Majid’s son talking to Georges’ son outside the school.  If it is Majid’s son, that doesn’t prove that someone else is doing the watching, because he could have set up the camera, and if it isn’t Majid’s son, I don’t think it matters that much.  To me, the look in Majid’s son’s eyes during the scene where he confronts Georges in the bathroom says so much.  His performance is so great and it tells us that he did it.
Overall though, who sent the tapes is left ambiguous and for the viewer to decide.  I’m glad we are never TOLD who did it and I don’t think we’d be any better off knowing for sure.
: I think the tapes were made by the Haneke's HD camera. E.g. the openingshot could  probably not be zoomed in from an apartment opposing their house: it would need a construction built in the streets, visible for anyone. Brz7 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can we see Majid's son talking to Georges' son outside school? I have rewatched the scene, but there are too many people at the school entrance and I can't spot them. xDCDx 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are standing on the left, right in front of the ladder and behind the fence. Pierrot is wearing a light-coloured hoody and a black rucksack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.118.254 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Take 

message: I just removed the following link:
* Christopher Peachment Absolute Juliette: a review of Michael Haneke's Hidden (Caché) Social Affairs Unit Web Review, March 2006
because it seems to be from someone who created a Wiki account to promote his fringe neoconservative think tank (notice that all his posts are from one day, and all promoting his web site).
If other people (not him) think the link should be included, by all means. But I also thought it was a pretty wrongheaded review that got all the facts wrong about the movie (for instance, it criticizes Georges for not looking for the video cameras, when in fact that's one of the first things he does in the movie). 
The other reviews are more mainstream, and the link I added is from the film reviewer at The Onion, then includes 50 other peoples' comments. I have nothing personally against the politics of the "social affairs unit" review, I just think it is probably not Wiki-appropriate. Aroundthewayboy 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear you agree. I always feel guilty and a little cruel removing things, since I'm a writer myself and I understand the impulse to promote your own work. But it's probably not best to do it on Wiki. Aroundthewayboy 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted link 

message: I've been assessing film articles for an hour and this is one of two B-classes that I have given. Keep up the good work! --Supernumerary 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I was going to delete the bit about the final flashback being the only true one, but looking at the discussions here I see some of you've seen Haneke talk about the film. So: Has he said this in some lecture? If not, it seems like quite a statement for WP to make. — eitch 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "only true flashback" 

message: I haven't seen this film, but was directed here by the Lost Highway page which says that Cache has a lot in common with LH.  A cursory look at the film seems to show similarities as superficial as the names of the characters to ones more related to plot, such as the sending of tapes.  I only skimmed this article and I did not see the film, so I wouldn't be surprised if these were the only similarities, but the LH page told me the two were alike and I would like this page to discuss them a bit more as it is what drew me here.
K1da42 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities to Lost Highway 

message: There is a well established consensus to title the article Cache. No new consensus has emerged to change it to Hidden. Please revert, Roman Spinner or whomever, and bring it here if you'd like to change that. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike such nearly-unanimously-accepted (in the English-speaking world) foreign-language titles as Pather Panchali, Aparajito, Rashomon, L'Avventura, La Notte, La Dolce Vita, La Strada, I Vitelloni, El Bruto and a good number of others, Caché (film) is not at all so clear-cut.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related states that in   Although there is no unanimity (IMDb indicates "Caché (Hidden) Caché (original title)", Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide lists it as "Caché", while TimeOut Film Guide, Halliwell's Film Guide and Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever have it as "Hidden", with newspaper reviews, such as that in The Guardian showing "Hidden (Caché)").  Perhaps "Hidden (Caché)" or "Caché (Hidden)" would be an acceptable (if somewhat unwieldy) compromise main title header for this article.  There is no indication that a "well established" consensus on this issue already exists, but if it does, a link to such consensus or such discussion should be appended here so that interested users may avail themselves of it and join the discussion.—Roman Spinner (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This has been discussed before. Let's return the article to the consensus and then discuss a change. Thanks for taking care of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although English-language translations exist for above listed titles (Aparajito means The Unvanquished, La Dolce Vita means The Sweet Life or The Good Life, etc), such translations are virtually never used for these films and use of English-language titles would render these films unrecognizable in any discussion.  Again, however, that is not the case with Caché (film).  Having established the fact that a number of key film guides as well as reviews in various publications use the title Hidden, indicates that a clearly established, although not unanimously accepted, English-language title has entered general usage and should, therefore, be given priority over the French title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):   As to consensus, a large number of incorrectly- or uncertainly-titled articles (including film entries) remain unchanged until an editor takes the first step.  Lack of a previous discussion on the subject cannot be considered to constitute a consensus for stasis.  This article's revision history demonstrates contributions from many longtime users who may also wish to express an opinion on this subject.  Before reverting, let us see how many members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film will add their views and then decide what the consensus truly represents.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested for the move to be undone for the time being (as part of the WP:BRD cycle). Let's determine a consensus at my request to move below. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Yep, WP:NCF spells it out pretty clear. Tough shit, Hidden it is. People should stop crying and maybe improve the article instead. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cache not Hidden 

message: ::Sorry, as you are aware, when there is a dispute, the disputed countries are out. That's how it works. I realize that when you are wrong you don't want to admit it. But you lack consensus, sources, guidelines, and common sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that's not how it works. Let's take a quote from Jimbo Wales: 
Your statement of one source countering about 7 other sources goes against WP:UNDUE. I'm really tired of you removing well cited material that I've taken time to do. First you removed it saying I was wrong without any information, and then you removed it one citation that only mentions one country. You are applying undue weight one option. If you can counter this with some other rules I'm missing I'll be happy to adhere it as I would love to work it out with you. If you only want to continue edits that involve you saying "how ridiculous" I'm being, I'm going to ignore your posts and revert your edits that go against the rules I've stated until you can show me other sources. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

text: There has been no further discussion on the topic for days, so I'll revert it back to the previously cited countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, there's been no discussion because it's obvious you're mistaken. I assume you'll be following the guideline in the future so today is a good day to start. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to help out other editors and show what rules I'm breaking, per the rule I stated above, the majority of citations would be the consensus. Not the other way around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority? Okay, you know that's not how it works. You were told on the talk page for the infobox that only the countries cited unanimously are included. Okay, now I told you, too. Sorry you're wrong about this but you are. Not only that, there's no consensus for your change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe actually wikipedia rules set in stone by the creator of wikipedia and that are posted on wikipedia rules pages (see, the the statement above) over-power mere guidelines that are not even implemented yet on the infobox's template. Also, reverting my edit from leaving it blank was also wrong, as we can alternatively "Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.". I've found various sources stating my countries of production. I'm suggesting we leave it blank if we can't come to an agreement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is set in stone and I'm sure you realize the infobox guidelines are properly agreed. We can continue to follow the guidelines as we're doing as there's no problem with doing it correctly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox guidelines are still in discussion (you should know, you are still trying to change them). There are disagreements here and I think it's best to expand the article like we did with the White Ribbon. Using the production seciton to discuss production countries, and leave it blank in the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also false. I'm trying to change them? Well, first of all, I'm not, and secondly, if someone can try to change them then they are there and in force. Today would be a good day for you to start following the guidelines. As Lugnuts says above (Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to improve the article. The infobox has still been full of prominent discussions within the last week. I don't even know where you are pulling that lugnuts quote from, but insulting me again isn't going to make me stop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no change in the offing on the guidelines. That's your invention. I have not insulted you; another invention. In your previous post you invented something else. I am aware that you sometimes write things here that do not stand up to scrutiny, so I would suggest that you make sure you are completely accurate in the future. We will be much more productive that way. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: "People should stop crying" . you do insult me. "Majority? Okay, you know that's not how it works." except WP:UNDUE does state to not use minority citations. It also mentions that you should more high quality sources. Websites like the British Film Institute, Variety, and AFI are far more high quality film based sources. Yours is from a television series, not to mention it's a bare-url. I've started a new topic on template:film since you have think no one cares about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But you know what the guidelines say. When will you start following them? Do you want to discuss the guidelines because you want them followed? Okay, there is a guideline right now and you should follow it. What else should you do but follow the guidelines if you think guidelines should be followed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do want to follow it. Since there is still conflict (we've been discussing it for days), I've suggested we follow where it states to "Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.". Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You know as well as I do that the guidelines call for unanimity. End of story. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! One of them says we can leave it blank if there is an argument. There is. I propose leaving it blank. Since you are in favor of wanting the country field taken away from the infobox, I think you'd be alright with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: That's what I have been saying. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not what you were doing! Another false statement in what is turning into a long string of false statements from you, Andrzejbanas. I would for the second time strongly urge you to stop making statements that are untrue and be extremely careful that you only write statements that are true. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My history speaks for itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with sourcing all the production countries in the main body of the article, instead of using the infobox. The field in the infobox is fine for the majority of articles on here, but this is one of those exceptions. Now who do I send the video tape of their house being filmed to? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's in the production section and not the lead that is a good idea. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear why we would not follow the guidelines on this. Is there something so incredible about saying this film is French? It's filmed in France, set in France, French is the film's language and culture and cast; it's completely uncontroversial to call it French. It seems like one really has to stretch to say it's not French. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article would be confusing simply calling it french wouldn't be specific enough. Why would Austria submit as their foreign oscar? If we can't even find sources or agree to what should be in the lead, then we shouldn't put anything in the lead for the country either. The article's production section and plot information and cast information illustrate the French-ness of it enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't be confusing to call a French film French. Austria submitted it because it has an Austrian director. (Yes, the director's nationality is very important!) However, the Academy didn't accept it because it was not Austrian enough. (The film is in French which is not Austria's language, indicating that a film's language is more important to its "nationality" than its production company.) I'm sure they know what they are talking about over there, too, at the Academy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: French is still not specific enough. Several other countries were involved with the production as well. If we didn't identify it in the infobox, then it shouldn't be in the lead either. Saying that most of the crew was French isn't apt either. The producers were both Hungarian and Austrian respectively, co=producer was Italian, Cinematographer was Austrian. Ditto for the cast as Auteuil is Algerian. This isn't the most reliable source, but for the sake of discussion it wasn't just shot in France, but Vienna as well (source) Besides, [[WP:FILMLEAD}] states " At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified." so we don't even need the nationality there. Since we couldn't agree on it's nationality for the infobox, we shouldn't include it in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absurd nonsense from you, Andrzejbanas.  French has to be in the info' box.You keep on repeating the same old mantra, postulating that the the mantra has inherent meaning independent of the understanding of the person uttering them. Enough is enough!-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Why Asburd? We're not even discussing the infobox currently Gareth. Since we've can't settle to what goes in the infobox, we've had settlement that it should be left blank and left to be discussed within the article. We don't need a country in the lead and if we can't agree what belongs in the infobox, we can't just apply some uncited original research to the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one, would expect to see a country entry in the info' box.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Take this court cases into consideration as well: "With all that, the producer claims that he fulfilled 99 points of the 100 required for the qualification for the French scheme subsidy. But the Paris based court has denied the French nationality to the film. The decision is not about the team and crew nationality. The court ruled that the production company is entirely dependent on an American production and distribution company and therefore the movie cannot access to French funding which in this case means that the film’s producers could not receive the state funds of up to €3.6m (an estimation of le FILM FRANÇAIS) . To be eligible, the majority of the production company’s capital must come from the European Union. It is not the case here.". Source. So it's not so simple and we can't just apply it because of the staff or locations involved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "Source" is connecting Asia with Europe through film.  Not convincing.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: the source seems to fit as a reliable source and is addressing a court case in France. I believe it's strong enough. we can't go by opinions, we can only go by sources. I've provided mine. You feel free to apply yours whenever you find one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: France is mentioned in all sources, so the guidelines say that's the country that goes in the field. It's really that simple. (Your source, Andrz, is not about this film.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My source doesn't have to be about this film. And the above people generally agreed to leave it blank. which is another part of the template, do I have to screen shot it for you? Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. which is what we are currently doing.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm sure you did not mean to 'shout'.)  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that again Andrzejbanas jealousy about my good ideas is motivating him to make the article worse. Well done! You must be so proud of yourself, finding any way you are able to block reasonable ideas. How unfortunate that an editor of this quality is inflicted on the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:CIVIL. If you have nothing further to discuss then that's fine, but I don't recommend you attack other editors. I'm in not way trying to make articles worse and I don't think you are either as I Assume good faith. I hope you would do the same.Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I do agree with retaining the director in the production section, since up to that point he is only mentioned in the lede and the infobox, and ideally should be in the prose. The section also mentions the film has no score—it would be great it Haneke's motivations for not including one could sourced and added to the article, otherwise the comment just stands as an editorial observation rather tahn an explained creative decision. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

text: again WP:CIVIL Ring. You could have just asked me why I removed it, and I did it as the production doesn't state anything the director did. It can stay there but I don't think it makes a difference. I'm more curious why you added the filmin locations without a citation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What complete nonsense. Obviously you're reverting all my edits because I correctly identified your absurd arguments and incorrect assertions, and you were burned on the country field thing. Let's not pretend you're earnestly trying to improve the article. You're trying to bully other editors who offend your sensibility by correcting you when you're wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For ever edit I make, I try to summarize in the edit field why I'm revertin it or changing it. In your case, there is no mention of where the film was shot in those countries. I'm more curious when you revert back to other people's edits with summaries such as these ones: here or here here. The last edit specifically was before any citations were placed on the article, so I'm leaning much more towards you were removing and adding items without summarizing your edits to swing thing the way you wanted. For the record, I don't doubt where the film was shot, but you need sources to back up your claim. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  National committees that nominate films for Academy Awards are reliable