Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)

[denti alligator]

Ron Howard might be remaking this.

Dude, read the previous page of posts...

[justeleblanc]

Dude, read the previous page of posts...

Oops. Feel free to delete where necessary.

[Awesome Welles]

Though I have not seen any discussion about the supposed Ron Howard remake in a long time, Michael Haneke was in discussion at the BFI last night where he did mention Ron Howard is remaking this, you can imagine the groans throughout the auditorium where I think I heard Haneke give off a little chuckle.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I was hoping Haneke would remake Gung Ho and we could call it even.

[willoneill]

I was hoping Haneke would remake Gung Ho and we could call it even.

In all seriousness, I think a Haneke remake of Ransom could be pretty fucked up. Or Splash.

[Andre Jurieu]

I was hoping Haneke would remake Gung Ho and we could call it even.

In all seriousness, I think a Haneke remake of Ransom could be pretty fucked up. Or Splash.

I wouldn't know whether to be incredibly enthusiastic or intensely terrified of either of those projects.

[HarryLong]

I wanna see Haneke's SPLASH!

[lacritfan]

I wanna see Haneke's SPLASH!

Mermaid gets really depressed and drunk in the tub, slices off the end of her tail. When Tom Hanks character comes home he finds her in human form with two severed bloody feet. Goes to see John Candy brother character despondent, brother character admits he raped mermaid while she was in mermaid form which explains why she did what she did.

[tavernier]

sounds more like Cronenberg's SPLASH

[swo17]

I wanna see Haneke's SPLASH!

Candy runs into Hanks unexpectedly on the street, which ends up ruining Hanks's life. Despondent, the mermaid develops a porn addiction.

[Anthony Thorne]

A few sites have picked up on this but I haven't seen any concrete answers to the following question. Ebert has just put CACHE into his 'Great Movies' listing, with his article teasingly suggesting that he's discovered a major clue to the story's mysteries. He's not talking about the infamous final shot, either, but of a moment much earlier in the film. Anyone with the disc care to have a look for what he might be referring to?

"How is it possible to watch a thriller intently two times and completely miss a smoking gun that's in full view? Yet I did. Only on my third trip through Michael Haneke's CACHE did I consciously observe a shot which forced me to redefine the film. I was not alone. I haven't read all of the reviews of the film, but after seeing that shot I looked up a lot of them, and the shot is never referred to. For that matter, no one seems to point to a conclusion that it might suggest...

...Yet there is the film's final shot, which has been so much discussed, showing two characters meeting who shouldn't know one another. What does that mean? Does it solve anything? Haneke is delighted that he constructed the shot so about half of all viewers fail to even notice them on a large canvas filled with extras. That works for him, too. Now I call your attention to the shot I missed the first time through. You will find it on the DVD, centering around 20:39. You tell me what it means. It's the smoking gun, but did it shoot anybody?"

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /100119986

Hmmm...

[Oedipax]

Now I call your attention to the shot I missed the first time through. You will find it on the DVD, centering around 20:39. You tell me what it means. It's the smoking gun, but did it shoot anybody?"

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /100119986

Hmmm...

It's the shot of the camera creeping up on a child coughing up blood in the middle of the night, then he turns and looks into the camera. It's been a while since I've seen the film start to finish, but as I recall this is the first hint of the boy in the movie - later on there are the scenes where Georges's troubling history with the boy is revealed. To me the shot didn't have anything to do with the concrete reality of the movie - it's a bit like a dream Georges might be having, or a literal transcription of the repressed memory returning from Georges's subconscious.

Here's the shot (well, the end of it):

[RobertB]

If I remember correctly from the Haneke interview on the blu-ray, he says this scene was originally , in the script, intened as a dream, but in the end it's up to the audience to decide if this really happened or not.

[The Masked Marvel]

It's the shot of the camera creeping up on a child coughing up blood in the middle of the night, then he turns and looks into the camera. It's been a while since I've seen the film start to finish, but as I recall this is the first hint of the boy in the movie - later on there are the scenes where Georges's troubling history with the boy is revealed. To me the shot didn't have anything to do with the concrete reality of the movie - it's a bit like a dream Georges might be having, or a literal transcription of the repressed memory returning from Georges's subconscious.

It's actually the second hint of the boy. There's a very brief shot of him inserted during the viewing of the second videotape - the one accompanied by the child-like drawing of a figure bleeding from the mouth.

I'm almost more interested in the shot immediately preceding the one singled out by Ebert. It begins at 00:20:03 and ends at 00:20:29. The shot consists of what appears to be the view from an upper floor of the house toward the area from which the previous video tapes have been filmed. Are we, the viewers, supposed to be seeing this shot from George's point of view? Perhaps from his bedroom? My shot-in-the-dark of a guess is that his view of the filming location is causing him to think (Or dream? He does explicitly mention "dreaming about Majid" in the visit to his mother) more and more about what the crudely-drawn bleeding figures represent. That, in turn, leads him to remember more about his past with Majid.

Regardless, I feel like the shot before the one mentioned by Ebert should be of some importance. Who knows.

EDIT: I can only hope I'm not stating the obvious, here. I just feel like Haneke plays with p.o.v. so much that pretty much anything is possible in this one...

[gokinsmen]

I had a very different reading of the film and its ending. The ending never implied to me that Pierrot had something to do with the videos/drawings. Rather, my first thought was that it was an example of "reaping what you sow." Georges made Majid and Majid's son's lives a horrible mess, even falsely accusing them of kidnapping Pierrot. Well, now Majid's son is angry enough to harm Pierrot for real. In which case, they may be arranging to meet somewhere (in private).

The second interpretation I had was far more hopeful. Haneke shows us that in spite of the tragedy between Georges and Majid, neither of their sons hold any grudge against the other. In which case, they are simply chatting to clear the air (in light of everything that has happened). This offers some hope for future generations who must confront the misdeeds of their forefathers.

Anyways, the truth of "what happened" is meant to be unknowable, and dissecting it for "clues" is silly and besides the point. In fact, that's my chief criticism of the film -- ambiguity does not equal profundity. It's so easy to mess with people heads...a random flashback here, a deep dark secret there, maybe throw in a dream sequence (omg or is it?!). All you have to do is get people wondering "how it all fits" and you'll be showered with praise. Bleh. That's not art, that's a Rubik's Cube.

[Particle Zoo]

Anyways, the truth of "what happened" is meant to be unknowable, and dissecting it for "clues" is silly and besides the point. In fact, that's my chief criticism of the film -- ambiguity does not equal profundity. It's so easy to mess with people heads...a random flashback here, a deep dark secret there, maybe throw in a dream sequence (omg or is it?!). All you have to do is get people wondering "how it all fits" and you'll be showered with praise. Bleh. That's not art, that's a Rubik's Cube.

I agree that parsing the film for clues to a concrete meaning is besides the point. However, I think Haneke has constructed somthing with rather more resonance than a 'Rubik's cube'.
I was left with the impression that the film is about how much we accept responsibility for the past, both personnel and historical and how we deal with guilt.

[gokinsmen]

I was left with the impression that the film is about how much we accept responsibility for the past, both personnel and historical and how we deal with guilt.

As far as I can tell, Haneke's insight into the matter consists of the following:

1) People don't like accepting responsibility for wrongdoing (gasp!).
2) People have trouble dealing with guilt (o rly?).

But by evoking the Algerian War (and France's ugly occupation in general), Caché suddenly gains political "significance" and critical, um, cachet. There's stuff to admire about this film, but I can't stand how every positive review seems to praise its "infinite mysteries" and "unresolved questions" and that sort of garbage. As if being mysterious and politically-themed makes it profound and politically-insightful.

[Particle Zoo]

I was left with the impression that the film is about how much we accept responsibility for the past, both personnel and historical and how we deal with guilt.

As far as I can tell, Haneke's insight into the matter consists of the following:

1) People don't like accepting responsibility for wrongdoing (gasp!).
2) People have trouble dealing with guilt (o rly?).

But by evoking the Algerian War (and France's ugly occupation in general), Caché suddenly gains political "significance" and critical, um, cachet. There's stuff to admire about this film, but I can't stand how every positive review seems to praise its "infinite mysteries" and "unresolved questions" and that sort of garbage. As if being mysterious and politically-themed makes it profound and politically-insightful.

I agree with your summation, I just think the film was well crafted. Most films could be reduced a 'well, duh' synopsis, but it's not what you do, its the way you do it.
As for reviews, Haneke can hardly be blamed for what other people write about his films.

[RobertB]

Cache is probably not Haneke's best film. I think both Benny's Video and the original Funny Games are better. And all his films are an exploration of guilt, so that's nothing new. But I still think that Haneke's rescent films are better than 99% of what gets shown at a normal cinema, so I don't mind the hype. Even if I agree with gokinsmen. I don't think Haneke intended for people to find the ultimate answer to the film. But he obviously wants the audience to think, and not just passively consume. And that's a nice idea.

[kaujot]

In Ebert's new blog post about the film, he says that Scorsese has optioned it for a US remake.

[knives]

I think both Benny's Video and the original Funny Games are better.

I'd like an explanation as I feel they're easily his two worst (barring the fact I haven't seen 71 Fragments). One is a real poor attempt to recapture what he had with The Seventh Continent and the other by his own words is just pure provocation.

[Matt]

In Ebert's new blog post about the film, he says that Scorsese has optioned it for a US remake.

Better Scorsese than Ron Howard.

I wonder what happened to Howard's version anyway. His option must have expired. On IMDb, Scorsese's got three projects listed as "in pre-production" or "announced" with another six (including Caché) listed as "in development." I won't be surprised if this remake never gets made.

[RobertB]

Fun question! Because they make me wonder what film is. Why people act as they do both in film and in real life. Because they hit me in the stomach. They are never (in my opinion) being slick or making it easy to watch them. I like The Seventh Continent as well! I have no doubth other people can explain any qualities in them better than I can. But they disturb me and make me sit straight up. Afterwards it feels like I have experienced something. They are both about living our life through media. Benny's video shows this through having a slight blue cold tint, reminding us that it's film, and through having Benny film some of the things we are watching. I remember Haneke saying something about the idea behind Benny's Video being why kids (young boys) do unexplainable violent acts. And the theory being that they have experienced so much violence through media, that they just want to find out what it is in real life.

Why do you find them his worst films?

edit added: I hade to think about this. I think I like being provoked by someone more intelligent than me. That is one thing I like with Haneke (and for example Buñuel). I like having me brain messed with. I must be weird!

[Tom Hagen]

One would think that producers would realize that even Michael Haneke failed at making an American remake of a Michael Haneke film.

[domino harvey]

Can't wait for the scene where the guy cuts his throat to the tune of "Let It Bleed," not to mention the obvious "Little Red Rooster" opportunity!