criterionforum.org

Review of the AE disc at DVDTimes.

It's fairly consistent with the author's dissatisfaction with Code Unknown.

Some theories, observations, etc. to chew on: http://leftbehinds.blogspot.com/2005/12 ... aning.html

From Lemmycaution:

Cache I didn't find at all interesting or worthwhile. I'll look for the Cache discussion to see what others gleaned from it it. But I found it an overlong, one-note exercise in boredom.
I'm always more interested in art films over Hollywood product, but for me Cache failed to hold my interest completely.
(this message will self-destruct in one week)

I felt the same way completely. Benny's Video is so much better. This one is utterly brilliant and effective.

davidhare wrote:Second, George's son seems to simply disappear from consciousness throughout much of the movie, almost as though he were a fantasy child, like the invented son in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. Did anyone else feel completely unsettled by Pierrot's lengthy absences from the screen?

Never thought about when I saw the film but you are right. Talking about the movie with friends the other day, we came to the conclusion that one detail was wrong in the script: this first name "Pierrot" the parents gave their son. In french, this name is not at all a first name that you would find in a family of their social status, upper middle-class (it could be a nickname for "Pierre" but it is very unprobable, nicknames are not being used anymore in France for decades in the social circles this famlily belongs to in the film). Above that, "Pierrot", in French, automatically brings to mind the idea of someone who is not there, an outsider or a dreamer (it comes from the character in Comeddia dell'Arte and the most Pierrot of them all is the painting "Gilles" - that has been nicknamed "Pierrot" since its creation - by Watteau, that hangs in the Louvre). It opens new roads to my understanding of the movie, a movie that made a very profound impression on most of the people how saw it in France, most probably because it speaks about things we want to keep buried. Thanks, David!

I always just figured the name "Pierrot" a reference to Godard, especially considering all the red/blood that Haneke includes in the film. It sounds weird to say someone is an outsider or a dreamer and also non-existent.

I wonder if we are supposed to make any connection between Pierrot and Pierre? Are the similarities in their names simply a coincidence? I doubt anyone as fastidious as Haneke would allow such a meaningless "coincidence" to arise, especially given the circumstances of Pierrot's suspicions with respect to Pierre and his mother.

So, Pierrot is of the impression that Anne and Pierre are having an affair, and confronts his mother. Anne denies it outright, but I think one would be hardpressed to accept her word on the point, particularly after the oddly tender moment we witnessed between she and Pierre at the restaurant. Clearly, Pierrot thinks something's going on between the two, and perhaps something more than a simple affair. Is he questioning his own paternity? In the end, we don't know - I'm not even sure if we're meant to question this - but it's potentially one of those complicating histories that remain hidden, and which could explain a great deal about one or a number of the characters. Here, the possibility emerges as only a shadow, but at the very least the question of Anne's fidelity impacts Pierrot deeply, and perhaps its something more on his mind.

And of course Pierrot disappeared for an extended period. And when Georges and Anne realize he's been absent for such a long time, they presume he's been kidnapped and again contact the police. And it's only after Pierrot goes missing that the police acknowledge that a crime may have been committed and begin to investigate the tapes/drawings.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it just did.

Hollywood Reporter wrote:Ron Howard may unlock an American version of "Cache" for Universal.

Brian Grazer will produce the remake for Imagine, which acquired the rights from Plum Pictures, with Howard eyeing to direct. Plum's Celine Rattray will exec produce, along with Randy Simon, and Plum's Galt Niederhoffer and Daniela Taplin Lundberg will co-produce.

Michael Haneke wrote and helmed the French original, which starred Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche as a couple who find increasingly violent videos on their porch. Haneke won best director prize at Cannes in 2005.

Sony Classics released it Stateside late that year and the pic, also called "Hidden," went on to earn $3.6 million at the domestic box office. Universal version, to be set in the U.S., is expected to amp up the suspense and consequences.

Forget the fact that Haneke's "Cache" is one of the most intelligent, unsettling thrillers ever; how exactly is our multi-faceted Hollywood hack, Ron Howard, going to "amp up the suspense and consequences"?

May be he'll get Freddy Krugger to personally deliver the parcels to said couple's doorstep.

a.khan wrote:Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it just did.

Hollywood Reporter wrote:Ron Howard may unlock an American version of "Cache" for Universal.

Universal version, to be set in the U.S., is expected to amp up the suspense and consequences.

Forget the fact that Haneke's "Cache" is one of the most intelligent, unsettling thrillers ever; how exactly is our multi-faceted Hollywood hack, Ron Howard, going to "amp up the suspense and consequences"?

I had heard that Ron Howard had purchased the rights to remake this film around the time it hit theaters and was quite appalled...

Ron Howard will not only give away the mystery, but he will reveal it all in the first shot when the culprit leaves the videotape on the front porch. Okay, *maybe* he's smart enough to avoid that... but I'm definitely not holding my breath (that I'm doing for Haneke's own remake of Funny Games)

bottom line: Hollywood disgusts me.

This is a joke, right?

I wouldn't mind hearing dvdane defend Ron Howard on this.

All Ron-Ron needs to do is cast Nic Cage as Georges, and we might have ourselves this year's WICKER MAN.

It's astounding to me. Last year's best film to be directed by America's absolute worst director. Forget Nic Cage. It'll be Tom Hanks, and you know it. This makes me wanna barf.

Let's not all jump the gun, we all know how committed Ron Howard is to exploring the American reaction to the lasting impact of the Algerian war, which is why this remake is so crucial and well-considered.

Granted, Ron Howard is a mediocre director at best, I can pretty much guarantee they will change the subject matter for an American audience. And to be certain there is plenty of material in terms of American race relations that a remake isn't entirely pointless. Regardless of how good or bad Howard's version might be, it will at least hopefully be void of the self-reflexive, mannered chin stroking "brilliance" of Haneke's version which in my opinion only served to distance the audience even further from the story, rather than bringing them in.

Yes, I guess you can count me as one of the dissenters of the original.

Has this been confirmed yet or is this merely gossip? Because I honestly don't see the point of a remake whatsoever. Any remake for that matter. It's a complete waste of time and money.

Antoine Doinel wrote: ... it will at least hopefully be void of the self-reflexive, mannered chin stroking "brilliance" of Haneke's version which in my opinion only served to distance the audience even further from the story, rather than bringing them in.

So, this makes me wonder why a film must be able to bring the audience into the story (or "draw them closer" or whatever phrase we choose to use) in order to be considered successful? Or maybe the question is, why exactly a film cannot be considered to be of high-quality if it chooses to severely distance the audience from the story?

Andre Jurieu wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote: ... it will at least hopefully be void of the self-reflexive, mannered chin stroking "brilliance" of Haneke's version which in my opinion only served to distance the audience even further from the story, rather than bringing them in.

So, this makes me wonder why a film must be able to bring the audience into the story (or "draw them closer" or whatever phrase we choose to use) in order to be considered successful? Or maybe the question is, why exactly a film cannot be considered to be of high-quality if it chooses to severely distance the audience from the story?

I guess it comes down to whether you believe art is created to engage an audience on some level or not. But the flipside to your question is, why bother telling the story if you're going to distance yourself from the audience? Why should the audience then decide to care? And especially in a film like Cache which raises very interesting moral and political themes, if the director doesn't care about involving the audience and the audience is then pushed outside the lives of the characters, isn't it a failure?

I guess my main objection with Cache was that Haenke failed both the genre exercise and political exercise he went to pains to investigate within his film. The "thriller" portion of the film is obscured by the film's politics and vice versa. Personally, I never found that either genre or theme enriched each other - and they don't have to - but in this case I thought it split the film into two areas that raised more questions than answers. Certainly, that isn't the first time this has happned in film, and I don't expect a line drawn from Plot A to B to C but I found Haneke's film to almost frustratingly choose to fuck with the audience for no reason than because he could. It didn't make the film better in my opinion, or more fascinating. I wasn't particularly impressed that Haneke flaunted genre or film "rules" and after the film was over, thought it was an act of arrogance rather than artistry.

than you must hate Bunuel (because he often "just fucked with the audience just because he could", and all of his films raise more questions than answers)... although (I believe) Bunuel has a universal appeal due to his humor.

anyway, back to Cache... I thought that this film was great because it left me with a bunch of questions that I had to try and answer myself. It's sort of the antithesis of Spielbergian/hollywood storytelling values that I admired about it. plus, in a situation such as that presented in Cache, it is likely that no answer would ever be provided in 'real life'. Just as there is no one answer that can explain, or resolve, the political/racial tensions (that happen everywhere on Earth where man inhabits) hinted at in the film. It's not film with a message, just an observation (that then has to be digested by its viewers and transformed in their minds into a message).

senators wrote:Has this been confirmed yet or is this merely gossip? Because I honestly don't see the point of a remake whatsoever. Any remake for that matter. It's a complete waste of time and money.

Done Deal Pro wrote:Title: Cache
Logline: A couple finds increasingly violent videos on their porch.
Studio: Universal Pictures
Prod. Co: Imagine Entertainment Plum Pictures
Genre: Drama Thriller
Logged: 2/16/2007
More: Remake of French film. Imagine's Brian Grazer will produce.
Randy Simon and Plum Pictures' Celine Rattray will executive produce.
Plum's Galt Niederhoffer & Daniela Taplin Lundberg will co-produce.
Ron Howard will possibly direct. Universal's Peter Cramer and Imagine's
Karen Kehela Sherwood & David Bernardi will oversee.

the horror...the horror...

miless wrote:than you must hate Bunuel (because he often "just fucked with the audience just because he could", and all of his films raise more questions than answers)... although (I believe) Bunuel has a universal appeal due to his humor.

anyway, back to Cache... I thought that this film was great because it left me with a bunch of questions that I had to try and answer myself. It's sort of the antithesis of Spielbergian/hollywood storytelling values that I admired about it. plus, in a situation such as that presented in Cache, it is likely that no answer would ever be provided in 'real life'. Just as there is no one answer that can explain, or resolve, the political/racial tensions (that happen everywhere on Earth where man inhabits) hinted at in the film. It's not film with a message, just an observation (that then has to be digested by its viewers and transformed in their minds into a message).

I don't hate Bunuel and I certainly like many films that fuck with audience expectation. But in those cases I felt it served the film as a greater whole where here I felt it just diminished the overall impact. I just felt that Haneke circled his issues rather than taking them on, hiding behind the guise of a thriller.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I guess it comes down to whether you believe art is created to engage an audience on some level or not.

I certainly do believe that art should engage an audience on some level (but I'll also be clear that I don't think that is the only point of art), but creating distance from the story and engaging the audience are not necessarily opposing forces. I would say that Haneke's films constantly engage his audience to a greater degree by creating a certain level of distance from his story.

Antoine Doinel wrote:But the flipside to your question is, why bother telling the story if you're going to distance yourself from the audience?

I would assume because the artist doesn't place a priority on his actual narrative (and maybe not even the specific arc of his/her characters or the resolution of his narrative), but rather chooses to focus on an issue, topic, question, concern that the artist is invested in personally, or is greatly interested by, and wants to explore in greater detail by using the basic framework of a narrative.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Why should the audience then decide to care?

I can't really answer why anyone else should care, but I know I care in these types of projects because I'm also interested in exploring the same topics and issues as the artist. I'm willing to place distance between myself and the situation on display because I'm interested in exploring the bigger picture rather than the specific outcomes of the narratives. The distance allows the experience to become more analytical rather than overly emotional. It allows me to distance myself from my own immediate reaction and concentrate on the overall significance of the events unfolding before in front of my eyes.

By the way, this isn't to say that Haneke films don't elicit a severe emotional response from me.

Antoine Doinel wrote:And especially in a film like Cache which raises very interesting moral and political themes, if the director doesn't care about involving the audience and the audience is then pushed outside the lives of the characters, isn't it a failure?

I actually believe Haneke does care about involving the audience and allowing them an intimate view of the lives of his characters - hence his frequent use of first-person perspective, which allows us to experience important moments with the same emotional reaction as his characters, and also displayed by the intimate details within the performances he is able to coax out of his actors.

Aside from that point, if the question is whether we can explore moral and political themes after being asked to observe at a greater distance than the characters themselves, I would say that it is very possible, and I quite often have a greater understanding of these political and moral issues once that distance is established. Quite simply, characters and their personal plight don't always matter when examining an issue in greater depth (of course, sometimes they do matter). Personally, engaging the viewer and identifying with the characters don't always have to be correlated. It becomes a question of adjusting perspective and the explorations of the assumptions we take with us while we watching the lives of others, which I think is something Haneke is constantly exploring within his films.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I guess my main objection with Cache was that Haenke failed both the genre exercise and political exercise he went to pains to investigate within his film. The "thriller" portion of the film is obscured by the film's politics and vice versa.

This is kind of assuming that Haneke had some concrete objective that once measured would allow him to declare the exercise a success. In my mind the thriller and the politics are meant to be obscured by one another, and I doubt the thriller genre exercise was even supposed to be a success, but merely function as a method of delivery.

Haneke isn't distancing himsef from the audience. He's just not spoonfeeding them.

My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus.

This is what makes it so hard to believe he would sell the rights for a Hollywood remake. I was already sceptical about the remake of Funny Games, but this is just beyond comprehension. I still don't believe it, but the mere thought of it is enough.

Anyway I still don't see how this story would work in the United States . The Algerian war and the Paris massacres seem so deeply steeped in French culture. And that whole metaphor was such a big part of the film.

senators wrote:Haneke isn't distancing himsef from the audience. He's just not spoonfeeding them.

My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus.

This is what makes it so hard to believe he would sell the rights for a Hollywood remake. I was already sceptical about the remake of Funny Games, but this is just beyond comprehension. I still don't believe it, but the mere thought of it is enough.

Anyway I still don't see how this story would work in the United States . The Algerian war and the Paris massacres seem so deeply steeped in French culture. And that whole metaphor was such a big part of the film.

they'll probably change it to something involving Iraq... or Saudi Arabia... or Afganistan... or the Palastine/israeli conflict... or just drop the whole politics/race issue and go with a thriller about a family who receives video tapes (so essentially NetFlix).

Andre, thanks for the great responses. I think what it ultimately comes down to is the fact that the way Haneke structures his film will work for those who are willing to engage the film in a way that few film audiences know how to. Given the huge critical response and the acclaim from this thread as well - ie. intelligent film audiences - I can't deny that Cache was an important film for many people. But for me, though I could see the machinations of what Haneke was doing, it didn't impress me and the story and the politics weren't compelling to me nor was Haneke's obscuring the genre with the theme and vice versa.

I don't think we'll agree on whether or not Haneke's film is a "success" and it's probably unfair to make the argument and judge the film in those terms. But your response, more than any of the others, allowed me to see what everyone else was finding so fascinating about the film.

Ron Howard might be remaking this.

](*,)