Paris, 17 October 1961
Added 10/11/2009
Secrecy, amnesia, conscience? A thriller or an allegory? Or mainly an essay on film theory?
I was prepared not to like this film. I had hated director Haneke's previous Funny Games: not mindless violence, but intelligent, sadistic, senseless violence.
The reviews here on Hidden are mixed. Some of those who expected a thriller are disappointed or even bored.
The naked story (trying to make sense without spoiling it): a wealthy Paris family is being stalked. The stalker sends tapes, which at first show only that he has watched their house. Then he sends a tape of the husband's childhood place. Then a tape leading to a certain apartment in a recognizable street. The husband has a hunch from the start, but dissembles. His lies disturb the relation with his wife. The 12 y old son has his own puberty problems which add to the thriller layer of the story.
The husband visits the apartment and claims that nobody had been there. The next tape shows him in conversation inside the apartment.
The tape story drags on a bit. Our sympathies are entirely with the wife, who is almost unreasonably reasonable, under the circumstances.
Let me say, if this was a thriller and nothing else, it would come out here with about 3 ½ stars from me: interesting enough, but not overwhelming.
But of course, say some, this is an allegory about France's guilt from the Algerian independence war.
There was a massacre in Paris on October 17 in 1961, when police killed somewhere between 200 and 300 Algerians; this happened, if I am not mistaken, after a demonstration. Sounds like Iran? Exactly!
The husband is digging into his memory and he finds ugly things. His parents had been about to adopt an Algerian boy when he himself was 6. The adoption was cancelled under ugly circumstances. The husband prefers to keep the lid down. The truth comes out in his nightmares. The final scene is possible only under sleeping medication.
The allegory interpretation says that the husband symbolizes France. He tries to forget his personal October 17.
The cinematography is based on the integration of the tapes into the story, to the extent of confusing us, certainly on purpose. We don't always know right away if we are here or there.
I am sure that generations of film students will find material for their thesis in this film.
In the end I am so fascinated that I can't avoid giving 5 stars, against my initial instinct. (And I had the added problem that my DVD was French without subtitles, so I lost some of the verbal communication, eg during the dinner party conversations, when no context helps in figuring out the conversation. It turns out that to some extent the language problem forced me to focus harder on the visual communication. Maybe one ought to watch more movies without tone, at least for the second time. If they are worth it. And one should watch only movies that are worth watching twice. Or have I said that before?)
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Cache should not be kept hidden if you are a serious cinephile
Added 6/10/2009
This intelligent drama is an excellent study on the post effects of childhood shelfishness. On the surface this superbly acted film appears to be a top notch suspense, but Haneke purposefully takes advantage of the viewer's preconception of how things should unfold in a most subtle way. This film also depicts the inner workings of a family unit with remarkable realism and verve. Haneke is the maestro and this understated classic is thought provoking in a most unique manner. Cache is an allegorical film that complels from it's prolonged opening frame to the very end.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
I like films that keep me guessing. however in order to do so well they have to actually move. This one moved a bit too slowly for my taste. I also think that it required a bit of insight into France's history with Alergia. That info was subtly delivered in context, so subtly that it could be easily missed, thus the crux of the film would be, too. It's a beautiful film to watch, and compelling enough in its story...
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
hidden is right!
Added 4/11/2009
Everything about this film is hidden: plot, motive, story, purpose.
One can surmise how the next two hours are going to go when the opening credit sequence is simply the film of a surveillance camera. That goes on for a full five minutes, and there is rarely much more action than that.
We discover very little about any of the characters or why they behave as they do. Aside from two brutalized Algerians (symbolic?), no one is even remotely sympathetic. The film does bring up, very obliquely, some nasty aspects of French history, but to absolutely no effect.
I stuck out the full two hours because the film does have a certain Gallic style, and I really wanted to find out what actually happened in the past (which seems to be the only point of the film).
I didn't.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
more like...hide this film!
Added 2/2/2009
Ok...maybe I didn't get it or maybe I did but just plainly hated it! I watched it about halfway before I gave up.
*Cache* moved too slow and focused too long on some parts (example, the video clips). Foreign films are hit or miss with me. I do understand that their cinematic styles are different than America's. However, some styles are acceptable and some are just way over the line. The story line was just too slow for my taste. The videotapes (the "spying" parts) were too long with almost no action. It was so quiet that I think viewers would jump out of their seats if a pin had dropped on the floor.
Basically, Georges and his wife and son are being videotaped outside of their home. However, you'll soon learn that the focus is really Georges and his childhood. Investigating to stop this harrassment, Georges contacts Majid, whose parents once worked for Georges' parents.
Oh, I give up. It was just nothing but jumbles!
After I stopped, I cheated by reading Amazon reviews and the summary in Wikipedia. Thank God I stopped because I would have been mad for time wasted.
0 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
Paris, 17 October 1961
Added 10/11/2009
Secrecy, amnesia, conscience? A thriller or an allegory? Or mainly an essay on film theory?
I was prepared not to like this film. I had hated director Haneke's previous Funny Games: not mindless violence, but intelligent, sadistic, senseless violence.
The reviews here on Hidden are mixed. Some of those who expected a thriller are disappointed or even bored.
The naked story (trying to make sense without spoiling it): a wealthy Paris family is being stalked. The stalker sends tapes, which at first show only that he has watched their house. Then he sends a tape of the husband's childhood place. Then a tape leading to a certain apartment in a recognizable street. The husband has a hunch from the start, but dissembles. His lies disturb the relation with his wife. The 12 y old son has his own puberty problems which add to the thriller layer of the story.
The husband visits the apartment and claims that nobody had been there. The next tape shows him in conversation inside the apartment.
The tape story drags on a bit. Our sympathies are entirely with the wife, who is almost unreasonably reasonable, under the circumstances.
Let me say, if this was a thriller and nothing else, it would come out here with about 3 ½ stars from me: interesting enough, but not overwhelming.
But of course, say some, this is an allegory about France's guilt from the Algerian independence war.
There was a massacre in Paris on October 17 in 1961, when police killed somewhere between 200 and 300 Algerians; this happened, if I am not mistaken, after a demonstration. Sounds like Iran? Exactly!
The husband is digging into his memory and he finds ugly things. His parents had been about to adopt an Algerian boy when he himself was 6. The adoption was cancelled under ugly circumstances. The husband prefers to keep the lid down. The truth comes out in his nightmares. The final scene is possible only under sleeping medication.
The allegory interpretation says that the husband symbolizes France. He tries to forget his personal October 17.
The cinematography is based on the integration of the tapes into the story, to the extent of confusing us, certainly on purpose. We don't always know right away if we are here or there.
I am sure that generations of film students will find material for their thesis in this film.
In the end I am so fascinated that I can't avoid giving 5 stars, against my initial instinct. (And I had the added problem that my DVD was French without subtitles, so I lost some of the verbal communication, eg during the dinner party conversations, when no context helps in figuring out the conversation. It turns out that to some extent the language problem forced me to focus harder on the visual communication. Maybe one ought to watch more movies without tone, at least for the second time. If they are worth it. And one should watch only movies that are worth watching twice. Or have I said that before?)
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Cache should not be kept hidden if you are a serious cinephile
Added 6/10/2009
This intelligent drama is an excellent study on the post effects of childhood shelfishness. On the surface this superbly acted film appears to be a top notch suspense, but Haneke purposefully takes advantage of the viewer's preconception of how things should unfold in a most subtle way. This film also depicts the inner workings of a family unit with remarkable realism and verve. Haneke is the maestro and this understated classic is thought provoking in a most unique manner. Cache is an allegorical film that complels from it's prolonged opening frame to the very end.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
I like films that keep me guessing. however in order to do so well they have to actually move. This one moved a bit too slowly for my taste. I also think that it required a bit of insight into France's history with Alergia. That info was subtly delivered in context, so subtly that it could be easily missed, thus the crux of the film would be, too. It's a beautiful film to watch, and compelling enough in its story...
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
