Review of Caché (2005) by Justin M — 24 May 2009

I won't deny that Haneke is a master of atmosphere and filmmaking craft in general. That being said, I don't see eye to eye with the messages he tries to send behind his movies, and in this case, I feel like he uses his theme to weasel his way out of a situation he writes himself into.

In the same way Funny Games looks at violence in movies, Cache looks at the techniques of "thriller" movies and what causes us to keep watching. Haneke uses all these techniques in the film, but in the end backs off fulfilling his promises by never giving the audience a satisfactory ending.

The way he uses these techniques but wryly backs off and asks "why does it matter" is a little too smug for my taste. He needs to realize that the entire reason people are watching are because he sets these questions up.

I know he is intrigued by the idea of catharsis, but I don't believe the way he denies it reveals anything groundbreaking or new. Getting past the "filmmaking" aspect, we have a story (spoilers ahead) in which Majid is fucked over by Georges when he is 6 and forty years later, these events come up again.

But I don't look at Georges the same way that Haneke does. Frankly, he sets up the story quite weakly. Georges is supposed to apologize or feel badly for something he did as a selfish 6 year old? If anything, Majid needs to grow up and move on with his life (if he was sending the tapes).

If instead it was his son sending the tapes, then he is far more responsible for his father's suicide then Georges was. Both were happy to live their lives separately without his interference, which only drudges up the past.

Basically I'm a firm believer in "shit happens," and you move on. Bearing a grudge for forty years and letting it drive you to the point of suicide is irrational and ridiculous, yet Haneke clearly wants us to feel sympathy for Majid and anger at the unapologetic bourgeois Georges.

The details of the story fall down upon closer examination though- if Majid sent the tapes, then he is a moron for killing himself because some guy won't apologize and not being able to let this shit go.

If it was his son, then the bathroom argument makes little sense because the son is more responsible for Majid's death than Georges. As does the scene when Georges visits Majid because he clearly shows him a picture relating to their childhood and Majid has no reaction, nor does he react to Georges' questions about tapes.

I think if a strange man from my past randomly showed up on my doorstep, I'd at least want to figure out why he was there rather than smirk and speak in veiled insults. In that scene, you can see Haneke trying desperately to play both sides- make the scene work in the context of Majid not knowing what is going on but still allowing the first-time viewer to ask the question of whether Majid is involved.

Also there is the question of Pierrot's involvement- was he complicit as the last scene suggests? If so, how does he get involved? Some kid walks up to him at school and tells him some shit about his Dad and he just believes it? Thinking about the plot too hard reveals too many holes.

Of course, these are issues that could be cleared up with better exposition, but Haneke's anti-climactic bullshit prevents that from happening. The relationship stuff wasn't especially interesting either.

There are problems between the wife and husband- so? Haneke scratches the surface of everything he brings up and never delves deeper. Georges, IMO, acts rationally for the most part in that he is scared and trying to protect his family, while attempting to placate a wife who is getting more and more scared by the second.

Again, I won't deny that he is a master of atmosphere and craft but I haven't seen a masterpiece yet that really floored me. Then again, he did just win the Palme d'Ore so here's hoping the White Ribbon lives up to the hype.