Review of Code Unknown (2000) by Bryan P — 17 Mar 2008

[i]Code Unknown.

[/i]dir. Michael Haneke.

[i]Code Unknown[/i] creates a network through the telling of four journeys upon which a number of individuals cross paths. None of the arcs in the story are related by anything beyond circumstance and the film demonstrates a certain coldness about life spent primarily amongst strangers.

Juliette Binoche plays Anna, an actress who is shown in several scenes in the process of making films. These films-within-film are occasionally jarring because one forgets temporarily that it isn't her real person in the scene. She is merely playing a part which isn't all that different from the parts we all play through the daily course of our lives. She is married to Georges (Thierry Neuvic) a photographer who captures images of carnage and dispair in Afghanistan among other hot locales. His brother Jean (Alexandre Hamidi) comes to see Georges in Paris to escape what he considers to be the deadening toil of working on a farm with his father. Jean is introduced when he meets up with Anna and explains his situation. She buys him some food and he casually throws the wrapper at a woman named Maria (Luminita Gheorghiu) begging along the side of a building. This draws the attention of Amadou (Ona Lu Yenke) who attempts to convince Jean of apologizing to the woman. This altercation ultimately leads to both men and the woman hauled off for questioning with the upshot being that Maria is deported.

The film follows the paths of the central characters as they go about their daily routines. The film is cut up into blocks separated by a black screen. We are given tiny snippets coupled with longer scenes that convey a real sense of isolation that each character must endure throughout the course of the day. Certainly they engage with others and enjoy the benefits of friends and family but they never really connect with anyone outside their immediate and familiar circles. What Haneke does here is accentuate this core loneliness by exploding a number of themes that relate directly to the nature of socialization. Issues of class distinction and race are brought into focus through various scenes. We catch the characters in the middle of a conversation as if we were eavesdropping on their various communications.

One scene that deals directly with class disparities as Anna is riding the subway. A working class yob tries to chat her up but she tries to ignore him going so far as to moving to a different seat. He pursues her and chastises her for being upper class, finally abandoning the project only after spitting in her face. She bursts out crying out of either exasperation or desperation and the scene ends. Another scene shows Anna in a swimming pool with a man who is not her husband. At first this seems merely like a typical scene of Anna relaxing with a secret boyfriend. I suppose one is supposed to know it's merely a movie she is filming but it works better if that is forgotten. Suddenly a child manages to climb onto a ledge looking out over the street twenty stories below. He is eventually rescued by the man and soon it is made clear they are making a film. This scene suggests the way danger can be induced through the most rudimentary playful instinct. The kid simply wanted a balloon that was attached and floating just out of reach. Perhaps it's a commentary on the travails inherent in striving toward any particular end. Regardless, it's a telling scene in a film replete with countless more.

Overall, this film is a meditation on how difficult it is to be heard in the course of the day. Amadou works with deaf children and they play games where one stands in front of the class and acts out either an emotional state or a circumstance. Jean's father doesn't speak, and Amadou himself struggles to find the words when attempting to explain what he saw Jean do. There are many things unfinished--the work on Jean's father's farm, Maria's house, the various films that are in the process of being completed. The stories have no beginning or end. They are mere fragments that tell a particular part of a story. The characters are merely caught up in the tyranny of their daily lives with no heroism, no grand gestures, nothing dramatic happening that is they typical tactic at handling dramatic characterizations. In many ways this film feels like a documentary albeit one without the need to badger the audience into a particular stance. Each part intersects with the others to introduce the audience to an arrangement of characters that cannot be fully known or explained. Each one is complex, indecipherable, always distanced from even their closest confidants.