Weekly Film Symposium #3: 1st Response

Rating: 2/5

That was a very well articulated post, unfortunately I am going to be a huge disppointment. Please remember that everything that I say in the post is excluding you. You explained your view's very well and I don't argue with them. So if I generalize, remember, I am not aiming those generalizations at you.

With that being said, this film for me was a complete failure. When people out in the movie world accuse people like us (self-admitted film snobs) of being pretentious this is the kind of movie they use to prove their point. For me, this movie is completely pretentious and it seems like the only reason it was made was for pretentious people to pat each other on the back. Sure the style is very unique and unconventional, I will give it that, but being unconventional doesn't automatically make your film good.

I must say that I was hugely disappointed because the premise and the style are both very intriguing. However, the plot is ridiculously dull and the style becomes very old after staring at nothing for long periods of time. Yes, I realize what the director was trying to accomplish, but for me, he wasn't even close. I do applaud him for being original, because we certainly don't have enough of that these days, but if I wanted to, I could go outside and stare at my neighbors house for two hours and get the same effect.

I also applaud the acting. Juliette Binoche was good like she always is, and Daniel Auteuil was also very solid. I understand that this movie is very technically sharp but that, to me, doesn't make a movie. For me, it's combining great technical work with an engaging and entertaining story. I, like you, watch and view film as art. But at the same time, I can't appreciate art when it's dull and offers me nothing. This film was insanely dull and uneventful for me and I found myself not caring about any of the characters. I understand the ambiguity and that's not where the film loses me. I love ambiguity, it's one of my favorite elements in film and I wish it was more prevelant in film. This film lost me when halfway through I thought to myself, " I don't care." And I didn't. I believe it's the film's job to make me care and it couldn't do that for me.

I don't mean to be insulting toward you at all, and if I have been in any way I sincerely apologize. But that's why I wanted to do this with you, because we are both film snobs (proudly) and we are both mature people with strong view points. And if I were to say any of this on an IMDB board, they would just throw the whole "You just didn't understand it" thing out there. And that bothers me. Because I did understand it, I just didn't like it.

Weekly Film Symposium #3: Cache

Cache - 2005 - written and directed by Michael Haneke

My rating: 3 1/2 stars

I chose this film because of the critical acclaim it had received (Sight & Sound's top film of 2006, nominated  for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, etc.).  While that may not be the best reason to choose a film, it was the reason behind this choice.

Cache is about a French couple, Georges and Anne Laurent (played by Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche), who begin receiving mysterious videotapes on their doorstep.  These tapes usually contain nothing but hours of a camera pointed at their front door, but the characters begin to feel more and more oppressed and paranoid about the nature of these tapes, fearing someone dangerous is stalking them and their son.  The police can do nothing until an actual attempt at violence is made so Georges takes it upon himself to resolve the situation.  Majid, the son of an Algerian couple who used to work for Georges' parents, becomes the prime suspect.  Gradually, a past conflict between Georges and Majid is brought to light, and Georges' suspicion of Majid ultimately leads to tragic consequences.

First off, Cache is a very interesting, if not entirely successful film.  It is very ambitious in terms of straying from traditional narrative forms, and it possesses a high degree of ambiguity, forcing the viewer to actively engage with the film or fall by the wayside and lose interest.  There are almost no explicit conclusions made in the film; nearly everything is left for the viewer to decide for his or herself.  Of course, this ambiguity can be disorienting, and even after the film had finished, I wasn't sure what had just happened.  In the case of this film, I wasn't put off by that ambiguity; it forced me to rethink things in order to better understand the film.

One of the most obvious ways the film differs from traditional cinema is in the cinematography.  Haneke, the director, makes some very interesting stylistic choices.  Because the film often incorporates the mysterious tapes the Laurents receive into the actual film itself, there are a good number of very long takes from a fixed camera.  I can see how this could become boring for viewers, but I experienced a certain tension.  The longer the shot lasted the more I expected something to happen.  As that expectation and tension grew when nothing happened, I began to understand, to a degree, what Georges and Anne must have felt.  Another thing I liked about the long takes is that a lot of dialogue takes place off screen during those takes.  There's a disconcerting juxtaposition as the dialogue takes place in the more immediate present, yet we're stuck looking at a mysterious recording of the past.  Most films place the viewer in a heightened state, where the camera helps direct the eye and sounds come through loud and clear, and the viewer is more present than is otherwise possible in real life.  Cache does away with the viewer's omniscience.  This makes for fascinating theoretical discussion, though perhaps not a terribly entertaining film.

Cache, French for "hidden," has a tremendous amount of significance as the title of the film.  I want to discuss a few of the significant aspects of the title in relation to the film.

• The most superficial and immediate aspect of the title's significance is the hidden camera filming the Laurents.  It provides the impetus for the story and the central conflict.
• The hidden past factors significantly into the film, primarily the childhood relationship between Georges and Majid.  Gradually that past returns to the present, but it is hidden for most of the film, coming out only in brief moments like Georges' disturbing dreams and the small portions of his past he shares with Anne.  Though apparently hidden, the past yields an incredible amount of influence on all involved, and it is the past that fuels Georges' unyielding conviction that Majid is responsible for the tapes.  Ultimately, the hidden tragedy of the past results in the tragedy of the present.
• While the hidden past is perhaps the most significant force behind the characters' behavior, there is much about the present that is also hidden.  What remains hidden in the present affects many things but perhaps more than anything the marital relationship between Georges and Anne.  The tapes terrify both of them and cause them to fear for the safety of their family, but neither is truly able to include the other in their suffering.  Their inability to come together in a time of crisis drives a wedge between them.  When Anne opens up to Georges and confronts him about keeping things from her, he fails to bridge the distance between them.  He appears cold and aloof, yet in another scene he breaks down alone in the kitchen and shows that he is not unfeeling and unaffected by everything.  Despite having someone to share his pain with, Georges chooses to keep both his knowledge of the past and his present feelings hidden, and he tries to resolve everything on his own rather than bring those hidden things to light.
• Another aspect of the hidden present regards Anne and her relationship with the family friend Pierre.  Anne's son, Pierrot, accuses her of having an affair with him.  This is never explicitly confirmed nor denied in the film, but one thing is for certain:  Anne cannot find any comfort or reassurance from Georges.  There is a startling lack of emotional and physical intimacy in their marriage.  There is very clearly a distance between the two of them, one that had surely existed for some time before the arrival of the tapes.  Did Anne turn elsewhere for the connection that was missing with her husband?  I cannot say either way.  
• Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the hidden present is Georges' and Anne's son Pierrot.  The final shot of the film shows Pierrot speaking to Majid's son.  We're not sure if it takes place in the past or in the present timeline of the film, and we're kept far enough away in the shot that there is no way to know what passed between the two of them.  Did Pierrot know Majid's son?  Did Majid's son tell Pierrot that Anne was having an affair?  This is one of the hidden things I wish were revealed.  Alas.

Overall, I found Cache to be an interesting film, both in terms of form and content.  I read some message board posts about how the entire film is allegorical about the relationship between the French and Algerian immigrants, but I'll let others talk about that elsewhere.  The film never really struck an emotional connection with me, but I still enjoyed it.  There are a couple scenes that were really amazing:  one incredibly effective and shocking scene of violence (I was taken aback by it, and the sound design, i.e. the gurgling, was gross and awesome at the same time) and an awesome shot of Majid's son and Georges in the elevator.  While I cannot recommend this film to everyone, especially not casual moviegoers, I will recommend it to anyone willing to watch an ambitious and nontraditional film.

Was this long enough to make up for my sloth in writing it?

Just a few things...

1. A couple days ago I found There Will Be Blood in the $5 movie bin at Wal-Mart.  I immediately figured that someone had misplaced it.  When I saw another copy of the film, I started to wonder.  I found one of those price scanner things and quickly scanned it.  Price:  $3.00.  I was shocked but decided to not question Wal-Mart's generosity.  I purchased the film.
2. Other $5 films I found at Borders:  12 Angry Men (such an incredible film) and Much Ado About Nothing (just for Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson's performances).
3. 500 Days of Summer passed the second viewing test.  The second viewing test - I just named it - is the test given to a film that I really enjoyed the first time I saw it to see if it holds up just as well or better upon a second viewing.  Some of my favorite films like Eternal Sunshine and Children of Men aced the second viewing test.  It is during the second viewing that the film undergoes the increased scrutiny that comes once the initial experience of discovering a film's plot, characters, and themes has passed.  In the case of 500 Days of Summer I was a little worried that the second viewing wouldn't be as good as the first.  I really liked it the first time, and the film had been on my mind ever since I saw it.  I couldn't shake myself of certain images or lines or even the songs on the soundtrack.  When I saw that it would be opening in Provo, I knew immediately that I would have to see it again.  I rounded up some friends and made it happen.  And I'm glad I did.  I have to say that my second viewing was just as good as the first, maybe even a little better.  I realize the film is not perfect and would probably change a few things, but I cannot help but love the characters.  Tom and Summer are such well-crafted characters, kudos to the writing but especially the acting, and I took advantage of the second viewing to try and really understand them and why they did what they did, said what they did, and felt what they did.  This allowed me to experience an even greater empathetic connection with them, more so than what I think is the more superficial "girl done me wrong" connection that really came across after the first viewing.  I really wish I had this film on DVD and could watch it again because I feel like there is still a lot to be gleaned from it.  Fantastic film.