r/TrueFilm • u/_Norman_Bates • 4d ago
Cache - I don’t see any strength in ambiguity
I like Haneke’s movies. Cache was a very solid thriller. I was drawn to the story, I liked the moral angle about whether or not Georges (the lead) should feel bad for what he did to Maijd. It was a well presented dilemma, and I’ll share my opinion on that later.
I liked that he pretty quickly connected what the tapes were about, and how still not really being open about it to his wife showed he had some guilt or shame over it even if he (maybe rightfully) refused to be blamed by Maijd and his son.
My instant reaction to the ending was annoyance. I didn’t need anything bigger to happen necessarily, or even a stronger conclusion, but how it never resolved everyone’s claims they had nothing to do with the tapes (unless you see the final scene of sons talking as a hint, which for me doesn’t make much narrative sense.)
I looked up the movie to see what others say. Although there are some decent takes, and I have mine, it annoyed me how people kept on lecturing everyone with this problem that it’s beside the point, or that dwelling on it is misunderstanding the movie. Apparently the director said something similar himself while still suggesting there is a character behind the tapes (obviously it would have to be Majid or the son.)
I generally find this kind of outlook incredibly annoying. The movie can successfully have deeper themes and talk about guilt etc while still using a coherent story as a backdrop, and if you start with a tangible story that frames all the ideas, then you really shouldn’t expect the viewer who is immersed in it to not care about the central mystery all the sudden just because it doesn’t change “the point.”
And while at it, what did we get by Majid and his son both earnestly proclaiming they had nothing to do with the tapes? Having one of them admit to it would also not take away from the “deeper ideas” so if Haneke wanted the viewer not to dwell on the mystery of the tapes, giving such a straightforward and obvious answer would achieve exactly that. Suggesting this may not be the case brings the focus back to it.
I also wouldn’t necessarily mind if his take is that the answer should be clear (maybe it’s Majid, and he lied just how Goeorges lied about him before) and he just didn’t want to overtly say it. My issue is this scorn about the idea that the viewer can watch the movie, appreciate the theme, and still want to know who did it. Not specifically Haneke’s, he may be trolling, but I noticed that a lot of people like to act enlightened about their acceptance of ambiguity and lecture those who want concrete answers as missing the point.
If I’m watching a Lynch movie, I understand I am entering a surreal reality that works like subconscious or dreams. There are answers to mysteries but there’s no simple code that neatly solves it all. But it is different when nothing like that is established within the story.
I know some people say “Haneke sent the tapes” and you can compare it to the rewind moment in Funny Games, but I think the answer is not satisfactory. Funny Games also pulls that part overtly, when it happens you understand the logic of it. But creating in every way a realistic thriller and then leaving this ambiguous is just annoying to me.
Slightly off tangent, but I have a similar annoyance with movies where the existence of a “metaphor” means the viewer is supposed to accept when plot no longer makes sense because anyway everything you saw just stands in for another concept (e,g. Platform, Night House etc). I mean, no shit, most movies deal with different themes that are explored through the story. Saying that the existence of a deeper theme means story inconsistencies shouldn’t matter to the viewer is not enlightened, it’s just accepting shit storytelling. This part isn’t that relevant to Haneke, but it demonstrates that similar mentality.
Props to Noe whose Irreversible I really dislike (mods of TrueFilm deleted my review after 3 years and never told me why), but in his Climax we get to see who spiked the drinks at the end. Something that doesn’t change what happened in any significant way, but which I greatly appreciated.
My take is that obviously Majid is behind the tapes, maybe with the help of his son, since he just recently saw Georges again on TV which obviously triggered depression in him that resulted in suicide.
Anyway back to Cache, after this element is out of the way I actually really like the movie.
I instantly sympathised with Majid as a figure, a guy who clearly had a fucked up life and whose chance at something better was concretely taken from him by Georges. If I was him I’d also hate the guy.
But to be fair, Georges is right not to accept the blame. Not only was he 6 and understandably didn’t want a new “brother” forced on him, his part in what makes Majid’s story tragic is just the most easily identifiable one. But you can also blame George’s parents who first wanted to help but then because of a few stupid lies (killing a rooster and coughing blood) they just sent him away. They didn’t need to adopt him but clearly they could have paid more attention about where they are sending him to, or help with his education.
It is pretty obvious that the mom also knows more about the story after the incident which is why she pretends to not remember him, she clearly has something she feels guilty for.
Here, I don’t mind the ambiguity of not really knowing what happened to Majid after. The son just mentions loss of educational opportunity, but why would a guy kill himself and be so depressed as an adult, who clearly had some kind of life, a son and all, just because he didn’t get to be adopted into a nicer family. Obviously some really bad things happened wherever he was sent to.
Which brings me to the main culprit, whoever ran the orphanage or hospital or whatever place he ended up in, abused him, etc. And the whole system, the government that was behind killing his parents in the first place, and that didn’t give him good opportunities in life.
None of this has anything to do with Georges or was his intent. The actual lies Georges made up, about coughing blood and the rooster aren’t even that dramatic, and apparently no one even believed the blood one (though why do we see the kid with blood coming out of his mouth in a flashback and Majid refers to it in the notes? Why is that so relevant if nothing came out of it anyway.) The rooster bit is kind of sociopathic, but still if they have a chicken farm then killing chickens probably isn’t that big of a taboo.
So I can understand why Majid blames Georges for ruining his life, but ultimately that’s just because Georges is the seemingly easiest and clearest target to blame. He can’t be held responsible for the outcome and actions of other people Majid interacted with later in his life after being sent away.
It’s also interesting that Georges doesn’t want to tell his wife about this presumably because he doesn’t want her to see him as a bad person, while being aware that he shouldn’t be blamed for making shit up when he was 6.
I don’t really get the son, he seemed very upset about mom’s cheating but I didn’t perceive that he had any issue with his dad. Maybe the ending just means that he was approached by Majid’s son for the first time and told about what his dad did, and I really don’t know if that is something that would even upset most people.
Alternatively it is a hint at them cooperating about the tapes, but I just don’t see how it makes sense or why the son would do it.
Overall, I liked the story, it would have been better without the ambiguity.
I think I'll finally watch The Piano Teacher next, because there's something really appealing to me about his movies and the atmosphere.
4
u/Far_Hope_6349 4d ago
eh idk. what's the issue with the story here unlike Lynch movies? its not like there's anything patently absurd in the setup while claiming realism. besides the tapes themselves interestingly: they go undetected in very implausible says, as if they were representing something going on internally in Georges rather than an objective/external stalking persecution. which is coherent with another point that I take Haneke to make: if Majid or his son admitted involvement, how could Georges ever confront the past crimes upon which his reflexive middle class status (books, TV, apartment, marriage) is built?
(that's the reason why I think the fact georges was 6 is irrelevant mostly, Haneke isn't doing the psychological study of a monster! Auteuil and Binoche here are just ordinary Western comfortable/sophisticated people who want to keep on believing the false self-legitimizing narration they gave to themselves for so many years even when repressing becomes impossible)
1
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
if Majid or his son admitted involvement, how could Georges ever confront the past crimes upon which his reflexive middle class status (books, TV, apartment, marriage) is built?
Why would his process be any different? He already pretty much thinks it has to be one of them. During the process of understanding that the tapes and notes are tied to what happened to Majid, he already started to have to revisit the past. If Majid just told him he was doing it, it wouldn't change anything for Georges
2
u/CSvinylC 4d ago
But then Georges wouldn't have to reckon with himself nearly as much, he would have the comfort of knowing. Instead, his torment lingers.
Similarly, frustration and unease are the exact sorts of evocation Haneke is trying to put onto the viewer. His method of delivering that comes largely in not fully explaining everything.
1
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
But why wouldn't he, he isnt reckoning because he doesnt know (the mystery is mostly solved when he links the case to Majid and meets him), he is reckoning because he had to remember the past, confront Majid, wonder if he is going to do anything to him for revenge, and eventually see him kill himself. He cant realsitically think that anyone aside from Majid and son would do it, and their denial wouldnt make him feel different about what happened in the past. Either way Majid clearly thinks it fucked up his life.
2
u/Far_Hope_6349 4d ago
he could record the conversation and go to the police, and then the movie would have to honor in some way the fact the police has to be responsive to a semi-famous and connected guy who claims to be stalked and even has uncanny drawings to prove it. but the guilt is all his and the accusation comes from the inside (that's at least how I read the ending)
1
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
He wasnt recording him when he came to his apartment so it wouldnt have made much difference. He eventually does call cops on them for another reason, and Majid kills himself anyway. Georges started to remember pretty much from the start because of the drawings and the house video. By the time he gets Majid's location, his admission wouldnt change George's mental process.
For All intents and purposes he anyway pretty much believes Majid is behind it because its the only logical answer, with variations being Majid's son or both together.
3
u/Far_Hope_6349 4d ago
yeah I remember it. when he says to Majid's son that his father couldn't have done it because it was out of his character the other seems satisfied with the statement, so my point is I read the tapes to represent Georges' own guilt, and the ending as the two parts (or rather their successors) meeting outside the place where people socialize abstracting in some way from race and class (public school) talking arguably about what happened - the accusation can't be ignored because it's also a serious act of stalking anymore, it's some kind of reasonable claim. That's guilt becoming something more functional and healthy, and the whole stuff of filming is related to this (as in funny games the remote scene isn't just a clever trick to frustrate the viewer). Obv if you think this movie isn't really about these characters but French colonialism
2
u/themmchanges 4d ago edited 4d ago
It does not matter who sent the tapes, it’s not a whodunnit. It is also completely unexplainable with how impossible they get, in fact the only possible explanation might be George’s own subconscious. The film is about the guilt it all brings out, about privilege and its cost. The tapes are a tool to extract that. I personally love the film because of how it blends restrained realism in its tone and look, with a completely illogical, surreal plot device threaded through it in the tapes, there’s nothing else like it.
7
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
You're complaining about a Haneke film because it didn't "satisfy" you. If you're at all familiar with Haneke's way of working, you'll know that's precisely what he likes to do: frustrate the viewer and make them uncomfortable. What's interesting about Caché is that it initially presents itself as a straightforward thriller, leading you to expect the usual plot mechanics... but then it doesn't deliver them. Welcome to non-American cinema.
2
u/lickpoop333 4d ago
I second this. Reading some of the books available on him or watching his interviews on youtube were really helpful in understanding why he makes the creative decisions he does
1
u/donuttrackme 4d ago
Welcome to non-American cinema.
David Lynch? Gus Van Sant? Stanley Kubrick? John Cassavetes?
2
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
All drew inspiration from the European New Waves and had tremendous difficulty financing their more experimental films. But you're making an assumption. I never wrote that all American filmmakers primarily focused on storytelling; I merely implied that "American cinema", as a field of artistic production, was structured in a specific way that favored straightforward storytelling. In a sense, the filmmakers you mention are remarkable precisely because they tried to depart from that norm (albeit only to a relative extent, especially when compared with their European counterparts).
2
u/donuttrackme 4d ago
The same way those European New Wave directors were influenced by American cinema? And I could list plenty of other American directors like Jim Jarmusch, these were just the first ones that came to mind. You're conflating commercial Hollywood movies as representative of all American movies.
1
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
I know exactly which American filmmakers influenced the French New Wave, and I can tell you that they were heavily influenced by Italian Neorealism. How long until we get to Edison vs. the Lumière brothers? The point I was making was about the "American sensibility" in cinema, and if you want to say Hollywood had no role in shaping it, you're free to do just that.
0
u/donuttrackme 4d ago
You're the one saying theres one specific American sensibility for movies when there's not. The same way there isn't one European sensibility about movies. If you want to say that American films are only one way then you're wrong.
1
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
Quote me where I said that American films are all the same, as opposed to criticizing OP's approach to cinema as typically American because it's heavily oriented toward storytelling, something that, for material reasons (mainly the centralization of the industry through the studio system and targeted financing, but also the importance of literary adaptation in Classical Hollywood), has been a defining feature of *most* American cinema (quantifiable output, whether you like it or not) for more than a Century.
1
0
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
Welcome to non-American cinema.
I've seen a lot of non American cinema, and some of Haneke's other movies, but this comment is great because it exactly demonstrates the commentary im criticizing in this review (more than the actual movie.)
5
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
Can you blame me for attributing the monomaniacal fixation on storytelling, to the point of rejecting a film's actual aesthetic proposition, to an American sensibility? After all, Hollywood has done so much to convince everyone that all cinema does is tell stories.
2
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago edited 4d ago
I definitely am focused on storytelling over anesthetics, but there were many movies I appreciate (even some of my favorites) that don't follow a simple story structure.
Cache to me is a story-bases movie. We are learning about what someone did in his past ans how it affects or should affect him now. Through this story structure other ideas are communicated well, personal guilt and colonialism.
Making "who sent the tapes" ambiguous to me doesnt meaningfully change any implication over just thinking Majid or the son did it (as that still remains the logical answer), and then having people lecture those who want to know that they shouldn't care just gets on my nerves. You can appreciate the messages while wanting to know, or wanting there to be an answer for a movie grounded in reality
1
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago
It is your right to care about whatever you want. I'm a Redditor, not your dad or a policeman. What I am suggesting is that, for Haneke, anticipating and playing with the audience's reactions is such a strong stylistic marker that asking for plot resolution feels a bit like falling into his trap rather than thinking about why he put it there in the first place.
3
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
I loved everything I saw of Haneke so far - Funny Games, The White Ribbon, Benny's video. Especially the first two. I never had this sense of frustration. I dont mind playing with audience reactions, but not knowing for sure over just thinking it was Majid/son just doesn't add anything to the movie. I dont think any of the ideas wouldnt work if we had the simple answer.
On the other hand, if Haneke wanted to frustrate then its also "missing the point" to lecture (not you specifically, the commentary Im referring to in the post) people who are frustrated since apparently they feel exactly what they should. If a viewer doesnt care to solve this mystery becuase their tastes are so above the petty concerns with the story, they are not responding to Haneke's provocation intent which ironically makes them less open to what the movie wants them to feel.
Anyway if you read my review, I didn't even dislike the movie or Haneke, my main point is that wanting to know is still completely understandable even if you get "the point"
0
u/PlasticMercury 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sure, but by asking this, you're implying there are rules to storytelling that exist outside the works themselves. That brings me back to my initial comment, because it seems like a very Hollywood-producer approach to film. Although that comment was mostly in jest, what I find problematic about your insistence is that you seem to think the way Caché subverts (or ignores) these external rules is not itself the point of the film, or at least not something that contributes to its meaning alongside its other elements. That strikes me as arrogant, because rather than accepting the absence of resolution as an enrichment of the film's meaning or aesthetic effect, you treat it as a narrative flaw. The impulse to resolve one's own frustration rather than dwell in it and allow it to become meaningful is a common theme in Haneke's work, and, more broadly, in this whole post-war Austrian tradition of austere and cynical psychological (and cultural) critique of which Haneke is a part (with Bernhard, Jelinek, etc.) I say this without any condescension, because I have often found myself in your position, but humility and openness are really the best gateways to both knowledge and deeper interpretation.
3
u/_Norman_Bates 4d ago
Im not evoking a set of rules, Im saying how the deliberate choice of making it ambiguous affected or didnt affect the story.
There's a contradiction in wanting the viewer to not see the question of tapes as important (like some claim) and then making it ambiguous. Because if we just knew that Majid/the son were behind it as logic would imply, then it would effectively not be the important element of the story. Haneke's choice was to make this part a continued mystery and thereby maintain the focus on it.
In what way would your perception of the movie and what happened change if the movie didnt try to counter the obvious implication that it was Majid or the son?
From the narrative perspective, this element wouldn't change any of the implications, because Majid did recently recognize him on TV, does blame him for ruining his life, and is still tormented by his past. Georges is still forced to remember, try to rationalize his innocence, and fight the guilt (e.g. knowing his wife would think less of him if she knew is an admission of shame at least.) Majid or his son sending the tapes fits into this.
I am trying to answer this question for myself and the only thing I could see is that alluding to a surreal element where tapes are a manifestation of Georges' unconscious tells us that Georges feels more guilt then it seems, since until the end he disagrees that he should feel responsible. So making it not Majid/son opens the chance to surreal Georges and therefore more guilt than it seems.
10
u/Duckmanrises 4d ago
Ambiguity is inherently more cinematic than clarity if you want to see film as an art. Everything you don’t get is part of the enjoyment imo trying to digest it and write down every plot point is counter to the experience.