The name says it all. Cache (or “hidden” in French) is a movie that explores the hidden space in narrative. There are so many questions we ask ourselves during films. How was the special effect engineered? What is she looking at? Why would the director choose this particular shot? Who is he talking to? Usually, directors take pleasure in answering these questions and unraveling a beautifully wrapped story. Not this time…
In Cache, Georges Laurent, a middle-aged French TV presenter and his wife Anne find voyeuristic videotapes of their house left at their door. These videos trigger a series of increasingly hasty actions from Georges as he tries to piece together the mystery behind them. Award-winning director Michael Haneke succeeds in maintaining an elevated level of fervent tension throughout the film not only through what he decides to show on screen, but also largely through the parts he chooses to leave out.
In Daniel Dayan's article The Tutor Code of Classical Cinema he reminds us of the theory of the absent one, a term given to the limited image that the audience can perceive as a result of the screen displaying only "the axis of glance of another spectator, who is ghostly or absent". This limitation leaves the viewer uncertain and “distrustful” of the image, as its context not clear. Only until the next shot is revealed is the meaning of the previous shot truly understood. In conventional cinema, we are used to seeing a reverse shot that abolishes all ambiguity concerning the owner of the previous point of view (in most cases, another human in conversation). Bonitzer describes this realization fluently in his article titled Off-Screen Space when he notes that the reverse shot “retrospectively renders the space concrete” and “confirms the reality of the scene”.
The beauty of Haneke’s direction is that he does not allow this ambiguity to be alleviated through a shot/reverse shot sequence and maintains the level of anxiety felt by the viewer. By putting constraints on what the audience can see and understand, he cleverly adds another layer of apprehension to the story. The voyeuristic videotape shot of Georges’ house, for example, is so effective in building tension because we are almost conditioned to expect that the next reverse shot will reveal the person standing outside the house, and are surprised and frustrated when Haneke refuses to reveal it.
A significant portion of the movie consists of shots that include very little camera movement. For example, in a scene where the couple has friends over for an evening meal, the entire scene is a long shot that takes place without the camera moving at all. In addition, some shots are purposely filmed at a distance, as if the camera is in hiding. Examples of this include the across-the-street shot outside Pierrot’s (Georges’ son) school as well as an extended scene shot from inside a garage while the subjects are minute objects in the distance.
Haneke is also not afraid to allow characters to leave the shot and not return, allowing the viewer to make their own assumptions about the narrative and raising yet more questions in their minds. Interestingly there are also scenes where, quite literally, nothing happens! These techniques emphasize the security camera-like feel with which the movie is shot. Over the course of the film, there is a realization that the audience is in fact watching the film as a voyeur and possibly isn’t as emotionally invested in the story, as they are lead to believe. Unlike other mainstream movies, the viewer is almost made to believe that watching the film is a sinful indulgence.
I really like your focus on Haneke's choice to blur surveillance footage with live action. This blurring really does contribute to the suspense of the film by forcing the audience to be more active observers. This careful scrutiny of each shot really makes you feel like you are stalking these characters in their every day lives, equating the viewer with the surveyor creating and sending the tapes, a sentiment you appropriately deem a "sinful indulgence".
ReplyDeleteI especially like your comment concerning the movement of characters out of the frame. I was particularly struck by this filming technique. In traditional cinema, the camera usually follows characters as they move about in the scene. In Cache, however, the characters walk in and out of the frame, as if there is a hidden camera in the room that is not moving. The characters are not aware of the camera's presence, but its as if there is no camera man but simply a camera. An example of this is when Anne receives an anonymous call asking for Georges. When the phone rings, Anne is off stage in the kitchen, and hse walks in and answers the phone not completely in the frame. When she leaves the frame, the camera does not move. Again, this filming tactic creates suspense and a feeling of obtrusiveness throughout the film.
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues that I tackled with (and still do) about Haneke’s film is the purpose of the absence of off-space. Is it supposed to help us identify with the mysterious stranger who is recording the tapes, with the confused family provoked by the absent natured quality of the videos, or with nothing at all but merely to experiment with camera angles in a suspense film? I believe that you answered it very well by showing that the odd camera shots created a “distrust” or somewhat fearful atmosphere within us. It makes us understand the pains of the Laurents, who are battling against the stranger and amongst themselves. The refusal to accept normal cinematic techniques matches the resolution of the film – the unconventional ending that discloses nothing. However, I disagree with your statement of, “Haneke is also not afraid to allow characters to leave the shot and not return, allowing the viewer to make their own assumptions about the narrative and raising yet more questions in their minds. “ Rather, it helps to create an objective narrative space. While we may be guessing more often because nothing is resolved, we become more afraid to raise the issues and make assumptions since nothing can be upheld by any sort of evidence gathered from the film, just like the family’s situation.
ReplyDeleteI thought your post, and the film were quite good. There is that sense of sinful indulgence while watching the film. On one end, you want to understand and solve the mystery, but it comes at the expense of infiltrating the lives of Georges and Anne. Nonetheless, this question hasn't been raised much, but how much of the story is believable? Are we to take Georges recollection of the past at face value? Clearly he's gone through great pains to bury the truth, so I was skeptical of his past visions. Also, the director tricked us with the very first scene in the movie, so I became skeptical until the very end.
ReplyDeleteYour post made a couple of great points. I like your description of the first videotape shot of Georges' house that kicks off the movie. It is very true that we are indeed "conditioned," as you put it, not only to want to know who is on the other side of the camera, but to expect that it will be revealed. Certainly if not at the beginning of the shot, then most definitely by the end of the movie. The fact that Haneke does not do this exploits our desires and builds up an incredible amount of tension. Another thing that I really liked that you mentioned was Haneke's willing to let his actors walk out of the frame, and the way he does not show them again in the scene. This parallels the way that he is also willing to let the plot sort of run out of the scope of the movie. The film only deals with about half the actual plot that a normal film would deal, and in this way it feels like the story simply walked out of the film's "frame," and Haneke let it. This proves that the movie is not so much about the plot as it is about the feeling of suspicion that it creates. Many of us, when asked why do we watch movies would say for the feelings it gives us, but more and more often we watch movies that are strictly plot based. A film like this shows the power that cinema, meaning a camera based art, has in creating emotions for its viewers. This can create more emotional investment than a beautiful story.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "The beauty of Haneke’s direction is that he does not allow this ambiguity to be alleviated through a shot/reverse shot sequence and maintains the level of anxiety felt by the viewer. By putting constraints on what the audience can see and understand, he cleverly adds another layer of apprehension to the story."
ReplyDeleteResponse: Another layer of apprehension? Try confusion! I'm all for directors trying to be different from their cohorts, but he just confused me. The movie was awkward, long, and hard to engage. I did not have as much as you called "anxiety" as I would call "frustration". There was no beauty in his direction. If he wanted to do something different and still be marveled by the audience, he should have allowed more off screen space to become on screen space. This would have let me, as an audience member, to not have so many headaches by the end of the movie. It is reason why, as you said in your blog post, that directors ask and answers probing questions about his or her movie. It is that it will not have to be answered by the audience.