I didn’t like this movie all that much when I watched it for the first time earlier today, but a few minutes after it ended, things started to just click in my head and everything started to make sense. The more I think about it and look back on it, the more I like it.
I feel this way about a lot of haneke. It shows what a great filmmaker he is, it stews in your head and develops beyond the screen. Truly thought provoking stuff
I believe you have failed to touch on or notice the main point of the film, the film is a metaphor about the conflict in the middle east and the western intervention into conflict in that region. The videotapes are ambiguous by definition, as these represent the evidence that "is, or, is not there" when western politicians make their decisions to disrupt or attack these countries. For example, the evidence the US and UK claimed they had about Iraq and nuclear weapons. There are tons of links to the UK and French colonial pasts in the middle eastern region, and how past actions come back to haunt us now. If you watch the film with this perspective in mind, you will have a very different journey with the film. Great cinema.
The man making the tapes is revealed. Watch the last frame of the school until the credits, look who walks out the school who he meets with, there's your answer. A'd rethink what the algerian son says, i didn't send those videos, doesn't mean he didn't shoot them and gave them to their son.
This did help me to realize a bit more of the meaning... by the end of the film (just finished it before your video) I was so confused... so many questions... you helped me realize that it wasn't so much the point to realize the terrorist but more the thrill of the ride... I was a little upset that it had very little answers to reveal and I found myself questioning why the man spent his whole life blaming somebody else for his problems. It's sad his parents were killed when he was young, but that family really owed him nothing. He was upset that his friend had lied and it amounted to his being sent away, but why did he stay hell-bent for forty-something years hanging onto a grudge? He raised a good son, he had a small but quaint place to call home... why would he commit suicide knowing his son was there supporting and loving him? so many issues with the plot I have, but it was interesting to sit and ponder and try and figure out the curious case of Cache to no avail.... was it the strange son? Was Georges's son in cahoots with him? Did they plot this? I even thought it could have been one of the family friends... I mean it's nice to realize the perspective aspect of it... but I feel like I just listened to someone cry about their problems for two hours... was his life really so bad he had to slit his own throat so that his friend could forever regret his lies at age 6? Grow up guy... I'm bothered can you tell? lmao
You need to view from an European's perspective. Majid is an arab, his parents died in a historically based tragedy, so the arab dude is being "righteously" angry by the actions of a privilege man. And that's enough for Haneke. Adding the son having a discussion with the arab son is ambiguous so it doesn't mean anything other than "stuff has happened but you don't know, INTERESTING!"
@New Age Scam Artist That take literally makes no sense. It's a fact that Georges lie got Majid remove from the family. But there is absolutely no way that son communicated with Pierrot before the events. Nor is there any reasoning for the son to involve in the scare tactic without the input from Majid. The only logical progression of events is Majid sees George's wealthy lifestyle>Gets mad and decides on the plot to stalk him>George meets the son, the son talks Majid and join the plot>Majid commits suicides and the son follows the plot and contacts Pierrot.
@New Age Scam Artist Because it is nuts. It's not heavily implied at all. You see the 2 sons having a conversation with each other. That's the only thing you could potentially use, but intent is simply not there for the kid. Nor is it implied or even flirt with. What's more likely is that Haneke intended to say that this relation between the Arabs and George is not over, as the son is now doing things his way by involving the Pierrot.
Here's a quote form the director of Cache, Haneke, that should explain your frustration: "Mainstream cinema raises questions only to immediately provide an answer to them, so they can send the spectator home reassured. If we actually had those answers, then society would appear very different from what it is."
I didn’t like this movie all that much when I watched it for the first time earlier today, but a few minutes after it ended, things started to just click in my head and everything started to make sense. The more I think about it and look back on it, the more I like it.
I feel this way about a lot of haneke. It shows what a great filmmaker he is, it stews in your head and develops beyond the screen. Truly thought provoking stuff
Had this same reaction with his film Funny Games, now it’s one of my favorite movies of all time
I believe you have failed to touch on or notice the main point of the film, the film is a metaphor about the conflict in the middle east and the western intervention into conflict in that region. The videotapes are ambiguous by definition, as these represent the evidence that "is, or, is not there" when western politicians make their decisions to disrupt or attack these countries. For example, the evidence the US and UK claimed they had about Iraq and nuclear weapons. There are tons of links to the UK and French colonial pasts in the middle eastern region, and how past actions come back to haunt us now. If you watch the film with this perspective in mind, you will have a very different journey with the film. Great cinema.
He didn't fail at all. This vid is focusing on the view of perspective. Read his description.
One of the greatest films of the last twenty years.
The man making the tapes is revealed. Watch the last frame of the school until the credits, look who walks out the school who he meets with, there's your answer. A'd rethink what the algerian son says, i didn't send those videos, doesn't mean he didn't shoot them and gave them to their son.
Yea but did Malik or the son send those tapes or not
Zac McMaster McDudemeister does it again with another hit video essay
Lost highway
Thank you for the video!
Can somebody explain to me something...?
Please
Amazing video❤️🙏🏼
Nice analysis.👌
Love this movie!
This movie is masterpiece.
great essay!
Great video thanks
This did help me to realize a bit more of the meaning... by the end of the film (just finished it before your video) I was so confused... so many questions... you helped me realize that it wasn't so much the point to realize the terrorist but more the thrill of the ride... I was a little upset that it had very little answers to reveal and I found myself questioning why the man spent his whole life blaming somebody else for his problems. It's sad his parents were killed when he was young, but that family really owed him nothing. He was upset that his friend had lied and it amounted to his being sent away, but why did he stay hell-bent for forty-something years hanging onto a grudge? He raised a good son, he had a small but quaint place to call home... why would he commit suicide knowing his son was there supporting and loving him? so many issues with the plot I have, but it was interesting to sit and ponder and try and figure out the curious case of Cache to no avail.... was it the strange son? Was Georges's son in cahoots with him? Did they plot this? I even thought it could have been one of the family friends... I mean it's nice to realize the perspective aspect of it... but I feel like I just listened to someone cry about their problems for two hours... was his life really so bad he had to slit his own throat so that his friend could forever regret his lies at age 6? Grow up guy... I'm bothered can you tell? lmao
I haven't watched the film in about ten years or so, but what you expressed is exactly what I felt after viewing it.
You need to view from an European's perspective. Majid is an arab, his parents died in a historically based tragedy, so the arab dude is being "righteously" angry by the actions of a privilege man. And that's enough for Haneke. Adding the son having a discussion with the arab son is ambiguous so it doesn't mean anything other than "stuff has happened but you don't know, INTERESTING!"
@New Age Scam Artist That take literally makes no sense.
It's a fact that Georges lie got Majid remove from the family.
But there is absolutely no way that son communicated with Pierrot before the events. Nor is there any reasoning for the son to involve in the scare tactic without the input from Majid.
The only logical progression of events is Majid sees George's wealthy lifestyle>Gets mad and decides on the plot to stalk him>George meets the son, the son talks Majid and join the plot>Majid commits suicides and the son follows the plot and contacts Pierrot.
@New Age Scam Artist lOl no. You're saying pierrot was involve in the filming, he categorically was not.
@New Age Scam Artist Because it is nuts. It's not heavily implied at all.
You see the 2 sons having a conversation with each other. That's the only thing you could potentially use, but intent is simply not there for the kid. Nor is it implied or even flirt with.
What's more likely is that Haneke intended to say that this relation between the Arabs and George is not over, as the son is now doing things his way by involving the Pierrot.
this was the worst music video ive ever seen 10/10- ethan barrett
Wasted 7 minutes of my life.. i wanted to know the answers.........who was filming and why????
Sallylunn22 well that’s not really the point of the film.
Hahaha. One of the stupidest comments ive seen on youtube.
lukejones1104 At least you’re open minded. Maybe do even the tiniest bit of research before you become so sure of yourself.
Here's a quote form the director of Cache, Haneke, that should explain your frustration: "Mainstream cinema raises questions only to immediately provide an answer to them, so they can send the spectator home reassured. If we actually had those answers, then society would appear very different from what it is."
i thought that baldie man in back pierre and laurent wives is suspect 6:15 , dunno , he just starring very creepy in that scene