Caché (aka Hidden) - October 27 UK

[The Shrike]

Amazon.uk has Caché (aka Hidden) up for pre-order. Does anyone know whether or not this release will be region free? The company releasing this is apparently called Artificial Eye. Does anyone know what their record is regarding the regions of their BDs? Any insight at all?

[pro-bassoonist]

The preliminary info indicates B-only status. We will cover AE and their output for Blu-ray.com so you could wait for the official confirmation.

Dr.A

[Simon_LDT]

Is this any good? Can't seem to find any talk about it.

What other films is it like?

[csdot]

its not really like any other films i can think of. Hankeke's films are unique in many ways. but its very good, and the blu-ray is excellent.
id say the plot has some minor similarities to Lost Highway (people being mysteriously videotaped, and having the tapes arrive on their doorstep) but the execution is completely different.

[The Driver]

Less than £7 http://www.base.com/DVD/Hidden-Blu-R...BD/product.htm

Caché like most of the director's films aren't much like any other films. Even his own films can challenge his films and what you might expect.

I've never seen so many people walk out of films in the cinema so a lot of what he says makes people look at themselves very closely and they might not like what they see even in a darkened cinema. Haneke likes to disturb.

Anyway, this film is about guilt, responsibility, society and human relationships.

Have a read at this review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../51220007/1023 Ebert actually (look for the review) re-reviews the film several years later and finds much more found (hidden) on later viewings.

If you're a fan of Daniel Autiel this is a must-see even if you don't feel attracted to the content.

A real gem of a film.

[Simon_LDT]

It sounds interesting. Just don't know whether I'd like it or not.

Would you say its a kind of thriller/mystery/suspense?

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by Simon_LDT

Is this any good? Can't seem to find any talk about it.

No. This movie blew. For 90 minutes

[Show spoiler]nothing happened. They had video tapes sent to them that someone has been filming them. They try to figure out what happens, but nothing happens!

It was one of the worst films I've ever seen.

[Shanester]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

No. This movie blew. For 90 minutes

[Show spoiler]nothing happened. They had video tapes sent to them that someone has been filming them. They try to figure out what happens, but nothing happens!

It was one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I completely disagree I thaught it was brilliantly done.

[Shanester]

Originally Posted by Simon_LDT

It sounds interesting. Just don't know whether I'd like it or not.

Would you say its a kind of thriller/mystery/suspense?

Yes but it's not like your typical A.D.D American film. You can actually use your brain and think about what your watching

[The Driver]

Originally Posted by Shanester

Yes but it's not like your typical A.D.D American film. You can actually use your brain and think about what your watching

Yes, if you can't use your brain (most people use virtually none of it ) this is not for you -in fact the box/poster/artwork/director and everything about it ahould scare you off long before sitting down to watch. Or not as the case may be!

As we say though, if you don't use your brain you may not notice

Amazed someone watched a film for 90mins they didn't like especially a 120min film like this. At which point did you give up and say "...this isn't for me"? If a film is crap or it's just not my bag I wouldn't waste my time (or brain).

Not everyone is going to want to watch it but it's a great film if you like to be tested and want to learn (and guess) about human nature, enjoy intelligent content, a -perhaps- clinical story and love quality acting, production and direction it's for you.

I also liked the 2010 Clash of The Titans. I checked my brain in though at the door just like the director and writers did too. I like checking my brain in but I wouldn't complain about Clash of The Titans because I'd need to be pretty stupid to be surprised about it.

Clash of The Titans has no surprises Caché is full of surprises.

[KrugerIndustrial]

Sorry for reviving this thread. Just finished watching this and I was very impressed and absolutely loved it. As warned, the ending was somewhat of a shock and I'm still trying to figure out who was really behind all of it. Definitely among the best European films I have ever seen.

[Show spoiler]I suppose there were some clues on the ending scene. If Majid and his son earlier denied knowing anything about Pierrot how come his son is talking with Pierrot at the end? Had that young woman who brought Pierrot back home after he went missing something to do with everything? Or her son? Didn't Pierrot mention right after that to her mother about her warm relationship with also married Pierre? How'd he know about that?

Are there any reviews online which would discuss this matter more thoroughly? Perhaps Pro-B could shed some light on this?

[The Driver]

Best not to think about 'Who did it?' if it is not apparent. Just go with the flow of your thoughts. If that's not good enough then the person responsible is:

[Show spoiler]

coupable

Now that'll really annoy you. Maybe

[KrugerIndustrial]

Originally Posted by The Driver

Best not to think about 'Who did it?' if it is not apparent. Just go with the flow of your thoughts. If that's not good enough then the person responsible is:

[Show spoiler]

coupable

Now that'll really annoy you. Maybe

[Show spoiler]To be honest not really. I thought that perhaps he was indeed responsible for what happened. As I understood he didn't like Majid as he was different and because of that treated him wrong. And that caused Majid to derail, in a way, into wrong direction in his life. But I suppose you're right on that I shouldn't think that much about who did it rather than the deeper meaning of it all.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Okay, I just re-watched Cache/Hidden & am resurrecting this thread to discuss the film - since I didn't want to create a new one.

First of all, brilliant movie - it's Michael Haneke's best film. I remember seeing this in the theater back in 2005 & thinking it was fantastic then. However, after re-watching this several more times I noticed more details & appreciate the film much more than on my initial viewing.

The movie is a poignant & fascinating exploration of living with guilt, morality, history, and national identity. Prior to seeing the film, I had never heard of the terrible event that occurred in October 1961, in Paris - quite tragic & horrific.

So, I guess the ultimate question on everyone's mind @ the end of the film is - who sent the tapes & disturbing drawings to Georges Laurent & his family?!

-Well, I can say unquestionably that M. did not send the tapes or the pictures to Georges. He was obviously genuinely surprised to see Georges at his door, and the entire situation (being thought of as a suspect, etc.) was too much for him -

[Show spoiler]which is why he ended up killing himself in front of Georges. He was obviously upset at having to dredge up a past, to the point that he couldn't handle it anymore.

So, that leaves a couple of possibilities:

-The very last scene of the film shows a panoramic scene of the outside of the school that Pierrot attends...we see Pierrot & M.'s son having a brief, intense conversation (that we don't hear).

[Show spoiler]So, did M.'s son set up sending the tapes/pictures up with Pierrot, in order to get back at Georges?

However, this opens up the door to even more questions, i.e.:

[Show spoiler]1) M.'s son apparently knew about the whole situation with Georges lying about M. when they were both kids, which resulted in M. being taken away from the house & going to the orphanage (due to Georges being jealous). However, even if M.'s son wanted to get revenge at Georges because of the way his father had been treated years before, why would M.'s son send the tapes to Georges (including the tape showing the location of M.'s apartment) if he knew Georges would confront M., and dredge up a past that M. wanted to forget? He should have known that M. would react badly - and, as it turned out, he ending up killing himself over this. M.'s son appeared to love his father, so I don't see him doing this....unless he really wanted to get revenge on Georges, and wasn't thinking it through - i.e., wasn't realizing how much this would negatively affect his father.

2) Why would Pierrot be upset at his father enough to do something like this to him?! Sure, Pierrot was obviously angry at his mother because he suspects - probably correctly - that she was having an affair with their friend Pierre. But, I don't sense that Pierrot has any great hatred for his father specifically. That being said, Pierrot knew that the tapes/pictures would cause problems with both of his parents, including his mother - so, he may not have cared how this affected his father.

3) And, how did Pierrot even meet up with M.'s son?! They obviously don't go together to the same school (M.'s son is at least high school age, or older).

-Other than

[Show spoiler]M.'s son & Pierrot setting this up, the only other slight possibility I can think of is that Georges's mother sent him the tapes & pictures - since she's the only other person who would even remember the situation/incident(s) with M. from years before. However, I seriously doubt this - she's bedridden & infirm (as seen in the one scene when Georges goes to visit her) and it's unlikely that she would have the means, inclination, or motive to set up something like this. And, I doubt she would do something like this to upset her son.

-The least likely possibility is that Georges has another enemy that is doing this to mess with his mind. However, unlikely that it's a person we don't see in the film because it would have to be someone that knew about the situation from his childhood - and, the only people who would know would be M., his son, and Georges' mother.

What makes this even more mysterious is that it appears that even after M.'s tragic death & his son's confrontation with Georges Laurent (at Laurent's work) the house still has surveillance - as seen in that scene towards the end of the film.

[Show spoiler]So, who is still conducting the surveillance?! Is it still M.'s son & Pierrot (if they were ever even doing this from the beginning)?! Or, is it someone else?!

[Dubliner1]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Okay, I just re-watched Cache/Hidden & am resurrecting this thread to discuss the film - since I didn't want to create a new one.

First of all, brilliant movie - it's Michael Haneke's best film. I remember seeing this in the theater back in 2005 & thinking it was fantastic then. However, after re-watching this several more times I noticed more details & appreciate the film much more than on my initial viewing.

The movie is a poignant & fascinating exploration of living with guilt, morality, history, and national identity. Prior to seeing the film, I had never heard of the terrible event that occurred in October 1961, in Paris - quite tragic & horrific.

So, I guess the ultimate question on everyone's mind @ the end of the film is - who sent the tapes & disturbing drawings to Georges Laurent & his family?!

-Well, I can say unquestionably that M. did not send the tapes or the pictures to Georges. He was obviously genuinely surprised to see Georges at his door, and the entire situation (being thought of as a suspect, etc.) was too much for him -

[Show spoiler]which is why he ended up killing himself in front of Georges. He was obviously upset at having to dredge up a past, to the point that he couldn't handle it anymore.

So, that leaves a couple of possibilities:

-The very last scene of the film shows a panoramic scene of the outside of the school that Pierrot attends...we see Pierrot & M.'s son having a brief, intense conversation (that we don't hear).

[Show spoiler]So, did M.'s son set up sending the tapes/pictures up with Pierrot, in order to get back at Georges?

However, this opens up the door to even more questions, i.e.:

[Show spoiler]1) M.'s son apparently knew about the whole situation with Georges lying about M. when they were both kids, which resulted in M. being taken away from the house & going to the orphanage (due to Georges being jealous). However, even if M.'s son wanted to get revenge at Georges because of the way his father had been treated years before, why would M.'s son send the tapes to Georges (including the tape showing the location of M.'s apartment) if he knew Georges would confront M., and dredge up a past that M. wanted to forget? He should have known that M. would react badly - and, as it turned out, he ending up killing himself over this. M.'s son appeared to love his father, so I don't see him doing this....unless he really wanted to get revenge on Georges, and wasn't thinking it through - i.e., wasn't realizing how much this would negatively affect his father.

2) Why would Pierrot be upset at his father enough to do something like this to him?! Sure, Pierrot was obviously angry at his mother because he suspects - probably correctly - that she was having an affair with their friend Pierre. But, I don't sense that Pierrot has any great hatred for his father specifically. That being said, Pierrot knew that the tapes/pictures would cause problems with both of his parents, including his mother - so, he may not have cared how this affected his father.

3) And, how did Pierrot even meet up with M.'s son?! They obviously don't go together to the same school (M.'s son is at least high school age, or older).

-Other than

[Show spoiler]M.'s son & Pierrot setting this up, the only other slight possibility I can think of is that Georges's mother sent him the tapes & pictures - since she's the only other person who would even remember the situation/incident(s) with M. from years before. However, I seriously doubt this - she's bedridden & infirm (as seen in the one scene when Georges goes to visit her) and it's unlikely that she would have the means, inclination, or motive to set up something like this. And, I doubt she would do something like this to upset her son.

-The least likely possibility is that Georges has some kind of enemy that is doing this to mess with his mind. However, unlikely that it's a person we don't see in the film because it would have to be someone that knew about the situation from his childhood.

What makes this even more mysterious is that it appears that even after M.'s tragic death & his son's confrontation with Georges Laurent (at Laurent's work) the house still has surveillance - as seen in that scene towards the end of the film.

[Show spoiler]So, who is still conducting the surveillance?! Is it still M.'s son & Pierrot (if they were ever even doing this from the beginning)?! Or, is it someone else?!

Love this film but I think many consider "Amour" Haneke's best- have you seen it?
2 very different films I love them both.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Dubliner1

Love this film but I think many consider "Amour" Haneke's best- have you seen it?
2 very different films I love them both.

I thought Amour was a great film as well, as are all of Haneke's other films.

However, I felt Cache/Hidden was brilliant for all of the reasons I mentioned in my last post. Very well-done & a film I'm still thinking about over 10 years after first seeing this. Amazing.

[Persona]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Very well-done & a film I'm still thinking about over 10 years after first seeing this. Amazing.

This. Saw it on dvd about 10 years ago when I was in my teens and it had a big impact on me, it was probably the film that opened the doors for me to European cinema, that's if I don't count The Red Balloon which I was obsessed with as a child.

The White Ribbon is probably his best crafted film, I love The Piano Teacher and of coarse Amour which is exceptional and can't wait for Happy End.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Persona

This. Saw it on dvd about 10 years ago when I was in my teens and it had a big impact on me, it was probably the film that opened the doors for me to European cinema, that's if I don't count The Red Balloon which I was obsessed with as a child.

The White Ribbon is probably his best crafted film, I love The Piano Teacher and of coarse Amour which is exceptional and can't wait for Happy End.

I remember around Fall 2001, the art-house cinema The Angelika opened up in my area for the first time (I'm in the U.S.) and it was nice to be introduced to a lot of European cinema via that theater. At the time, I wasn't as familiar with international cinema (as I am now) and didn't even have a DVD player (I got my first one in 2003). So, I saw a lot of films there that weren't playing in the more mainstream theaters.

And, I was introduced to Michael Haneke's films via this theater. I think Cache was the third Haneke film I saw; prior to that I did see Code Unknown and The Piano Teacher. Code Unknown was great - I liked how everything/everyone connected together.

The Piano Teacher was extremely disturbing & at times hard to stomach - I remember that film had a lot of walk-outs when I saw it in the theater. I was one of the few that stayed through to the end. But, the film did introduce me to the beautiful Isabelle Huppert - one of the most stunning actresses (and women) I've ever seen. I know she had been acting for years before that film, but I don't recall seeing her in any movies before TPT.

Also worth noting is Haneke's Time of the Wolf (2003; also starring Huppert), about a family dealing with a post-apocalyptic event in Europe. Very underrated film, and one of my favorite MH movies.

Too bad there's no dedicated Haneke thread on this site; I don't see a lot of other threads discussing his other films, and I don't like to create new threads...

[Alex DeLarge]

I have the French Blu-ray box set but not all of the films have English subtitles. The A/V quality is exceptional though! Especially TIME OF THE WOLF as he films often in shadow or by firelight; the dvd always seemed a bit spotty in the dark areas.

CACHE is one of his best! It wasn't until I projected the Blu-ray onto a large screen that I suddenly notice that importance of that final scene. I've come to the conclusion that the mystery is unsolvable. Maybe that's the trope Haneke wanted to violate? Create a mystery but the audience can only reason an impossible resolution. Just like the tropes in FUNNY GAMES that he purposely violates such as the knife in the boat (gives us a nice close-up) or the escape. Not to mention the remote control!