Cache - What exactly have I watched.

Bullseye1

Just watched this on NF and found the cinematography techniques to be interesting. But what exactly was the point of this movie and does it benefit from multiple viewings?

johnny_ultimate

Hard to know where to begin with a film as complex as Cache, really.

What was the point? Well one of Haneke's key concerns is the complex history between France and Algeria - a troubled legacy that I wouldn't even pretend to be able to comment on in depth. In the film, George's 'repressed' guilt about his actions come to the surface in violent and devastating ways - at least partially representing the way French society has had to collectively and personally deal with the actions of their country people in the past. Of course the film also works as a thriller (I was going to say 'straightforward thriller', but Hidden is not a straightforward film), but its deeply informed by social contexts and the plight of Algerian emigrants in France.

The cinematography is also fascinating, and perhaps unique in the way it forces the viewer to interact with the images on screen. Never more so has the audience been implicated as an active participant with what's going on on-screen - we're both the voyeur and the 'victim', desperately trying to search for hints and glimpses of 'meaning'. The anonymous cameraman is playing tricks with the family on screen, but no doubt we're part of that game too. Haneke doesn't explicitly draw our attention to things - did you spot the two sons in the final sequence? - and its up to us to negotiate the images. The camerawork could also be read as a commentary on any number of things - surveillance society, intrusion of privacy - but its always tricky to find out what a director as sly as Haneke is really up to. Makes it a lot of fun to try and figure it out though, and the possible readings are plentiful.

Does it reward a repeat viewing? Probably more so than most films. It's a puzzle of a masterpiece, worth revisiting and trying to navigate all those hints, false flags and enigmas that have been planted, or that we think might have been planted. It's a film that could justify countless rewatches, and can still prove cheekily enigmatic in some respects. But it's a real cinematic treat, and undoubtedly rewards the effort it demands of its viewer.

Although admittedly the sheer shock of 'that scene' on first viewing is unrepeatable. Probably the longest I've sat jaw agape at an event in a film.