Who do you think send the tapes?
Who do you think send the tapes?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Caché (2006) Discussion > Who do you think send the tapes?
anyone?
shareThis is already a well discussed topic. In a sense it doesn’t matter because that’s not what the film is about however it is an interesting point and I will throw in my 2 pence worth.
The first thing to notice is that the shots from the hidden camera have exactly the same quality and style as the the rest of the film. In fact they were shot using the same cameras, the whole film was shot on HD video, not film. If this was a plot being used by a conventional Hollywood thriller then the hidden shots would be made to look very different and obviously from a cheap camera. Haneke surely choose not to do this on purpose.
The first point to note form this, a rather superficial point, is that the hidden shots are from a very expensive camera. This is partly why it is highly unlikely that the culprit is Majid’s son or anyone in the film. If it was Majid’s son or even George’s son it would have been a cheap camcorder. Also why would anyone set up and leave unattended a camera worth a huge amount of money. In a conventional Hollywood film the shots would have been grainy and had the cliched frame lines and time of shot in the corner just so the viewer gets that it’s a camcorder.
What’s more interesting though is that the hidden shots are indistinguishable from the rest of the film. There is an ambiguity in some shots if they are from the hidden camera or not. This makes you realise that every shot in the film is from a hidden camera that the characters in the film don’t see, even when the camera is pointed right in their face. Also the penultimate shot of Majid as a child being taken away from the farm is clearly from the hidden camera. Nobody in the film could have been taking that shot. Digital camera’s of that quality weren’t even around at that time.
The hidden camera shots are clearly a plot device with multi layered purpose and meaning.
Interesting observations graham !
But aren't the quick clips we see of the child with the bloody mouth also suppose to be coming from the mind of George, rather than this being something that is actually seen on the tapes by his wife?
Otherwise, wouldn't his wife also have asked who the child was on the tape?
Please also note how "One" of these tapes wasn't sent to George.
Because it was left by the front door during the dinner party.
So this also means placing it there has to have been an "Inside Job," especially with that front gate to the front door also being locked.
So, imo, George being the nearest one to that front door also makes him the most likely suspect to have placed it there.
Then he could also merely pretend as if he's found it there.
If not George, then perhaps his son puts it there?
One of the dinner guests may have also left the table to place it there, but one also doesn't get that kind of an impression that's what's happened after George returns to the dining room.
And what about that other shot that we see that's taken from INSIDE of the MOVING car? It's raining, so the windshield wipers are also seen moving back and forth in this scene, where someone drives up to take the shot of the home of George's mother (which also sits over to the left side of the car).
What's also interesting is how George NEVER explains anything about this matter to his mother, or warns his mother than her life may also be at risk or in danger?
Even when she senses something is wrong, and she repeatedly questions him - by asking him what's wrong - he still feels no need to tell her what's been going on or what's wrong?
Yet George was also alarmed enough to file a POLICE report regarding these tapes?
See the reason why this doesn't make sense?
The life of his wife and son are in danger - but not the life of his mother - who's also had the OUTSIDE of her home filmed as well?
Once again, doesn't this situation, where George feels no need to tell his mother that her life may also be in danger, also seem to point to George as being the one who's sent himself these tapes? And/or George may also pretend to place this other tape by his front door during the dinner party?
Of course he'd also need someone to KNOCK on the door as well?
So perhaps his son also does this for him - and he also Knocks on the door from INSIDE of the house - when he knocks on the front door?
Or what about all of that GRASSY area that we see on top of the roof area of the house? That would also be a good place for someone to hide - if they'd KNOCKED on the front door?
Another interesting thing to note is the writing that we see on top of that mystery vehicle - the one that we see sitting there - OUTSIDE the FRONT steps to the school - in the final closing shots - at the very end of the story.
Dear pubbly...I wont mention anything about your notices except for the last thing you said about the writing on top of that ''mystery'' vehicle. If you watch carefully at the first shots of school's entrance...there is also the same writing on the top of another car, which means that it is probably the reflection of the sign of piers school..as at the last shots of school...
As for the whole movie..............no comments...maybe the director also has been taking 2 or more pills when he was making it...
If you watch carefully at the first shots of school's entrance...there is also the same writing on the top of another car, which means that it is probably the reflection of the sign of piers school..as at the last shots of school...
Thanks for the heads up meri! I taped it, but probably also forgot to label the tape.
Anyhow, there's also that BIG BUSH that sits next to the security fense. What that means is anyone could have also used that SHRUB as a way to get over that fense and hide there.
Each time one watches this film one keeps seeing more and more things they didn't see before.
As for the whole movie..............no comments...maybe the director also has been taking 2 or more pills when he was making it...
Perhaps we the viewer are the ones who have taken the wrong pill? Have you seen THE MATRIX? If so, remember the scene where Neo was offered either a RED pill or a BLUE PILL?
Then after he takes it, he also begins to take a trip into WONDERLAND (so to speak)?
That's what watching this movie reminds me of ... taking a trip into WONDERLAND ... down the RABBIT HOLE ... where things you thought you understood get kind of confusing?
And then when you try to discuss what you've seen, you also feel like you're at THE MAD TEA PARTY, or as if you're having a conversation with the SMOKING Caterpiller?
Link to the Mad Tea Party:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VII.html
Smoking_Caterpillar link:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~4david/alice3.html
Alice in wonderland
Chapter 5, advice from a caterpillar
The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice. `Who are YOU?' said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.
Alice replied, rather shyly, `I--I hardly know, sir, just at present-- at least I know who I WAS when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.'
`What do you mean by that?' said the Caterpillar sternly. `Explain yourself!'
`I can't explain MYSELF, I'm afraid, sir' said Alice, `because I'm not myself, you see.'
I don't see,' said the Caterpillar.
`I'm afraid I can't put it more clearly,' Alice replied very politely, `for I can't understand it myself to begin with; and being so many different sizes in a day is very confusing.'
`It isn't,' said the Caterpillar.
`Well, perhaps you haven't found it so yet,' said Alice; `but when you have to turn into a chrysalis--you will some day, you know--and then after that into a butterfly, I should think you'll feel it a little queer, won't you?'
`Not a bit,' said the Caterpillar.
`Well, perhaps your feelings may be different,' said Alice; `all I know is, it would feel very queer to ME.'
`You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. `Who are YOU?' Which brought them back again to the beginning of the conversation.
Discussing this movie one also begins to feel a bit like SISYPHUS shoving his rock up the hill?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine. share
I don't think the fact that the tapes are not grainy means a thing.
The director didn't take the time to film with a different camera because he is lazy.
As for who sent the tapes, I assume it WAS the Majid's son. Just because the son says he didn't do it, means you must believe it? He was very upset and said Georges had deprived Majid of a good education.
Since Majid's son and Pierrot meet as school it is slightly possible that Pierrot delivered one or more tapes to the house. The others came in the mail right?
Majid's son wanted to avenge his father. The tape recorder was IN Majid's apt. Therefore the son put it there. Majid was genuinely surprised to see Georges.
It was Majid's son who did it all. Why the boy and Majid's son were talking at the end is the last mystery.
The only other solution could be that Georges is so guilty and his guilt is so hidden that he himself made and sent the tapes and drawings.
But that Does NOT explain the recordings in Majid's apt.
artistatrest:
The wife of George also receives a tape (the copy of George having his first conversation with Majid).
Did she also find that tape inside of a paper bag - like George does - when he finds the other one that he plays for his dinner guests?
What about the other copy that's sent to his Boss?
Was that also sent in the mail or did someone also leave it there inside of a bag? Did the Boss ever say how it was sent? He says some assistant discovered it and assumed it was fan mail. So it must have been mailed?
Someone also mails the son of George a postcard?
The other thing that puzzels me is the way the scene at the end (where Majid is taken away in the car as a child) looks EXACTLY like the other scenes do that we saw FILMED.
It has the SAME STATIC quality (as if one were watching a scene filmed by some kind of a security camera).
So why does George dream this way?
Why would a person DREAM a STATIC scene like this ... as if they were using a CAMERA to record what they are watching?
Doesn't this strange coincidence - where he DREAMS like scenes that we see in the other TAPES - also seem to indicate it might have been Georges himself who makes these tapes?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
Whatever you may think of Haneke's films, to suggest he is lazy is absurd. Haneke is a perfectionist, there is no detail in his films that he won't have thought about very carefully.
share[deleted]
@ AVarun
No.
graham is pretty much right in everything he says. The DVD has a very open interview with Haneke where everything is explained (as much as it can be with this film!), but even Haneke doesn't mention (as far as I can remember) the importance of have the hidden camera give shots of the same quality as every other shot in the film.
shareAgree completely with your statement, Haneke's ideas are in order. However, he tends leave things open-ended. Whatever conclusions one may draw from the material could be equally as valid as another interpretation. This is what drives many of his critics mad. Subtly in film making can be a virtue. But is obscurity?
share"Lazy" as an excuse doesn't even make any sense from a practical point of view. It's far easier to shoot on a cheap camcorder than with a good camera. It's basically point-and-shoot.
-There is no such word as "alot."
I agree that the tapes not being grainy is not meant to signify that, as graham suggested, every shot in the film is on "hidden video", but neither do I think it is just a matter of directorial laziness. I think that the tapes are shown with the same quality precisely so that we do not always know at the beginning of a scene whether we are watching a tape. I think that the final scene with Majid's son does suggest that he was behind it. He ended the conversation by stating that he wanted to see how ruining a man's life weighed on his conscience. I think that was the purpose of the tapes, but he didn't foresee the "kidnapping" incident or his father's ensuing suicide. The recording in Majid's apartment would have been difficult to make by anyone other than Majid or his son. It is also worth noting that the tape made in the apartment was also sent to Georges' editor-in-chief. That would seem to be utterly pointless if Georges himself had been doing the taping.
That being said, I do also agree with others that this is not really the point of the movie. The real point, IMO, is how Georges reacts to his guilt over the incident. He lied to his wife and withholds information from her. Instead of asking Majid if he knew anything, he verbally assaulted him from the start, never even admitting his own guilt about what had happened to Majid as a child. After Majid's death, Georges refuses to show any responsibility or remorse over how Majid's life went. I suspect that this may be meant to draw a parallel to the Paris Massacre of 1961, where Majid's parents went missing. The massacre was directed by the Paris chief of police, Maurice Papon. In the aftermath of the massacre, police who had been outraged by the incident and attempted to report examples of police abuses to their superiors were rebuffed and even threatened for doing so. Eventually Papon was convicted for crimes against humanity, but not for the 1961 massacre. Papon had previously worked with the Vichy government and reported Jews to the Nazis, and it was these acts that led to his conviction. I think that Haneke was using Georges's story as a proxy for Papon's, telling of this personal incident as an analogy instead of making a film directly about Papon.
Remarkable insights!
shareDear pubby, someone says something about the director's pills and you start a personal attack? Man, you need to read the other threads. You see, people who like this movie are intelligent ones and they are not supposed to act like this. At least fake it or you will embarrass your colleagues.
shareInteresting thoughts.
Maybe the videotapes were just a metaphor for the memory and guilt of what he did seeping into his life, his awareness of his own fine upper middle class existence in his nice house (carefully videotaped) provides the stimulus for his guilt at the sentence he imposed on the young French Algerian Kid decades ago. If you look at one of the videotape scenes it's a night scene and immediately after we see young Majid with a mouth full of blood impossibly looking out the window in modern time at George's house from on high as though the scene was captured with his eyes as the lens... So the child he wronged is looking in at his prosperous life... Which seems like a metaphor for the disturbance of his own life by intrusive feelings of guilt.
I suspect the videotapes represent his own coming to terms with what he did, his guilt at his prosperity (denied to the young Algerian)- thence the long shot of the front of his property - the videotapes of the location of the grown Algerian - well he tracked him down himself fully cognizant of what he was doing or not. The videotapes are treated like an assault in the film because the truth is a kind of assault on his otherwise very comfortable way of life. At the end when Majid's son confronts him - he confronts him with nothing but the reality of what he did and his punishment is only whatever guilt George himself can muster for it... That makes me suspect the videotapes - revisiting the past etc - is all generated by George.
Peculiar film, worth watching but still a little boring at times - the story of Majid was haunting and troubling (especially seeing as how he never really recovered from it), haunting to the man as the French abuses of the 60's are haunting to the nation. Maybe at the end when their sons meet it is supposed to show how the pain of it can eventually end or fade given time.
Did anyone else find it strange that Majid as a Middle Aged grown man was still obsessed with the childhood event, that he had never found a way to navigate past it in his long life? That he effectively in the end - WAS - what George did to him when he was a child? It hardly seems believable that a real grown Majid could define his life based on the betrayal of another child.
That strangness is what makes me believe that Majid could be a phantasm, a projection by George's tormented conscience of what the grown Majid would be like in his mind. A person who was defined by the betrayal by George as a child (defined by it because in reality grown up George has no more information on what happened to Majid after he had him sent away).
If we wrong someone and we never see them again i suppose they are like that - forever wronged in our minds, forever our injustly hurt victim.
The film is a commentary on the injustices between the colonists and colonised in the past and then into the present and future with the children of abused and abusers living amongst each other and perhaps closer than their parents, seeing each other more humanely than their parents did... And maybe this new closer relationship between the races/groups belatedly humanises the child Majid in George's mind and makes George suddenly feel sharp guilt over what he did, triggering this trauma.
Did anyone else find it strange that Majid as a Middle Aged grown man was still obsessed with the childhood event, that he had never found a way to navigate past it in his long life? That he effectively in the end - WAS - what George did to him when he was a child? It hardly seems believable that a real grown Majid could define his life based on the betrayal of another child.
Why do you see Majid like that? What in the movie justifies this? I think Majid is depressed, he's one of the losers of society, but at their first meeting he tries to be friendly to Georges.
If you assume that Majid did not send the tapes, Georges bulldozes into his apartment for no reason at all and gives him one more emotional abuse, the one that is later proven to be one to many.
I will now end this debate with you. share
Did anyone else find it strange that Majid as a Middle Aged grown man was still obsessed with the childhood event, that he had never found a way to navigate past it in his long life?
I think a lot of people have events in their lives that they never get over. Most manage to move on and don't think about them on a day to day basis, but still are reminded of them often. I would also manage to think that many are burdened by them in just slightly subconscious ways that have some kind of cumulative effect on their lives.
And probably some minority of them can't help but believe that most of their daily burdens are the result of this event and are "stuck" on it in ways that make it hard to move on emotionally. Like people who suffer lifelong injuries, come down with chronic illnesses, maybe parents who lose a child or women who have unplanned children whose burden eclipses promising careers, education or life plans.
I guess I wouldn't argue that it's healthy to carry these kinds of burdens, but it's also the kind of thing that is the philosophical foundation for a lot of therapy.
share
"The first thing to notice is that the shots from the hidden camera have exactly the same quality and style as the the rest of the film. In fact they were shot using the same cameras, the whole film was shot on HD video, not film. If this was a plot being used by a conventional Hollywood thriller then the hidden shots would be made to look very different and obviously from a cheap camera. Haneke surely choose not to do this on purpose."
That's just a stylistic decision by the director. The footage was recorded (Or transferred) onto a video tape and as we all know the quality of VHS is nowhere near the quality of a digital HD recording, therefore this is either a mistake or the quality of the footage has no relevance to anything and is certainly not a clue to the identity of the sender.
[deleted]
The feeling the end of the movie gave me was that we didn't need to know who sent the tapes.
Though the film quality of the tapes' footage and the rest of the movie were the same, I don't know if that's to imply that the camera taking the footage was high-quality. To me, the purpose is flipped.
Because there's no differentiation to us, we can never tell which moments we're seeing from the perspective of someone spying or a movie's typical 3rd-person perspective. We become the voyeurs and every moment in the film has a tinge of the sinister to it due to this.
When the movie ended and the credits rolled, I didn't feel ripped off that we didn't get an answer. In the end, the story surpassed the question of "who sent these tapes" and became "what's the relationship between Georges and Majid?". At the end, Georges takes two pills and goes to bed, clearly trying to forget the whole thing. But we can't. Those last two shots did a lot for me to give the film a finality that wasn't necessarily present in the plot. All in all, I thought this was one of the rare movies I've seen that didn't have a clean resolution but still ended satisfactorily.
I don't know. I just watched this movie for the first time tonight, so these are my fresh impressions of the experience.
What's interesting is the way George dreams about the day when they came to take Majid away.
And even though his dream is using what would be considered a high quality of film, his dream is also still using that same STATIC and STATIONARY camera angle (rather than his mind filming that scene by using any other kind of constantly changing Close Up shots, Medium Shots, etc.).
So doesn't that STATIC and Stationary Camera Angle that we see being used in his dream also seem to indicate it may have been George himself who made those other tapes?
Why would someone dream like that ... in the exact same way as we've seen those other tapes made?
Doesn't that dream also seem to indicate that George must have sat there filming Majid on that day when they came to take Majid away to the orphanage?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
I didn't even take that penultimate shot to be a dream, and your points only further cement how interesting a choice it was to make no stylistic differentiation between dream/footage/reality.
With the footage, he establishes a detached, static view of the world. The mundane shots of Georges' house upset him and his wife; they're intrusive, even if they reveal nothing. Later on, the more disturbing shots of Majid's suicide and the flashback are filmed the exact same way, conversely lending a sense of mundane to the menace. This detachment from the more serious moments makes them more striking to me.
I've been googling discussions of the movie, and here's an interesting thread where someone says it's Haneke himself sending the tapes http://mubi.com/topics/unhidden-camera-the-real-sender-of-the-tapes I agree with this, in a figurative way. I don't think we're meant to think Haneke himself is sending them within the world of the film.
Personally, I think the tapes are a McGuffin, meant to drive the story rather than be the purpose of it.
After my first viewing, like you, I also didn't realize the ending scene where they take Majid away was a dream. It's so easy to be mislead by that scene, and assume you're watching the wife of George, who's come to pick up her son from his grandmother's house.
It's only when you notice the car is an older model, that it becomes more clear that this is something that took place several years ago ... back when George was still a child.
Anyhow, here's another very interesting link that you might like to read:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2007/42/hidden
It's a long article, but it's also full of lots of extremely interesting material that can further enhance one's understanding of the film.
Here's a sample of what it says:
Just as Haneke shows us how it is possible to manipulate different layers of fiction, he also disorients us by the interplay between conscious and unconscious subjectivity. Flashes of nightmarish hallucinations are inter-cut with disorienting rapidity. They surface when we least expect them, and it’s hard to establish whether they are part of a character’s waking or dreaming life, and even, initially, to whom they belong. These interruptions to the flow of the narrative have the effect of denying us the kind of identification with characters that we’re accustomed to experiencing.
____________
Doesn't this also sum up that scene at the end where Majid is taken away? Due to the way it IS hard to establish whether what we see is a dream or a part of the character's "waking life?"
It also says this:
Haneke has said of Hidden:
It basically develops like a classic thriller. Thrillers always work with fear. You have a cell. Then a letter arrives, a cassette or even a packet with a head in it and it all takes off from there. In the process, you learn a lot of things about the inner world of this cell and its social infrastructure. (7)
The videotape that arrives unexpectedly on the doorstep of the Paris household of Georges, Anne and their son, Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky), shows that their house and their comings and goings are under surveillance. Its arrival throws the household (the “cell”) into a state of disequilibrium and, as more parcels – including the addition of strange drawings – arrive, Georges and Anne’s anxiety is shown to increase.
__________________
For this reason, I'm also not sure if these tapes that "throw the household into a state of disequilibrium," are suppose to be a McGuffin or not, especially when they also set into motion the rest of the other "Snowball of Events" that we see happening because of them ?
The other interesting thing to consider is when does the DREAM of his childhood end? Is the next scene that we see at the school's entrance also suppose to be a part of his Dream?
Could he be dreamimg about his son meeting with the son of Majid because his "SubConcious" is also telling him these 2 boys have been manipulating him (the same way as he previously manipulates Majid as a child)?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
Hold on.
Just because it depicts the past doesn't mean it's a dream. I understood that we were watching Majid being taken away to the orphanage where his life was (presumably) ruined. And it's that static, detached style which makes it so affecting. It's so sterile, yet we see this boy beg and struggle not to get into that car. The shot even mirrors Georges's prior flashback, further helping me understand that we're seeing a moment from the past, be it dream or memory. It's a jarring cut, from Georges taking some pills, going to bed and forgetting it all; to the very moment he ruined Majid's life.
I don't know what it's supposed to signify, plot-wise, when we see Majid's son and Pierrot talking outside the school. But to me, I saw symbolism in how the past affects the future. Georges's son is distant and sullen, detached from the rest of the family, whereas the innocent, put-upon Majid has a son who is strong, handsome, even-tempered and strong-willed.
By this point, it's not about the tape; just like the two men's sons are representative of the past's lingering effects (your legacy living on through them), the tape is representative of the past, something you can't silence that stays with you no matter what.
I believe the tapes are a McGuffin because though they are the key question in the first 1/2-2/3s of the movie, by the end my interest lay solely in the lives of Majid and Georges. When the credits rolled, I felt this satisfied sense of "oh, we're not supposed to know who sent these tapes".
Well that's what makes the film so brilliant ... is the way the director seems to have created a story in such a way that the viewer is also forced to participate in whatever it is that they've seen?
And since none of us ever perceive things in quite the same way, that also means there are several different ways that one is going to interpret what they've seen?
Did you also see the writing that looks like its written on top of that car we see sitting there in front of the school?
It also looks like the numbers 61 is written on top of it.
And 61 is also the date when Majid's parents disappeared?
So one is also left with the impression that maybe whoever has sent the tapes is busy making still another tape that they plan to send to George?
But this time George would also know it isn't Majid who is sending them or tormenting him with them?
And since we also see what looks like 61 written on top of that car, perhaps its also some kind of other organization that's out to revenge what happened in Paris back in 61?
But then someone else also claim the writing we see on top of that car is also a REFLECTION that's coming from the window of another building?
So that also puts one back to SQUARE ONE again regarding the 61 theory?
But here's another question for you:
Why doesn't George WARN his mother about what's been happening?
If George is alarmed and concerned enough to seek help from the police because someone's filmed the outside of his home, then why not also warn his mother that the outside of her home has also been filmed as well?
Doesn't that also seem to indicate it might be George himself who's sent himself these tapes?
And maybe he does this because his mother is Old and Ill and George may also be afraid that she may leave a part of her estate to Majid in her will?
So all of this tape sending might also be still another way for George to get rid of his RIVAL Majid again and make sure he won't have to compete with him for control of his family estate?
Doesn't Majid also mention the Estate to George during their conversation?
Thus also indicating Majid understands the reason why George is there tormenting him again?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/feb/19/worldcinema
Haneke says: 'I'm not going to give anyone this answer. If you think it's Majid, Pierrot, Georges, the malevolent director, God himself, the human conscience - all these answers are correct. But if you come out wanting to know who sent the tapes, you didn't understand the film. To ask this question is to avoid asking the real question the film raises, which is more: how do we treat our conscience and our guilt and reconcile ourselves to living with our actions?share
Yes we've seen this kind of thing posted to the board before, but isn't the director also being a bit naive to assume that he can control what the rest of his audience will have to say or think about his film?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
It's in the quote; he's saying it's fine to speculate all you want, but if you have paragraphs of nit-picking and fact-diving and detail-speculating, you've missed the forest for the trees. You've literally become the protagonist of this movie, forgetting the why of what's been done for the who.
shareA professor once told me that not only do I miss the forest for the TREES, but that I was also LOST in the leaves.
I like getting LOST. It's kind of FUN.
So what about the other stuff that the Cinema as Senses article says about the scene at the SWIMMING POOL?
Did you get a chance to read that section of it yet?
About how the boys are being TRAINED ... as if they were part of a CONVEYOR BELT inside of a FACTORY?
About how much life has changed ... from sitting around the Piano ... to this other event at the school ... where people sit around with a hand held camera ... to record the swimming contest?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
This is coming off the rails. It sounds like you're just espousing conspiracy theories, Pubb. It's a movie, not Cluedo.
shareWhen 200 bodies get dumped into the river in 1961 (including the 2 bodies of Majid's Missing Parents who are never found) and then the crime also gets "Covered UP," doesn't that also come under the category of being a "Conspiracy" Barf?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
I know what you're talking about in terms of what you're referring to, but I don't understand what you're trying to say anymore.
shareYou were given a link to a website that discusses this film.
The TITLE of that article is DISINHERTED CHILDREN.
Did you ever read it?
The question you were asked about the Swimming Pool Lessons being like a FACTORY SETTING were taken from that article.
The article talks about how in the past the family use to sit around the PIANO while the father of George would play it.
When he goes to visit his mother, she also tells George she misses the SOUND of the PIANO.
So the SWIMMING CONTEST also becomes a CONTRAST of one way of life (from the past) to another completely different way of life (in the present).
Here's some passages from the article that back up what you've been told:
the scene where he visits his mother offers us, without sentimentality, a glimpse of a bygone age. It evokes a sense of loss for a past when the pace of life could accommodate a different way of being in the world – a time when people didn’t fret so much about being alone or old, and when the family piano was both a source of individual creativity and collective pleasure. The changed relationship between us and culture is made clear by this scene.
The scenes at what we assume are the school swimming pool are also indicators of different times. It is clear that the modern mania for seeking the “best” for children in order that they become the “best” is part of the kind of aspiration-driven society that would have been alien to Georges’ parents. A corporate ethos of winners and losers underpins the kind of hothouse training that we see in progress, and it’s telling that the only moment of shared joy between Georges and Anne is the one when Pierrot wins his race. They’re a couple (in terms of being in unison) only on two occasions, both of which are at the swimming pool (the site for them of “positive” things), where we see them in two-shots that indicate their temporary closeness. (9)
An abrupt cut from the dingy, desaturated lighting of the shabby café in Majid’s neighbourhood to the hard bright light of the swimming pool also serves to mark a shift into another world, and it is one of a number of times that Haneke uses contrasting environments to indicate the social divide between classes and communities.
The laboratory-like character of the swimming training and the reverberating (this is no small local pool), detached, intercom-relayed voice of the instructor, whom we don’t see, link to the movie’s themes of alienation and surveillance but, rather than conveying essential plot-related information, they imply that scientific management with a Taylorist dimension (the conveyor-belt production of the “swimmer”) has permeated even the childhood experience of sport. And, in the swimming carnival scene, people are seen documenting the race with their cameras, so there is also the suggestion of a new technology-engendered, mediated relationship between spectator and “live” event.
So what's your opinion of this?
Do you agree?
Disagree?
Do you think this description is an accurate and fair assessment of the film?
Or are you someone who only considers their own opinions to have any kind of merit?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.
I liked it when you put the words in different colors so they'd attract the attention of my simple mind.
shareGlad to hear how much you liked the use of the different colors in the last message ... when using QUOTES from the DISINHERITED CHILDREN article.
Changing Colors kind of fits in nicely with what it says Haneke was doing in the film:
An abrupt cut from the dingy, desaturated lighting of the shabby café in Majid’s neighbourhood to the hard bright light of the swimming pool also serves to mark a shift into another world, and it is one of a number of times that Haneke uses contrasting environments to indicate the social divide between classes and communities.
The laboratory-like character of the swimming training and the ....
So what about what it says about the LABORATORY LIKE Training at the Swimming Pool and how the kids are being treated as if they were Cogs on a Conveyor Belt in a FACTORY setting?
Previously you complain about my not being able to see the Forest for the Trees.
So how about getting "LOST in the LEAVES" of what this FACINATING article has to say about the film with me?
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine. share
We don't see a young Georges in the scene of young Majid being taken away. Could this be because Georges is hiding in the barn when this happens? In fact, could he not be watching from the exact place the camera is positioned?
The camera could be showing what Georges's eyes witnessed. The scene could be static because Georges is static as he is hiding and watching, partly in fear, partly in curiosity, to see Majid lead away due to the story he has told his parents.
If this is so, this is the most likely image that would occur in his dream.
The film can be catagorized as avant garde. Who is making the tapes? The director who is secretly watching and manipulating his creations. By extension the audience members function as voyeurs. What is the nature of paranoia? Our secrets are vulnerable. Someone is watching us. Someone is following us. Someone knows what we have done.
To search for a conventional answer to the mystery in a very unconventional film is simply the wrong approach. Our confortable, middle class lives are all built on crime, on the exploitation of others. The truth is out there. At any moment our culpability, our guilt, might be revealed. Someone knows.
So, having not seen this film have you ruined it for me? Is it important that you never find out who sends the tapes? Can I thank you for ruining this film simply by not thinking when posting your question to the forum?
As rhetorical as this post sounds can someone answer this?
I agree with the first answer: it's irrelevant. In a metaphorical way, the tapes represent George's submerged guilt that is manifesting itself many years later... and given that this guilt itself is representative of suppressed French public guilt itself, one could say it is the filmmaker who is "sending" the tapes to his audience
share[deleted]
Saw the film last night and was totally transfixed by it. However I felt
let down by the ending- I wanted to know who sent the tapes.
Theories that it was Majid or his son or Georges himself just dont seem
feasible.
I think it is significant that at the dinner party when there is a knock
on the front door and Georges goes out and finds the tape there is no-one
there.
I feel the director wants us to believe that no human being is sending the
tapes but it is coming from the beyond- God if you like.
Arent we taught that we will all be confronted with our actions in this
life on Judgement Day. Maybe the director is saying that we should be
confronted in this lifetime.
Maybe this is too fanciful,
What do you guys think?
Half way into this film I suggested to my grandson (watching on DVD) that I think Georges has another personality that is torturing this regular personality. Nothing about the ending disputed that, but I came to doubt it myself. With the Algerian's son waiting for Pierrot at the school, the director is deliberately obfuscating the ending -- leaving it open for interpretative speculation.
I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!
I watched this last night and my roommate, immediately after the film, posited that WE, the audience, are the ones that sent the tapes. Then we got into a discussion. I am going to ignore the physical aspect of leaving the tapes, but I see it more as a metaphor.
Yesterday, I went to work, I went to school, I came home, I relaxed, then decided to sit down and watch a movie with my friend. During that same time, Georges and his family went about their business.
Then we dropped in on them. We disrupted their lives because we decided to watch them. And we didn't want to stop watching them, so we kept watching. I am still trying to reconcile the two most important things that I took from the film: first, this sort of voyeurism or obsession with observing and watching people. Second, how we confront our past decisions and how our lives ultimately trail behind us and can sometimes catch up with us. I sort of felt a Minority Report vibe, that self-fulfilling plot.
Since we decided to drop in on Georges and his family, as we all did when we watched the film, we wanted to know more about the main character, as we usually do when watching the protagonist. So we confronted him about his past, and then the events occured as such.
Majid, from what I could tell, wanted that initial conversation to go differently. He saw Georges, after all those years, and he saw something he did not like. Then he cried at the lost opportunity.
When Georges said something like, "hell of a sick joke" to kill himself over such a grudge, I had to agree. Apparently he allowed his entire life to be defined by those events as a child, and then when confronted with it again after all those years, by the his original adversary, and to receive nothing but a piling-on of that negativity, maybe sent him over the edge. And he wanted Georges to know that he was responsible for it. But as far as Majid or his son sending him the tapes, I don't buy that at all.
You see, we sent the events into motion, and we brought their two divergent lives back to head, and since we wanted so badly to see the resolution to their new ecounters (by continuing to watch the film), we forced everyone's stubbornness, (because each of them knew they did not send the tapes, and Georges obviously only had a few choices and could not accept that anything but the humans surrounding him could have sent them) and therefore their high emotions.
Now I don't know if my DVD was just messing up, but the film definitely paused in two places that I can remember that weren't a part of their playing back tapes. Once as the camera goes towards a young Majid in the dark, coming up to his left shoulder from behind, and a second time when Georges is in his room waiting for his wife to come in towards the end. Maybe this is proof of us watching back the tapes of the entire movie.
After watching the film, we're supposed to turn in on ourselves and wonder first, why we all practice voyeurism when watching films, and then how we would confront our past if suddenly forced to by some external means.
This is just our theory from late last night after watching the film.
What do you all think?
Wow! Thank you for sharing. My own interest in the film was not so perceptive or analytical. I often am dismayed by directors 'playing tricks' on us while also enjoying the intellectual challenges. I could see this Austrian directors skill which I guess is not supposed to be seen. Still, with your analysis, it is more useful than I imagined. The examined life. Our generations obsessions. Socratic, huh? Or should I have written 'n'est pas?'
I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!
excellent! very analytical without delving too deep. I happen to find your analysis very agreeable. thanks for sharing!
Darling, I've been killing spiders since I was 30.share
The strongest indication is Majid's son. He conveyed deep feelings of resentment towards Georges and had a disturbing demeanor in the bathroom scene. Reflecting back it would make sense of the final scene where he talked to Pierrot in relation to his disappearance. Majid's son may have seen more than what he sent on tape to the Laurents such as the supposed affair between Anne and Pierre, which he would have told Pierrot in attempting to destroy the Laurent's home life just as his Father's had been destroyed.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
Sir you deserve an award for this comment, this is just a brilliant observation. Oh my, that is just incredible and this movie has to be one of my favorite films ever now.
shareI saw this movie last night and the more I think about it, the more I think Georges' boss/director at the network is the culprit behind the tapes. While this isn't the most important part of the story, it is intriguing, and I take Haneke at his word that a character in the story does in fact send the tapes.
Establishing a connection between most of the characters and the tapes is problematic. But the director/boss doesn't present any of these problems. He has means, motive and opportunity. He makes sense on a lot of levels, some of which I laid out over here: http://leftbehinds.blogspot.com/2005/12/update-cachs-meaning.html (as of today, my comments are at the bottom, probably at least 50 comments down, under anonymous/penny h. starting at 11:45 pm) Would love to hear others' views on this theory.
I really liked this movie. Mainly because it gave me so much to think about once it was over. That's a fairly unique experience in an age when the goal of most films seems to be simple entertainment with an easy pay-off.