TÍTULO ORIGINAL Caché
AÑO 2005
DURACIÓN 117 min.
PAÍS Austria
DIRECTOR Michael Haneke
GUIÓN Michael Haneke
MÚSICA
FOTOGRAFÍA Christian Berger
REPARTO Daniel Auteuil, Juliette Binoche, Maurice Bénichou, Annie Girardot, Lester Makedonsky, Bernard Le Coq, Walid Afkir, Daniel PRODUCER
Duval Co Austria-France-Germany-Italy, Wega Film / Les Films du Losange / Bavaria Film / BIM Distribuzione
'm the opposite of being a specialist in Haneke's films, I've only seen a few film credits ( pianist, Funny Games, 71 Fragments of a Chronology random and Benny's video) so I can not venture to speak of creative and authorial world beyond mere scraps that I could collect from their jobs, yes very particular, where there are an unhealthy taste for violence reminiscent of an even more explicit, Cronenberg, and a fairly little complacent human being, placing it as a vulgar bourgeois subject who is only out of self-contemplation by the bubble burst of violence and disease. The other day I read a definition on the movie more or less simple, it is still very successful and enlightening of what this art: the movies start when something breaks normal. However, Haneke seems to want to twist this reductionist approach and turn it over to make it the reality that breaks like a bull in a china shop in the reality in a free pair of mirrors. How is this possible? This recording with which they start the film, which shows a street in an unidentified location and, if not because suddenly the image is rewound and the voices of Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil interrupted, we would take as the true beginning of a movie where, in short, is going to happen something related with the protagonists. And subtly tells us something that makes this pair of seemingly perfect bourgeois life (and boring): alter reality at will and way, if you do not like something change or treat with contempt (especially significant in this regard is the passage in which Georges is editing his TV and cut a large part to keep it "interesting"). Act with a bandage on their eyes to what happens in the world (George walks past the camera and not be aware of it) quite elitist, have the ability to decide what to discard and use it regardless. A cruel and cold way to live, but the one chosen by this pair of snobs and his son, make no doubt of the Internet generation. Owner of a tough-talking, in their irregularity of film, the strength and conviction with which he recounts the events (rather with stops on them) make it an experience that plays to take away the mask of a society like the current, more concerned with false appearances and good relationships that meet the real needs of the world, these are basic (the issue of racism in France is latent throughout the film).
filmmaker Hitchcock partially disguised (with touches of Bunuel) using a McGuffin to tell a suspenseful story with a dramatic background, ie, the tapes are worthless in the plot, is the spark that ignites the motor. The only thing that Haneke was looking for a justification for analyzing contemporary bourgeois society, especially in French (why are so obnoxious and pedantic, even dining lazy days?) Because, in an ending as disturbing as open, we are not clear At no time who the author of the recording and, of course, we give answers on what is planted, letting the viewer to scratch in the surface to draw conclusions. Moreover, the film, after the two planes that might be called the end of the protagonist sleeping in the shadows and memory, ends as it begins, that is, something cyclical, and we could be looking back to that mysterious being (almost demiurgic) capturing fragments Laurent's lives. The disturbing thought that the film is based directly targeted intellectuals immersed in a world not real, it works both on television (again, choose the reality you are interested in) as it (works in a literary publishing house, I have no to say) and son (pijito in his spare time goes swimming) are a microcosm undisturbed in the house. It is this detail of interest to Haneke, putting man in conflict with their fears and worries more accurate, the real, those who are never going to get left behind. Therefore Georges and Anne are indignant sovereign when police tell what the usual procedure of disappearance, or when she decides to hire a detective, to which he, in a cynical way too much, you Contet that "have seen many movies . Majid, a mysterious character, no longer the guilt that the protagonist is constantly to return to reality and will never abandon him. This is shown in a quite Dostoevsky, because this child now become a disturbing and almost ghostly memory does not differ much of the ghost that appears to Raskolnikov or the devil to Ivan Karamazov, or a tape that also drank from the literary sources of the Russian writer, the masterful work of Fritz Lang Scarlet . Interestingly, it has nothing in common with these works. At first you may feel identified with the protagonist, but when you see their behavior as a viewer you end up taking him even dislike. Georges also a liar, a bad son, and finally, and here is the grace of election Haneke, you may feel empathy for that initially presented as actant is threatening the environment of the protagonist.
In his last stick this social class, Haneke makes room for no ink left in the almost religious use of lies by the characters. In contrast to the shock that is facing reality, so often hidden by the bandage, the family uses deceit as a basic form of relating. From the outset this is a manipulated reality, where the father does not know what your son, since this hides it innocently. When a tape in the middle of dinner, he hides, he discovers who the blackmailer, he turns to hide. A string of lies that was created 40 years ago in the most despicable possible, again increasing to reach a point where that marriage is in question the very basis of their relationship, the need for trust as a way of understanding life with another person. Recalling the coda of Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut , by the way that torture the character (and the viewer) jumping between reality and fiction, subtly, Haneke increases that feeling to make the untenable burden, since the child also decides to join the feast liar. Raised in a modern world, a mirror image of his father, with all the comforts of the world, capricious and spoiled, and self-absorbed in swimming, it has more to do with them to say goodbye to them before bed, just like that strange when your father is pick you up at school "when I have a little time." A family broken, dead and it receives its finishing touch. I do not know if it deliberately, but it is especially singular that Haneke shows the room completely naked except for the books, numbering in the dozens on the shelf, a large TV where news is always made (always serious) than ignore players locked in their bubble, and a large dining table where you give your friends, to give that image of being socially integrated and committed to the talks among intellectuals who lavished such people, all outside the praxis of life . Perhaps because of this, the director chooses to take some distance with respect to history, his choice of staging is cold, without close-ups and no real violence choreographed (suicide is chilling by the speed and surprise with which it occurs). With his usual radical minimalism very strong, let it all flow in the natural course (all natural things can be going at 24 frames per second) and are the actors (especially a superlative Auteuil) who bear the brunt of action. Finally, recalling Paul Thomas Anderson's uneven but interesting There Will Be Blood, chooses that moment to show that marks the later history of the three characters through a general level of almost 2 minutes for, as he says Majid's son Georges, knowing the punishment that is loaded with a person's life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment