Michael Haneke’s Caché (2005) opens with a static shot of a residential area in Paris, France. We’re not sure what we should be focusing on; the camera doesn’t make it a point to clue in the viewer on anything in the frame. Cars are passing the road, people walk by, and a woman leaves her house. Suddenly, what we’re watching begins to rewind. Our perceptions have been altered; what we were watching wasn’t apart of the film, like one would assume – it was, in fact, a married couple viewing a video tape that was recorded outside of their house. The tape was left outside of their house without any indication of who was behind the act. These first few minutes sum up the entire approach Haneke is taking.
The tapes continue to arrive anonymously, with drawings that look as if a child was behind them. One of the tapes is a brief clip of an enormous house. This house was the childhood home of Georges (Daniel Auteuil), a talk-show host. Another tape consists of a camera positioned in car, recording a drive down a seemingly random street. The camera then cuts to a hallway in an apartment complex. It gradually makes its way down the hall, positioning itself on an apartment door. Georges manges to freeze-frame the footage in order to make out the the street-name. He thinks he knows who did it. Anne (Juliette Binoche), the wife of Georges, demands him to let her know. She’s frightened by the fact that someone – anyone – is recording them. She takes them as threats. He, frustratingly, refuses to let her in, claiming “it’s just a hunch.”
I feel as if I shouldn’t spoil who is in this apartment, but on the other hand I feel like I should. The first reason being, this film is seven years old. This is not a new release, and, quite frankly, the film’s strengths don’t lie in the identity of this person. The second reason being, it’s rather difficult to delve into the film’s themes without spoiling who this person is. It should be noted that the resident of the apartment may or may not be the person that sent the tapes/drawings. Georges manages to find this little flat. The resident of the apartment is a person that recognizes Georges immediately. His reaction is a surprising one. Georges’ initial reaction is a mystery; he doesn’t know who this person is, though he gradually realizes his identity. The resident is Majid (Maurice Bénichou), an Algerian man who grew up with Georges. Majid’s parents were friends with Georges’ parents. They were killed in the massacre during the Algerian war, thus forcing Majid to live with Georges for the time being. Majid insists that he wasn’t the one to send these letters/drawings.
After Anne receives a video of Georges threatening Majid in his apartment, she questions why he lied. Why did he tell her that no one was in the apartment? Georges’ childhood is explained to Anne. Throughout the film, we see random intercuts of a boy coughing up blood and a boy chopping a chicken’s head off with an axe, watching it flail about headless, then swinging the axe towards another boy. He tells Anne that he was miserable with Majid as a child. His parents suddenly focus their attention on Majid. He tells his parents that he witnessed Majid cough up blood; he insists that he’s not safe around him. His parents don’t buy it. He then tells Majid that his parents want him to kill an infected chicken. Majid kills the chicken, the parents find out, and Georges gets his way; the boy is sent away to an orphanage. His defense of his actions is simple: “I was six years old.” He believes that Majid is the guilty one here – he thinks Majid is the one responsible for the threats. Anne doesn’t buy it; judging from Majid’s reaction in the recorded video, she believes he’s being sincere.
There are no fade-ins to the boy coughing up blood or the chicken’s head getting chopped off. We aren’t sure, at the time, how this footage relates to the conflict at hand. Both scenes resemble the simplistic drawings that accompany the tapes: a chicken with its neck crunched and a boy with a stream of blood pouring out of his mouth. We know the person behind these tapes has knowledge of Georges and Majid’s past. The second scene, however, strays away from George’s explanation to his wife, partly because it’s one of George’s nightmares; a clear sign of guilt. Haneke also makes these scenes ambiguous. It’s never clear if these scenes are apart of a memory or imagination, or, if they did indeed happen, who exactly is the child to cut off the chicken’s head. Was it Georges, not Majid? We have no reason to believe Georges, the narrator in these events to Anne, is a reliable one. Even during a vital scene towards the end, it still still isn’t clear which kid is who.
The approach to filmmaking is minimalistic, and that’s putting it lightly. Most of the shots are composed of static shots, with little to no cuts. When the married couple is having dinner, the camera merely stays in one location, examining every detail of the process. This would be a rather tiresome approach if weren’t for the fact that Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche are so confident in their roles that they make give these static, plain shots an unbearable amount of tension. This shouldn’t work.
The film’s story is an allegory to the conflicts between the French and the Algerians during the Algerian war. This allegory does not come off heavy-handed. There’s one scene in particular that explains this message well. Georges is confronted by someone (not going to reveal who) in a bathroom. I’m not going to go into detail during this scene, as it can ruin one of the most shocking scenes I’ve seen in film. I will say, however, that one must pay close attention to this scene: take note of the way Haneke films this, and how it separates itself from the filmmaking methods found throughout the rest of the film. There’s a difference, and it’s there for a reason.
The relationship between Georges and Anne is kind of brushed under the bigger picture, but it’s something that should be examined. The relationship is a hostile one. There tends to be deceit between the two, more-so from the husband than the wife (Georges lying about the apartment, confiding to his mother instead of her, etc.) There’s a resentment towards Georges. Even after a horrifying incident occurs, Anne still finds the need to be forward with Georges, showing not the kind of respect one would expect. Another plot-line that doesn’t seem to care about answers is one that involves Anne and her friends. The son (Lester Makedonsky) brings up the allegation that Anne is involved in an affair. There isn’t much to support this allegation prior to this scene, and only one subtle scene that follows brushes upon it.
This isn’t a film that focuses on its answers. It’s a film that must be discussed. While the film can be deciphered as an allegory to the Algerian war, the more prominent theme of the film, one that has a greater depth to it, is guilt (Haneke himself said he had no knowledge of this incident until two years prior to filming.) It’s about a man living in a life of financial luxury, only to be reminded of what his actions as a child led to. He will no longer live a life free of guilt. His past has come back to haunt him, in a way only Haneke could express. Should he feel guilty for his actions at such a young age? He had no idea that these fleeting moments would lead to something bigger. The film’s biggest mystery, the person responsible for the tapes, isn’t an important one. What matters is what the tapes bring about. Examine the final static shot closely; it took me two times to notice something substantial.
