How Does Newton's Second Law Apply To Apollo 13

CACHE (several twists to the most controversial film of Michael Haneke)

In its day, and an interesting forum cinephile who had the honor to chair, participated in a debate on Cache and search, retrieve the fragments of an exciting and controversial discussion in which he accused Cache and Haneke's pretentious and boring. Had to come The White Ribbon to have consensus with the Austrian director, but soon Funny Games were and Cache, movies as big as your last performance. (There is nothing more than my humble opinion, of course ...) (Part of my contribution to this debate and put it in a post on the blog Haneke Crowley)

Some different considerations moviegoers on Cache.

Dicusión

opened by

Esteban

seeing: Internet pacing discover that this film has blown away most of the critics (and much of the public) , therefore decided to see it to satisfy my curiosity (many compliments have some reason, I say) and I find the most boring thing, pedantic, pretentious and irritating that these two eyes have seen in a long time. In fact, not take long and soon decided to end the session.

After a few days I get to see "The Time of the Wolf" to see if this is worth it. But no other such dances. Peñaza just as before. I remember that "Fanny Games" not excited me too (which more or less to say that not even finished watching) and "The Pianist" I found another roll which, surprisingly, if I was able to digest from cover to cover (a Notwithstanding durum is at times. More than durum, indigestible). My question is: why both film like this guy? Why all the world is full of praise to their movies? I mean, sometimes I feel like a Martian. Worse, I feel stupid for not knowing (or not) see that as incomparable and unique that most if you see people in such logs. Am I the only film that does not support this man?

Zarina

Glad to read you, Stephen. By now believed to be the only person who did not like but not one bit, CACHE. I also worried about not being able to see that so fantastically awesome that makes this movie almost a masterpiece ... The truth is that I got bored a lot and I left the cinema not because it is not my policy, and because I always hope that things will improve, but in this case it was not. But hey, that's what is going to the movies, is the sort of hit or not!

Scotty

Well ... The films, like all arts, have their different approaches to an issue. Velazquez's Las Meninas has nothing to do with the reinterpretation that makes Picasso theme. Haneke is a master of suggestion, of the ellipse, to leave the pieces there and that each of the assembly. Does not give you all the work done. Will dropping things and you're intrigued because I do not interpret. At the end you have a puzzle: Montale. It seems to me that to think is necessary. Our neurons are activated not only remain healthy, but grow. SPOILER! Georges is a marked man by his past, for poor "education" social. At one point we see the movie poster of Almodóvar. Is not there by chance and we need clear when the son of a friend of George's youth as addressed in his work and tells his father took care to give a "good education" and now he will not be as it was George at the time. Who put that video camera that searches the house in search of "truth." Keep in mind that George worked on television and, therefore, has a more than adequate mastery of the medium. Haneke ensures that no doubt it when in a given work day, George is giving orders to the editors of a video to be transmitted, the way they are dealing with the same technical problems. George is haunted by his past and wanted to confess, but this does not compromise it. Solving these two feelings. Human beings are very complex and has a thousand ways of surviving, even with their trauma. Georges wants to get rid of your guilt talking about it, but how. It has no value. That he can film his privacy for his wife to be interpreting what he dare not tell. The investigation that lead to the alleged perpetrator of the videos are another excuse. He knows very well where the author. When she finds her Algerian friend, we find that your relationship with him had many ramifications. The attitude of his former friend is not the only man violated a social injustice. In conversation, this man who treats you like a lover who receives an old lover who is always waiting, which makes him something that Georges is not emphasized but is said. More or less, says Georges. Yes, it happened, but I was younger than you and you were much stronger. When George leaves, the Algerian collapses and leaves crying and unfathomable pain. Why do we know?. In the room there is a camera that is filming and that, obviously, this man has no place. When the ambivalent attitude of Georges unleashed a tragedy waiting to happen (in the drawings "someone" suggests how it should end), it seems that it's over to Georges. Like a ritual, prepare at home how to restore order in his life. The journey from calling his wife to say he will not pick up your child and let him rest until the next day's ritual: If you look back from this call until the word END, Georges "believes that a long session sleep will make clear all his past but also its "recent" present. Try to go back to a time we might call "fetal." Do you mean getting reborn?. Who, I've seen in the film about their cowardly acts, thinks he will get. Each will play what will happen from then. The fixed ending of the school of your child when he should have gone to pick up (as endless as the principle that we do not know what happens with both fixed shot of the house) leaves us in suspense with what may have happened with Georges since. Speculate ourselves ....

Esteban

Fortunately, my neurons are activated 24 hours a day and growing. No need to come this guy as highly paid himself to make me think about anything. And since you mention "Bad Education" will tell you (although it has nothing to do with Haneke's films) this film if I find a dense, complex, offering many different readings, with a suggestion and treatment of narrative ellipsis really care by Almodovar, but showing at all times the cards you have (ie what is meant who wants to tell) but then the viewer can order as you see fit. And what is more important, enjoyable from start to finish, something that until now Haneke has failed to make any of his films. No need for experiments as soporific for people to get out of the chair with his mouth open in astonishment. My head has given me many other films round with infinitely more interesting (and, especially, humble) that "Cache" and similar tostones. You might mention movies (even on the charts) that, if properly treated, can generate much more enriching debates and exciting without having to appear before the viewer as unique works, original, unique, only understandable by a certain sector of criticism and (on all) of the public, supposedly intellectual. It seems very well that people like this kind of film, but do not give me the sobadísimo topic of the films of this good man is "thinking" because it sounds so very pretentious I'll still end up catching more mania .

Scotty

:

Stephen, for a moment, to begin to read you, I thought you meant to me to say "I do not need this so very full of himself .. . Uff!. Luckily Haneke you mean ...

In cinema, as elsewhere, is a matter of taste. Back to the example of Velazquez and Picasso. The second I do not understand at all. But its prestige (and its "cache" jejej ..) say many mortals are great. In my case, Haneke me hooked on his films. There is an exception and is THE TIME OF THE WOLF I find it absolutely failed. Here we are for this. To discuss. My interpretation of CACHE does not have to be the true nor the only one. In fact, it might give you another, but not plan to continue with the roll. It runs the risk of being misunderstood and runs thinking that I'm pretentious. Of course there is no doubt that we all have our brains very alert. It was a way of speaking. I like that sometimes when I do eat the head. As Almodóvar, each day makes a more dense and evocative film, more mature. Is poised to become one of the largest, if not already. Oh, I like conversations "thick" (and this I think), plus the fun and silly. They disagree often and well we talk about movies. Greetings.

Eumelus :

Yesterday rented "The Time of the Wolf", the previous Haneke. I did not like: no progress, the entire film revolves around the same situation, the end is nonexistent, Isabelle Huppert is wasted ... My sister almost killed me for making him see that. SPOILER How would you interpret that the final tracking shot from inside the train? Do they run? If so where? You do not see anyone on the outside does that mean that the thing ends with the end of the human race? This is a bit Haneke frustrating at times ... END OF SPOILER Today I will see "Cache", which has finally come to this city of mine so little cinephile. Then I tell you. Eumelus

:

I've already seen. Haneke is a cheat and a straight face: first we sold the bike to be subjected to the ways and means of more or less conventional thriller, and then we will not solve the riddle of which has served to get hooked. That is not ... Scotty, I have read your interesting interpretation, but I'm not agree with it. I do not think this is a story about guilt, on the contrary, I think it is a story about not fault. Auteuil is insensitive to slip him what he has done: his dark past is concerned only to the extent that could destabilize the perfect present, nothing more. We face the usual Haneke and his usual theme: barbarism and cruelty are lurking under our false appearance of civilized beings (the "educated" young "Funny Games", the "irreproachable" Isabelle Huppert's "The Pianist" survivors of the carnage of "The Time of the Wolf", little friendship between themselves, and here this Daniel Auteuil full of misery under its pristine appearance) Well that I do not believe you're sorry. It just gets scared at seeing the wolf ears, which is very different. As the final scene, that is giving so much to say ... think you can not give any definitive solution. Here is mine: the kids out of school, a totally unremarkable scene after the tragedy, nothing has happened here, nobody cares about the suffering and death, and life goes on ... There is no getting around the issue of "who is shooting?" Because that's just teasing Haneke ... Greetings.

MAY BE SPOILERS - Auteuil reaffirm that I do not feel guilty, but only concerned about the destabilization of the order where shown or hinted that the blame it corrode? If anyone sees it that way is because it transfers erroneously as being the character. In other words, reasoning thus: "I'd feel guilty instead." Okay, since no (or at least saw no reason to think so)-Ravi, his guilt seems quite straightforward: to make expel the other child from the home, forced him to live a dog's life. Did not mean to ruin your life, but he did and not repented. "The sudden surprise suicide and fails to satisfactorily justified. It was supposed to have had a hard life and the other reappears, reminding him that might have been different, but still leaves you a little paintings. I think Haneke included to give you another example of the callousness and inhumanity of Auteuil: cared a damn about destroying his life, and also a damn who dies. -Esteban, maybe have to review it, but I did not see that the film had a final ...

Esteban : Oh dear, you were to hit the post I wrote months ago about cache when a couple of weeks in the DVD I retracted everything she thinks of her. Again I put here: Where I say tell diego. More or less so I can sum up the feeling that came over me after seeing this movie. A couple of months I tried to see for the first time I did not go beyond 20 minutes. No day was very Catholic and I am very angry. I found it boring, tedious, pedantic, pretentious ... a disaster, go. The scene where one of the friends of the two main characters are a joke at dinner (The dog, for those who have seen it) was the straw that broke the camel. I did not have time to rant about everything she wanted and more besides. The fact is that yesterday I decided to see her again. I was curious after reading so much praise and I promised myself to swallow it from the beginning to the end though it make me very uphill. To my surprise the movie I liked. Did not seem incomparable masterpiece some say there, but it's true worth far more than I thought and so broadly, it is a great movie. I was completely wrong in my initial findings, I admit. I want to see it again pay more attention to some details. The film keeps inside several interesting metaphors in a first viewing can escapársete. SPOILER do not quite understand those who say that the film has no end, because from my point of view it is not. Although Haneke does not say who sent the tapes does not mean the film does not allow more or less clear. Vale to open-ended and able to accommodate many interpretations, but at least they are there for everyone to choose the one you like. Scotty :

Well ... think I am alone in defense of CACHE. The interpretation you do, Eumelus, not essentially different from mine, only to the extent that there is no doubt you lack of feelings of guilt of the protagonist. I stopped and said at the end that "ourselves." Each one will think a thing about it. I think Georges is going to live forever marked, it can be, so you see, you wake up the next day so the strain. Haneke does not tell us anything because it wants each viewer choice. Can not be called pretentious and pedantic (Esteban) or cheating (you) to an author by the fact that we do not like or do not get into their proposals. It may be more palatable a conventional narrative and style to use, but people like Haneke, Von Trier, Lynch ... keep alive the principle of the permanent search of new forms of expression in any type of artistic creation, here the film. We must not rest on their laurels. Can we call cheater to Ang Lee for resorting to sentimentality in his last hit movie?. anyway, the controversy is very exciting and gets Haneke here is obvious. And finally I see that there is debate. There remains other evidence of "difficult" digestion, Manderlay, which I hope also on contrasts of opinion. Eumelus

: Eye

Scotty, do not say that the movie I seem negligible. Once recovered from the setback I meant the teasing enigma Haneke regarding proposed, I think this is a movie with estimable aspects: it is disturbing, is properly understood, is blunt in his thesis how miserable they are ... (Hence if we disagree, because I do a reading more misanthropic than you ...)

Ravi Shankar:

Well, I saw this movie the other day. I must say that I'm with Scotty and I was very disappointed that the movie, although I understand others. I understand that claims to be a boring movie because it bored (nothing happens that, in principle, we have in tension), but just that "not spend anything" to me is in tension, because I think something important is coming. It's like a puzzle which has no image. Done "blind ".... and when you finish, when you see that image has a result, one gets excited or proud or whatever ...... POSSIBLE SPOILER The problem is that in this movie do not see "any final image." The story is not resolved. END SPOILER And that's when I think "fuck, go film!". But I also think in the peak hour and had me hooked trying to scan, find, interpret etc etc things from the movie and its characters (indeed, Binoche is great). I do not know what happened. NEW SPOILER I do not know whether, given the aggressiveness of the compilation (Remember when he kills chickens, viciously) was an abuse by the child to prota. Another thing is if the blood, chickens, it was also true (I guess so.) Or if the protagonist abused the child (most logical, especially guilt). But it seems difficult because the blackmail is assumed that in every case, what does "the victim", right?. They may simply not happen at all, it was actually a piece of cake (which the images of blood along the chickens, just images that can be hit, nothing else). It may be true what the protagonist says: simply accused of something and took him . What can that which would be his undoing an institution (Abuse, poor education, racism, etc etc etc). Maybe that's his only fault. An indirect wholly guilty. Does the camera? do not think it a joke or game director. Without the camera does not have history. What he put it? it sounds weird. Does the other ?..... either (you name the scene before him crying? I believe more that he was the son who does all that, but I do not know why .... what about suicide? think that is because he is guilty of what happened or because it is SPOILER END ??????? victim .... Well, I did not like the movie much, but I'm glad to have seen. There is dispensable for me (cinefile speaking). Scotty, do not think the scene near the end, it prepared the house, going to bed, calling for people not to bother ... is a ritual. Nor an "all over" (because although you have finished SPOILER END SPOILER suicide, all started in his head. And his wife (who does not know the insistence of women ???!!!!), it asked to know what happened. He still has a long way the main character to finish it. I believe that preparing to sleep that way is simply this: I'm tired, I sleep (tired pathologically speaking). to me has happened in occasion and is the best thing you can do: Be very clear that nobody will bother you then sleep. A GREETING.

Eumelus:

MAY BE SPOILERS - Auteuil reaffirm that I do not feel guilty, but only concerned about the destabilization of the order where shown or implied that the blame it corrode? If anyone sees it that way is wrong because it transfers as being the character. In other words, reasoning thus: "I'd feel guilty instead." Okay, since no (or at least saw no reason to think so)-Ravi, his guilt seems quite straightforward: to make expel the other child from the home, forced him to live a dog's life. Did not mean to ruin your life, but he did and not repented. "The sudden surprise suicide and fails to satisfactorily justified. It was supposed to have had a hard life and the other reappears, reminding him that might have been different, but still leaves you a little paintings. I think Haneke it included to give further evidence of insensitivity and inhumanity of Auteuil, cared a damn wreck his life, and also a damn who dies. -Esteban, maybe have to review it, but I did not see that the film had a final ... Esteban : Oh dear, you were to hit the post I wrote months ago about cache when a couple of weeks in the DVD I retracted everything she thinks of her. Again I put here: Where I say tell diego. More or less so I can sum up the feeling that came over me after seeing this movie. A couple of months I tried to see for the first time I did not go beyond 20 minutes. No the day was very Catholic and I was very angry. I found it boring, tedious, pedantic, pretentious ... a disaster, go. The scene where one of the friends of the two main characters are a joke at a dinner (the dog, for those who have seen it) was the straw that broke the camel. I did not have time to rant about everything she wanted and more besides. The fact is that yesterday I decided to see her again. I was curious after reading so much praise and I promised myself to swallow it from the beginning to the end though it make me very uphill. To my surprise the movie I liked. Did not seem incomparable masterpiece some say by there, but it really is worth far more than I thought and so broadly, it is a great movie. I was completely wrong in my initial findings, I admit. I want to see again to pay more attention to some details. The film keeps inside several interesting metaphors in a first viewing can escapársete. SPOILER do not quite understand those who say that the film has no end, because from my point of view it is not. Although Haneke does not say who sent the tapes does not mean the film does not allow more or less clear. Vale to open-ended and able to accommodate many interpretations, but at least they are there for each Choose the one you like. Eumelus : Eye Scotty, do not say that the movie I seem negligible. Once I recovered from the setback that led to the teasing enigma Haneke regarding proposed, I think this is a movie with estimable aspects: it is disturbing, is properly understood, is blunt in his thesis how miserable we are .. . (Hence if we disagree, because I do a reading more misanthropic than you ...) Ravi Shankar: Well, I saw this movie the other day. I must say that I'm with Scotty and I was very disappointed that the movie, although I understand others. I understand that claims to be a boring movie because it bored (nothing happens that, in principle, we have in tension), but just that "not spend anything" to me is in tension, because I think something important is about arrive. It's like a puzzle which has no image. Done "blind ".... and when you finish, when you see that image has a result, one gets excited or proud or whatever ...... POSSIBLE SPOILER The problem is that in this movie do not see "any final image." The story is not resolved. END SPOILER And that's when I think "fuck, go film!". But I also think in the peak hour and had me hooked trying to scan, find, interpret etc etc things from the movie and characters (incidentally, Binoche is great). I do not know what happened. NEW SPOILER I do not know whether, given the aggressiveness of the compilation (Remember when he kills chickens, with a vengeance) there was an abuse by the child to the main character. Another thing is if the blood, chickens, it was also true (I guess so.) Or if the protagonist abused the child (most logical, especially guilt). But it seems difficult because the blackmail is assumed that in every case, what does "the victim", right?. They may simply not happen at all, it was actually a piece of cake (which the images of blood along the chickens, just images that can be hit, nothing else). It may be true what the protagonist says: simply accused of something and took him . What may that be an institution would be his undoing (abuse, poor education, racism, etc etc etc). Maybe that's his only fault. An indirect wholly guilty. Does the camera? do not think it a joke or game director. Without such chamber would not have history. What he put it? it sounds weird. Does the other ?..... either (you name the scene before him crying? I believe more that he was the son who does all that, but I do not know why .... what about suicide? think that is because he is guilty of what happened or because it is ??????? victim .... END SPOILER Well, I did not like the movie much, but I'm glad I have. It is not superfluous to me (cinefile speaking). Scotty, do not think the scene near the end, it prepared the house, going to sleep, calling people to not bother ... is a ritual. Nor an "all over" (because although you have finished SPOILER END SPOILER suicide, all started in his head. And his wife (who does not know the insistence of women ???!!!!), it asked to know what happened. He still has a long way the main character to finish it. I believe that preparing to sleep that way is simply this: I'm tired, I sleep (tired pathologically speaking). Happened to me on occasion and is the best thing you can do: Be very clear that nobody will bother you then sleep. A GREETING. Eumelus: MAY BE SPOILERS - Auteuil reaffirm that I do not feel guilty, but only concerned about the destabilization of the order where shown or hinted that the blame it corrode? If anyone sees it that way is wrong because it transfers as being the character. In other words, reasoning thus: "I'd feel guilty instead." Okay, since no (or at least saw no reason to think so)-Ravi, his guilt seems quite straightforward: to make expel the other child from the home, forced him to live a dog's life. Did not mean to ruin your life, but he did and not repented. "The sudden surprise suicide and fails to satisfactorily justified. It was supposed to have had a hard life and the other reappears, reminding him that might have been different, but still leaves you a little paintings. I think Haneke included to give you another example of the callousness and inhumanity of Auteuil, cared a damn wreck his life, and also a damn who dies. -Esteban, maybe have to review it, but I did not see that the film had a final ... have already said. Those tapes, which I do not think we should give a logical sense, conventional (as if we were really telling a story of suspense), are the trigger that pops the drama (or trauma) in the character. And what the film tries to capture is the fragility, helplessness, loneliness any to what is not expected and that makes it destabilizes the way of life that had been manufactured ... As if Haneke told his character: "that the life you've made you, you made me I have to write, and now the fuck you because I feel like it. Let's see how you react (character), I (author ) and they (the audience). " I say what I said before: I think "Cache" is a fable ... Can not be measured as a conventional story or even filling their holes (or ellipses) with our own imagination. Having said all that, does it end? But I do not know, I do not think about that ... It is as if we asked Picasso, "and the figurine that (pure cubism) respects the proportion seven-headed human, or nine? I'm about to turn up half star to four ... Incidentally, this is exactly what I see in "The Time of the Wolf." I do not know why it is so ill-considered ... To me it seems as fascinating as "Cache", or more. Would I be mad that after this speech Haneke strange? Saluditos Spassky " Ziryab Interesting reflection, we discussed the other day something about Haneke. This is the movie that I liked (I know you give these four stars, even half past four scotty). At the time I think I said something similar but this is one of the few films that I like to "wander" (in a good way, but wander to the end of the day). I think that to understand as much as possible "Cache" we must bear in mind that the subjective (not the subjective camera that acts as a character, but the camera itself as a subjective element) is an actor most of the action . We need to stop thinking that maybe what Haneke is intended not so important who is behind the camera as the camera itself, and the consequences of images that in principle are not noticeable. The importance of holding the image as a sometimes illuminating and other confounding (that that I have often quoted from the fake documentary) but the undeniable importance of the image itself. In fact for me is absolutely transcendent in any of the tapes involucratorio is nothing, nothing that the characters can be recorded injuries or feel ashamed of their privacy, as well (important) than any image shows a difference between cameras or points of view, so typical of the "REC" button above, or the like, which the camera lens can be subjective in many times and I think that plays with this ambiguity in several scenes (I thought that the first conversation with Najib when he goes to his flat to see it objectively, differs somewhat, slightly, when then we see the conversation played in the video. I do not know if anyone thought I saw this and see if I get the DVD but I'm a bit of anger pq Haneke is not going too and at the end for one reason or other I will have all his movies, I will note Ziryab recommendation that "The Time of the Wolf" -). To which what has been said that the boss is Haneke tapes may seem absurd, but on reflection is one way of looking, pq behind the camera objective is always the director's vision and even if physically director (I seem to have taken it seriously rambling, but stopping to think twice, trying to make the idea in context.) Plane end of the film, so brought and so worn, so I have clear is that a subjective level of the recording chamber (relative to what I have already explained). For me that if it is clear. From there, they support more musings on the meaning and significance ... . " Ziryab Well, Spassky, I must admit I threw a little pool with my previous interpretation of the film, but after reading what you write on objective and subjective camera cameras, I think I see clear and I reaffirm my impression that everything is a game with the audience Haneke and his character. There is a detail that no one has mentioned: what you call the subjective (that is, which is supposed to spy on Georges), still appears to finish, even after the fatal outcome of the story (the suicide of Algeria). Menso at three times to remember: the suicide of the Algerian is shot by the subjective, or the Spy, or as we like to call it. We see through the same still image that was seen in the earlier visit of the Algerian Georges home, when the recording is sent to the head of Georges (actually, Spassky, it's different point of view of the camera objective and recording on this first visit.) Although, as you say, no REC or anything like that convince us that indeed, we have a new "spy recording" (I'll call it that): Haneke makes us believe resorting to something as simple as a fixed sequence level. And we do not doubt that is true, that someone has put a camera there and we see the image through the lens of the "Spy." After that, yet again we see another plane fixed sequence of the house, just like those at the beginning, so it follows that the "spy recording, which is the trigger for what happens in the movie, goes on ... But There is one important difference: these two recordings made by the "camera Spy "are no longer sent to Georges. These recordings (well, what we interpret as recordings) are interfering with our perception of the film, but no longer interfere in the history and life of George. Who is really being manipulated? George "or the spectators? And finally there is the fixed sequence shot that ends the film, the school, on which I also doubt that this is another recording ... In this way, the film begins and ends the same: with a "spy recording ", so that you have called" subjective. " Conclusion: the subjective camera could not be brought by any of the characters in the story, since it is still there when the story apparently "over" could not put the Algerian because he's dead, George could not make it because if the thing was like Scotty said, all over the suicide of Algeria and made no sense to film the college of his son could not put their children because they are and no longer the only "spied" on the last shot of fixed ... Who has? For someone who is beyond these people, even beyond the anecdotal story told to us ... The has a "Demiurge" "Plato would say it plays well with their innocent c reactions and ourselves. Has put in order, Haneke. I said: I think this film is a visual experiment, a reinvention of cinema, a use of the image to suggest, to manipulate, to invent new things, and not as a tool to tell a conventional story of suspense. This movie is very good. I'll definitely up the score: Go **** coñazo I soltao ...