View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
1/20
Screen Analysis: Cach
Joe Wells
I have selected the opening 13 minutes of Michael Hanekes psycho-political thriller Cach
(English title: Hidden, 2005) for its application of the four elements of filmmaking
(cinematography, editing, mise-en-scene and sound) for multiple purposes; to make the
mundane horrific just by displaying it, to divide the objective view from the subjective and to
introduce us to the films characters, conflicts and themes from the get go.
Georges (Daniel Auteuil), a host of an intellectual talk show, begins receiving CCTV recordings
of his house from an anonymous source of his peaceful faade of a home. Thought ostensibly
nothing is happening in these tapes, they spark an investigation to not just for the identity
of the sender but deep into the recesses of Georges subconscious and an uncomfortable
truth of his past. The use of camera work elevates in this segment I have selected elevates an
accessible whodunit premise (not dissimilar to the plot of David Lynchs LostHighway, with
similar themes of innate darkness lurking beneath the everyday societal frontage) into a
meta-textual study of guilt, responsibility, how we register our world and how it differs from
the objective.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
2/20
Shot 1 (0:00 2:55, 2:55 long)
Visual:The film opens with a static mounted shot of the Parisian townhouse on a domestic
city street pictured. The far sides of the frame are obscured by buildings adjacent to the
focal house, with the camera being closer to the left-centre of the front door, partiallyobscured by the shrubbery out front. Behind are some apartment buildings blocking out the
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
3/20
skyline. The camera does not move during this nearly three minute shot, with the only
activity being a car and bicycle passing, some pedestrians eventually crossing the street and
a female exiting the house. During this sequence, credits are written across the image and
fade away.
Audio:To match the inertness of the imagery, there is little audio effects (as per usual in thefilms of Haneke) outside of slight street ambience and off-screen dialogue two minutes in. A
French (presumed) couple calmly finding something in a plastic bad on their porch and
whatever was in it containing nothing. We, the audience, are not sure where the source of
the dialect is from until a couple of shots later. Towards the end of the shot we hear
footsteps and a door being opened, with the girl questioning what is wrong.
Interpretation:This subversive shot has come under much analysis and deconstruction from
film scholars and audience alike since the release of the film in 2005 for its unconventional
use of length to transform the mundane into the unnerving and later terrifying and its
deceptive use of compositional layering to reflect the central conflict of the narrative. It
didnt require being artfully framed, and at first it isnt, but as is the case with Haneke, there
are a myriad of hidden structural aspects that further enhance the disturbance. Starting
out as a typical establishing shot, it lingers for just too long in true Haneke fashion. Whereas
the director is criticized for not knowing when to end a shot, here it becomes more and
more uncomfortable, as the characters that live in the house are just made aware that they
are being watched. Not only does this put the characters and audience right into the central
mystery of the film while giving the characters space to develop their situation and
personalities further, it instantly creates a voyeuristic nuance between the audience, the
CCTV recording and the characters, simply by having them be disturbed by the fact thattheyre being observed. Discomfort and suspense is built every time we return to this POV
throughout the film, as we assume that were watching the tapes whenever the camera
holds for a few seconds. Not only has Haneke transformed the mundane into the terrifying,
he has used this ordinary domestic environment and somewhat unconventional framing to
spell out the themes of the film. The English title of the film is hidden and indeed, someone
in the house is hiding something. It is aesthetically appropriate that the house have a front
gate to keep people out and a hedge to camouflage it from the street. Up at the top of the
frame, out of the way and behind the focal house as if less important are a block of high rise
apartments, foreshadowing their involvement and an individual who resides in these locals
to the mystery. This is related to the secret the protagonist holds that drives the films
central conflict and this framing suggests that the block, though not the focus of the shot
like the family and their residence, loom over the family like a subconscious horror. This
stacked visual layering suggests that things may be normal and mundane down on the
street where the only activity is a bike or car passing by, any number of things in the implied
subconscious could be occurring, symbolised by the numerous windows visible on
neighbouring houses and apartment blocks. As per the subversive view of reality the film
portrays humans as possessing, a more universal truth in the strategies we use to live our
lives is established. Be it a secret, a regret, a desire or whatever, something darker is being
hidden just below the surface of the everyday.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
4/20
Shot 2 (2:56 3:46, 0:50 long)
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
5/20
Visual:We cut to the next shot, which is located out the front of the same domicile we saw
in the opening sequence, from an angular position just down the street. The lighting is
dimmer than the first shot, suggesting it is a different time of day. A casually dressed middle
aged man cautiously exits the house and examines the surrounding area as his presumed
partner follows him and hangs by the door. The camera follows from a mounted position as
the man crosses the street and inspects the point between the two buildings where we
opened the film from. He finds nothing of note and his wife ushers him back inside. The
camera follows him back, as he closes the gate and looks out unsurely at the street.
Audio:Similar to the first shot, we only hear dialogue and street ambience (i.e. the gate
opening and closing, footsteps, etc.) in this shot.
Interpretation:In this second shot, we are visually introduced to the protagonist and (most
of) his family, as well as two rules the film uses throughout the story to communicate the
narrative and themes; objective/subjective camera dichotomy and the tapes being used for
scenes to transcend time in place of the conventional use of transcending location. As film
critic Roger Ebert stated in his four star review of the film A stationary camera is objective.
A moving camera implies a subjective viewer, whether that viewer is a character, the
director, or the audience. Haneke uses the technique of making the camera move in time,
not space. The characters are searching for the meaning and origin of the tapes through
their individual human perspective (implied by the use of camera motion) and finding
nothing, as opposed to the locked down camera of the first shot that displayed all. This
comes into play in the follow couple of shots to be expanded upon. The shot is also notable
for using the cut between scenes to establish a difference in time, instead of the usual the
change in location. After the characters return inside at the end of this shot, we revert backto the framing of the first shot.
Shot 3 (3:46 5:05, 1:18 long)
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
6/20
Visual:The shot is framed identically to the first, with cars and bikes passing sporadically.
The image then starts fast forwarding in the manner of a VHS tape until we see the
protagonist exiting his house, to which the shot is then reversed and paused as he is walking
to his car.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
7/20
Audio:The audio follows suite from the previous shots with its use of dialogue and near
silent background noise until we hear the click of a remote. As the image fast forwards, we
hear the gentle whirring of the VHS player speeding up the shot and the partners talking
over this. As we are revealed that the establishing shot was a tape being watched by the
characters, the discussion between the couple confirms that theyve been watching a
mysterious tape sent to them and it runs for over two hours.
Interpretation:We the audience are now aware that the opening shot was a subversion, as
it is in the form of the mysterious tape sent to protagonists and watched, shown by the fast
forwarding and rewinding. As this shot was taken prior to the present of the film and being
viewed in-universe, we are positioned by Haneke to question the reality of the images he
will present to us and their relation to how the characters register them. The
objective/subjective camera theory applied by Haneke is being mashed and through the use
of the rewinding and character awareness, the objective camera has become subjective in
the eyes of the viewer. The video was once observing and now is being observed. Thisobjective nature of the camera adds suspense to the motivations of the person leaving the
tapes and the overall ambiguity of the film.
Shot 4 (5:06 8:11, 3:16 long)
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
8/20
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
9/20
Visual:We are now inside the house that we have been watching for the last five minutes.
The previous shot is paused on the lounge area television, being viewed by the stumpedcouple from the previous shots. As the man turns off the television, they stand around and
mull over the explanation behind the bizarre incident, before the woman exits off-screen to
complete dinner. As per Haneke tradition, we follow the man with the camera steadily
tracking his unbroken movement across the lounge and into the kitchen. It hangs there as
the two prepare dinner and speculate further over their day. The two then exit the kitchen
after the male checks what he believes is the plastic bag that the tape was sent in (camera
still keeping a focus on his movement) and sit down to eat dinner. He pours the two wine
and inspects the actual plastic bag by the television before returning to the table and
welcomes his son home to eat dinner. The camera now moves around their son as he finds a
seat at the table while his mum exits the screen and brings him a plate from the kitchen.
The camera follows her as she finds a seat. The camera is now steadily moving but the
length of the shot remains strong.
Audio:Once again, we hear the natural sounds of the environment were seeing without
exaggerated sound effects or score. The television and tape player being switched off,
plastic bags being ruffled by hands, pasta being made in a pot and served on plates, off-
screen doors being slammed, etc. We are given some exposition among the discussions of
tape, finding out the names of the couple (Georges and Anne Laurant), their relationship to
their son Pierrot, among routine discussion and further guesswork.
Interpretation:Beyond dialogue being used to establish the situation and personalities of
the protagonist and his family, the mise-en-scene of the house setting further establish the
lifestyle and traits of the household. The living room that the camera undistractedly follows
Georges through as he prepares dinner and sits to eat it is covered wall to wall in books,
looking more akin to a stylish library than to an eating area. This establishes that Georges
and/or his wife are intellectual and well-read people. They are also shown to be quite
wealthy by wide space tracked by the camera in their inner-city home, wide screen
television (in 2005 mind you) and smart looking dinner with wine. This one is subtly placed
but as Georges crosses the lounge to inspect the plastic bag the tape arrived in, behind himyou can see a professional mic and stand in the corner. From the placement of this prop,
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
10/20
you can assume that the two make their comfortable living in a media or arts area, backed
by their implied wealth and knowledge of literature. These are all plot points later in the
story and are established through mise-en-scene elements of props and setting. The inter-
family relationships are more bluntly communicated also to the audience through the
characters and their interaction over dinner. The married couple seem tense with each
other and passive aggressively snipe over the plastic bag the tape was found in, all while
helping each other prepare and set up dinner. The teenage son arrives home late for dinner
and gets into small stand-off with his dad about where he had been, while his mum brings
him dinner. They talk about their routine and the shot ends on the wife making a guess that
the tape is from an unbalanced fan, with the son looking up from eating confused.
Shot 5 (8:02 9:09, 0:58 long)
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
11/20
Visual:We cut to Pierrot in swimming gear doing practise lap turns in a pool. The camera
follows him for about a minute up and down the lane as he practises turn after turn withthree other children in the lane.
Audio: In this scene we hear the sound of children swimming in the lane at the pool, with
the teacher giving commands and advise to the swimmers off-screen. It isnt apparent that
anyone else is present swimming at the pool, as the only pool noises are coming from the
three swimmers.
Interpretation: We chose swimming because the young actor who plays Pierrot can swim
well. Its very simple. If wed chosen football or skiing, the audience wouldnt believe hes on
the team. Its also very cinematic, with the water and the noise nothing more profound
than that Michael Haneke.
The shot following the dinner scene of teenaged son Pierrot at a swim practise has left some
viewers confused at the purpose of the shots inclusion to the overall meaning of the film.
Allegories have been made to the 1961 mass drowning of Algerians in Paris that is a plot and
thematic point later or the symbolic water cleansing of the old French by the next
generation have been made by speculators. Going by the word of the director, I can only
assume that this scene was included in the film to establish that Pierrot is on the swim team
whose race his parents attend later in the film.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
12/20
Shot 6 (9:10 11:46, 2:36 long)
Visual: We then cut back to a similar camera position of the first shot, this time at night and
a bit further back down the street. The lights are on in some of the apartments in the
background. Once again we wait statically for about a minute and a half before a car pullsup to the house by the street that the camera is placed on and reverses into a spot behind
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
13/20
the camera, lighting up the house and surrounding street with its headlights. Georges walks
from the bottom of the frame and into his house.
Audio: The Street is silent at this time of night and the only sound we hear in this shot is of
Georges parking his car and closing the door.
Interpretation:Once again we are viewing the life of Georges through the stationary
camera placement outside of his house. Though aware that we are watching these
characters through a camera after it was established in the third shot, we are not aware
why or from whom. As a recurring image in a mystery without a possible definitive answer,
this repeated shot becomes more and more uncanny and disturbing as we are given time to
mull over not only the source and purpose of these tapes but the implication of our view of
these tapes. As we give a couple seconds before we are sure its not an establishing shot, we
watch an everyday site from the perspective of an unknown voyeur in a period we are not
sure of within the linearity of the story. As previously said Haneke has taken a simple device
of the repetition of a static VHS camera shot of a house and used it to not only raise
questions about its placement in the film and what this means to the audience watching this
but has made the normal site of parking in a domestic street unsettling.
Shot 7 (11:47 12:47, 1:00 long)
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
14/20
Visual:From the video footage of the house, we cut to the filming of the end of Georges
round table television talk show about literature from an SDTV camera. He wishes a farewell
to the viewer as the camera pans out and Georges turns to make end of episode chatterwith a co-host. The backing out camera displays the rest of guests in conversation and
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
15/20
displays the full set of bookshelves around the table, similar looking to the living room in the
family house. The camera fully pans out and Georges is interrupted from his conversation by
a woman stage hand who tells him something that removes him from his chair and takes
him backstage to talk on his mobile phone. The camera pans past the set and follows
Georges backstage past studio workers organising cameras and equipment, holding on him
as he walks towards the camera from behind the set to receive the news presumably about
the new tape arrival.
Audio
The audio in this shot is more animated than the previous scenes at home and on the street,
as it takes place in a television studio. As Georges looks upon the in-universe camera and
wishes the audience goodbye from the show that is followed by an operator commanding
the people on screen not to move until the camera has stopped panning back. As per usual
with this kind of broadcast you cant hear what the screen personalities are saying as the
camera moves back and the conversation Georges has with his co-host is silent with some
mild workplace noise and conversation. When Georges is alerted to his phone call by the
studio assistant, we do not hear what the situation is and are left to infer from the previous
shot that its from his wife and about the new tape.
Interpretation:This shot confirms that Georges makes a living from being in the media as an
intellectual figure and introduces the element that media plays later in the film as a
background and thematic element. Similarly to how the use of objective/subjective camera
placement had been applied before, the use of camera in this scene is also interestingly
used. Starting out as the camera to Georges television show, when fully retracted as per
usual with television camera technique it follows Georges as he goes backstage to talk on
the phone. This would be impossible for a mounted television camera, so the line between
in-universe camera filming and conscious film camera is blurred in an easily miss able way
that can further bolster the sense of ambiguity to the audience about objectivity and
subjectivity within the realms of narrative pictures. Linearity in the picture is also subverted
here, as Georges is being made aware by his wife on the phone about the arrival of a new
tape, which we viewed as the previous shot.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
16/20
Shot 8(12:48 12:54, 0:06 long)
Visual:The next shot is a close up shot of the family living room table from a slanted angle.
On it is a child-like drawing of a face vomiting blood, the remote and some newspapers.
Annes hand brushes the drawing as she reaches for the remote to rewind the tape, which
we see in the next shot.
Audio:In this shot, all we hear is a line from Anne establishing that this drawing we see was
found with the tape of shot 6.
Interpretation: In this noticeably shorter than established shot (the quickest before this 50
seconds long), we are introduced to the drawings that will be found with the future tapes
delivered to the Laurents doorstep. It looks creepy due to its unclear message (is it a threat?
Is it a recollection of the past?) and its childlike imagery, further obscuring the identity of
the tape sender. The shot doesnt dwell on this like the others before it and cuts right to the
viewing of the next tape in a manner of seconds. In this shot, Anne rewinds the tape and we
see this action in the next shot. This is another example of the characters interacting with
camera and blurring the lines between objective and subjective camera, with the objective
view of the house in the shot 6 being mad subjective by the rewinding and the audience
being made aware that it is an in universe shot being viewed by the characters.
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
17/20
Shot 9(13:14 13:17, 0:19 long)
Visual:As in the previous shot we established that the couple is watching the new tape
(displayed by the drawing found with the tape and the reaching for the remote), the image
is being manipulated by the VHS player at the start, rewinding until Georges parks his car
like we saw in the shot 6 and the image is paused. It hangs for a couple of second and we
cut to the next shot in an act of subverting audience expectation through establishingconvention within a film.
Audio: In this shot we hear nothing but the rewinding of the VHS tape until it pauses and we
hear nothing for seconds.
Interpretation: This shot, once again uses the narrative rules of subjective/objective camera
dichotomy and transcending of time through static camera. This time, instead of a static
camera showing the objective world of the Laurents house, it is subjective right from the bat
by being reversed in the previous shot by the people watching it. This differentiates the
image from its first use in shot 6 as an objective camera, subverted here by the characters.
What is important about this shot is how it leads into the next, through expectation and
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
18/20
subversion, the films established trump cards. As we look deep into the image as it holds for
a couple seconds after being rewound by Anne waiting for a cut back to the two like they
did in shot 3 and shot 4, instead we are hit by shot 10.
Shot 10 (13:14 13:17, 0:03 length)
Visual:We see a young ethnic looking boy peering through a window. He wipes blood (we
presume) from his mouth and the shot is over. This is the shortest image we have seen so
far in the film.Audio:Like the shot leading into this one, we hear nothing. Haneke has used silence
extensively in his work to build horror (see: Funny Games (1997) and it is applied well in the
cut between these two shots.
Interpretation:Breaking his own rules at this point, Haneke has edited this film up to this
point with long takes to establish story, characters and motifs at a steady pace and build an
atmosphere of the uncomfortable from everyday images through the ambiguity of
narrative, voyeuristic implications and the lack of noise coupled with the use of generally
wide and revealing shots that take their time. Now he cuts from a tape shot (which have
gone on for minutes with each segment) abruptly 19 seconds in to show a boy with blood
on his mouth, linking back to the image seen in shot 8. To go from this steady and creepy
pace to a particularly jarring shot functions almost as a horror jump scare but without the
urgency because of the silence. In the fashion of Cach, the suddenness of this clip hitting
the audience doesnt make them jump like a slasher jumping out with an axe, but with
curiosity to its position within the narrative. The irregular nature of the shot gives it the
quality of a repressed memory flashing back into the subconscious, which it might actually
be as it is not a representation of reality for the past of Georges (he told his parents as a
young boy that his soon to be adopted Algerian housekeeper bit the head off of a chicken to
remove him from the picture, whereas he actually decapitated the chicken). Once again,
8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
19/20
Heneke has used the elements of filmmaking (in this instance, editing), to portray a flawed
and in this instance, incorrect version of reality.
As stated previously, these thematic elements of the sinister lurking just below the surfaceof recognition and the reality of our characters being a fabrication or alteration of the truth
due to natural human bias is a theme that often recurs not only in Hanekes films but also
David Lynchs. A film that is analogous to this one is Lynchs Blue Velvetin that they both
leave so much open to interpretation while still telling a gripping and coherent story. I wont
spoil either story or what is left open to interpretation, especially in Cach, so I will simply
say that both films have story elements that are up to interpretation that can completely
change the nature of the film.
To quotes the great Abbas Kiarostami (Director, Certified Copy), The best form of cinema is
one which poses questions for the audience Clearly Michael Haneke agrees with this notion,as seen in the opening of his (in my opinion) opusCach.
Bibliography
http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-cache-2005
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/cache-2006
http://www.filmcomment.com/article/endgame-michael-hanekes-cache
http://www.culturesnob.net/2006/08/the-tell-tale-tapes/
http://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-
franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.html
http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-cache-2005http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-cache-2005http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/cache-2006http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/cache-2006http://www.filmcomment.com/article/endgame-michael-hanekes-cachehttp://www.filmcomment.com/article/endgame-michael-hanekes-cachehttp://www.culturesnob.net/2006/08/the-tell-tale-tapes/http://www.culturesnob.net/2006/08/the-tell-tale-tapes/http://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.htmlhttp://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.htmlhttp://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.htmlhttp://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.htmlhttp://internationalfilmstudies.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/cache-franceaustriagermanyitalyusa.htmlhttp://www.culturesnob.net/2006/08/the-tell-tale-tapes/http://www.filmcomment.com/article/endgame-michael-hanekes-cachehttp://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/cache-2006http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-cache-2005http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/http://cinephile.ca/archives/volume-5-no-2-the-scene/gaze-suture-interface-the-suicide-scene-in-michael-haneke%E2%80%99s-cache/8/11/2019 Screen Analysis 2
20/20
Recommended