← Back to Reviews
in
Cache, 2005
Georges (Daniel Auteuil) is a television presenter of a panel show, living with his wife, Anne (Juliette Binoche) and their son, Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky). As the film begins, Georges and Anne have received a mysterious package containing footage of their home from the outside. Both are spooked at the packages continue to arrive, but Georges in particular seems to take some meaning from odd drawings that accompany the eerie tapes.
NOTE: The plot of this film really has lots of reveals, this review may contain some un-tagged MINOR SPOILERS. I'd really recommend skipping this if you haven't seen the film yet!
The DVD of this film has been sitting on my shelf for the last four months. Its placement in the 2000s countdown finally pushed me to check it out.
A definite weakness that I have as a film viewer is my tendency to focus on the literal mechanics of the plot. I am not a fan of ambiguity unless it is VERY well-deployed, and if there is a mystery involved, I want answers.
So I think that the greatest compliment that I can give this film is that when it comes to the question of who sent the tape, I don't really care. I realized this about halfway through the film, and it really intrigued me. Then I had this aha moment that the real mystery that was being unraveled---and where there were some answers--was related to the internal workings of the characters.
As the film goes on, we start to understand that the current events may be related to Georges' youth. And, again, the obvious mystery isn't the one that is so pressing. It's not about what Georges did when he was a child. It's about how he reacts now, as an adult, when that past comes calling again.
And here is where I take the most meaning from the film, and actually kind of a comforting philosophical notion. The thing that, in my opinion, was "hidden" and is now coming to light isn't a past or current action, but rather the damaging belief that our violence and cruelty toward others can somehow be justified. What happens to Georges opens up a chasm between who he wants to believe he is, and who he actually is. We see this in many sequences, but none so much as when he's talking to a certain young man and keeps walking away . . . then turning and going back to continue to argue his own case. Georges has, in order to keep his conception of himself as being justified and the "good" person in this situation, entrenched himself in a victim mentality. And in doing so he has completely shut down any empathy.
This lack of empathy and self-centered behavior doesn't just extend to those outside his family. In one stunning sequence, Georges tells Anne that he has a "hunch" about who might be sending the tapes, but won't say more. When this upsets her, he has the gall to say that it "doesn't concern her." His concern for his wife and child don't seem to be so much for them as people, but because they are his. This theme of possession and ownership, to the point of excluding or attacking anyone who threatens it, runs through his whole life.
Of course, I did not care for the animal violence, especially as it arrives completely without warning. (And from what I saw, having put an animal down that way myself, I don't think the technique was as humane as it should have been).
Cache, 2005
Georges (Daniel Auteuil) is a television presenter of a panel show, living with his wife, Anne (Juliette Binoche) and their son, Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky). As the film begins, Georges and Anne have received a mysterious package containing footage of their home from the outside. Both are spooked at the packages continue to arrive, but Georges in particular seems to take some meaning from odd drawings that accompany the eerie tapes.
NOTE: The plot of this film really has lots of reveals, this review may contain some un-tagged MINOR SPOILERS. I'd really recommend skipping this if you haven't seen the film yet!
The DVD of this film has been sitting on my shelf for the last four months. Its placement in the 2000s countdown finally pushed me to check it out.
A definite weakness that I have as a film viewer is my tendency to focus on the literal mechanics of the plot. I am not a fan of ambiguity unless it is VERY well-deployed, and if there is a mystery involved, I want answers.
So I think that the greatest compliment that I can give this film is that when it comes to the question of who sent the tape, I don't really care. I realized this about halfway through the film, and it really intrigued me. Then I had this aha moment that the real mystery that was being unraveled---and where there were some answers--was related to the internal workings of the characters.
As the film goes on, we start to understand that the current events may be related to Georges' youth. And, again, the obvious mystery isn't the one that is so pressing. It's not about what Georges did when he was a child. It's about how he reacts now, as an adult, when that past comes calling again.
And here is where I take the most meaning from the film, and actually kind of a comforting philosophical notion. The thing that, in my opinion, was "hidden" and is now coming to light isn't a past or current action, but rather the damaging belief that our violence and cruelty toward others can somehow be justified. What happens to Georges opens up a chasm between who he wants to believe he is, and who he actually is. We see this in many sequences, but none so much as when he's talking to a certain young man and keeps walking away . . . then turning and going back to continue to argue his own case. Georges has, in order to keep his conception of himself as being justified and the "good" person in this situation, entrenched himself in a victim mentality. And in doing so he has completely shut down any empathy.
This lack of empathy and self-centered behavior doesn't just extend to those outside his family. In one stunning sequence, Georges tells Anne that he has a "hunch" about who might be sending the tapes, but won't say more. When this upsets her, he has the gall to say that it "doesn't concern her." His concern for his wife and child don't seem to be so much for them as people, but because they are his. This theme of possession and ownership, to the point of excluding or attacking anyone who threatens it, runs through his whole life.
Of course, I did not care for the animal violence, especially as it arrives completely without warning. (And from what I saw, having put an animal down that way myself, I don't think the technique was as humane as it should have been).