Perhaps you will attend Caché to see what all the buzz is about. You will be disappointed. This is not a film to be enjoyed. It is not meant to entertain you. You should at some point in the film be confused, even angered, by what is happening. But you will think about it. A lot. Maybe, you'll start by thinking about the puzzling plot. You'll float a few theories about whodunit, may be even with the caveat, "not that it matters with such unlikeable characters." Then, in your search for answers, you might read comments like the one you're reading right now. You might read a review or two. You probably won't find the answer you're looking for, or maybe you'll find many answers. The point is that in searching for a resolution to complete the narrative, you will have gone over the clues over and over, replaying each scene in your head for meaning. You might even go back and watch the film again in the theatre. Now ask yourself honestly, whether you say you loved the film or hated it, how many films have had this kind of effect on you? It might irritate you that a film seemingly so simple has more effect on your memory than even your favourite films. For this, Caché deserves credit. Because in forcing you to question every frame, it has advanced its themes far more effectively than more traditional narratives. You will never forget that France and Algeria have a dark past. You will never forget how the terror the couple feels tears at the root of what they hold dear, and in doing so changes them into unsympathetic characters. That may not make for two hours of thrills, but it should get people to think about these issues. The real point the movie seems to be making is that in our rush to find clues to complete a narrative, we sometimes lose sight of what's going on. The director here turns us all into sleuths, scanning the foregrounds and backgrounds, by locking off the camera and not guiding us as to what to look at. (In this way, he makes us watch in the same way an autistic person would watch the film.) We're so wrapped up in this alleged mystery that we hardly question the motives of the alleged heroes. Is videotaping a home really terrorizing? After all, people videotape the kids' swim race. Where do these videotapes cross the line? No one is ever threatened or harmed by them. Rather it is the paranoia of the TV host, a person who deals in the editing and manipulation of images for a living, which lead him into following these leads. It is in his nature to mistrust the images. It is in his psyche to follow these tapes and the places they lead him. The farther he follows them, the farther his subconscious burdens him. His mother says she hardly remembers these incidents, but Georges has nightmares about them and constructs grand conspiracy theories about them. Yet when he confronts his childhood nemesis, Majid seems not to know anything of these tapes and is seen crying after Georges leaves. Georges is the one terrorizing him instead of telling him how guilty he feels, which would make him a lot happier. Majid subsequently does something even more shocking. So who's terrorizing whom? As hard as it may be, try to think outside the post-9/11 paradigm and just analyze the facts. The more you do this you will see that Georges is the architect of his own demise. He is not responsible for Majid's horrible actions, but he is responsible for not communicating his guilt with anyone, which might have prevented many of the events.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Match Point
(2005)
Allen Hithcock
22 January 2006
The audience wasn't expecting anything quite so restrained from Woody (they were so anxious to laugh they howled at lines such as "Maybe you've had one too many G & Ts," not exactly a zinger by Allen's standards) who proved with Match Point that when he's pushed, he can still hold his own with the best. It seems Allen couldn't get U.S. financing to his liking so was forced to go across the pond to finance this one. Nothing stirs the creative muscles quite like wanting to show others they've made a mistake. Hopefully, Americans will stop financing his films altogether so that Woody can make films in Paris (Everybody Says I Love You doesn't count), Sydney, Berlin, maybe even somewhere in Africa. Of course, the one thing missing when Woody sets his films in other cultures are the witty one-liners he's so famous for, but if the tradeoff is better films for fewer one-liners I support it. With this script, he accomplishes an interesting marriage of manners, romance and Hitchcockian drama, which interestingly enough is the most compelling part of the movie. Really terrific set-up of the ending, which really is ingenious. After watching the Matador on the same day I must say I think the filmmakers are starting to out think the audience again, making for some truly brain-teasing plots. Of note, also are the performances of the actors, who it must be said seem far more comfortable with improvised dialogue than their American counterparts in other Allen films. They seemed to interpret the material in a way that made them all seem colder, yet more interesting. Particular credit should go to the chap who played Tom Errett, who really could be a lead actor and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers who did a fine job in a difficult role. Scarlett Johannsson is brilliant as always, although her descent into craziness may have been a bit over-the-top. What was pleasing was to see a love scene in which the woman is not rake-thin and forced to contort into unnatural positions. She really is a treasure, and I hope the celebrity B.S. doesn't eat her up. She's well on her way to being a screen legend look for her next in The Good Girl, another British/American manners drama. Woody takes a lot of abuse for not living up to his early promise, not being a genius, etc. I hope after this film, we leave him alone to make his one year a film then watch it and appreciate it for what it is: like a visit from our favourite neurotic uncle. He's still got serious chops, writing, obviously, but as a filmmaker, too. The reveal of the couple's loft and the slo-mo shots of the tennis ball and rink were real signature shots.
Spanglish
(2004)
The bath water may be dirty, but there's still a baby here
11 January 2006
James Brooks is a bit of a throwback. He makes "pictures," not movies or films. He's interested in spending time with characters and is not afraid of really long scenes. And Spanglish ought to be judged against his other work not other romantic comedies, because his work is usually quite superior. Even in his worst films, you are guaranteed of two hours of thought-provoking, sometimes beautiful moments, which he agonizes for years to craft. That said, sometimes he hits and sometimes he misses. It's hard to call Spanglish a miss because it has all these requisite Brooksian hallmarks. There's intelligent dialogue, there are honest characterizations and there are beautiful pictures usually coupled with memorable music. I would argue this movie has all the elements storywise to rate amongst his best, but a number of niggling details eventually bring it down from a classic such as Terms of Enderament or Broadcast News. First of all there is the casting. I don't have much bad to say about Adam Sandler's performance except that I just don't think he's a leading man. I think he would be a terrific supporting actor in a drama, but as a romantic lead he just doesn't nail it. Part of the problem is that he is trying so hard to suppress this goofy persona that he overdoes it with the nice guy. Not that there's anything wrong with nice guys, but nice guys who are romantic leads usually have some serious acting chops or they're obscenely handsome. I like Sandler's character here, it's just think his casting doesn't allow the picture to go to the next level, although I must admit Brooks is so smart he's written an explanation as to why Paz Vega's character would find this attractive because her first husband was unable to express himself to her. The real problem in this picture is the kids. Very tough roles here, and it is obviously Mr. Brooks style to be generous with his actors, even though both the Bernice and Christina actresses were both newbies. I don't want to spend much time criticizing their noble efforts, I just want to point out that they come across less as real kids and more as just-so-super-happy-to-be-on-a-movie. Plenty of real choker moments here (the dangling feet scene in the restaurant is a classic) and much to recommend, but not his best effort
Rumor Has It...
(2005)
Hide it from the kids
11 January 2006
Just because one markets itself as the real story behind The Graduate does not mean you should associate any of the artistic merit of that film classic to Rumor Has It. One can only guess at some point the producers had the blessings of Lawrence Turman and Mike Nichols, and that those fine fellows pulled out of any involvement after reading this trite, thoughtless script, which does the equivalent of film name dropping in lieu of taking an original approach. Obviously, some very talented people got on board the project (executive producers Steven Soderbergh, George Clooney, actors Kevin Costner, Jennifer Aniston, Shirley MacLaine, Mark Ruffalo) but even that collected talent can't save what begins as a decent premise but devolves into implausible and rote execution. All the actors could play these roles in their sleep, although MacLaine deserves extra credit for a scene-chewing performance to make Pac-Man proud. And what, pray tell, is so sympathetic about beautiful rich people whose lives aren't perfect. Is anybody dying? Does the main character want anything? No, not really. She's happy, she's just not perfectly happy. Aniston's fine here, it's just she has nothing to work with. Almost as much thought went in to this as a fill-in-the- blanks screen writing exercise. What does the main character do? Uh, Obits writer for The Times. What about the reflection character? It's her , uh, sister. Yeah, and she's getting married. And she'll be really happy about it until the end of the second act when she'll have, uh, an anxiety attack. Yeah, that'll work. Alas, just tacking on elements does not a germane or coherent screenplay make
Tell Your Friends