Caché (Hidden)

There’s only one true way to read Caché (Hidden) and that’s by not listing or reacting to what you see, but by when you see it. Although on the surface it may seem like a linear narrative, you can see it as a purposely non-linear and disjointed narrative. Take for example the ending, although it can be seen as being a conclusive ending and interpretative in multiple ways (we’ll come to that later) you could say that the ending occurs at any time and it’s all by coincidence. And that it what drives the film – coincidence.

The film’s key thread is the image and what our, and their, understanding of the image is. On first glance it seems to be voyeuristic and the way in which we become involved in this work is very Hitchcockian. Take for example the way in which you may not sympathise with the central characters and the actions they take, but there is still a sense that you might one day see yourself in their shoes. Also, look at the glamour and design of the films, Hitchcock’s films; like Haneke’s display flamboyancy and gratuity of the way in which they portray a mise-en-scène of obnoxiousness and contemporary design. For two perfect examples, look at the way in which Hidden’s set design is shot and created very much in the way Rope is designed – from the flat and theatrical perspective, whilst also displaying the arrogance of contemporary design.

The nature of the tapes and the nature of the real world are one and the same – both are taunting and both create horrors that shouldn’t be reminded. Essentially, the tapes are the real world and the real world becomes the tapes – if you consider how the tapes remind Georges of his childhood and his childhood remind Georges of his real life then the two become the same and both are as deep, depressing and horrific as the last. Georges is tormented by his troublesome past in which he was a spoilt kid who wanted nothing more than to be the centre of attention, who will innocently and naively risk his future to get what he wants. Grown up Georges is the same. He wants no more than to be the centre of attention and to live it with no more honesty than that. The difference in the way in the two perceive their worlds: the younger is naïve to the point of embarrassment, but the elder is haunted by his own fragility and the way that he in incommunicable with his surroundings; although he may have aged and gained his sensibility – his; wife; child and secure job are trophies of this – he still cannot move beyond his childish self. Something that is ultimately his downfall.

Aesthetically the film is quite typically European; the way use of the entire frame is utilised and composed giving the film meaning and thematic significance that no Westerner can even begin to comprehend. This again draws into the notion that the image is more significant than the text and the spoken word. To support this it can be noted that the film uses a large amount of off-screen dialogue – the way in which Haneke lingers on framings of the tapes whilst characters talk in the background can be said that his focus is not so much on the characters, but on something much deeper and darker. The sensory experience of this portrays a vast and expansive world that is mirrored perfectly in the world on screen.

As mentioned earlier the film has an ending which is not only multiply interpretative but is also questionable in the way it sheds light on the film up until that point. For example, although the two sons finally meet at the end and you would think that they have a negative encounter and thus a seemingly unhopeful ending, you could say that it is hopeful and that it simply means nothing. However, I would question when this happens and not why and what it means. For example, you don’t know what they say and also you don’t know what Pierrot’s argument with his mother, seen earlier in the film, has meant so far; so you could say that the ending actually happens before Pierrot’s argument with his mother and that the ending only occurs at the end to throw you off balance and to question the ending in respect of the film as a whole. The only problem with accepting that the ending is a falsity and non-linear, is that you begin to question when other narrative threads begin to unwind. For example, you could question in what order the tapes arrive and then what the meaning of each is at each noted point in the film. To begin down this road leads to a relentless and confusing ending whereby nothing is resolved and anything is possible. Consider that it shows us nothing and paradoxically everything that you have never wanted to see, consider that Michael Haneke’s world shows us a very glamorous one. Consider that Michael Haneke’s world shows us a very perceptive one and consider that Michael Haneke’s world shows us a very real one.