Pierrot talking to Majid's son, Ebert's smoking gun clue where the character refers to Pierrot as the one who is doing all these films, Pierrot doesn't have a VHS in his room, but of course his parents aren't home that often and it seems the tapes always arrive when Pierrot isn't in the scene or doesn't show up at all.
If you pay close attention to the background of the ending credits and watch it all the way through, you'll see something at the very end, in the last few seconds, that will explain the whole movie and open your eyes as to who the real psycho is.
From the opening shot we are left unsure what we are seeing. After all, what truly matters is hidden.
There is a lot to love about this movie, and it works on so many layers. I appreciate the broadest implications about national reckoning with colonialism and the past, but with an eye toward the future and repeating our mistakes.
(I’m intentionally vague, so I won’t call this a spoiler, but I don’t think you should read the rest if you haven’t seen this.)
But the story of Georges and his own guilt staring him in the face is the most resonant. Here we see a brilliant portrayal of burying one’s feelings about the past, running from yourself, and how that can implode later in life. (I don’t expect anyone else to understand but this feels so parallel to Hereditary to me, albeit in a very different arc and genre!)
Because of those themes I kind of ignored the open question about who was sending the tapes and drawings. It felt like it had one or two clear answers that we weren’t going to know in the end, and that’s okay. The story is about what those revelations does to you.
One of the first things I do after watching a good movie is go read Roger Ebert’s review. Sometimes it serves as a proverbial discussion with him about a movie I enjoyed, other times an aid in me grappling with something I did not. Here it helped me see something I missed! The closing shot reopens the question of who sent the tapes, and while the “whodunnit” is not the most important, the closing shot implies another possibility, one that makes another statement about how to reckon with the past—and who can do it.
I Agree nicolaskrizan. This movie let me glued to my chair, is a very intense physiological thriller and its beautifully shot and also explorea racism/xenophobia but the end...
Who could it be? Only the son made some sense ut why and how? I guess we will never know.
Explorar inquietações latentes que só fazem crescer com o tempo, por meio de inquietantes subjacências narrativas, é a proposta de Haneke. Reacender o debate sobre diferenças étnicas, descortinar máculas morais do passado a arder no presente, jogar luz sobre resíduos mal resolvidos de cunho social mal oriundos de conflitos históricos – por exemplo, o genocídio de argelinos o colonialismo francês na Argélia. Um thriller “cabeça”, “de arte”, original e estimulante, dispensador de trilha musical óbvia; cada plano enquadrado com precisão, rodado quase inteiramente com câmera fixa. O cineasta deixa certas pontas soltas (de propósito), com o escopo de propiciar à platéia a oportunidade de perscrutar imagens suspeitas, entrever a culpa velada nos olhos do protagonista (Daniel Auteuil) e interpretar por conta própria as implicações sugeridas no desfecho malicioso.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 12 of 12
Jonathan_Hutchings
Haneke is such a clever director -- this might be his best work.BenShee
A review:1. This movie is kinda creepy. Intense. Suspenseful. Slow.
2. Its themes may have something to do with
3. There are clues aplenty
Quinn Thibault
If you pay close attention to the background of the ending credits and watch it all the way through, you'll see something at the very end, in the last few seconds, that will explain the whole movie and open your eyes as to who the real psycho is.eoveikur
Intriguing and somewhat scary. I love it..Andrewski
From the opening shot we are left unsure what we are seeing. After all, what truly matters is hidden.There is a lot to love about this movie, and it works on so many layers. I appreciate the broadest implications about national reckoning with colonialism and the past, but with an eye toward the future and repeating our mistakes.
(I’m intentionally vague, so I won’t call this a spoiler, but I don’t think you should read the rest if you haven’t seen this.)
But the story of Georges and his own guilt staring him in the face is the most resonant. Here we see a brilliant portrayal of burying one’s feelings about the past, running from yourself, and how that can implode later in life. (I don’t expect anyone else to understand but this feels so parallel to Hereditary to me, albeit in a very different arc and genre!)
Because of those themes I kind of ignored the open question about who was sending the tapes and drawings. It felt like it had one or two clear answers that we weren’t going to know in the end, and that’s okay. The story is about what those revelations does to you.
One of the first things I do after watching a good movie is go read Roger Ebert’s review. Sometimes it serves as a proverbial discussion with him about a movie I enjoyed, other times an aid in me grappling with something I did not. Here it helped me see something I missed! The closing shot reopens the question of who sent the tapes, and while the “whodunnit” is not the most important, the closing shot implies another possibility, one that makes another statement about how to reckon with the past—and who can do it.
SkilledLunatic
I Agree nicolaskrizan. This movie let me glued to my chair, is a very intense physiological thriller and its beautifully shot and also explorea racism/xenophobia but the end...JCS
Strange film and quite slow, but good to analyse.Dieguito
Just how a paranoia feels, intriguing!!angelofernandes
Great movie. One of Haneke's best work.indiotennis
ótimo filme, aliás esse, todos os filmes com esse ator sao bons...Gus_Hammond
Explorar inquietações latentes que só fazem crescer com o tempo, por meio de inquietantes subjacências narrativas, é a proposta de Haneke. Reacender o debate sobre diferenças étnicas, descortinar máculas morais do passado a arder no presente, jogar luz sobre resíduos mal resolvidos de cunho social mal oriundos de conflitos históricos – por exemplo, o genocídio de argelinos o colonialismo francês na Argélia. Um thriller “cabeça”, “de arte”, original e estimulante, dispensador de trilha musical óbvia; cada plano enquadrado com precisão, rodado quase inteiramente com câmera fixa. O cineasta deixa certas pontas soltas (de propósito), com o escopo de propiciar à platéia a oportunidade de perscrutar imagens suspeitas, entrever a culpa velada nos olhos do protagonista (Daniel Auteuil) e interpretar por conta própria as implicações sugeridas no desfecho malicioso.http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/cache-michael-haneke2005/
nicolaskrizan
Hmmm!?http://beyond1001movies.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/526-9/