In many of the films we’ve watched in this class, particularly in the three Hitchcock films we’ve watched, the scopophilic tendencies of the viewer seem to be pandered to in the composition of the film. However, in one film we watched, Haneke’s Cache, the director seems to accuse the viewer for his scopophilia, making the audience wonder why exactly it is that they watch movies in the first place.
In all three of the Hitchcock films we’ve examined, every character is tailored to be looked at. The men are strong and exert their influence over the course of the film, while the women are attractive, and ultimately deferential to the men. However, in Haneke’s Cache, the characters are much more normal, with none of the usual character embellishments found in film. This alone gives Haneke’s film a weird atmosphere, as the viewer, instead of feeling like their watching some great drama unfolding, instead feels as though they’re examining a normal family.
Haneke further forces audiences to examine their own scopophilic and voyeuristic tendencies with the plot device of the videotapes in Cache. The opening shot of the movie, which is held for an abnormally long amount of time, turns out to be a videotape of the Laurent household that the family is watching in their living room. This technique of confusing the video tapes in the movie with the actual film is repeated several times, and gives the impression that the audience is somehow involved in this voyeurism of the Laurent family.
Furthermore, when the identity of the person sending the tapes to the Laurent family is never discovered, and a few clues are given that the tapes are actually coming from beyond the fourth wall of the screen, Haneke seems to be making a definite statement about the perverseness of the idea of going to a cinema to see a group of people playing out their personal lies. Haneke forces the audience to think about exactly what it is they enjoy about the movies.
Haneke does the same thing in another of his films, Funny Games. Funny Games concerns a pair of serial killers who terrorize a normal family on vacation, but Haneke intentionally refuses to directly show any of the acts of violence committed against the family on screen. This initially seems frustrating at first but begins to make the audience wonder why it is that they want to see all of these horrible things happening to the family.
We’ve discussed the voyeuristic aspect of watching a film, as well as read several articles discussing it, but Haneke is the first filmmaker we’ve examined who seems to directly address this aspect of film in his movies and imply a certain amount of guilt on the viewer’s part.
Hi Don,
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post! It's a fascinating point that you make about the audience feeling as if taking a part in the threat crime in Cache; if we knew who was sending the tapes, then we would have a definite character to blame. It could be anyone...it could be us.
That never occurred to me until I read your sentence: "This technique of confusing the video tapes in the movie with the actual film is repeated several times, and gives the impression that the audience is somehow involved in this voyeurism of the Laurent family."
Because we never know who's been sending the tapes, and because, like you said, we get these tedious, long, and uneventful video footages, perhaps it should have been much more clear to me previously that the director is maybe insinuating WE are the criminal.
At the end of the film we don't know who the guy is and we realize how much we wanted to know who it was. Why do WE want to know anyway? Why are we paying to go to a cinema to see "a group of people playing out their personal lies" when it really shouldn't be any of our business?
Again, great post!!
Don, It's not my week to comment, but it's uncanny how we both picked up on some common themes this week!
ReplyDeletehttp://arjunwatchesmovies.blogspot.com/2009/10/haneke-jeunet-and-bonitzer.html
Great blog post!
In reference to your point about how men in Hictchcock's films are strong and self assured, did you notice how in Cache, the lead character, though successful in his professional life is so fettered by inaction. Like when he finds out his son might be missing, he sits down, not knowing what to do next - a much more realistic reaction.
Also, have you seen the original Funny Games (also by Haneke)?
The statement "Haneke forces the audience to think about exactly what it is they enjoy about the movies" really stood out to me, and you are quite right. Haneke does make the viewers appreciate the power and luxury of other vantage points by taking it away from you. After you mentioned "Funny Games. Funny Games" I now want to see that movie and how Haneke crafts the film.
ReplyDeleteNice Job
great points! In Haneke's films what you don't see becomes more important that what you do. That really challenges conventional looking relations.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I really like how you connected the scopophilia addressed in the readings back to "Cache" and discussed its purpose and impacts in depth. Seeing as we have watched several films since "Cache" I had forgotten how well this movie seemed to punish us for our voyeuristic fascinations. Besides that, I think it would have been very interesting to compare how Hitchcock's "Rear Window" seemed to attempt to bring this obsession with voyeurism to our attention while Haneke's "Cache" clearly aimed to torment us with it. By that I mean explain how Hitchcock used a narrative storyline to draw attention to our scopophilia while Haneke mainly used filming techniques to, arguably more effectively, accomplish the same end.
ReplyDeleteThis post really helps me put into words what I found so frustration about Cache. You did a great job explain scopophilia and also what we as viewers have come to expect when we see a film. When we watch a film that strays from these expectations it does seem to make you feel a little off.
ReplyDeleteI think you really articulated the key reason so many of us had a kind of negative, confused reaction to Cache: it's challenging our scopophilic desires when we're not at all accustomed to films doing so; when it doesn't play into our vouyeristic desire to know why things happen, or our scopophilic desire to see "something happen," we declare that the problem is in the film, rather than in our own perhaps-unsavoury desires.
ReplyDeleteI think this is especially true when considering the nature of Majid's secret-- I found myself thinking, "Oh, that's hardly bad enough to merit all that angst." I actually wanted Majid to have done something more terrible, to justify his extreme secrecy, but I think this, too, is an artefact of the film's goal of not giving us what we want in order to make us think about why we want it.
Nice post! I really like the way you related the ideas of scopophilia and voyeurism back to Haneke's Cache. After all, it is an excellent example of scopophilia in film. The only part of you post that I disagree with is your statement about the Hitchcock films that we viewed: "the men are strong and exert their influence over the course of the film, while the women are attractive, and ultimately deferential to the men." I couldn't help but think about Modleski's argument, which really shined light on the female character, Lisa, in Rear Window as being more powerful and influential than the male protagonist, Jeffries, disproving Mulvey's notion of the passive female. Other than that, I agree with the points that you made. Good work
ReplyDelete