Before Sunrise
Remember liking it when I saw it long time back. It is strictly good only.
Printable View
Before Sunrise
Remember liking it when I saw it long time back. It is strictly good only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Lol! :D illa adhukukaaga dhan andha peru cache nu vechanga nu sonnen.. i read an interesting write up about this movie somewhere.. will post the link soon
City by the sea
- Thanks for the recommend, Groucho. What a truly understated, emotional (without fully breaking down once coz that's how the character is, and the scene in the autoshop when he talks to his son, despairing and from the heart. He just is Vincent LaMarca :notworthy: ), nuanced performance by the great man. Lovely :clap:
Next !Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho070
RanganAr on the film. With a pointer by yours truly in the comments section.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Old dogs...
Expected more from Travolta and Robin Williams. Walt Disney lives up to the reputation of making films for (only) kids.
Bear with my self-serving, shameless plug, Anaylsis by notcoming, that explores my perplexed reaction towards Haneke's critique of different medium (of film in itself, resemblance of surveillance footage, of TV, home videotapes, distorted images - crayon work, indiscernible voice/sound over telephone), that it also serves to quench some of the genre expectations, by unsettling the characters, who firmly posit the bourgeois..Quote:
Originally Posted by Brangan writeup on Cache
Quote:
Haneke does not limit his analysis only to the viewer, but also to the medium in which images are delivered and received. The communication within Caché is noticeably hindered by the long-standing discord between cultures, whether due to prior political policy that still carries weight today or the concealed existing prejudices that have damaged the characters’ facility for compassion and intimacy. While basic discussion appears unsuccessful in Caché, certain methods of contact are able to pierce through the bourgeois shield, though their value varies. Interestingly, the most effective form of communication is the simple color drawing that seems to convey more meaning in its tiny size than any number of complex conversations. In fact, rather than the monotonous images on the irksome videotapes, it is the buried message within the crayon image that provides context for the video, exhumes memories, and provokes Georges to engage in his unwise pursuit. Oddly, more advanced methods of communication seem to deliver contentious results. The stream of images that video offers yields meaning only when context is provided, and the telephone does not require actual discourse while it obscures the identity of the speaker.
Meanwhile, Haneke is more severe when examining the medium of television. The presence of television seems unavoidable in Caché and its style even appears to invade dreams. Haneke is willing to concede that television serves an important function, especially considering it is the only means of deciphering the video-terrorist’s message. The medium is so fundamental to our comprehension of our surroundings that various characters keep piles of videotapes – perhaps as their own form of documentation – which they seem incapable of discarding. Unfortunately, as in previous Haneke films, television’s persistence inevitably leads to our desensitization. While a crude drawing allows us to concentrate on a single image, the incessant flood of images TV provides us usually allows us to ignore what we have become inundated by.
However, Caché also displays a more complex conception of television. Haneke’s most intriguing use of television comes during a family crisis as Georges and Anne frantically search for a suddenly missing Pierrot. During the scene, as a panicked Anne calls another parent, Haneke places his couple at the edges of the screen while he positions a television in the center of his frame. While the couple’s distress increases, the television streams though a series of images from a broadcast of international news. The footage details the ongoing conflicts and hardships of virtually every “brown” culture in the third world, speeding through images of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, and briskly moving from Palestine, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Kashmir. Understandably, the couple is too distracted to even note these sensational scenes of the world around them, yet the contrast of their problem to the misery of the foreigners underscores the disparity between nations. The choice of what to concentrate upon is clear for Georges and Anne, but a dilemma is created for the viewer. Do we watch the personal crisis of our fictional couple created in an artificial film, or do we gaze at the authentic footage of real people engaged in a constant catastrophe? On some level we must also ask if it is entirely acceptable for our central couple to completely ignore widespread global adversity for a personal problem. Viewers may also wonder if it is appropriate while watching a film to be diverted by a television screen that our eyes naturally gravitate towards.
What Haneke recognizes is that television is a compelling medium, but it is also an abstraction that allows viewers to maintain a comfortable distance from the subjects within the images being exhibited. That distance allows TV’s images to distract us, but also provides us the option to discard the product just as easily. Hence the distortion allows a TV audience to regard the Third-World populace within the footage as merely images forever trapped in a box that provides passive programming. Whether or not the reality the image is meant to convey remains elusive, Caché ultimately grants the spectator the power of realization. Since he is a TV personality who constantly watches TV and manipulates images both at work (removing a portion of his show during editing because it’s too theoretical) and at home, it’s reasonable to assume that Georges grasps the nature of television. Yet Georges still ignores visual information that does not directly affect his life. Thus, while Haneke often reprimands television for exploiting suffering and desensitizing viewers to violence, Caché also places the responsibility upon the spectator who decides to disregard the images presented to them. Caché may actually be Haneke’s most balanced representation of television’s function to date, since it seems the director is willing to admit the medium has value even while he critiques its use.
Discerning who actually commands the images within Caché and who exactly serves as the spectator to those images becomes an exasperating issue. It is important to distinguish that the film blends various media together and that the images are manipulated by a number of different parties. It is equally important to notice that the film’s audience and the film’s characters often share the same view, but that the film’s audience remains passive and unable to control the action or image. However, with both perspectives fused, the film’s audience should subject themselves to the same scrutiny imposed upon the fictional characters, and consider why exactly we choose to watch a fictionalized film that distorts, and distracts from, the reality of our surrounding world. Furthermore, Haneke appears to invite disapproval of his own decision to fashion an elaborate thriller, since he occasionally allows television, the very medium he constantly berates, to take control of his film.
:thumbsup: Glad you liked it. Too bad it got buried amidst the Godsends and Analyse Thats :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Stumbled on a paragraph fraught with perhapses. Konjam gap vittuttu padikkarEn.Quote:
Originally Posted by complicateur
Liked one commnentator (!) by the name Vijay there, who trashed The Shining. Now I know why I could never explain why I don't think much of that movie, he had used up my words. The distinction between "open-ended" and "ambiguous" he brings up is pretty important methinks. "Either could have been the case, we don't know" is so damn different from "neenga solra maadhiriyum sollalaam, avar solra maadhiriyum sollalaam". aahaa...slippery slope again.