KC Hill
Dexter
Cibbuano
Paladin
Craig Hill
Oracle of DelphiMusings on film: 'Hidden' stories
May 18th 2006 08:43
Like David Stratton, I found Michael Haneke’s 'Hidden' to be a deeply unsettling film. I came out of the cinema not really knowing how I felt. For some reason all the surveillance and recording that goes on in the film, as well as the visually confronting violence, had left a bad taste in my mouth (note: may also have been the garlic sauced Kebab I ate beforehand).
Stratton sees the film primarily as "a study of how people behave under stress" whilst other commentators view it as an exploration of "the debt the First World owes to the Third World", and indeed, according to interviews, the director intended to address these themes.
These revelations did nothing to assuage the unease that I felt about the film, nor did they explain it. Then I came upon one of Stratton's conclusions:
"There’s no doubt that Haneke is a fine, challenging film-maker, but HIDDEN, though it’s gripping for most of its length, does, in the end, slightly disappoint...
The director seems not very interested in solving the mystery, and the clues, such as they are, are there only for the eagle-eyed viewer. Perhaps solving the mystery isn’t the point, but it does leave you feeling a bit frustrated."
Here, I believe, Stratton implies the source of the film's power, that is, its refusal to provide the spectator narrative closure, or, more simply put, its refusal to finish the story (remember Georges and Anne are authors in the film). For those who haven't seen the film I won't spoil it; suffice to say there is no resolution to the story's mysterious goings on. The film's final frame emblematises this refusal, as, whilst the credits roll, it shows kids leaving school and a discussion between Poirrot and an anonymous older person (perhaps a teacher). The spectator has no narrative frame for this scene; it cannot be positioned within the film's plot and hence it troubles the viewer because it doesn't seem to make any sense.
This technique is used throughout the film. Events appear random and nonsensical (the killing of the rooster, the sending of the notes etc) until the stories of which they form parts are explicated.
The film then asks - is life the same? Does life only make sense when its randomness is coralled into a coherent story. Perhaps this is why the surveillance of the house is so troubling. The spectator is waiting for something to 'happen', e.g the plot to move forward, but nothing does happen. And isn't this the reality of life, life's plots don't unfold like they do in books, with a beginning middle and end. Rather, life can be boring and sometimes nothing happens (as illustrated in the tapes) and then when something does happen a doesn't move to b which doesn't move to c.
The film then asks the spectator to consider the existential ramifications of this thesis, that is, if life/reality is a story, who constructs this reality? Editing is a motif than runs throughout the film - footage of video news, print editing and video manipulation proliferates - as if the film is urging the spectator to appreciate the fictionality of stories, even the news, as a construction told from a certain perspective. Indeed the decorative similarity of Anne and George's lounge room toGeorge's TV studio adverts the spectator to their mutual contrivance; both spaces are sets in which 'reality' is constructed - by the filmmaker, producer, and players.
Must stop talking - have things to do. Apologies - a bit enigmatic.
Stratton sees the film primarily as "a study of how people behave under stress" whilst other commentators view it as an exploration of "the debt the First World owes to the Third World", and indeed, according to interviews, the director intended to address these themes.
These revelations did nothing to assuage the unease that I felt about the film, nor did they explain it. Then I came upon one of Stratton's conclusions:
"There’s no doubt that Haneke is a fine, challenging film-maker, but HIDDEN, though it’s gripping for most of its length, does, in the end, slightly disappoint...
The director seems not very interested in solving the mystery, and the clues, such as they are, are there only for the eagle-eyed viewer. Perhaps solving the mystery isn’t the point, but it does leave you feeling a bit frustrated."
Here, I believe, Stratton implies the source of the film's power, that is, its refusal to provide the spectator narrative closure, or, more simply put, its refusal to finish the story (remember Georges and Anne are authors in the film). For those who haven't seen the film I won't spoil it; suffice to say there is no resolution to the story's mysterious goings on. The film's final frame emblematises this refusal, as, whilst the credits roll, it shows kids leaving school and a discussion between Poirrot and an anonymous older person (perhaps a teacher). The spectator has no narrative frame for this scene; it cannot be positioned within the film's plot and hence it troubles the viewer because it doesn't seem to make any sense.
This technique is used throughout the film. Events appear random and nonsensical (the killing of the rooster, the sending of the notes etc) until the stories of which they form parts are explicated.
The film then asks - is life the same? Does life only make sense when its randomness is coralled into a coherent story. Perhaps this is why the surveillance of the house is so troubling. The spectator is waiting for something to 'happen', e.g the plot to move forward, but nothing does happen. And isn't this the reality of life, life's plots don't unfold like they do in books, with a beginning middle and end. Rather, life can be boring and sometimes nothing happens (as illustrated in the tapes) and then when something does happen a doesn't move to b which doesn't move to c.
The film then asks the spectator to consider the existential ramifications of this thesis, that is, if life/reality is a story, who constructs this reality? Editing is a motif than runs throughout the film - footage of video news, print editing and video manipulation proliferates - as if the film is urging the spectator to appreciate the fictionality of stories, even the news, as a construction told from a certain perspective. Indeed the decorative similarity of Anne and George's lounge room toGeorge's TV studio adverts the spectator to their mutual contrivance; both spaces are sets in which 'reality' is constructed - by the filmmaker, producer, and players.
Must stop talking - have things to do. Apologies - a bit enigmatic.
| 69 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by amy
It was a serious of unfortunate and interrelated events and yes, the randomness was always explained after delay... But it was SO unsatisfying to watch - as if they thought the explanation of the random details of the film were all we wanted.
I wanted an ending with closure!
(irritating movie, reminds me of Go! - without direction. It claims to be like Memento - they lie)
Comment by amy
It was a serious of unfortunate and interrelated events and yes, the randomness was always explained after delay... But it was SO unsatisfying to watch - as if they thought the explanation of the random details of the film were all we wanted.
I wanted an ending with closure!
(irritating movie, reminds me of Go! - without direction. It claims to be like Memento - they lie)
Comment by amy