MovieChat Forums > Caché (2006) Discussion > What did Roger Ebert discover about the ...

What did Roger Ebert discover about the movie?

posted 12 years ago by PauloLovesMcGonagall
15 replies | jump to latest

EXCERPT from this recent review:

How is it possible to watch a thriller intently two times and completely miss a smoking gun that's in full view? Yet I did. Only on my third trip through Michael Haneke's "Cache" did I consciously observe a shot which forced me to redefine the film. I was not alone. I haven't read all of the reviews of the film, but after seeing that shot I looked up a lot of them, and the shot is never referred to. For that matter, no one seems to point to a conclusion that it might suggest.

*snipped*

Now I call your attention to the shot I missed the first time through. You will find it on the DVD, centering around 20:39. You tell me what it means. It's the smoking gun, but did it shoot anybody?

---------------------------------

So what was it? I played the movie on my copy but it's just Georges exiting the house with his son and getting an advertisement flyer on his car.

[–] ichbinsisyphos 12 years ago

I don't know. We had a thread about this here, or maybe on the Haneke board?, some time back. Btw, I hate it that imdb deletes threads now.

But back on topic, I never figured out what he meant. I do remember that we had some talk about frame rates, so it wasn't even totally clear which scene the time refers to. Ebert never said anything more about it either, did he? Maybe he's just *beep* with his readers.

I will now end this debate with you.

[–] continuousmonsterdrip 12 years ago

Maybe you have a different DVD than I do. Is yours region 1, American? What I saw at 20:39 was a flashback shot of the kid coughing up blood and looking at the camera, noticing it. He also had something small and white in his right hand, possibly sharp, as if he cut his face. That would explain the scar on the grown up son's face. Though, I don't think that's it because he was obviously coughing up the blood.

Musica gratis musicæ

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 12 years ago

The flyer sounds objects that might be cameras.

On my versions 20:29 is the dinner table conversation,

Subtitles: Sitting right at the far end, near the mirror, you know.

[–] ichbinsisyphos 12 years ago

Is your signature really a quote from this movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430490/

I will now end this debate with you.

[–] ichbinsisyphos 12 years ago

Oh, that is not your signature, lol.

I will now end this debate with you.

[–] colour-me-kubrick 12 years ago

Okay, I saw something that could be a smoking gun. But what does that explain ?

http://justgyaan.blogspot.com/

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 12 years ago

post it

[–] Prelude_in_C_maj 12 years ago

For chrissakes, will someone just say WHAT is at 20:39????

Why is everyone being so cryptic, just describe it. I enjoyed the film but I'm not sitting through it again. I came here to get some answers, and no I can't figure it out for myself. I'm mystified.

[–] ichbinsisyphos 12 years ago

As far as I know, nobody is sure what Ebert meant, he never explained himself and now he took the secret to his grave!

I will now end this debate with you.

[–] robz_hatch 12 years ago

Ebert's response from a blog post a few years ago:

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/cach%C3%A9-a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-mystery-inside-an-enigma

[–] JayCeezy 11 years ago

Magid's son has sought out a relationship with Pierrot (Georges son). Watch the final scene again, and watch it in reverse; Magid's son goes directly to him and Pierrot is clearly waiting for him. Magid's son's mindgame and torture of Georges, as payback for what he did to Magid (then and now) is going to continue. He will gain the trust of Pierrot, and then betray Pierrot, perhaps leading Pierrot to suicide.

Ebert's "secret" was a long perspective shot from the street to the front door of Georges home, in fixed frame. It was supposed to indicate the taping made from outside the home. This has been discussed on and off for many years on imdb.com, and elsewhere.

[–] drnossal 11 years ago

The perspective of the shot is from INSIDE the house, evidently implicating a member of the household. It is, in my memory, the only such shot in the film. All others take place from the street toward the front of the house. The most likely person to have done this then is Pierrot, whether collaborating with a third party or not.

Unless, of course, that is simply an external "movie" shot used to set place by the director and not a shot that is within the story itself, like so many of the long perspective shots spaced through the film.

"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" - Morris Buttermaker

[–] snafu (33) a month ago

do you happen to remember? The link is gone...

[–] Keely 11 years ago

If 20:39 is anywhere near the scene where you see Anne setting the table, and all you see is her back, it's kind of a weird point of view - like the viewpoint of a hidden camera. Placed there by who else but Pierrot.

[–] StaunchWoman 8 years ago

Is it possible the shot he speaks of is when we see a car pass the alley and its lights suddenly show us a shadow of the camera, on a tripod? 4th wall perhaps?

We've met before, haven't we?