I've figured it out (heavy spoilers inside)

The story ends with George taking some sleeping pills ... calling his wife to ask her to ask his son to take it easy on him ... and then falling asleep.

Then comes the dream where he dreams the scene of Majid being taken away as a child in the same kind of a static camera angle that we've seen used and portrayed in the first tape at the beginning of the film.

Next we jump to still another static shot of the front of the school.

So are we still inside of the same dream?

Could the scene in front of the school be the way the mind of George displays his worry that the son of Majid will expose him to his son?

The posters we see on the walls inside of the bedroom of his son are probably also things that would worry George?

George might see the influence of a rap artist, for example, as being something threatening to George and his more traditional way of life?

So if George resents the presence of that kind of a poster, and sees it as a threat to his more conservative upbringing, then that may also transfer into his seeing the son of Majid approaching his son on the front steps of the school inside of the same dream state?

So the question also becomes is George still dreaming in that scene?

Or did that scene really happen?

And will the cycle of revenge also continue and be passed on to George by way of something mean that the son of Majid does to the son of George?

Your explanation doesn't hold water, because it fails in explaining the scene in Majid's apartment, clearly shot from a hidden camera. That's the scene where George made open threats to Majid, threats that, because they were recorded, could've cost George his career, his wealthy status, and even his freedom. If George was indeed behind all the hidden camera static shots, he certainly wasn't able to set that shot before hand, and then later on get the tape out of the camera in Majid's apartment, and mail it to his wife and to his boss (btw, why would he do such a stupid thing that had completely compromised him?)

lilian are you a moron. it was majid who chopped the rooster. of course it was. he was older and therefor bigger and in the scene the bigger child done chopping. . which also explains squint nose on george. obviously from the arab.

This theory is in no way supported by the film.

You might as well blame Freddy Krueger.

Meh, I think "Hidden," I think of the hidden things that we keep from those supposedly closest to us. Georges isn't the one sending the tapes. The fact that they were shot in the same quality of the film, keeps the viewer a little off balance as to figuring out whether we're watching another hidden camera video.

Majid had a bad feeling about Georges because he knew him intimately and was ripped apart emotionally. What we do to others - Georges being a bully for instance - can stay with the victim much longer than the bully, who moves on with ignorance to conscience.

I think Georges may have been in that barn, yes. And I perhaps might share my experiences with Pierrot... yet at the same time, I think that finals scene was moreover one that showed the consequences of one's past and how it can come back to haunt. Georges made choices that he could never have imagined. His wife, doing such things with another man? All this can easily return home to roost, so to speak. So with all that, Majid's son could easily have done anything to Pierrot. But his target is not the innocent but the guilty. Majid has no interest to harm, but it serves to remind people that the worse things we do, the greater the chance that we will one day have to confront our actions.

I have to assume that your theory about the "hidden" is rather interesting , if unerstood in this way, but , in my opinion the sense of the hidden camera is a completely other thing , which is symbolic. Also , as far as i remember from the film , when Georges meets Majid for the first time on his flat , they are videotaped from a camera behind them.On the other hand , there is a scene where Goerges turns back and tuches something , that can be the camera). However , i want to express an other theory. I think that the "hidden" person that spies on Georges is the director. So , that means that the "hidden" person does not exist in the film. But , noone knows. Haneke wants to play with our mind , and that's what he does. And i think that technique of a hidden person setting up the whole story is found on many of Haneke's films , such as "The white ribbon" , which is an absolute masterpiece.

No, in the movie it was a dark skinned boy with curly hair that killed the rooster and then approached the terrified white boy and made us think he attacked the white boy. And I must say I found it amazing how they found a little boy who looks so much like the main character.

So you seem to be confused about that, BUT the scene where they were having dinner guests and he went to open the door and found a tape makes it obvious that he had something to do with these tapes in general. Georges goes back to his guests after putting the tape in a coat pocket, the wife explains to the guests yjey have a stalker, he goes back to the hallway, grabs the tape and puts it in the player and tells everyone what is on the tape.

We now understand that he is somehow involved Since we know he didn't have time to view the tape before playing it for the guests but already knew what will be on it.

Not to mention when Georges and his wife had guests for dinner, who rang the doorbell and left the next tape? Couldn't have been Georges unless that whole scene was in Georges' imagination. Also, if it was Georges, why would he go to Majid's house when Pierrot was missing if he didn't think Majid was responsible for the tapes?

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!