in the first shot, if you look closely at the paper that was stuck under Georges' windshield wiper, it looks like an advertisement for cameras. Perhaps Ebert was just being sarcastic and insinuating that Georges made the films?

Mike: I've looked at the advertisement and there's really no definitive image that shows that the flyer was for cameras.

But for the sake of argument let's say the flyer did have cameras, implying that he made the videos. This would bring up motive. Why would he go through all the trouble of making the videos to bring anguish to his family, to contact police, to crack his relationship with his wife, when it is clear during the whole film that he does not want such pain? He weeps when he thinks his child is kidnapped. Would he really put everyone around him through such an exercise? I think not.

There is a problem with it ONLY being Peirrot (if that is what you're saying, but maybe you're not)...as one video is shot from a moving car and Pierrot is not old enough to drive or perhaps not even capable.

Mike: I know what you mean. What I'm pointing out is that it's Pierrot that is sending the tapes. But that doesn't mean that Majid isn't somehow involved.

Majid's son gives at least a major clue that he is involved or that he has maybe seen the tape(s) at some point, perhaps even prior to their delivery (at least I think so). When he confronts Georges at his office he accuses Georges of making a threat, to which Majid's son then says 'ahh you are good at making those'...and that sounds very much like a reference to the tape that was made in Majid's home...where George made a similar threat.

That's not the only clue that Majid's son is somehow involved. The video tape of Georges's first confrontation with an adult Majid is another. It's too much to infer that Pierrot was in that room filming it or perhaps planting it. Majid's son had to be involved at that point.

One thing that is bothering me is this...how did Majid obtain the telephone number that directly took him to the telephone of Georges (the pre-suicide call) while he was sitting in a small editing room at his place of work...how would Majid know this? In the film there is no delay or anything like that during that call...it seems he comes straight through, how would he even know he was sitting in this editing room...or are we to assume that he was connected from a main switchboard or was there another source for Georges number...if you catch my drift?

I chalk that up to coincidence or a plot requirement. It might seem too convenient to some, but it's not unreasonable to think that Majid might have found out somehow. Georges is famous and works for a TV station. It's not too far fetched to think that Majid called the station up and Georges happened to be there.

Another thing to note is that the 2nd video shot of Georges home is recorded at night and is positioned in a different position than the opening shot...it seems slightly higher and further away and couldn't have come from Georges car or the 'opening shot' parking space, as we see him park his car during the shot.

That shot didn't have to come from Georges car per se. But I believe that Mr. Haneke purposely uses the "flyer" shot (which when you think about it, appears to be completely unnecessary to the story) to indicate where the spot is, regardless whether it's in the car or not. Where Pierrot is sitting is the right spot to take it, but not literally inside of a car.

Thanks for sharing!

Hi...thanks for the response.

Yes...I did realise that Pierrot is an unlikely candidate for filming within the Majid home (the son is highly likely, even more so with his remarks to Georges)...I was trying to point out that it seems that both 'sons' are involved...that seems to be the only plausible explanation.

You're right about that. It makes the most sense.

Did you catch Pierrot's overt 'double take' when his mother suggests to Georges 'perhaps its from a fan'...when they are seated at the dinner table, very early on in the procedings...Pierrot seems a little too interested in what is being said...seeing as though he wouldn't even know what was supposedly being referred too. Yes its a very small thing but I couldn't help but notice...when re-watching.

Exactly. Even when Georges picks him up from school, he seems apprehensive, bordering on the defensive. Credit to Lester Makedonsky (as Pierrot) for being able to convey that o so slyly.

Interesting stuff.

In the walk to the car with his father before the "flyer" shot above, notice Pierrot's attention being directed towards something to his right. The camera location perhaps? He could just be randomly looking into a window, but it looks pretty intentional.

I noticed that too. As Georges gets the flyer, Pierrot seems to reach into his bag. But nothing appears conclusive. Of course, we all could be over-analyzing it. Damn you Haneke! :D

A link to my preferred explanation of the man who sent the tapes...Haneke himself.

http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/461

I read this before and think it's also a very plausible explanation as well. As Ebert mentions that in the DVD, Haneke himself offers several very plausible scenarios, but although mentions that all of them are unnecessary. One might think this one is as well (not a criticism, just an observation).

There is a thread on IMDB by user "koroshi" claming that Haneke himself said that the tapes were indeed, "sent by a character." Here's a transcript

For what it's worth, when I saw Haneke interviewed onstage at London's BFI last month, the interviewer cried in mock exasperation, "Having seen Caché several times, and having carefully studied the camera placement in the footage that's sent to the couple, I've come to the conclusion that you, Haneke, are the one who sent the tapes, because it is physically impossible for them to have been sent by any of the actual characters!" Haneke replied, "No, they were sent by a character," with a sly little smile that (I thought) implied that camera placement was indeed a clue. - koroshi

If this is true, we can discount Haneke recording the tapes. If.

Thanks a lot for explaining the smoking gun. I admit I personally tend to agree with the "it was Haneke" theory, but this has certainly provided me with more food for thought.

I think what Ebert is aiming for might be this: we see a shot of Majid with blood in his mouth two times, and both times the movie cuts to that shot from a stationary shot, making a link between the stationary video image and the image of Majid. Now, it seems most likely that the image of Majid is something Georges recalls from his childhood. When we first see it, the link between it and the stationary image is explained: Georges has received a video wrapped in a drawing which depicts a person with blood coming from his mouth. So it seems that the cut from the video to Majid represents Georges recalling this image from his past, after having seen the drawing. But the second time we see a cut from a stationary shot to Majid, it is never explained. This happens around the 20 minute mark: first we see a shot that resembles the videos we've seen before, but it appears to have been filmed inside Georges' house. Then the movie cuts to a shot of Majid coughing blood. There's no clear explanation given for the stationary shot inside the house. We don't know if it's one of the videos or something else. So maybe Ebert is simply trying to point out that there is a clear link between the stationary shots and Georges' psyche, that the videos exist because Georges needs to see them. To me it seems obvious Georges is the person behind videos, at least in a metaphorical sense. Each and every scene in the movie that's shot with a stationary camera, including both the videotapes and the stationary shots that cannot be videotapes (such as the scene between Anne and Pierre in the cafe, and the scene where Majid is taken to the orphanage), can be interpreted as reflections of Georges' fears and his guilt.

The stationary shot you speak of can indeed be interpreted as from Georges's point of view instead of that Pierrot's. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it's from the "recorder" because:
- it is stationary as was the original opening shot of the house, and both shots maintain the same dispassionate, silent, and eerie feel.
- the shot looks directly at the spot where the original recording was filmed from.

From this, I think Perriot is the recorder, because it is apparent throughout the whole film that the parents (of both kids) are going through the anguish. Perriot has easier access into his own home than Majid does. So I'm going with him.

Or I could be dead wrong. :)

All of this evidence points toward Pierrot and Majid's son, which is the feeling I had after the first time I watched the film (considering the final shot) and continue to have after multiple viewings. But WHY? For all of the discussion as to whodunit, I see nothing revelatory as to the sons' motives. I'm particularly troubled by Majid's son's role. Why would he help make these tapes which ultimately lead to Majid's suicide? Granted, his suicide may have been an unintended consequence of the tapes. But look at the interaction between Majid's son and Pierrot in the final shot: they seem to be having a pretty polite conversation, and they look pretty chummy when they part ways. Definitely doesn't look like they're saying "Hey, sorry that our little prank caused your dad to kill himself," "Thanks, that's okay."

Okay so I'm dumbing it down, but really, how do you explain that interaction??

I don't think it was Pierrot and Majid's son. Besides the reasons you state, it's worth noting that the final scene where they meet also looks like one of the videotapes. So if they were behind the tapes, who's shooting their meeting there? Again, I think it's Georges. Not necessarily in the realistic sense, but at least on a metaphorical level. Whereas the other stationary shots in the movie reflect on Georges' fear and guilt, this one seems to be about his hope for the future: maybe his and Majid's son can find the sort of connection and understanding their fathers never did.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it's from the "recorder" because:
- it is stationary as was the original opening shot of the house, and both shots maintain the same dispassionate, silent, and eerie feel.
- the shot looks directly at the spot where the original recording was filmed from.

I agree that the view is that of the "recorder", but I think the recorder must be Georges. Besides the stuff I've already mentioned, there are two things that made me think this way:
1) At about 1 hour and 30 minutes into the movie (when Georges returns home after Majid has killed himself) we see the same view from the same window as at 20 minutes. But in this later scene we see that it's Georges looking out of the window, it's not a videotape. Since these two scenes show the same street from approximately the same point of view, it makes me think the same person is looking out in both of them.
2) In the scene at 20 minutes where the street is being taped, you can hear someone breathing on the background. This must be person behind the camera, and the breaths sound like those of an adult man, not of a kid. I think it's Georges. Also, since the scene at 1:30 establishes that the view is from the bedroom window of Georges and Anne, it seems more likely that the person taping the street is Georges. Could Pierrot have sneaked into his parents' bedroom in the middle of the night to shoot the street without them noticing?

There are two shots in front of the school (1. When Georges picks up Pierrot 2. The final shot). There is nothing to indicate that these were recorded. There was no "rewind" effect for both thosts. And both wre done to serve the general storyline. These were two objective shots.

Unfortunately, there is no shot at around 1 hour and 30 minutes that makes it say that it is the same room as that of the stationary shot at around 19:30. There is no breathing around the 19:30 stationary shot that indicates that its from an adult. You can check it out once more.

And if it were Georges, my response would be the same as to the first comment by Rob:

"This would bring up motive. Why would he go through all the trouble of making the videos to bring anguish to his family, to contact police, to crack his relationship with his wife, when it is clear during the whole film that he does not want such pain? He weeps when he thinks his child is kidnapped. Would he really put everyone around him through such an exercise? I think not."

I think you make mistake by putting Caché under a "objective" scrutiny. Like Lynch's Lost Highway, where Haneke must've gotten the idea of the videotapes from, Caché doesn't treat the tapes as "real" objects made by a "real" person with a "real-life" motive for doing them. There are two kinds of scenes in Caché: "regular" cinematic ones with a moving camera and cuts, and stationary, virtually cutless ones. The latter ones aren't supposed to be "objective". There's a reason Haneke doesn't distinguish between the stationary shot that are shown (within the movie) to be videotapes and ones who's origin is unclear. The scene before the last one, where a long stationary shot (exactly like the videotapes) is obviously a memory of Georges implies that all the other scenes like this relate to Georges' psyche too. The stationary shots serve as mental ammunition that make Georges face memories and emotions and thoughts he has long repressed ("hidden", as the film title suggests), but which he needs to confront. The tapes appear because Georges needs them to provoke a change in him, but it's pointless to think for an "realistic" explanation for them. What matters is the reaction the tapes cause, not the manner in which they were produced. It's not that Georges has intentionally shot the videos abd brought them to his doorstep, that he has intentionally brought all this anguish to himself and his family. But on some subconscious level he knows that he needs to confront his past, his guilt, his fears. And so the tapes appear. That's all the explanation we need.

Mike: I respectfully disagree, and will leave it at that. But I do appreciate your views on this. Thanks for sharing.

The high angle shot of the street where the initial video is shot from is used just twice in the movie.

The first time the street is deserted and precedes the shot of young bleeding Majid. The second time it shows the couple's guests leaving as George waits in the bedroom.

My wife had the most interesting explanation of this shot - when we see this point of view the first time there's subtle, but clear sound of a man breathing. I believe this is supposed to be the sleeping George starting a dream - and since the shot that follows is of young bleeding Majid it makes sense - but only upon a repeated viewing, as we learn in the later scene where George has another bad dream while staying overnight with his mother.

The other issue I need explained to me is Pierrot mostly unexplained rejection of his mother in the scene following his eventual return after missing overnight.

He is angry with his mother, rejects her attempts to physically reunite, and Anne says words along the line of "I still love *you*", which almost sounds like an admission of guilt - she loves her son, even if she no longer holds any affection for George.

I assume that Pierrot suspects an infidelity, but we have no fore knowledge that there is this conflict between them. Perhaps the characters back story included some earlier discovery. But there's also that odd scene in the café with Anne and her boss where he embraces her. With the audio its clear that he is comforting her - but to an observer, perhaps outside the café the impression might be very different.

Ok. I looked at the first shot in question just before the shot to the bleeding Majid. After really turning up the volume, there does appear what seems to be a very slight breath at the end of the POV. Nothing suggests that it comes from an adult (Georges) than rather a pre-teen (Pierrot).

But I will grant that I can see how one can see it as a prelude to what might be Georges's dream of a young Majid.

Thank you for pointing out the 2nd shot from the room, which I must have missed from all the scanning I did through the film. I believe you and Tuomas have a good case.

Yet somehow I have a nagging feeling that the two shots have different purposes. The first has a different creepy feel to it. While the second seems to merely show Georges's guests leaving. I cannot deny your and Tuomas's observations about the first shot.

As for Anne (Georges's wife), you are right. The truth behind her supposed infidelity is never certain, just like the rest of the ambiguities that abound in the film.

Thanks for the input!

Readers. Thanks a lot for particpating. But I now believe we can move this conversation to Roger's new blog post about CACHE.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/a_riddle_wrapped_in_a_mystery.html

Mike -

Here's a detail that I overlooked in my first 3 or 4 viewings of the film, but I think indicate Pierrot as a very likely culprit - not necessarily in making the videos, but at least in placing them.

When the dinner party is interrupted by a knock on the door, Georges goes down to see who is there. The door to the flat is completely closed, and Georges opens the door, opens the outer gate, looks around the street, and demands that the knocker reveal himself before retreating inside. When he does so, the door can't be closed because a tape is now lying in the way, in a plastic bag.

Clearly the tape wasn't there when he opened the door - remember, the door was totally closed when Georges came downstairs, and now it can't be closed because the tape is lying in the way.

The only ways (that I can figure) it could get to the location where it prevents the door from closing is that (1) it was propped against the door and fell inwards when Georges opens it, or (2) Pierrot was hiding nearby in the house and quietly snuck the tape into place and retreated back into the house while Georges was out on the street, looking around, and yelling. There's no way someone could have placed it there from outside, or Georges surely would have seem them sneaking behind him to put the tape down, or sneaking away.

I think explanation (1) is also very unlikely, because there is no sound at all when Georges opens the door - the tape leaning against the door and falling into place where Georges found it would have made some slight amount of noise that would have picked up at a high volume.

This seems to indicate to me that Pierrot knocked on the door from the inside, waited until dad was outside ranting, and put the tape into place before darting back to his room (or wherever). Thoughts?

Thanks for your consideration.

You know, that scene also struck me. How the hell did the tape get into the gate? Not likely that someone lock-picked it in a busy neighborhood. So yes Pierrot would have an easier time getting through.

When I read Ebert's Great Movie article, I thought that he was certainly referring to the following clue. But I've read several message boards on this topic and I haven't seen it discussed:

In the scene where Georges and Pierrot are walking to the car, before Georges picks up the flyer, if you keep your eye on Pierrot during the entire walk to the car, you will see him grab something from the bush to his right. You can clearly see the bush shake and he picks something up, most likely a camera. Then, when Georges gets out of the car to grab the flyer, his son slips something into his bag.

Mike: I've checked that scene several times up close. There's nothing conclusive.

There's much to like in this film, but the guilt attributed to Georges by Majid's son (and by Haneke?)seems much too great. Yes, young children can be cruel to one another, and sometimes that cruelty will cause lasting damage. But we don't ordinarily hold grownups blameworthy for what they did as six-year olds.

It's majids son. With an assist from Pierrot. No doubt. It's the only conclusion that makes any sense. He had the access, the motive. And he had no idea what his father would do to himself. He wanted him to get closure. Not kill himself. In fact, the scene in the bathroom with georges is about trying to assuage his own guilt, not inquire about georges'. Mystery solved.

There are some scenes that don't look as though they have anything to do with the story. Especially the part where Pierrot is swimming. Yes, there were cryptic conversations that seem to be in reference to another part of the movie. Like when the swimming coach said "too shallow" and whatsoever. Anyway, it might just be nothing. Maybe all these appreciation for this movie is all fake. Maybe we're all saying it's a good movie because we want to look smart because of the mystery of the film. It's like those " it's deep, so anyone not smart enough won't get it" films. But sometimes people do see things in a different light or see those "deeper" meanings.

In any case, i have a theory about the film, although i don't think it was necessary to be too secretive about what is really going on(as in michael haneke). Yea, my theory is that Pierrot and Majid and Majid's son were part of this videotaping stuff. Remember the plastic bag with the tape when they were halfway having dinner with their friends? The tape was found inside the gate. Pierrot could have gotten past the gate easily. But the tape could have been thrown over the gate. I don't know.

Majid's reaction upon seeing the main character(the writer or show host guy) on tv before he could confirm that was in fact the the main character was strange. He said he felt nauseating, and then he realized it was the main character. That showed his dislike for the main character.

The final shot. Majid's son and Pierrot are seen shaking hands. Both seemed quite happy. There was a handshake, as though they are congratulating each other maybe? Because both seemed to be happy. You don't get happy when your dad just killed himself do you. Unless if that's what you want.Somaybe majid's son, majid and pierrot were in on this. There also has to be a reason why Pierrot was made to be so cryptic. There was no explanation on how he sasw his mom with the pierre guy. no explanation why he suddenly seem distant when his father was talking to him when he was brushing his teeth about his favourite book or something. No explanation what those swimming stuff was for.

Anyway, about roger ebert's smoking gun stuff. Well it's pretty damn stupid man. Even if it's a metaphor, there's no need to make it look as though you're better than everyone. (yea, roger ebert liked "Remember Me").

Mike: Roger has said before that the final shot could be before all of the film's events have happened, just as other shots in the movie have appeared out of sequence.

To say that Roger is making look like he's better than everyone is to not know him well at all. And to sum up his tastes using one movie, is like me summing you up based on this single comment (incomplete and unfair). I hope you give his views another shot, because he always give every movie and every commenter a lot of chances as well.

Almost everyone is arguing that the film world of Cache needs to behave like the real world we know.

If someone receives tapes, then someone must have sent them, right? The Agatha Christie, whodunit mind then wishes to solve the riddle of the sender's identity and looks for clues in the movie, fully expecting those clues to be there.

But just because Georges receives tapes does not mean there has to be a definite answer about the sender. This is a movie and the answer can, and is allowed to, remain open-ended. It is also about frustrating our genre expectations.

The sender could be Majid, but need not be. It could be Majid and Pierrot but need not be.

We can take Haneke at face value and simply accept there is no answer to who sent the tapes. It is a film; it does not have to behave like the real world. This does not mean a supernatural power sent the tapes, simply that it is an open-ended, unresolved mystery.

Put another way, the sender is not important. Georges' guilt and how he deals with that guilt is the important thing, not the identity of the person(s) sending him the tapes.

Okay, I think I have figured out Ebert's "Shooting Gun" based on POV, as well as an ALL ENCOMPASSING solution to the mystery (until you all put a dozen holes through it).

The POV in the shot at about the 20 minute mark before the 'boy with blood' memory has two characteristics: 1) It is a still shot, implying that is is the objective perspective from someone filming, and 2) It is from a second story level at the street leading right up to George's front door.

Therefore, Ebert is implying that the person making the tapes was taping from the second floor of George's house (i.e. Pierrot).

Additionally, even if it a Subjective POV shot, it is still coming from a member of George's household and aimed directly at the spot from which the opening frames of the movie are being filmed. In other words, Pierrot is looking from his bedroom window at the spot from where they are being filmed and knows where the camera is before his parents tell him of the tapes.

(However, unlike Ebert I am not convinced that POV is the solution, because anyone could have been looking from out of that window, out of pure fear, not neccessarily knowledge. They know they are being filmed from that general direction. And if Ebert means the POV of the person seeing the bleeding boy, it seems to be the POV of someone the height of age six, so it had to be George's POV from memory and no one else.)

One issue not discussed anywhere of vital imprtance to solving the mystery is that George is a dedicated liar and never reveals what actually happened between him and Majid, although there are two hints: 1) After killing the rooster Majid appears to approach George with violent intent holding up the axe when the scene suddenly ends, and 2) George tells Majid something to the effect of "You were older and stronger than me, I had no choice". Therefore, what did George do? Was it much more violent than what George finally admits to his wife at the end of the movie? It had to be when he says he was older and stonger and had no choice. George probably beat the living crap out of him and caused him to bleed for days on end, which he has suppressed in his memory as "spontaneous bleeding". George doesn't appear to admit to much and is obviously hiding a lot more as implied from the two scenes just mentioned, which is why it is such a painful memory for the Grandmother. It must have been a lot more violent and the family had to send Majid away for his own safety after brushing the family violence under the carpet, and bringing a doctor in to check the boy after waiting for exterior wounds to heal. Kid's skin wounds heal fast, it could have been a wait of only one or two weeks.

One other issue not mentioned by bloggers which is part of the solution is that Majid may actually be George's brother conceived through an affair between the Grandmother and the Algerian farmhand. This would explain the desire to adopt him and the guilt caused by exiling him at a young age and the mysterious dissappearance of both parents. This theory is based on the fact that Waleed (Majid's son) appears to be in touch with the Grandmother and knows about her health. Why if he is he in touch with her does the Grandmother claim to have no memory of him? Something stinks there to high heaven. The only reason they would be in touch is due to a blood or a continuing adoptive relationship.

In any case the story George tells is very very innocent and could not be the cause of so much trauma on Majid's part and so much guilt on George's part. His only admission is that he said "I saw him bleeding" and "I told him to kill a rooster". Hell, on a farm there is a lot of chicken killing going on.

Majid would only kill himself in that gruesome fashion due to very serious childhood trauma, not just being sent away to boarding school.

I don't think we can say who sent the films, but we can determine who made the films for one good reason: No one had access to Majid's house to film the confrontation between George and Majid except Majid's family. Therefore, Either Majid made the tapes, or his son did (independently or in cohoots with Pierrot, it doesn't matter)

Finally, the second generation seems to know each other based on the closing shot. Majid's son and Pierrot have some kind of positive relationship. Perhaps Majid's son approached him at school and made friends with him. Whether they are in league with one another or not is not important.

The point of the movie is that there is a silver lining on the history of violence betwen France and Algeria, led by a new generation that is able to look past racial differences. Pierrot's hero is none other than Algerian Zinedine Zidane who led France to its last World Cup and has his poster hanging on his bedroom wall. This generation can look past racial differences; Pierrot can have a good relationship with Majid's son, although we cannot imagine that George's generation can have an honest relationship with their colonized neighbours.

Ooops, two corrections to my post above. It is Majid who is aware of the Grandmother's health, not Majid's son. And the likely affair could have been between George's Grandfather and Majid's mother (It is not uncommon for wealthy landowners to father illigitimate children. Think of all the African Americans in the US who were fathered by white landowners).

I also noticed a literary parallel between Cache and Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff is the dark, mysterious, current owner of the Grange. However, as a child, he was actually the adopted son of the Earnshaw family landowners. As a child he is also subject to cruel treatment by the other children of the Grange as they compete for standing in the family. Ultimately, Heathcliff inherits the land, but only after the death of his childhood playmates.

Maybe this type of scenario is what Majid is referring to when he says, "What you wouldn't do to protect what is yours," since George is obviously jealous of him monopolizing his mother's attention as well as the Estate. Childhood jealousy cannot be underetimated. George made doubly sure Majed would be no where around to take anything from him at all.

The POV Ebert is talking about is actually from George's bedroom not Pierrot.

I checked the POV at the 20m mark which is a shot looking down the street Iris from the second floor of the house and compared it to the POV at the 1h 30m mark right after the suicide. They are the same and are from George's bedroom window not Pierrot's. We see George looking out at the 1hr 30m mark, but we did not knbow who was looking out at the 20m mark.