what WERE your thoughts on the end.

What a dummy I is.

The ending. Man, oh man. We sat in the theatre with four other strangers trying to figure it out... First, did you see the critcal conversation happening on the steps? Apparently most people missed it...? Crazy.

My first thought was that it pointed to a devastating, near-impossible coup between the two kids -- Majod's son did the taping and Pierrot was responsible for some of the distribution. Majid's son (I believe?) is careful to say he didn't SEND the tapes, rather than saying he had no involvement in their creation. So that's a little suspicious. And how does Pierrot know about mom's involvement with Pierre?

But that theory really make sense because Pierrot obviously didn't understand the postcard he'd received at school, and why would Majid's son do anything to bring such a mess into his own father's life? I tend to think the conversation points to one of two things: hope for the future (the youth banding together to wash away the sins of their fathers) or possible that Majid's son is setting up some sort of revenge. Ultimately, I don't know if we can tell what Haneke's intent was--other than to get us thinking about all of this.

But I'm desperate for someone else's take. McGee, what the heck did you make of it?

Me and my friend had many of the same thoughts, observations and ideas that you had.

However, we also had one other question regarding the last scene. Who was filming it? Were the two boys being recorded by the unseen "voyeur" who terrorized the family? Or was this merely an image created by the "director" of the film? ie: are we to conclude that last final image will be ultimately delivered as a tape to the family, or were we actually watching the ending scene in the film as directed by Haneke? Or are they both one and the same? Either way, it's kinda mind-bending.

That's a really good point -- it's a static shot after all. Hmmm. Yeah, the lines between Haneke's camera and the mystery camera are a little unclear throughout. Intentionally so, of course.

I know it isn't like a Memento-type thing where you can try to decode the mystery, but my American brain can't help it. I read somewhere that Autiel (sp?) was quoted as saying none of them (including Haneke) had any clue as to who was supposedly making the tapes. I think the reason the film made me feel so vulnerable is the combination of the invasiveness of the surveillance and the blurring of facts (between the characters, within the narrative, in relation to the film's rules, etc.)

On a funny note, upon the end of the credits the woman behind us says "See? Minorities just can't get a break in this world!" Hee hee. Nice, lady. How did your audience take the film?

The audience I was with seemed to like it. I recall a couple of gasps during the last scene. Have you seen any other of Haneke's films?

I saw Time of the Wolf (or Hour of Wolf? I get the title confused with that cool Bergman horror movie...), but didn't realize it was the same director when I sat down to watch Cache. I just threw a couple in the Netflix que, though. Funny Games, in particular, sounds brutal.

How about you?

I saw "Funny Games" and "The Piano Teacher." Both are pretty brutal, yet fall splendidly in line with Haneke's "toying with the audience" M.O. But be warned- they really aren't for the squimish or easily put off.

I wouldn't still be dropping by these boards if I were either squeamish or easily put off, would I??



I will check those out immediately. Thanks for the recommendations! Time of the Wolf isn't all that brutal, actually.