'It's dumb but it scares me'
Hidden 9.6
Michael Haneke's voyeuristic French masterpiece Hidden is a very difficult film to summarise and review. It examines lots of aspects of human nature, is part mystery, part psychological thriller and entirely enigmatic - in a way as much as any other film I have seen (perhaps only other Haneke and David Lynch films can compete with it on that level). I suppose it is ironic that for a film which I love much more for the feel and execution than the plot, that to explain the genius of it, you need to examine the story events pretty closely.
It starts at a very pedestrian pace with a much talked about opening shot. We see a completely static shot of a house in a Paris backstreet, with background noise. It could be a still, then someone walks through and we see it is live. After 4 minutes of this, and after we hear a couple talking, the shot starts fast forwarding, it was actually a recording on tape. This is more than just a surprise to the audience, also a priming point for the rest of the film.. you never know when you are being watched, plus it sets up the idea of everything not always being what it seems. The couple, Georges and Anne, are watching a tape that has been left on their porch.. which simply shows that someone is watching the front of their house, them coming and going etc. The camera position seems to suggest it would be in plain sight, the husband even walks closely past it without noticing anything, but of course why would you, if you walk past every day.
A second tape arrives, with similar content, but this time wrapped in paper with a crude drawing of a face with red, presumably blood, coming out of the mouth. A phone call is recieved at the house asking for Georges - and a postcard with a similar childish picture arrives at his work. Their pre-teen son Pierrot gets one at school. Soon the drawings become chickens with bloody necks, wrapped around a tape showing a farm house in the country, from the inside of a car - things seem to be getting relentless, much more specific, and perhaps personal. Georges reveals that he grew up in the house, and becomes more cagey and unresponsive about the goings on, clearly he is hiding something, or at least is withholding details.
The couple are both puzzled by the tapes and are unsure how to react. We sense friction in the marriage, partly caused by Pierrot. There is a genius plot point of Pierrot disappearing for a few hours after school, not unheard of for a moody pre-teen, but with everything going on, Anne and Georges are on high alert. Eventually, Pierrot innocently turns up, delivered by a friend's parent who simply hadn't thought he would be missed. The effect of this is very interesting; of course Pierrot turning up safe and sound was always the most likely outcome.. He had been at a friends house, maybe to be out of his own, there's nothing strange about that really (I certainly did it at that age) And when his parents ask about it, his defenses are up and he won't give them the time of day, probably as expected. But still, but still... we are dubious, we have become suspicious of everything. Is Pierrot sending, or working with someone sending the tapes? Does he have something against, or know something about his parents we don't know about? We even question the mother that dropped him off, was she covering for him? I believe this sceptisism, which could be totally unfounded, comes from our investment in the mystery of the tapes which has engaged the audience to the highest level - we are looking at everything with close scrutiny, just what the film wants us to do. It forces you to ask yourself, what would you do? The family are acting on edge understandably but actually there is no real threat established and nothing explicitly to fear, it may not even be invading your home privacy, but it's the unknown motive that is the concern. The film makes this our focus entirely effortlessly, as do other Haneke films.
Earlier, in something of an isolated scene, after reporting the tapes to the police, Georges steps out in to the street between two parked cars without looking, is almost hit by a bicycle and has an altercation with the rider, a young black man. The fact that he was just as much, if not more at fault but berates the cyclist, as Anne tries to calm them both down, tells us alot about the couple, mainly Georges and his prejudices. I recently mentioned when talking about A Prophet (2009), that racial mixing is a very well trodden theme in French cinema, and that seems to be one of the unspoken backbones of this story, as a character from Georges' past is introduced.
We start to see images which don't fit in with the rest of the film. They seem to be of what the childish drawings are showing; a child with blood in his mouth and a chicken being decapitated. At first they seem random, and arrive at random intervals, but they are eventually somewhat explained, as the plot deepens the mystery and builds the tension. They are Georges' visions of a chapter in his childhood which he has kept secret from his family, and to a certain extent, from himself. We eventually find out through dialogue that they revolve around a young Algerian boy Majid, who was briefly adopted by his parents. Him and Georges have a questionable history, some is not revealed until much later, but may have been somewhat racially motivated. These events may well go a way to explain what the drawings and tapes represent - but at no point is there a reveal or revelation that solves the mystery, crucially, nothing is concrete. At this point Georges reasonably concludes that Majid must be the only one who knows enough to be responsible for the tapes and drawings.
Despite being a crucial character, we meet Majid only twice, both are in his apartment, the location of which is learnt by Georges after yet another tape arrives showing it, apparently engineering this meeting. At the first Majid meeting, he is surprised to see Georges and claims to know nothing about the tapes, he is totally believable. Georges is angry and thinks he has it all worked out, he threatens Majid, who is still unmoved. During this altercation, we see where Georges is standing in a head on shot which shows a cluttered storage unit behind him. It is not noticeable or out of place, so of course isn't considered, until later. The next tape recieved shows their conversation play out from another angle, from a hidden camera within the nondescript unit. It is a jaw dropping, genius reveal which returns us back to the opening shot showing that you never know when you are being recorded. We as the audience also feel like we have been taken by some sleight of hand, and want to see how it was done. After my first viewing of the film years ago, I remember rewinding to the first meeting and studying it to see if the camera is anywhere in sight, I'm convinced it is hidden well enough to be invisible.
Almost all of the film is a broiling slow burn, but there is one quite incredibly shocking moment in Majid's apartment, and it's a real show-stopper. Georges returns, Majid thanks him for accepting his invitation, showing that they have spoken off camera, proving there are details we haven't seen and again, raising our suspicions that we are not getting the whole story. Majid says that he wanted Georges to be present, then swiftly cuts his own throat with a razor, it takes only a moment and there is no warning. The fact that it is over in a split-second, but nothing happens for a few seconds after, gives us time to react before Georges does. The directing and shooting of this moment is really important. We are seeing Georges from behind so can't see his face, although we can imagine, and it feels like an eternity before he moves. This makes us live in the horrifying moment. By this time the audience is so acclimatised to the everyday pace, it really hits hard. (Funnily enough, I recently rewatched the great Czech film Closely Observed Trains, in which there is a less explosive, more gradual and stomach churning but equally unexpected moment of suicide attempt with razors) It raises even more questions about Majid's involvement, but of course doesn't really answer any. It is worth mentioning about the apparent motif of throat cuts - of course Majid, the chicken in the flashback, all of the drawings and a dog in a story told in an early dinner party scene. My instincts suggest that (other thank levelling the playing field between characters and story aspects by all meeting the same fate) there is a deeper meaning to this, but honestly it evades me.
The film's final shot is as much, if not more enigmatic than the first. For those that have seen it, you will know what I mean by the school steps, and for those who don't, suffice to say that the last shot could mean nothing, or it could change everything. The amazing thing is the detail that could unlock everything is very easily missed, it is not made the focus atall by Haneke. That is just one example of his supremely confident directing (which could easily be the subject of an entire essay itself) which shows off his unbelievable restraint - it seems he has something of a point to prove about the spoon fed style of hollywood films - which, in fairness, wouldn't be anything particularly new or surprising, but still entirely worthwhile. Haneke is a genius at doing the seemingly most simple thing, simply showing us people and events and allowing the audience to make their own minds up about what any of it means, and if any of it has any real importance. He will use the same shots more than once throughout the film, (tape POV, school steps, majid's apartment) so they may take on different meanings at different times, but ultimately I believe it has the effect of us dropping our guard. Just like the couple at the start, we are used to seeing something, so essentially become blind to what it may actually mean, often until a later plot point is learned. There is genuinely more than one way to read the events, and to answer the pressing question, and amazingly none that are more or less likely, it makes Hidden exceedingly rewatchable. After all there is nothing shown by accident or for no reason, so after the first viewing especially, you want to study each scene.
I had a thought after the film had finished - perhaps the drawings and tapes are fragments of Georges' own self conscious expressing the guilt of his childhood and equally him keeping them secret from his wife.. although this wouldn't be in keeping with the film or Haneke's style, but more of a Lynchian blurring reality. As mentioned, Hidden can be read in many different ways. Part of me looks at it as a sublime technical exercise and not alot more. Or perhaps it is a film about keeping secrets and long dormant guilt. Georges' attitude changes as the film goes on to incorporate the guilt over the events that he had conveniently forgotten about long ago. He becomes more cagey and in a way more introverted. What is done is done and there is no way of taking it back now. Interestingly the decades that have passed have not dismissed his memory of the events and more crucially have given no respite from them.
Through most of the film, which builds not too dissimilarity to a conventional thriller, we are of course asking ourselves 'what's going on', 'who's sending the tapes', 'what's the reason' just as Anne and Georges are. It is this human instinct that Haneke is able to so competently exploit. He let's shots linger, uses alot of static camera, takes lots of time over the dialogue and of course casts the film perfectly all to achieve maximum effect. It means you seek to project meaning, whether you should or not, onto all shots and scenes, which I'm sure would satisfy him. Its not just that there are no answers given - lots of films do that, but at no point does it feel like trickery, it's all played out entirely neutrally and naturally, you realise afterwards that the film doesn't really incite you, rather it intices. That's what puts it in a different genre to say Mulholland Drive, which sets out to tie you up in knots and succeeds. All of this means that on the one hand, every scene is worth analysing to understand the dynamics and layers, but also there is no reason to expect to find anything, making analysis almost pointless
A large part of the genius of the delivery of the film of course comes down to the filmmaking itself. There is no score or soundtrack (which, now I think about it, may be the case with all of Haneke's films that I've seen), just background noise, so we are not cued to feel anything at any point. As mentioned above the script is exceedingly well written with lots of very interesting, true-to-life feeling dialogue which are leant real depth by the performances which are very straight, and perfect. Every role is impeccably realised, and very memorable. Mostly Juliette Binoche is note-perfect, as she is in most things, it never seems like she's acting. For me she may be the best actress ever. Interestingly she starred in some other Haneke films and had the same character name, Anne Laurent, also she has a son called Pierrot in Code Unknown.. so it seems that the films are somewhat connected, maybe her character spans more than one.. it is unclear exactly how. You really get to know Anne and Georges through the dialogue and body language they share, the film operates admirably as even just as an effective portrait of family life. You can really understand their and other character's perspectives. I would be interested to see how they were together at intervals throughout their marriage, it is never discussed but they seem like a functioning, although not overly loving unit. They're both stuck in the necessary routine of family life, with not alot else. As Georges puts it in a telling talk with his mother, they mostly just chug along with no particular highs or lows - you really get that impression watching them together.
Haneke has no time to pander to an audience, he plays with accepted conventions of storytelling and satisfying conclusions. His approach throughout removes any need for prediction, or, in a strange way, thought. And ironically, as a result, you will think about it for days, weeks, months and more. As I say almost continously, one of the most important things a film can do is stick in your head, and this achieves that exceedingly.. in no small part thanks to the ending. The mystery may seem to have no solution that makes sense, it is mystifying, but no less interesting.
This was my favourite foreign language film for a long time before I saw La Haine, and it would still now be firmly in my top 5, along with another Haneke masterwork White Ribbon. His style of writing and directing delivers a visceral, yet internalised response, so much like watching real people in real life. To watch Hidden is to enjoy the mastery of slow burn, to be under the hand of a master, and one that never proclaims himself to be. Hitchcock played the audience like a piano, Haneke hypnotises, and you wake all the better for it.
Comentarios