Friday, February 6, 2009

What Keeps Us Watching?




In his article entitled "Off-Screen Space", Pascal Bonitzer offers an explanation of the filmgoers experience of being drawn into a seemingly contradictory world of surreal reality.  He states that "we are therefore interested in 'what is not there' in the filmic image according to double register of lack: 1) 'diachronically', what is between-two-shots, 2) 'synchronically', what is out-of-frame."  In the case of Michael Haneke's film Caché, the major point at issue seems to be the second register of lack.  Indeed, the majority of the film's suspense is drawn from the viewer's inability to determine the identity of the mysterious figure who is lurking just offscreen, with his or her face perpetually hidden behind the shadow of a video camera. The impermeable offscreen space in which this person exists is what keeps the viewer engaged in Haneke's world, constantly frustrated by the lack of clarity offered by the director and the characters in the film.

When one considers several of the techniques employed in Caché to draw the viewer into the film's reality as compared with those used in other suspense films, such as Hitchcock's Suspicion, it becomes clear that there are many different manners of producing similar reactions.  For example, Hitchcock's constant use of the shot-reverse shot during dialogue heightens the tension of the scene, and leaves the viewer feeling edgy and nervous about what will follow.  When Majid and Georges are speaking in Caché, on the other hand, the viewer is situated outside of the actual scene, in an almost voyeuristic position, and is therefore in full view of both characters throughout the conversation.  Interestingly, this lack of back-and-forth, quick-shot movement does nothing to detract from the suspense of the interaction - rather, the ability to see the facial and physical responses that each man has to the other increases the viewer's tension and puzzlement over what may happen at any moment.


Additionally, it is interesting to note the way that each director uses pacing and music in radically different ways to produce an atmosphere of mystery and, often, confusion.  In a style typical of his works, Hitchcock uses music to great effect to heighten the viewer's anxiety and to create a sense of impending doom or dramatic action.  Throughout Suspicion, Hitchcock incorporates musical scores that are perfectly suited to the mood of the particular scene - and are often responsible for actually establishing the mood.  While Lina is being interviewed by the police officers regarding the death of Johnny's friend, Beaky, the music is a slow yet resonant tune that seems to move at the tempo of a nervously beating heart.  During the final scene of the film, when Lina and Johnny are driving towards her mother's home, the viewer is left on the edge of his seat with palms sweating as the music hurtles along at the same reckless pace as Johnny's driving.  Therefore, the viewer's emotional response and preparation for a dramatic occurrence at any moment is inspired, and arguably forced upon him, by the musical implication that that moment is about to arrive.  In Caché, on the other hand, the music does not give the viewer any clues as to what may happen next.  Rather, it is steady and somewhat constant, and keeps the emotion of the film at a fairly low frequency.  The film is suffused with a somber and subdued air of suppressed memory and secrets that are too well kept to be uncovered.  This lack of musical emotion manages to create the same sensations of nerve-wracking anticipation and stress because it gives the viewer no clues as to what he should be feeling or preparing himself for at any point in the film.  Indeed, this even keeled musical background makes the moment at which Majid unexpectedly slits his throat all the more heart-stopping and jarring because it comes with absolutely no warning.

The endings of both Caché and Suspicion once again take radically different approaches to producing a sense of unrest and uncertainty in the viewer regarding the future of the film's characters.  Suspicion comes to a dramatic and active end that leaves the viewer watching helplessly as Lina narrowly avoids death on the cliff, and then seals her own fate by riding back towards an uncertain future with her duplicitous and conniving husband.  As the car drives away, the viewer is left behind, wishing that there was some way to see what future awaits Lina at the end of the drive and filled with dread over what seems to have been a grave judgment error on the part of the protagonist.  The final scene of Caché leaves the viewer feeling similarly helpless and detached, but it does so by once again thrusting the viewer outside of the narrative action and leaving him to watch the character's lives from the same voyeuristic position of the man behind the video camera.  This scene frustrates with its utter refusal to offer a decisive conclusion or resolution, and the viewer is left on his own to determine the identity of the unseen cameraman.  What should amaze the viewer of both films is the fact that both directors managed to end on a note frustration and continuing mystery, while using approaches that could not have been more divergent.  It is clear, just from these two examples, that there is a vast world of opportunity available to filmmakers who are willing to experiment and utilize different techniques and strategies.  A comparison of these films with any other similarly effective thrillers would reveal even more interesting divergences and possibilities.

3 comments:

  1. A very strong post. One thing I noticed was that in Cache, there was an occasional return to film making conventions, such as when the main character talks to his old friend/mentor, which feature shot-reverse-shot. This return to conventions seems to comfort us for the scene. Thus, even though Hitchcock has shown they can create just as much tension as other shots, Michael Haneke is able to play on our desire for film making conventions to create tension.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that much of the film’s suspense is drawn from the audience’s inability to permeate the offscreen space to determine the identity of the mysterious observer that is terrorizing Georges and his wife. We are constantly aware of this “absent one”, as Dayan describes in his essay, and when our desire to know the identity of this spectator was continually frustrated we fell further and further out of the narrative of the film. But, interestingly, it seems that in deliberately failing to suture us into the narrative, Haneke may have been paradoxically bringing us closer as in constantly asking “Who is filming this?” or “Whose perspective am I taking?” we are asking the same questions as Georges himself. For me, this seemed to bring about a greater sense of identification with him and more pathos for his situation.

    Also, this is the first blog that I have read that compared Cache with Suspicion. I think the way that you contrasted these two films really illuminated some of the aspects of Cache that I hadn’t considered before. I agree, the absence of music to cue the audience’s emotions was very effective in heightening the tension throughout and making Majid’s suicide all the more surprising and alarming.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I liked how you compared the different techniques that Hitchcock and Haneke use to create suspense, especially the section regarding music. I can remember the music pretty well from Suspicion, but not in Cache. I agree with you that the music did not key us into the suicide, which was why it was so shocking. I don't even remember any music in Cache.

    ReplyDelete