If you like thrillers that give you time to speculate and then surprise you with sudden shocks and slowly-peeled revelations, if you like stories that show the French bourgeois in a bad light -in short, if you are a Chabrol fan, this one is for you. Be warned, though, that Haneke, a master of disengagement, makes you work hard to unravel the mystery he poses as narrative motivation.

Sophisticated Georges (Daniel Auteil) presents a highbrow TV programme –the backdrop trompe l’oeil wall of books clues us in, as well as the earnest Jean Paul Sartre types around the table. His home looks just the same, except the books are real, and as George himself turns out to be a master of deception with a guilty past , the books are implicated as a smokescreen – the first of a number of metaphors in a parable which is as much about the French denial of colonial sins as about domestic deception. No wonder Georges’ wide Anne (Juliette Binoche) is paddling palms with Pierre, a regular at the glass-topped dining table in their elegant apartment, and no wonder their long-haired adolescent son Pierrot doesn’t believe her when she says there’s nothing in it. (Well, with a name like that, would you?) Anne ( Juliette Binoche ) also works in a high-powered publishing job, hence only spaghetti and salad for non-guest dining, always a sinister, if casually sexist, sign in a French film. Someone is sending the couple tapes enclosing sinister red-daubed cards,revealing they are under surveillance, and the task, for the audience as well as the protagonists is to find out who is responsible. The police won’t do anything and an already strained relationship turns sour as Georges spirals into a pit of angst based on his inability to face his past.

With forays into the less salubrious banlieues of Paris and to Georges former childhood home in the sort of rural hinterland that is a magnet to middle-class Brits, there is much to enterain by way of mise-en-scene, but every frame merits scrutiny in a way that is unfamiliar to most movie-goers.


<Added>

Sorry - wife, not wide, although she has put on weight - all that 'Chocolat'?

Hey Sheila

Nice piece. Anything with Juliette Binoche can't be all bad - if you'll excuse the casual sexism. I love

paddling palms

new one on me - but then I'm only a simple country boy from Suffolk.

Sounds a bit 'plotty', but that's better than 'potty' (cf Derailed). In fact it's an 'l' of an improvement.

Regards

Zettel

It's a quote from that other simple country boy, Shakespeare. It refers to reported activities (false) of his wife and an admirer, Cassio. I think Iago says it to wind Othello up.I'm sure I've seen it used before, outside the context of the play.

Sorry about the casual bitchiness regarding Juliet B.

Sheila



<Added>

'to be paddling palms and pinching fingers' - it means to toy or caress with the hands, and I had a quick look at Google to confirm it is Shakespeare, but can't see it in 'Othello' so maybe it is Romeo and Juliet or some other play.

'Didst thou not see her paddle with the palm of his hand?' says Iago to Roderigo in Act 2 sc1 of othello, but according to Google the experession appears in other plays.

Ta

happy paddling

Z

Hey Sheila

As your review partly got me into this one you have some moral responsibility for my current perplexity. Worse, it is unresolvable, because the ultimate sin of the critic is a spoiler comment on a movie. So you can't tell me what you made of it. I saw this at the tiny screen at the Curzon Mayfair and about 5 of us stayed till the bitter end of the credits, all hoping i think for an innovative idea of giving either the denouement or an extra explanatory clue lost to philistines who leave before the screen goes dark.

Lights up and the 6 of us ended having a 30 minute discussion/mild disagreement about what the solution to the mystery was. We were eventually politely turfed out by the girl clearing the cinema for the next showing. With typical Curzon pleasantness she invited us to continue in the bar downstairs. We all decided this would be a nerdiness too far.

Let nothing I say do other than encourage anyone who hasn't seen this absorbing and challenging little thriller from going and having their brain teased. Be warned though: you do need to concentrate pretty hard and keep asking yourself exactly what am I seeing here? Especially at the very beginning and the very end. And that's as much heads up as you get - why shouldn't you all, as Mr Dylan once put it, be in the same mess I am.

Fascinating, intelligent little film. And very real with excellent acting. You are quite right Sheila to mention Charol. So thanks for the review. You dirty rat.

Regards

Zettel

'Top of the world, ma!'

My husband was completely foxed by 'Hidden', whereas I thought I saw the deciding clue to the mystery in the last longish take. Then I did some more general research on Haneke, including an interview with the director and I had the impression he left it all a bit inconclusive. So the reaction of yourself and fellow filmgoers is not surprising.

I'll look to see what you've reviewed recently. I saw 'Syriana' and 'The Weatherman' at the weekend,very confused by the first and liked the second although not a good film. I have almost finished the review but I'm writing for two courses at the moment, so there's bound to be some delay.

I saw 'The Wicker Man' on giveway DVD last night - tres weird - and on Monday 'Take the Money and Run' which I loved because I like Woody Allen and it was one I'd missed but I think it was probably a poor example.

Sheila

Sheila

Gotta be careful here but while I agree the last shot tells us things, the more I thought back through the film the more I concluded that something in the opening shot was the key clue.

Sorry about this any reader who hasn't seen the film - this irritating elliptic approach is because I would really hate to spoil this one for anyone. Thhe more I think about the other resonances which Sheila has identified, the better this one becomes. And you're right - this nerd is gonna have to see it again.

Regards

Z