update: can happen sometimes that we try to interpret too much or the wrong way in a movie or a part of it, this made me go a bit haywire, and apparently are not was the only one. I refer to this link the solution of any doubt. The review is not the gate ... cmq I've lost the time to write it.
game high authorship and little else. I'm tired of going to look for something that should be saved in the movies, there where the same directors do not bother to give their work a soul.
But because we have to remember this thriller, if desired, atypical? Because it is built entirely on a single element that can be seen from two sides: the shape of the eye tracking shot as a spy and that it causes, the repressed individual and historical re-emerges as intended "act is not motivated." I get down to specifics. The protagonist of the film, starring Daniel Auteil, is the condutorre television transmission on the books, one day receives a VHS of a mysterious and long shooting distance of his house. But the video is delivered with a sketch showing the stylized face of a child who vomits blood. Slowly we discover that the main character hides a secret, causing an injury in the distant past, an episode through which the director is the anchor point of the political situation between France and Algeria. This is exactly the thing about Nothing to Hide: to represent the anxiety and terror through the thriller to call so atypical a historic moment that must be addressed. There is talk of France and Algeria, but the discussion could also for America and the Middle East, including perhaps some time. The mystery will be solved, of course, we all will be shown and what was put in 'intimate return to the surface. Having said this there seems to be a happy ending, and instead the film leaves impressions that we do not like. It seems that we have been deceived as well as bored. Haneke works too much on the ambiguity of the image, makes it a game that becomes vain and dispersive part. In the end the absurd interpretations (they run on different web) that take their cue from the floor final sequence, you stray too far from the matter of the film, making up almost compete with those Donnie Darko. The shortcoming of this cache is just too much to want to scale on a meta-linguistic reflection: after Haneke also wants to warn us that the image is false and terribly ambiguous. But why let us experience so much on our skin? Cmq interpretation I developed myself. Rather than think of a chord among the children, I would see that last
image as another warning: the new generation of adolescents is one that consumes and produces video for the first easily, so thanks to them, forcing the fathers to the children deal with the conflicts that have resulted in the past. Without judging what is happening, Michael Haneke does kill the Algerian father from his son that prepares and delivers the video without his knowledge, so the author depicts the urgency of a historical review that stems from the domination of the media on our lives (intimacy). All it would bring. The whole film could be a 'self-enactment of the' unconscious' of the protagonist (and who come from where those videos would then become less important), or the effect of permeating cmq (but also perverse) technology. It could be a tenuous interpretation, but it could also be a subtext entered by the director in a non-conscious. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment