Á bout de soufflé and Caché incorporate random and/or spontaneous events as significant elements in their narratives. Referring to these films, discuss how contemporary filmmakers deploy unexpected or arbitrary incidents to define their vision of the modern world.

Throughout Á bout de soufflé and Caché both directors use arbitrary and spontaneous incidents as integral components of their narratives to express their anxieties and thoughts on the modern world. Whether it is an expression of the invasive nature of the media, voicing a forgotten colonial past, or the inaccurate representation of real life, both Haneke and Godard use their characters and their actions to serve as motifs to express these underlying aspects of modernity.

The most poignant statement throughout Haneke’s Caché is expressed through the random disappearance of Georges’ son Pierrot. Initially this disappearance seems an arbitrary feature in the narrative. We don’t know where he has gone or for what purpose, and ultimately it does not contribute to the films conclusion. However as the scene develops we see that Haneke uses this random event to portray a grim representation of media in modern society. Critic Scott Durham explains the recordings go further than recording Georges’ life, it ‘breaks down the domains of social practice (including the creation, circulation, and viewing of images) into its series of representations’1. Haneke presents us with George, a character totally consumed with media representation. He is a TV presenter, He is under surveillance by the stalker, and through Haneke’s use of long tantilising scenes the audience is constantly reminded that they are taking part in mediated observation. No more is this excess of media apparent than when the narrative takes an immediate ominous turn when George is trying to find the whereabouts of Pierott. Georges and his wife are seen stood in front of the TV as they begin to call Pierrot’s classmates2. The presence of the TV in the background drowns both Georges and his wife’s conversation. This is an intended directorial mistake as it purposefully inhibits the dialogue with frustrating background noise, subsequently magnifying the role of media within Georges’ life. Firstly we have the director’s camera capturing Georges anxiety to the disappearance of his son, secondly the stalkers camera capturing Georges every move, and thirdly the TV encroaching on the conversation Georges is having with Anne. It is as if Georges is captured in a prism, continually being filmed and scrutinized. The irony is that the media, which is intended to aid communication, prohibits it and continually stops the audience from grasping any tangible aspect of the plot. Haneke uses this random element within the narrative to voice the role of media in modernity. Its effect is profound as the viewer is made aware of its foreboding presence which is then carried throughout the rest of the narrative.

The filmmaker deploys this random act in such a way that it adds a threating and unpredictable component to the overall narrative. Up to this point the narrative only depicts the mundane lives of the family and the start of the stalker impacting on their lives. Haneke not only uses this scene to express anxiety with the media but to also interject anxiety into the narrative. This is the first potentially fatal effect of the stalker. This unexpected narrative techniques function is to ‘increase the stakes’ to a climatic level and to reminding the audience of the inauspicious nature of the unmasked voyeur.

Haneke’s comment on media is also expressed in the opening scene. The arbitrary minutia of the opening long shot lasts for ten minutes and is painstakingly clear. An unnerving clear shot of people riding bikes and passersby create a sense of reality, a sense of realism set in place3. Only in the third shot do we discover the video was pre-recorded and not the reality we assume we are watching. Haneke plays on our