The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#76 Post by TMDaines » Mon May 03, 2010 11:41 am

Beaver on The White Ribbon

He gives it very high-praise in saying, "I can honestly say that this might be the best looking blu-ray that I've ever come across," and, "It's an absolute must own for anyone interested in cinema, and my current front runner for Blu-ray of the year. "

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#77 Post by Finch » Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:32 pm

FFC have a excellent review of the film and Blu-Ray with IMO a very fair assessment of the strengths and flaws of this picture.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#78 Post by manicsounds » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:53 am

DVDTalk reviews the barebones DVD edition

Looks like only BD owners get the extras.

j99
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:18 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#79 Post by j99 » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:16 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote:Really surprised so few reviews referenced Le Corbeau. It seemed so obviously influential upon TWR when watching it. They're both great films though so it's not as though one overshadows the other.
I was watching Fassbinder's Effi Briest recently, and couldn't help but notice the influence of its cinematography and set design on The White Ribbon.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Scott Walker

#80 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:39 pm

repeat wrote:Scott Walker curates season of films for Curzon. Good choices as one would expect!
That is a good program. I'm intrigued by his description of The White Ribbon as “A meticulous essay on the making of a Nazi." I think the film has a lot to say about the context in which fascism developed, but I don't think I've heard anyone link that to the arc of a single character in the film. I'm not even sure I know who he's referring to.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Scott Walker

#81 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:28 pm

Gregory wrote:That is a good program. I'm intrigued by his description of The White Ribbon as “A meticulous essay on the making of a Nazi." I think the film has a lot to say about the context in which fascism developed, but I don't think I've heard anyone link that to the arc of a single character in the film. I'm not even sure I know who he's referring to.
I assume he means the children. In fact Haneke's film is pretty blunt about that.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Scott Walker

#82 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:37 pm

I find a lot of room in the film for interpretation rather than it dealing out a blunt message or even a clear explanation, but my point had more to do with Walker's short description seeming to refer to a single character.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Scott Walker

#83 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:44 pm

Gregory wrote:I find a lot of room in the film for interpretation rather than it dealing out a blunt message or even a clear explanation, but my point had more to do with Walker's short description seeming to refer to a single character.
I don't actually find much room for interpretation in this movie (or many of Haneke's other films). The point is pretty much shoved in your face: these kids are going to grow up to become nazis, and that's because pretty much everyone is cruel and stupid. There isn't much of an alternate explanation, even if Haneke does try to pretend otherwise by letting some still pretty obvious plot points go unexplained, even if they are the only possible conclusion.

Anyway, Walker didn't mean "the making of a nazi" to refer to a specific person. Those kinds of phrases can be used generally as well. He means the movie is about how an individual is turned into a nazi, but it doesn't mean this only happens to one individual in the movie.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Scott Walker

#84 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:10 pm

I don't feel that that point was shoved in my face at all. I would find it totally unconvincing that in a group of children in a given town in that period, all of them would grow up to be Nazis or Nazi-supporters, or that their fate as adults is written in stone by the context in which they live as children, when we know that people with a common background do turn out differently. There is a rich array of characters and personalities within the film, but if you've already decided that "there isn't much of an alternate explanation" to the view that "pretty much everyone is cruel and stupid," then I wouldn't think of trying to convince you otherwise. There's clearly no discussion to be had there about interpretation of this film or most of Haneke's other works based on what you've said. The fact of the matter is that there are many different interpretations of his work, more than I think can be attributed to critics and other viewers simply missing the point that Haneke was allegedly hitting them in the face with. One thing Haneke is explicit about is his desire to create films that allow for that difference. He's said things of that nature so consistently and determinedly that I can't believe that it's all "pretend" to disguise his real motivation as a filmmaker. To the extent that his films are polemical, I find them to be so in an oddly complex and engaging way.
You certainly could be right about Walker's intended meaning though.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Scott Walker

#85 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:10 pm

Gregory wrote:I would find it totally unconvincing that in a group of children in a given town in that period, all of them would grow up to be Nazis or Nazi-supporters, or that their fate as adults is written in stone by the context in which they live as children, when we know that people with a common background do turn out differently.
Nevertheless, that does seem to be Haneke's polemic here: that the cruelty and stupidity and backwardness of places such as that town (which could even stand in for society in general, I wouldn't be surprised) is what bred nazism.
Gregory wrote:There is a rich array of characters and personalities within the film, but if you've already decided that "there isn't much of an alternate explanation" to the view that "pretty much everyone is cruel and stupid," then I wouldn't think of trying to convince you otherwise. There's clearly no discussion to be had there about interpretation of this film or most of Haneke's other works based on what you've said.
Well, providing alternate interpretations would be the place to start, I think.

I didn't mean to put you off with that real brief summary of my opinion in the Scott Walker thread. But I have actually come to the opinion that The White Ribbon is a lot more blunt and crude than its surface style would have you believe (I certainly thought differently the first time I saw it). This movie is pointedly revealing the cruelty and stupidity (and backwardsness, as the late reveal of the date hammers home) of the town, and it was hard not to feel that this was supposed to be an indictment on behalf of Haneke. Of whom could be debated, but I suspect its indictment includes modern society and the viewer, among others. I am open to persuasion on this point, tho'.

That the children are the victims of this cruelty and stupidity and then turn around and, as a kind of indistinguishable group, begin to torture and torment the weak strikes me as a heavy-handed indication that, for Haneke, these kids were all going to grow up to be nazis. And the fact that their crimes were being protected, excused, or not believed by everyone except the one wholly good character really rammed it home. I think the film is rather unpleasantly moralistic, actually, and tries to cover this with a style that gives the impression of obliqueness and ambiguity by refusing to make explicit connections even tho' such connections seem impossible to avoid. But I don't feel that its ambiguities and open-endedness actually provide a range of meaning. I don't see several possible and equally valid or equally weighted interpretations attending each of its less explicit moments. I find the one interpretation, which satisfactorily accounts for what's going on, and then nothing else but vague suggestion. It's either the kids are meant to be future nazis, or...? Much like how Haneke refuses to give an explicit confirmation of the identity of the perpetrator(s), but again, it's either the kids or...?

But don't take the above as an unwillingness to listen to you. I liked the movie when I first saw it, but the more I think about it the more distressed I am to find I can't really defend it. So I would be happy if I turned out to be wrong.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Scott Walker

#86 Post by knives » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:18 pm

Sausage I think you're absolutely right, though I don't take that to mean a negative thing in the way you seem to. A film doesn't have to be ambiguous to be good and I really do not think Haneke was attempting to be ambiguous at all. As you note the film doesn't answer any questions while at the same time leaving no alternatives to those answers. So I don't think Haneke's goal was to appear ambiguous (he has never attempted such a thing before), but to allow for the wider implications to be applicable to today's society. By having his cake and eating it too he rather smartly connects the viewer to the Nazis. He doesn't seem to be aiming for ambiguous, but rather to leave the audience enough room to have to think which is how he develops these implications. He gives us 2 and he gives us four, but does not give the second two leaving us to ponder its meaning.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Scott Walker

#87 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:29 pm

knives wrote:Sausage I think you're absolutely right, though I don't take that to mean a negative thing in the way you seem to. A film doesn't have to be ambiguous to be good and I really do not think Haneke was attempting to be ambiguous at all. As you note the film doesn't answer any questions while at the same time leaving no alternatives to those answers. So I don't think Haneke's goal was to appear ambiguous (he has never attempted such a thing before), but to allow for the wider implications to be applicable to today's society. By having his cake and eating it too he rather smartly connects the viewer to the Nazis.
I do understand that point, and I agree that a film does not have to be ambiguous to be good; but I feel like the above is an unpleasant moralistic trick more than a clever reveal. It comes off as smugly superior, as tho' Haneke is saying: "look at how stupid and cruel you all are! And look how you made nazis!" There doesn't seem to be much room for nuanced judgement in Haneke's film, and that puts me off. Haneke is the one who created the world of this movie, yet he not only wants us to see it as being the real world, but to indict us for having created it. That doesn't sit well with me. But again, I am open to persuading.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Scott Walker

#88 Post by knives » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:42 pm

I think you're dead right in that interpretation, but I suppose it is something one has to overcome with all of his movies. That said I think the reason why he sets up things this way is that he believes things don't exist without an audience. The world he has made would not exist unless it was in the popular conscious, and I do suspect he views himself as something resembling a populist director, and so by viewing it you have given his world life. I disagree and am likewise annoyed at the moralistic turn this belief morphs into, but I find it to be not a deal breaker personally. That in this film unlike Funny Games he connects this sensory experience to the real world giving an additional weight to his moralizing (even if it is the over the top "you are raising the next generation of Nazis" humbug that is the end result) makes it significantly better to me eyes. The only serious problem I see in all of this, for this film at least, is that Haneke excludes himself from blame which is just condescending.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Scott Walker

#89 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:49 pm

knives wrote:The only serious problem I see in all of this, for this film at least, is that Haneke excludes himself from blame which is just condescending.
That's kind of my feeling. Where does his self-righteousness come from, exactly? He's made a movie to show to people so he could punish them for having had it shown to them. There's nothing easier and more silly than gravely pretending that making a movie in order to hold its viewers in contempt is a genuine intellectual or moral position. It's not, it's just itself cruel and empty and kind of contemptible.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#90 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:27 pm

This seems like a lot of question-begging: asserting that the film is not ambiguous, that Haneke has never sought to achieve ambiguity in his work, and that the film only allows for one very simple interpretation, and then on the basis of all that criticizing Haneke for moralizing and pounding away at that simple message.

I'm afraid I don't understand any of knives's stated views of Haneke and the ways he purportedly sees himself, nor do I see a basis for these views. He blames us, the viewer, for creating the world of the movie even though he's the one who actually created it, and this blame comes out of his supposed self-conception as a populist? Is there some interview or something where I can see what statements are leading to these conclusions, which frankly strike me as incoherent? Even though this conversation seems to follow in the familiar footsteps of a lot of tropes about Haneke, I'm still lost here.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#91 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:31 pm

Gregory wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand any of knives's stated views of Haneke and the ways he purportedly sees himself, nor do I see a basis for these views. He blames us, the viewer, for creating the world of the movie even though he's the one who actually created it, and this blame comes out of his supposed self-conception as a populist?
That sounds like a perfectly fair description of Funny Games

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#92 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:35 pm

Maybe, but I didn't think we were talking about Funny Games, and what's (possibly) true about Funny Games isn't necessarily true about Haneke's work in general.
Last edited by Gregory on Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#93 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:37 pm

My point being that it doesn't sound particularly like a contradictory or difficult to imagine combination of factors, because it's kind of Haneke's cache (get it)

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#94 Post by warren oates » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:37 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:
Gregory wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand any of knives's stated views of Haneke and the ways he purportedly sees himself, nor do I see a basis for these views. He blames us, the viewer, for creating the world of the movie even though he's the one who actually created it, and this blame comes out of his supposed self-conception as a populist?
That sounds like a perfectly fair description of Funny Games
You beat me to it. Agreed. Which is why this film along with Funny Games strikes me as one of his weakest. I don't think this particularly strategy can be extrapolated to most of the rest of this works though. And one important difference for me is the specific geographic and historical context he places The White Ribbon in, as I think it makes his indictment more particular than the "all of you" of Funny Games. It's worth noting too, that he had versions of this script sitting around for years before he shot the film. Writing-wise it's indicative of some earlier and perhaps less mature visions, more akin to some of his TV work.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#95 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:41 pm

Gregory wrote:This seems like a lot of question-begging: asserting that the film is not ambiguous, that Haneke has never sought to achieve ambiguity in his work, and that the film only allows for one very simple interpretation, and then on the basis of all that criticizing Haneke for moralizing and pounding away at that simple message.
What question does this beg? I mean, yeah: there aren't several competing interpretations, and there is at least one that I'm sure occurred to most viewers of the movie, and that interpretation is very blunt and simple and accusatory. Is that a poor basis for accusing Haneke of wielding a moral sledgehammer? They're not the only reasons for saying so, but they seem like an acceptable place to start.

Again, I'll gladly listen to a counter-argument, but at this point you just seem to want to imply you're annoyed at my having made this argument at all.

And matrix: I think The White Ribbon and Funny Games have the same agenda, just couched in different terms.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#96 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:59 pm

What question does it beg? Begging the question doesn't necessarily involve an actual question but has to do with concluding something on the basis of a closely related premise that itself is never supported. In this case the assumed premise is that there is only room for one interpretation of the film—a simple, moralistic one—and that Haneke is thus to be criticized on that basis, when the basis of the criticism has never actually been established.

Have I provided an alternative interpretation? I provided a critique of the interpretation that the children all turn out to be Nazis because of the environment in which they grew up, but no, I haven't provided my own interpretation and was clear about why: I don't want to try and convince someone who is familiar with the film and has said at the outset that they won't really entertain that there's any other interpretation than the one they're already convinced of. You've said you'll listen to a counter-argument but I don't see much hope of convincing you, for the reasons I explained much earlier. And because I explained that, it seems unfair to claim that I seem like I'm annoyed you made an argument that I disagree with, or anything of that sort. It's just that I've learned to see a pointless argument coming a little further away—or at least I thought I had. I should've shut up after that 3rd post of mine above, but knives's assertions (which you seem to agree with) presuming to know Haneke's motivations and sense of himself as an artist struck me as so difficult to comprehend that I decided to ask where these unexplained assertions about the man were coming from.

Another reason I haven't offered up a counter-interpretation to the "Haneke is saying that they all grow up to be Nazis" one is that I don't have one that can succinctly be put in the form "Haneke is saying that _____." Like Haneke's other films, The White Ribbon raises questions and presents troubling situations that take a lot of thought to unravel and weave into something that relates to the world we live in. The ways I've done that may not make sense to anyone but myself. If any of this sounds like a cop-out, so be it.
Last edited by Gregory on Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#97 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:01 pm

gregory wrote:What question does it beg? Begging the question doesn't necessarily involve an actual question but has to do with concluding something partly on the basis of a closely related premise that itself is never supported. In this case the assumed premise is that there is only room for one interpretation of the film—a simple, moralistic one—and that Haneke is thus to be criticized on that basis, when the basis of the criticism has never actually been established.
Gregory, that is not my premise, that is my conclusion. I came to it because I could not come up with competing interpretations. I don't think the movie leaves room for other interpretations because it seems to me it has a very clear purpose. But I did mention multiple times that I was willing to consider the idea that there are, and welcome someone providing them.
Gregory wrote:Have I provided an alternative interpretation? I provided a critique of the interpretation that the children all turn out to be Nazis because of the environment in which they grew up, but no, I haven't provided my own interpretation and was clear about why: I don't want to try and convince someone who is familiar with the film and has said at the outset that they won't really entertain that there's any other interpretation than the one they're already convinced of.
You are starting to try my patience. I said no such thing. It is becoming clear to me that you intend to take everything I say in the most uncharitable way you can. Example:

In my first post I wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:I don't actually find much room for interpretation in this movie (or many of Haneke's other films). The point is pretty much shoved in your face...
Your paraphrase of this:
Gregory wrote:[you have] said at the outset that they won't really entertain that there's any other interpretation than the one they're already convinced of.
The extent of what I will or I won't entertain is your invention. My statement is innocuous, and means nothing more than that I think Haneke's intentions and meanings are clear and focused by design.
Gregory wrote:Another reason I haven't offered up a counter-interpretation to the "Haneke is saying that they all grow up to be Nazis" one is that I don't have one that can succinctly be put in the form "Haneke is saying that _____." Like Haneke's other films, The White Ribbon raises questions and presents troubling situations that take a lot of thought to unravel and weave into something that relates to the world we live in. The ways I've done that may not make sense to anyone but myself. If any of this sounds like a cop-out, so be it.
What it sounds like is something I'd be interested to hear, despite what you seem to think of me.

Frankly, while you may believe you've spotted a pointless argument from farther away, all you've done is been uncharitable and prickly to someone who was keen to hear some more ways to think about a movie he was starting to have reservations about.

User avatar
jorencain
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#98 Post by jorencain » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:29 pm

I agree that the film is unambiguously concerned with the children, and that they will develop into Nazis, but I don’t see how that is a problem. To me, the film is about a culture that could create this type of person, as the narrator says near the beginning (something like “maybe this story can help explain what happened later in this country”). And so, it’s about the dynamic between the older and younger generations. The children reject their parents/priest’s values, cruel methods of parenting, etc., and find camaraderie in their group of peers. Although they are rejecting their parents, they are still children and immature, so it makes sense that they would “act out” in violent ways. The families also resent the baron, so it’s logical that the kids would take it out on the baron’s child. It has been awhile since I saw the movie, so some of those details are hazy. What is not hammered home and is open to discussion/speculation is what exactly pushed the kids over the edge and caused this behavior. I am certainly no expert on either Nazis or psychology, but I was extremely captivated by Haneke’s presentation of a backdrop that might shed light on the actions of a future generation.

I don’t think that Haneke has anything up his sleeves or is acting in a condescending manner with this film. Yes, there are some dots that aren’t connected in the plot, but that just makes it more riveting for the viewer.

Haneke shouldn't be faulted for presenting a film wherein some characters will probably grow up to be Nazis. I don’t want to open a can of worms, but Fassbinder presents a character in “Berlin Alexanderplatz” that will also likely become a Nazi. Yes, he focuses on a single character and takes 18 hours to do it, so it is obviously more nuanced than “The White Ribbon.” But in either case, the films present a culture that created Nazis, and I see no problem with Haneke or Fassbinder exploring what factors could have contributed to this.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#99 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:38 pm

It's not the fact that some characters will grow up to be nazis that's the problem. It's the crude and morally thudding way he goes about it that's irksome. Especially the way it feels like he's indicting the audience for this fact as well (as tho' we are complicit in the cruelty and therefore complicit in making nazis). Also because I think Haneke treats the rise of nazism simplistically, as if nazism could be explained solely as some backwards people treating each other cruelly.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

#100 Post by warren oates » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:56 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:It's not the fact that some characters will grow up to be nazis that's the problem. It's the crude and morally thudding way he goes about it that's irksome. Especially the way it feels like he's indicting the audience for this fact as well (as tho' we are complicit in the cruelty and therefore complicit in making nazis). Also because I think Haneke treats the rise of nazism simplistically, as if nazism could be explained solely as some backwards people treating each other cruelly.
To me it's more like "these are the conditions in which something like Nazism can arise." The repressive, patriarchal society. The way this specific Teutonic corner of Christendom dwells on the puritanical harshness of Biblical law rather than the lessons of Christ's mercy. The way people tend to want to "sweep things under the carpet" -- a quote Haneke has used himself in many public statements about many of his films vis-a-vis polite Austrian society -- and keep to themselves to go along/get along. How collective outward order seems more important than truth, justice or love to most of the characters. So that the multifaceted weaknesses of the village society will lead some of these people, or their offspring, to embrace a totalitarian ideology. Some of those same forces will drive others who just won't acknowledge what's happening or stand up to it in time to avert a disaster.

Post Reply