Dreyer 'channeled' to make The White Ribbon

Lokke Heiss · Post by **Lokke Heiss** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:02 pm

Here is the wiki reference to a terrific film I saw this week -- The White Ribbon:

The White Ribbon (German: Das weiße Band) is a 2009 drama film written and directed by the Austrian Michael Haneke. The screenplay focuses on the children in a village in northern Germany just before World War I. According to Haneke, the film is about "the origin of every type of terrorism, be it of political or religious nature."[1]

It premiered at the 62nd Cannes Film Festival in May 2009 and won the Palme d'Or. This has been followed by positive reviews and several other major awards.
**
Back to me --

I thought this film was excellent, much better than even the numerous good recent films from Germany/Austria the last few years. It's shot in unrepentant black-and-white, and in a very austere style that recalls not so much Bergman as Carl Theodor Dreyer. Dreyer was very economical in his filmmaking, no wasted moves, every shot placed for maximum effect, and that means that even though this is a long move (more than 120 minutes) it never seems slow or plodding. And the acting is uniformly fantastic. I thought this film was very much a rethinking or an update of Dreyer's masterpiece, Day of Wrath, and elements of the plot are also found in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. There are all kinds of other wonderful references in this film, which I would argue is sort of version of Buddenbrooks, except it takes on the detailing of a the moral decay of an entire town rather than just one family.

So when you are putting Day of Wrath, The Crucible, Buddenbrooks, and even Picnic at Hanging Rock into one story, that's a lot of great ideas.

And above all, it's a horror story. Creepy, really scary in the way that good horror stories can be. A real statement for the power of black-and-white over color for these kinds of films. Watch out when you go through this town. It makes the 1960 (remake 1995) Village of the Dammed look like a trip through Disney World by comparison.

Those of you who like Dreyer will, I think, really like this movie. It's nice to see someone really succeed in a style that rejects the usual shot/reverse shot/everything has to be explained completely, fussy Hollywood editing. But that's not to say Haneke is perfunctory. Every shot is so beautifully thought out...composed, lit just perfectly for effect...it's nice to see it can still be done.

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:49 pm

Well, the film is exquisitely directed and photographed, and the cast, down to the smallest extra, couldn't have been better. Strangely enough I had never thought of DAY OF WRATH, but that is a spot-on comparison. VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED had come to my mind as well. The feeling for the period is very authentic (how much I cannot say I havent been born then

.

However I don't think that Haneke (unlike Dreyer) really gets a point across, and the film does in no way convincingly show "the origin of every type of terrorism, be it of political or religious nature." In fact I feel that was a really silly thing to say on Haneke's part . (But then, that might have been just a hand-out for the critics.) Also, the deliberate frustration of the audience (the mystery predictably remains unsolved) is not to my taste.

There are other issues, but they can be only really understood in Germany, so I will spare you this...

Lokke Heiss · Post by **Lokke Heiss** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:05 pm

However I don't think that Haneke (unlike Dreyer) really gets a point across, and the film does in no way convincingly show "the origin of every type of terrorism, be it of political or religious nature." In fact I feel that was a really silly thing to say on Haneke's part . (But then, that might have been just a hand-out for the critics.) Also, the deliberate frustration of the audience (the mystery predictably remains unsolved) is not to my taste.

There are other issues, but they can be only really understood in Germany, so I will spare you this...[/quote[

I agree that the quote is misleading. If he means child abuse causes terrorism, then the quote is naive. But the way I took it, if he means that 'terrorism starts at home,' then I completely agree with him. In fact, the quote becomes hard to argue against. That is, fundamentalism (which I think this film is a clear condemnation of) creates the enviroment for abuse = all the right formula for authoritative thinking, which leads to all kinds of problems. And certainly religion seems to find its way into this process.

Where I think the movie could be 'finger-pointing' is the Catholic/Protestant angle. Haneke, the Austrian, telling the Germans this is where facisim started. Vienna holds a much better claim than a small town in northern Germany. So are you referring to these issues, or something else?

But I liked the fact he DIDN'T make everything clear at the end. More like life.

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:15 pm

But the way I took it, if he means that 'terrorism starts at home,' then I completely agree with him.

I don't understand what "home" means in this respect. "Terrorism" is usually an extreme answer to extreme political circumstances (imagined or real ones). So maybe the children of the village (if they are really the perpetrators in all cases) are "terrorists" but if so they are clearly driven from pathology. It is more an aimless sadistic / ritualistic revenge on those that are even weaker. But political terrorism isnt like that and pathology is in my opinion not the key to understanding terrorism. I find that a bit too convenient. Fundamentalisms are often effect not cause of violent environment. Liberalism can create different kinds of abuse as well. Today it is rather a lack of education or of "fundamental" educational principles that causes juvenile violence and psychopath behaviour, up to amok runs. Amok run kids, terrorists themselves, come straight out of permissive, welfare, "anything goes" societies. Haneke mentioned Ulrike Meinhof (whom he knew) and the RAF in interviews. None of the major members came from particularily abusive homes. In the case of Gudrun Ensslin even the contrary was the case. Nothing really seems to fit if you look at how things actually take place...

Where I think the movie could be 'finger-pointing' is the Catholic/Protestant angle. Haneke, the Austrian, telling the Germans this is where facisim started. Vienna holds a much better claim than a small town in northern Germany. So are you referring to these issues, or something else?

Yes, among other related issues, and seen from that angle the film doesn't really work as a thesis. Only if you accept a non-historical notion of "fascism" maybe that comes out of the old Erich-Fromm-Wilhelm-Reich-Alice-Miller-kitchen, to which I disagree. Or the equally old hat of Adorno's "autoritharian character" which is really a discredited piece of ideology. But to Haneke's credit he rather discouraged interpretations into that direction, at least if they were taken too one-sided or too directly.

But I liked the fact he DIDN'T make everything clear at the end. More like life.

Well, that gives me a problem if 1. I feel it is too obviously calculated for a deliberate effect (of audience frustration, see also Haneke's previous french thriller CACHÉ or the original FUNNY GAMES). It makes me feel manipulated too bluntly. 2. If at the same time the film claims to demonstrate some thesis - does the director wish to obscure or to enlighten? The thesis movie was more Haneke's thing in his early Austrian years which he abandoned by the years. Still I prefer his early work though.