19 July 2010

The White Ribbon


The film ends in the head of the viewer, not on the screen.
--Michael Haneke
Perhaps because I'd recently read L. Timmel Duchamp's interesting and thorough review of the new Library of America edition of Shirley Jackson's major works, Michael Haneke's Palm d'Or-winning film The White Ribbon (Das Weisse Band), felt like a movie inspired by a Shirley Jackson story.

It is, however, very much a Michael Haneke film, though a bit of a departure from the movies he's most famous for. We still have the focus on suffering, violence, and guilt; the tone and affect is still analytical, cold, distant; mysteries remain unsolved, their solutions unimportant to an overall scheme in which what matters is not so much the mystery, but the effect of the mystery -- and yet there is a tenderness to some of these scenes that has been rare in much of Haneke's other work. Part of that comes from the large cast of characters: it would be very odd to portray an entire village without showing any people who are basically decent, or without portraying any moments of kind, even loving, emotions. But there's a thematic purpose to the moments of tenderness, too.

For instance, we see a young boy bring his cruel father, the village pastor, a bird in a cage and offer it to him as a replacement for the father's recently-killed bird because, the boy says, his father seemed so sad. The boy's performance is so affecting that it's difficult to keep a dry eye as he speaks, but it's also a moment rich with various meanings and implications. The White Ribbon is a film about the ways brutality reproduces itself, and we can't help but wonder if this boy will escape the fate the other children seem destined for: personalities hardened by the rigid ideology of sin and punishment that has so tortured them all. Yet at the same time, the boy is offering his father a bird in a cage. A small, free creature that is now trapped and owned. We think back to an earlier scene between the boy and father, one in which the boy brought an injured bird (presumably this bird) and asked if he could keep it. "How do you plan to do that?" the father asked.
BOY: We'll heal it.

FATHER: Don't you think, you’ll be attached to it then? Will you let it fly away?

BOY: Peepsie also lives in a cage.

FATHER: Yes, but Peepsie grew up in captivity. This one is used to living in freedom. Will you set him free, as soon he’s healed?
The boy nods. The pastor asks him if he's asked his mother, and the boy says yes, she said it was for his father to decide. The pastor seems a little surprised at this, or perhaps pleased that his wife is recognizing his authority. He says, "You'll really to take care of it? That’s a heavy responsibility. You know that, don’t you? Well. You're its father and mother now. We'll have to find a cage for your patient."*

The discussion holds one meaning on its own -- freedom versus captivity, parental responsibility -- especially since it comes soon after we have seen the pastor beat two of his older children for arriving home late. In this scene, it's difficult to see the pastor as anything other than a despicable man, his son as an innocent whose childhood will eventually be marred by the conjunction of his father's sense of parental responsibility and his apparent sadism. But the later scene, shot at very similar angles to this one, shows the boy sacrificing his healed, caged bird to his father so that, perhaps, his father may be happy. We do not perceive much change in the father between scenes, and what change we have seen likely doesn't cause the word "sadness" to spring to mind, but that is what the boy has seen, and he wants to fix it. He has healed the bird, and perhaps the healed bird can heal his father. (But the bird is still in a cage. If it is to be freed, as the father implied it must be, it is now his responsibility to do so. A later scene will show, unobtrusively in the background, a bird in Peepsie's cage, suggesting he chose his own pleasure at owning and caging a bird over that bird's freedom.)



It's a lovely scene, and even causes us some sympathy for the father -- if the boy, so truly innocent, can care for this horrible man, perhaps we, too, can spare him some sympathy. Interestingly, in the screenplay (PDF) provided by Sony Classics, the end of scene is described thus:
For a moment, neither of them knows what to do. Then the boy leaves the room. The pastor follows him with his eyes. Then, he sits down. He tries to keep his composure, but in the end he bursts into tears. He sobs haltingly, trying hard not let it be heard.
That's an awfully conventional, sentimental, almost Hollywood sort of end for such a scene, and Haneke, being the artist he is, did not film it as written (or may have filmed it so, but did not edit it to fit the description). Instead, the pastor gives only the barest hint of emotion toward his son's gesture, then, after the boy has left, his lips tremble slightly, he swallows, and he looks down at his desk. Cut to a shot of the outdoors seen from inside, the frame dominated by window bars that make the world seem as if it is viewed from inside a cage.

We could continue to analyze each scene of the film, and particularly their relationships within the structure of the whole, but I'm not feeling compelled to do so right now, partly because I think that's a pleasure best left to each viewer. This is a film that leaves out as much as it includes, and thus requires us as viewers to take a deliberate and active role in the meaning-making. Haneke is not the sort of filmmaker to create scenes just because he likes them or they offer an interesting opportunity for actors or because they have aesthetic value; whatever is in his films is there because it is useful to his overall thematic point. His are movies of ideas. If they offer other pleasures, then so be it, but the basic reasoning for why scenes exist and why they exist in the particular place they do is strictly thematic. This is not to say that there is only one theme, however, or that the best of Haneke's films screech that one theme at us relentlessly (my dislike of Funny Games comes from feeling that there is, in that film, only one theme, indeed a Message, and that every frame of the damned movie is determined to pound us over the head with it).

The White Ribbon offers more pleasures beyond thematic development than even my favorite of Haneke's previous films, Code Unknown (Code Inconnu). I usually find the acting and the cinematography in Haneke's work impressive, but both in The White Ribbon justify the over-used adjective stunning. Many of the main characters in the movie are children, and it is not easy to get great performances from young actors, especially in a film like The White Ribbon, which is serious and disturbing, requiring both nuance and restraint. In an interview included on the Blu-Ray edition (the DVD apparently has no extras), Haneke says his casting directors saw 7,000 children, seeking ones with both a natural ability to inhabit an imagined world and who had a certain look, one especially influenced by the photographs of August Sander. The months spent on casting paid off, because the children are some of the most compelling actors in the film, extraordinarily focused and yet also remarkably relaxed: they inhabit their roles in a way often aspired to by adult actors, but without the self-consciousness that haunts even the most wonderful adult performances.

Christian Berger won quite a few awards for the cinematography of The White Ribbon (including from the American Society of Cinematographers), and was nominated for more (including an Oscar, though the computer-created cinematography of Avatar won, demonstrating how problematic the term "cinematography" is in the digital age). Berger has called the look of The White Ribbon "modern black and white" in that it has a different tone, weight, and contrast from what something filmed directly onto b&w film has (White Ribbon was filmed on color Super-35mm, then converted to b&w in post-production). Haneke wanted the film to be in black and white to create a distancing effect for the audience, and because the look is so sharp and defined, it doesn't have the nostalgic effect that shooting on actual black and white film would have had -- the images may not look "real", but they certainly don't look like an old movie, either.

The composition of every shot, though, is so careful and evocative that just about every frame of The White Ribbon could be printed for gallery presentation. I was tempted at times to turn off the sound and the subtitles and just look at the movie, because there is much to luxuriate in in each image.


Along with the distancing effect of the black and white, Haneke uses a voiceover to further create a sense of distance from the events of the narrative. The schoolteacher tells us the story from his own old age, and he starts the film by saying that he can't vouch for the truth of it all, that some of it is based on hearsay. He begins to tell the story and says, "If I remember correctly..." We have no way to know if he does or not. We know he's an unreliable narrator because he tells us he is, but we don't know the extent of his unreliability -- what we have is his tale ... and only his tale.  Yet most viewers are used to assuming what is seen on film is "the truth", and so there is a consistent tension between our instinct that what is there in front of us is some sort of objective reality and the insistence of the narrator that he's telling a story, that maybe this is not how it all was, that memory is imperfect and the past unreachable.

The mystery at the heart of the story is not just the mystery of who caused the various accidents, disasters, and tragedies that befall the characters -- but rather the mystery of whether the items are connected at all. Maybe some of the events are connected and others aren't. Maybe none are. Some of the events seem to be punishments. Some of them are clearly the result of human action. Others, though, may just be accidents. Or they may not. We know what the schoolteacher thinks and whom he suspects, but we also know we're in his story, and his telling may stack the deck in favor of his interpretation.

The mystery is partly a religious one. The village is strictly and punishingly religious, questions of death and God arise repeatedly, the pastor is one of the main characters, and the children's chorus seems alternately beautiful and menacing. The question of the events' relationships is like questions about the existence of God and the existence of meaning in the universe. Is there a teleology? Or could the meaning we find in the events be nothing more than a meaning we impose because of our love of pattern and our desire for meaning?

Haneke has no desire to answer these questions for us. His film exists to raise the questions, to give them life and form. Viewers must come to their own conclusions.



*Dialogue adapted from the English-language screenplay available as a PDF here. The screenplay translation seems to be a bit more literal than the subtitles on the Sony Blu-Ray, and it is not a transcription of the film but rather either a late draft or a shooting script, and thus different from the finished film.

8 comments:

  1. Will be catching this movie this month if i have extra time. Good post good guy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matt: Very nice analysis. I am a huge fan of Haneke's films. I even can defend Funny Games, though I understand why so many people recoil from that film.

    I do want to take one small issue with something you say in passing. You refer to Haneke as "detached" and "cold." Now I can agree with the detached, if by it you mean he keeps his distance from the characters and the events of the story, letting them speak for themselves. But I would prefer to put it that "he selects a detached tone." I think Haneke is intensely engaged with the characters, their choices, their natures, their fates.

    And I would argue that he is not cold. Frankly, whenever I see a reviewer who complains about him being cold, and being a scold, and inhumane, I pretty much throw out that reviewer's opinion because that seems to bespeak an inability to understand how much Haneke _cares_ about what's going on up on the screen. It's not just calculated manipulation.

    Even in movies like The Seventh Continent and Benny's Video, which have been accused of being misanthropic assaults on humanity, I see the sensibility of an artist who cares so much about the fate of individual people and the choices they make, that if he were to try to get closer the film would dissolve into bathos.

    This is probably something that requires an essay to explain adequately. But there is a long tradition of great artists who make the choice to keep their distance from the materials of their art, but who are not necessarily cold or heartless or moralistic. James Joyce, Stanley Kubrick, the later Herman Melville, the Coen Brothers, Flannery O'Connor, Franz Kafka (have you seen Haneke's adaptation of "The Castle"?).

    It happens that I tend to like these artists best. I guess I aspire to be one of them. It may take some care for such artists to avoid frigidity, but I'd take a "Cache" over "E.T." (or "Schindler's List") a thousand times, even if the latter is supposed to be a towering human statement. I would argue that Haneke evinces more true humanity in "The White Ribbon" than Spielberg has in his entire career.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PS: I see on second reading you yourself said that it was Haneke's "tone" that was cold. Sorry if I seemed to include you among those who would dismiss his work for using this tone. Clearly you are not complaining about his "inhumanity" in the way, say, A.O. Scott of the NY Times continually does about every Haneke film.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, John -- I'm with you! I tend to prefer things I think of as "cold" tone (probably better called "objective"), and for which I don't really actually have a good adjective -- something easier to point to than to describe. One of the first directors I ever fell madly in love with, and for whose work I still have affection, is Kubrick, who is often criticized for "coldness", but whatever it is that causes some people to respond negatively to him that they identify as "coldness" seems to be exactly what I find most fascinating in his work. Same with Michael Mann, though he's a very very different sort of director from either Kubrick or Haneke, of course. "He selects a detached tone" is a good way to put it, because it highlights the deliberate decision rather than make some weird transcendental claim of knowing the over-soul of the creator, which is what I suppose an unmodified claim of "coldness" implies, or can imply: that Haneke is an uncaring and misanthropic person and this is reflected in his films. I don't believe this either about him or his films, but even if I did, I wouldn't make the leap from person to film or vice versa, because, well, real art is more complex than its creators, and real film art especially so, because no matter how auteurist and/or control-freak the director is, there's still lots of influence from other people along the way of a production.

    I love this section of a sentence of yours: "I see the sensibility of an artist who cares so much about the fate of individual people and the choices they make, that if he were to try to get closer the film would dissolve into bathos." That nails it for me.

    I just read somewhere (I wish I could remember, but it was at a moment of having a bunch of books and various websites open at once for some research on another topic) an interesting defense of Funny Games in both its European and American versions, and it made me almost want to watch the film again. I've seen all the Haneke films available in the US at least twice except for Funny Games, and I've never watched the U.S. version of it, so to be fair to it I should probably watch it again, or watch the U.S. one for the first time, though I found it such a distasteful experience it's hard to summon up the courage to subject myself to that again. But we'll see.

    I think your citing of Spielberg movies at the end of your comment highlights well the opposite end of the spectrum from Haneke -- I admire a lot of what Spielberg accomplishes as a craftsman, but I also really dislike most of his movies, and it would not be hyperbole to say I utterly loathe Schindler's List. (I like A.I. very much, because to me the Kubrick influence really tempers Spielberg's tendency toward schmaltz, and what schmaltz there is in the film seems to be appropriate within the story, while we as viewers can, if we choose, live outside that schmaltz and see it as a feature of the narrative rather than it having to be an effect of the narrative. I also like Catch Me If You Can and some of Empire of the Sun, Minority Report, and a few parts of War of the Worlds. But that's about all the Spielberg I can take.)

    Anyway, yes, we are seeing things roughly the same!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do think we have a lot in common in our tastes. Your list of Spielberg movies, for instance, covers just about all of the ones I care for at all (which raises the question, why do I keep going to see his movies?). My favorite Spielberg is A.I., in which I feel he was half-possessed by the shade of Kubrick, and made a much smarter movie than he realized he had made. The ending, which many people see as sugary, I see, as John Clute said, as "sugar with poison in it."

    I would have stopped "Minority Report" at the moment that the Cruise character overcomes his desire for revenge and instead of killing the man whom he thinks killed his kid, reads him his rights.

    I've seen both versions of "Funny Games," and I don't see much reason to see the English-language version. Haneke's movies have disturbed me a great deal. "FG" tears me in two directions, but I think that may be deliberate. If you read it as him simply attacking the audience for indulging in a desire to see violence without consequences, the I would find it had to defend, though I think it still can be on those grounds. But the amazing performances by Ulrich Muhe and Susan Lothar, their heart rending anguish after the death of their son, is not something I can see as just in the service of a "game" by Haneke. It's as if the metafictional element of the movie stops or steps aside, at least for moments in the film, to show us a family in the hands of an insane universe. Of course, the universe is presided over by Michael Haneke, so maybe that only make him seem more guilty.

    We should talk about all this sometime.

    Cheers,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  6. I ordered this film from Netflix and not sure why-probably because it was recommended based on other selections I have made. I go through phases of interests. Lately it has been Germany, the Nazi's, Sophie Scholl, Leni Riefenstahl, Rosenstrasse,and quite a few other German films.
    I watch a movie without having seen anything about it to not prejudice my viewpoint. I had no idea about the subject of the flim.
    I found this movie odd, in black and white, so I assumed it had been made awhile ago like some of the other German movies I have rented. And leaving one hanging wondering many things at the end.
    To my surprise it was shown in 2009and won many awards.
    In Googling the film and its reviews I am getting a better sense of the movie and the director whom I am not familiar with. I didn't get the connection with Fascism but the film did seem very "German". Rigid, clinical.
    I kept thinking of Martin Luther and ?Calvinism. Almost like the Puritans in early America.
    I guess that's why the Germans are so good at engineering, precision-German operating room instruments,Mercedes, Siemens products,etc.
    Several native Germans I know are somewhat rigid, a bit arrogant and very nationalistic.
    I am enjoying reading the postings on your blog to better understand this film. I would rather see it on a big screen because on a small TV set it was difficult to see some parts that were not well lit due to the black and white.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the theme of this movie revolves around German history. The film takes place in pre- WW! Germany and depicts the behavior of German people just prior to this event. We find a village in an unsettling state and we try to find a culprit to a series of mysterious events that happen there. But an analysis of the events and characters does not allow the audience to point the finger at a single culprit. We are told by the narrator that something was going on in the village but there is no conclusive evidence that allows the audience to be able to come to a concise conclusion. This behavior and the conclusions the audience make can be extrapolated into later post war German history and we find that we cannot find a single clear culprit which shaped German history following the start of WW1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this film is quite intellectually stimulating. The prominent forces shaping the events in the village include Christianity, a Baron which likely represents a feudal or an aristocratic governing system and extreme human incest behavior which is portrayed through the actions of the doctor who molests his daughter and who mentally abuses the midwife. The interaction of these forces on the characters in the film results in a horrific collection of scenes which after being filmed in black and white are really quite disturbing. The narrator, a teacher and one who is clearly innocent, is developing a relationship with a younger woman and is in love. He states during the opening few frames on the film that the behavior of the people in the village was unusual prior to the start of the Great War and thinks that it is somehow related to the events to shape Germany, later on. But the events portrayed in the film are stated as being recollections, hear say and are not entirely accurate.

      After analyzing the film it is clear that all in not perfect in the village. But is it perfect in any village anywhere in the world? I had to come to the conclusion that we are seeing only normal human behavior. After all, we have incest all over the world, as well as religion and government. At times we suspect the children as being the cause of all the events in the film, sometimes the doctor and the midwife, the baron or the farmers son as the instigator(s) of the events which occurred in the film. When one culprit is singled out this results in the placing of the blame of Germany's post 1914 history on a different source. If the audience extrapolates this reasoning in some cases it makes no sense and perhaps this is what the director wanted us to conclude. I do not think that the director is trying to imply that the German people are genetically disposed to violence becasue the film is too intellectual for that and I think he is saying that the post 1914 history is most likely shaped by environment. An interesting film.

      Delete