2010/01/16 New York
Daddies
Children
“The White Ribbon” is probably not Michael Haneke’s best movie, but it’s very much worth seeing.
If I’m not mistaken the movies makes two claims:
1. Sexual oppression leads to violence and sadism.
2. German culture was steeped in apathy, blood lust, obedience and brutality. (The movie takes place shortly before World War I in a German village.)
A.O. Scott has a point when he writes in the Times:
‘Monstrous as these daddies are, their children may be worse. A gaggle of towheaded darlings walks through the film, their mild smiles so sinister that they might have wandered in from the 1960 British science-fiction horror chestnut “Village of the Damned.” Anyone who has seen Mr. Haneke’s “Cache” or his twin versions of “Funny Games” will be aware that he does not believe in the blamelessness of youth. Quite the contrary: children, in his world, carry the sins of their parents in concentrated, highly toxic form, and are also capable of a pure, motiveless, experimental evil.
What will become of these particular blond children, who are either demons or victims, driven to mischief by severe paternal discipline or so intrinsically bad that no punishment could suffice? Do the math: it’s 1914. In 20 or 30 years, what do you suppose these children will be up to? Our narrator, well into old age, tells us that he is revisiting the strange events in the village to “clarify things that happened in our country” afterward.
But “The White Ribbon” does the opposite, mystifying the historical phenomenon it purports to investigate. Forget about Weimar inflation and the Treaty of Versailles and whatever else you may have learned in school: Nazism was caused by child abuse. Or maybe by the intrinsic sinfulness of human beings. “The White Ribbon” is a whodunit that offers a philosophically and aesthetically unsatisfying answer: everyone. Which is also to say: no one.’
Mr. Haneke is an analytical filmmaker, which makes his movies sometimes a bit cold. I appreciate his emphasis on lovelessness, but this time I could not help falling in love with the character of Eva, played by Leonie Benesch.
[ Add comment ]
31 comments 
A month ago I saw the movie in my hometown. Indeed Eva is a lovely character. And I agree, the movie is not overwhelming but very worth seeing.
(And indeed, sometimes the mild smile on my face horrifies me)
(And indeed, sometimes the mild smile on my face horrifies me)
I think every war starts with child abuse. If we, for example, look at the Iraqi war, we see clearly that this is an aftermath for the days where G. Bush Sr. had some quarrels with Hoessein.
I'm certain Bush Sr. abused his children for this. Jr. was just lucky to be as powerful as he turned out to be.
A question to the commenters on this site: Who abused you as a child and what kind of war would you fight?
I'm certain Bush Sr. abused his children for this. Jr. was just lucky to be as powerful as he turned out to be.
A question to the commenters on this site: Who abused you as a child and what kind of war would you fight?
Dens
I have suffered abuse (and still do) from virtually every woman that has crossed my path.The war I would join is a total world war between men and women.
It may already be going on, and I may already be fighting it.
And I'm neither loyal nor brave: I may yield and defect one day.
@T
I think I could fall in love with you. Were do you live?Shame on me
As you see in my English (yep, I meant where do you live?) I live in Belgium.The truth
Michael Haneke remarked in an interview that "the truth is obscene".While this is perhaps an overstatement, "the truth is loveless" is probably an understatement.
Arnon
Are you sure? Do you still want to become a daddy?T.
It isn't called abuse if you inflict it yourself, now is it?To Arnon, on Haneke
What has ben your favourite Haneke film so far?Pjötr
The original version of "Funny Games"."La Pianiste".
On child abuse
(@Dens Powells)"Nazism was caused by child abuse."
This one little sentence from A.O. Scott's review of the film 'The White Ribbon' leads you to say "I think every war starts with child abuse."
And lures our dear AG into thinking A.O. Scott has a point.
I'm sorry, but this leads to a centuries-old discussion about nature and nurture! Between your genes and the influence on them by the environment.
A.O. Scott has no point at all, and I advise everyone to read all the comments on this review. (If you can manage: all 46!)(16-01-2010)
The film is generally considered a real masterpiece (Cannes), but the review sucks (so most 'commenters' [I'd rather use the word 'commentators', 'catalysts' or 'reagents' (!)] indicate).
[What's was the 'buzz-word' to denote people who react to anything on the internet? I forget.]
Anyway, as a commentator on this site, please be wary of anyone who claims to have 'discovered' some real fundamental explanation for wars!
There are at least a hundred 'explanations'.
Child abuse, which no doubt has great consequences, equals 'environment', but (yes, BUT), please consider the life of Johannes Kepler.
Severely abused as a child; just a fact of his life, which led Arthur Koestler to comment (tongue in cheek): Kepler's life might be an incentive to abuse your children. (+/-).
Compare 'Karakter' by F. Bordewijk.
Remember and always keep this in mind: any article/blog/post/comment/column/op-ed, whatever...,
discussing 'environment/DNA/genetics/nature/nurture/education/society/your mum and dad/your own 'actions' and deeds in life to explain something else, are most certainly dead wrong!
---------------------------------
Veerle
Enschede, NLHow old are you?
Dens
I don't really have an answer to that question. You may be right.Bert
The point Mr. Scott has is:'But “The White Ribbon” does the opposite, mystifying the historical phenomenon it purports to investigate. Forget about Weimar inflation and the Treaty of Versailles and whatever else you may have learned in school: Nazism was caused by child abuse. Or maybe by the intrinsic sinfulness of human beings. “The White Ribbon” is a whodunit that offers a philosophically and aesthetically unsatisfying answer: everyone. Which is also to say: no one.'
Read the last sentence twice.
And don’t forget reading is a skill.
But what can you expect from somebody who writes: ‘The film is generally considered a real masterpiece (Cannes), but the review sucks.’
Oh Christ, all those generally considered masterpieces. Cannes! Berlin! Locarno! Venice!
And then comes the review that sucks!
I'm getting teary eyes.
Innocently guilty
The statement "everyone is guilty so no one is guilty" is meaningless. If you say "no one is guilty" this means "everyone is innocent" which is the opposite of the first statement.The question is: if everyone is guilty, who can be blamed? Society has found a practical solution: the scapegoat, sacrificial virgin, Jesus Christ, etc. etc. It goes without saying that the poor unfortunates on whom the collective guilt is heaped are likely to be the most innocent.
And A.O. Scott's review does suck... big time!
Carlos
“To love everybody is to love nobody,” S. Freud writes.To question collective guilt, and that is what A.O. Scott is doing, is not meaningless at all.
To detest what you cannot understand is a common trait.
Just say: “it sucks! Big time!”
How daring to use these words.
I suggest Logic 101.
Don’t forget to tell your professor: “It sucks! Big time!”
review
@Carlos / Arnon Grunberg'Reading is a skill.'
It surely is.
Your reactions - the one by Carlos Dee & the one by AG - proves it.
Mr Grunberg is again using ad hominem arguments, which is really sad...
He knows how to read, Carlos Dee and I don't.
Pity on the poor and ignorant....
Carlos Dee
If I recall correctly, Hannah Arendt also wrote it once, i.e. "if every one is guilty, then no one is guilty". It certainly has meaning. Was Eichmann evil or a scapegoat?
Bert
It is the substantial argument that hurts. And if not, you hit back. The ad hominem arguments are the fun in between. You are a pussy.
And an awful punctuation fetishist by the way.
Hesper
Ad hominem argument?You must be kidding.
Speaking about non sequiturs.
Didn’t you suggest a couple of week ago that it was all about winning?
(“And I, for one, believe that you should never use ad hominem arguments.
I consider myself the winner of any discussion when my opponent starts using them... “)
When you have nothing to say anymore you cry: “Ad homimem argument.”
I guess you are a facetious person.
I just say: Cannes. Venice. Berlin. Locarno.
And then I can quote you: “Child abuse, which no doubt has great consequences, equals 'environment', but (yes, BUT), please consider the life of Johannes Kepler.”
Or is quoting you an ad hominem argument?
Have you actually seen the movie “The White Ribbon”?
Or, if I may quote you again, do you believe that it is more important to scribble down notes like: “Anyway, as a commentator on this site, please be wary of anyone who claims to have 'discovered' some real fundamental explanation for wars!
There are at least a hundred 'explanations'.”
At least a hundred!
This is taking facetiousness to the next level.
Come to think of it most of your own comments are ad hominem arguments.
But there is a solution to this nasty self-destruction: silence.
Lovelessness
Somehow the way the doctor verbally abused his wife in the film also reminded me in a strange way of "love", of extreme intimacy.T
I was born in '84.To dries van can
You mean his mistress? If I am not mistaken his wife died.Ad hominem
@T.I'd rather be a pussy than some aggressive rottweiler.
@AG
I'm really sorry, but most of my own comments are most certainly NOT about someone's character, or ad hominem arguments, contrary to what you yourself are suggesting here.
- '...this nasty self-destruction...' -
What the hell does that mean?
If this isn't some ad hominem argument (if you can call this an 'argument'!), what is it?
'...facetiousness to the next level.'
Jeez, what's that supposed to mean?
Ah well, I get the message: 'there is a solution...: silence.'
In other words: you just shut up.
"...nasty self-destruction...."
Please explain: how do you get from my comments on some review to this 'nasty self-destruction' ?!
'... most of your comments are ad hominem arguments.'
Really?
Poor Arnon Grunberg, you should re-read your Karel van het Reve!
You're supposedly learned how to reason from him?
I'm afraid you didn't.
Whenever I seem to have some point, you go into really personal accusations; and now even into 'shut up'!
I'm sorry, but I will.
Let's keep this cosy teaparty cosy, all right?
Goodbye.
=====================
Das Weisse Band
I was overwhelmed.By the way Haneke told this story: the (camera)angles, the silence
and sound, etc. By the actors.
Arnon, you saw the German version, I hope.
Hesper
I’m sorry, my dear Hesper, but most of your comments are about your own character, and therefor can be described as ad homimem arguments, as self-inflicted wounds, as self-destruction.Your point is that the “review sucks”; that the movie won an award in Cannes, and above all that child abuse “no doubt has great consequences.”
You call that points?
You disingenuously label your silly remarks (Remember and always keep this in mind: any article/blog/post/comment/column/op-ed, whatever..., discussing 'environment/DNA/genetics/nature/nurture/education/society/your mum and dad/your own 'actions' and deeds in life to explain something else, are most certainly dead wrong!”), which have no bearing to Scott’s review or to the movie, which you probably haven’t seen(!), points, and you seem to believe that your humorless attacks (“Poor Arnon Grunberg, you should re-read your Karel van het Reve! You're supposedly learned how to reason from him? I'm afraid you didn't.”) shouldn’t be called “ad hominem arguments”.
Go and see Haneke’s movie instead of wasting your time deliberately (at least that’s what I hope) misunderstanding A.O. Scott’s review.
And if you don’t know what facetiousness means, look it up in the dictionary.
Please, keep in mind that there is a slight distinction between protecting a young man like you from self-inflicted wounds and telling a person to shut up.
But also this distinction is wasted on you.
As to coziness: no need for coziness.
Vera
What do you mean by "German version?"There is only one version, with or without subtitles.
Arnon
I do hope so.a slight distinction...
'therefor' = therefore"Please, keep in mind that there is a slight distinction between protecting a young man like you from self-inflicted wounds and telling a person to shut up.
But also this distinction is wasted on you."
"But there is a solution to this nasty self-destruction: silence."
The 'distinction' between the one and the other - 'a slight distinction' no less! - escapes me entirely, yes, is wasted on me, because this must be utter nonsense.
"...there is a slight distinction between protecting a young man like you from self-inflicted wounds and telling a person to shut up."
"But there is a solution to this nasty self-destruction: silence."
If ever someone uttered real BS, this is it.
Giving up on you and taking your advice to heart ('silence'),
with all my best regards and wishes,
and remaining silent for ever,
bh
================================
Hesper
Have you seen “The White Ribbon” already?That you cannot get the distinction between telling somebody to shut up and pointing out to a commenter the fact that his notes consist of nonsense (self-inflicted wounds) should not surprise me, since you seem to believe that a “point” is uttering the word “BS” or belittling a review with the words “the review sucks”, without having seen the movie the reviewer is writing about, but you don’t mind hiding behind the ugly phrase: “The film is generally considered a real masterpiece (Cannes)”, but the review sucks (so most 'commenters' [I'd rather use the word 'commentators', 'catalysts' or 'reagents' (!)] indicate).”
“Style is the answer to everything,” Bukowski wrote.
Style is not saying “shut up”, style is saying: “Please, remember that there is a solution to your problem: silence.”
Style is making the effort of seeing a movie, if you want to enter a discussion about this particular movie, that is.
Style is not hiding behind “majority opinions” on the Internet to camouflage your lack of knowledge.
Style is not crying foul when you feel belittled, while you yourself have the habit of belittling others in the most jejune manner (“this review sucks”, "BS" etcetera).
You have no style.
You will never have style.
I would love you to be silent forever, but I’m afraid we have to live with your styleless and dreadful presence for a few more years.
Pjotr
Yes, the mistress. That's what i meant!On Haneke
In contrast to other commentators on this website, I was most charmed by Haneke's latest effort.Although it can't be considered as a full break, it does take an exceptional place within his oeuvre.
Today I had the choice between The Anti-Christ, and Das weisse Band for the second time. For obvious reasons, I chose the latter.
[ Add comment ]
