edwin anderson (bort16)

Michael Haneke returns to his German roots in The White Ribbon, a beautifully made allegorical film. Set in the year leading into the breakout of World War I, it tells the story of tragic and violent events that take place in a small village. Haneke is telling a parable here, a sociological examination of how Germany was able to engulfed in Fascism.
The film is narrated by the village's school teacher, years later. He, as an outsider, is a witness to the strange events. It all begins with the village doctor's riding accident. As he returns home, his horse trips over a rope tied between trees. His injuries remove will remove him from the first half of the film. Soon the entire village seems enraptured by the accident. There is a large and diverse cast of villagers. The doctors son and daughter, his nurse and mistress, and her son, a boy with down syndrome. The village Baron - a man not well liked but respected, and the employer of half the village - and his wife and son, Sigi. They have a nanny, Eva; she too is an outsider, like the doctor. And there is the local pastor's family. Of their many children, two are central characters - a teenage boy, Martin, and daughter, Clara. The pastor is a fundamentalist, stern and harsh. There is also another family who have just had a new son, and the tenant farmer and his sons.
The doctor's accident is forgotten in a few days after another more tragic event occurs. The tenant farmers wife has died in an accident at the Baron's mill. The eldest son is enraged, and wants justice to be done as he blames the baron himself. The father is also angry, but refuses to blame the Baron, or at least take any actions. He too works for him, and knows he cannot cross the Baron if he wishes to have food on the table.
Other events occur in due time throughout the film - the Baron's son goes missing and is found tied up and beaten; a barn is set ablaze, and a suicide. Notes left point to someone carrying out ritualistic punishments. The film is in some ways an engaging whodunnit. Haneke is too mature a director to actually give us the answers. We suspect, and probably know, who the perpetrators are early on in the film. And the school teacher comes to the same conclusion himself, but Haneke never actually confirms or denies. There is also the storyline between the teacher and the nanny. He courts her, and eventually goes to her father to ask his permission, only to be told he must wait one year.
Haneke's direction is superb. He never makes a wrong step. The film is shot in stunning black and white. It's impossible to imagine the film in colour - it would have just been too distracting. The film also benefits from all around excellent performances. After the critical disappointment of Americanizing his Funny Games, Haneke is back on terra firma. The film has so far been lauded and took home the prestigious Palm D'Or at this years Cannes Film Festival. And rightfully so. It would be a crime if The White Ribbon doesn't take home the Best Foreign Film Oscar, but a lot of crime goes on at the Oscars. Of the films so far released this year, The White Ribbon is undoubtedly the best I've seen.
The White Ribbon is a rich and complex film, it layers and layers its story. The title refers to the Pastor tying a white ribbon to his two eldest children, Martin and Clara, to remind them of innocence and purity. The film is also subtitled however, and it is that title that really resonates: A German Children's Tale (roughly translated). The children of the film are the future pillars of German Fascism, but the adults of The White Ribbon are the foundation upon which they stand.

Lars VonTrier went courting for controversy, and he found it. Everywhere Antichrist has played its stirred up fiery debate. Heck, it even won a special anti-award from the ecumenical jury at Cannes for its misogynist views. But is it misogynistic? Is it art? Is it trash? Can art be trash? Is Antichrist an experiment in sadism? Or is it a brilliant inquiry into something more?
Before delving into the film and what it means, let me first say a word about Dafoe and Gainsbourg. They literally are the only two characters in the film. Both give brave and uncompromising performances. They're richly layered, foreboding and genuinely brilliant. Even if the awards groups hate the film they would be doing a disservice to themselves not to at least recognize the importance of Dafoe and Gainsbourg in their portrayals. VonTrier to must be commended for his direction. It flows brilliantly, and he evokes mood and menace with ease. There is no lacking in terms of aesthetic value of imagery, crisp editing, or a flaw in his menacing soundtrack.
The film is presented in 4 main sections, in addition to a prologue and epilogue. First, the prologue . VonTrier shoots in slow motion black and white, as He (Dafoe) and She (Gainsbourg) have sex, cross cut with their child getting out of bed, mesmermized by snow falling outside and goes to the window. He falls to his death. This sequence (and the prologue) are startlingly beautiful. The first of the 4 main sections is Grief. She has been hospitalized for a month since the son's death. She seems to have no concept of time. He claims she is on way too much medicine, and criticizes the young doctor who cares for her. She is upset with him for his arrogance - he's after all not a doctor. He is a psychologist, though, which serves as his justification. He takes her off her medication and takes her back home. He puts her through therapy sessions. The conversations are eerie due to there uncomfortable personal nature, and He's detached acceptance of her criticisms.
She has anxieties and constant fears. She distracts herself away from conversation of them by turning to sex. It becomes ever more aggressive and almost violent. Eventually their sessions turn to her fear of Eden, the location of their remote cabin in the woods. He devises a new method. Go to Eden. On the way their he probes her fears by having her do a walkthrough to the cabin in her mind. VonTrier shoots the sequence in super slowmotion. Images are foggy, dreamlike, almost like paintings - if not for the barely moving figure of She in the images. Then, they arrive. As they drive into the forest, the road appears to simply vanish, tunneling into the woods themselves.
From here on in the movie descends into pits of chaos and madness. As they hike through the woods, She claims the ground is burning her feet. Her foot does appear burnt, but it goes without recognition by He, as if he doesn't see it. When they arrive, acornsfall constantly on the roof, banging and clanging all night long. Animals He comes across seem to have strange mutilations. One deer has what appears to be a half birthed doe - dead - sticking out of it as it runs off.
The second segment is Pain, subtitled Chaos Reigns. In this segment, they've finally reached the cabin.They continue their therapy sessions and experiments, as He begins having strange dreams. The mood continues to descend into menace. The nature surrounding them, though aesthectically beautiful, becomes evermore hostile. He awakes in the morning, his hand outside the window covered in strange ticks.
Next is Despair, subtitled Gynocide. He discovers She's thesis. She began writing it at the cabin but stopped out of fear. All the names of the chapters of the film are listed: Grief, Pain, Despair and the Three Beggars. Her intent was to critique the texts she is studying, which claim the evil of women based on the notion that their bodies are controlled by nature. Nature is Satan's church. She appears now to agree with them.
It is the film's final act that is no doubt causing the majority of controversy. Menace descends into disturbing violence. Genitals smashed and mutilated, holes drilled through legs, and so on. And it is brutal. VonTrier pulls no punches. The actions are so brutal, so disturbed that it took me days just to get over the physical pain of the acts before i could contemplate the purpose of the acts. A number of reviewers have put forth suggestions of simple misogyny, but that's playing it too simple. Instead, as a few have posited, He and She have given into an alternate world.
In order to understand this, one must take into account VonTrier and his spiritual beliefs. This is not the world of God, but of Satan (Nature is Satan's church). They have succumbed to their sins - He pride, She despair. These are tools of Satan. Pride has made He believe that his knowledge is the only solution, perhaps even allowing Satan to shape He in his own image. Despair has allowed Satan to pull She into evil. The prologue evokes memories of Jesus Christ standing on the hill, his followers coming to him for his powers of good, or to hear him speak. But in Antichrist the people are faceless, naked, and deformed. They crawl not toward the light of Heaven but toward the death and doom of Hell and the tools of Satan.
This is my opinion of the film, and what it represents: the defeat of Good by Evil, God by Satan - not in an all out war, but in a small battle. Just one of many between good and evil. If you're looking at it this way, life is at its core a series of battles in the war between good and evil. That's what I think VonTrier is attempting to showcase, but this time showing a win by Satan. Then again i could be way off.
Whatever the case, art should stir discussions. There is and can be no general consensus on art: good art should be interpretable in many different ways. It is a personal experience and means different things to different people. This is not to say that art must be difficult or abstract at all, just as one cannot say that because something is accessible, or - dare I say - even mainstream that it cannot be genuine art. What one discerns is art, another discerns is trash. I do not think Antichrist is trash. I think it is art. And good art too. Now, let the cavalcade of debate begin.

One of the most of important of the French New Wave, 'The 400 Blows' is an incredibly touching, semi autobiographical portrait of the deviant, yet very misunderstood adolesent Antoine Doinel (Jean-Pierre Leaud). The film was Truffaut's major breakthrough after moving to filmmaking from film critique in the now famous Cahiers du Cinema. Leaud's performance is perhaps just as important as Truffaut's direction, it is sincere and heartfelt, and we believe that he is Doinel, as if he has been him his entire life (thus it is no suprise that Truffaut continued the series of Doinel with Leaud in the lead over the years as he grew older). The 400 Blows is one of the most influential, charming, and heartfelt films to come out of the French New Wave.