Talk:The White Ribbon

Cast list

I'm curious . . . is it common to include such a lengthy cast list when most of the actors are unknown and their roles aren't identified? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I try not to add lengthy cast lists, if I can. I agree this one is a little too long. I see no problem in trimming it down to cast members with defined roles. I'm sure several of the actors on the list will have articles on other Wikis too, esp. the German one. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"It is generally discouraged to use a raw list of actors and characters like we are doing, but I'm not sure about the best solution. One alternative is if we could try to mention all notable characters somewhere in the plot, and add the actor in a parenthesis so that a cast section becomes redundant. Another is to turn the cast section into something between prose and a list, perhaps grouping by household, with like one entry for the pastor's family, one for Eva's family, and so on. What do you think?" Smetanahue (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on cast lists. Actor names in the plot summary tend to bring in elements that are not about the story itself, so for that reason I prefer a cast list. Smetanahue's suggestion of a little organization by household or family sounds like a very nice touch. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Children's choir" ?

In the present wikipedia page it says something about a children's choir, however I can't remember any mention of that in the movie... Can someone clarify? Are there two versions of the movie? I would say, it's a movie about mysterious crimes in a northern German village, and as the plot progresses one learns that children may have something to do with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.153 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The choir is actually mentioned several times in the film. It is being rehearsed by the schoolteacher. Rudi demonstrates his prowess as a singer at one point, and the teacher apologises to the Baroness for his slow progress at rehearsals during the harvest festival.Sjwells53 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

accoucheuse

Hebamme is not a name but the german name for the job "accoucheuse".--95.223.248.105 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A midwife, in other words. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mysteries"

The killing of the parakeet isn't a mystery - we more or less see Klara do it, don't we? We see her holding the scissors up to the bird, and then we see the bird dead with the scissors in it. It's never referred to as a mystery, and, unlike the other incidents, it's clear what she did and why. john k (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's pretty clear she did it, though not clear to me why. 71.236.173.98 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Baron

"The baron, who is the lord of the manor, does as he pleases and rides roughshod over his workers." says the plot summary. This sentence is not from something in the film. What we know of the baron is that he's rich, he employs many immigrant workers, and his wife is unhappy in their marriage. Of course he's unhappy when his son disappears and he overreacts in firing the twins' nanny. That doesn't exactly = "rides roughshod over his workers." He defends the integrity of the farmer who loses his wife. He underwrites a big holiday festival. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits Ring Cinema. The business about 'riding roughshod' was my translation from de/Wiki around the middle of December; I see that this has since been changed. I hope that you will do another edit to the plot synopsis. Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Impure Touching

"When his son confesses to impure touching, the pastor has the boy’s hands tied to the bed frame." I would suggest that "impure touching" be put in quotes as nobody these days refers to masturbation thus. In fact the actual phrase used in the film was "impurely stimulating the sacred tissues". (Chris London 1955 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)).

'Impure touching' is not a quotation from the film. You are suggesting scare quotes, essentially, which would be confusing in this context. The effort as written is to catch the sense and style that the film employed. 'Impure touching' might feel archaic or formal, but the film is set a century ago and is not in English. I don't think it's unclear as a summary. Perhaps you will agree that in the final analysis it's not necessary to use a current term for the translation and abbreviation of a period phrase. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris London. The plot section is not a substitute for watching the actual movie, it should merely retell the story in a neutral way. The main use I can see is so that people who have seen the film but didn't keep up with all events, or have forgotten important parts, can get it clarified. Either a quote or a change back to "masturbation" would be a good idea.

While we're at it, by the way, I have to thank you Ring Cinema for all your recent contributions. We need more people who are willing to work on this article so it can reach a higher class on the quality scale. One thing I'm unsure about however is the cast section, and I would be happy to hear your or somebody else's view on it. It is generally discouraged to use a raw list of actors and characters like we are doing, but I'm not sure about the best solution. One alternative is if we could try to mention all notable characters somewhere in the plot, and add the actor in a parenthesis so that a cast section becomes redundant. Another is to turn the cast section into something between prose and a list, perhaps grouping by household, with like one entry for the pastor's family, one for Eva's family, and so on. What do you think? Smetanahue (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you're not thinking clearly on this point. Perhaps you could explain what the scare quotes are supposed to indicate to the reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to say that because I carefully chose the correct phrase that I'm not using a neutral term. I'm simply retelling what's in the movie, nothing more or less. Choosing a different term would put an interpretation that doesn't appear in the film. Don't be confused because I've done a thoughtful job. Thanks a lot for your concern. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ring Cinema has made some good points - my original suggestion of putting "impure touching" in quotes would perhaps be confusing. I think the solution would be to use the exact phrase used by the pastor - which was something along the lines of "improperly stimulating the sacred tissues" though I cannot be certain. Possibly somebody could supply the exact phrase?Chris London 1955 (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a good objection to the current phrase. As Chris originally noted (in quotes), the pastor says something about impurity, and he's definitely talking about touching. I think we're in pretty good shape as is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase could be 'profane touching'...? Personally I prefer impure but maybe others disagree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If we don't have the exact phrase used by the pastor, "impure touching" is as good as anything else - certainly better than "profane touching". My ideal would be the original phrase, in quotes, to show that it is a direct quote from the movie. But unless this comes to light, let's stay with what we've got. Chris London 1955 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't favor using a direct quotation/translation. It would give it undue weight. Why "profane"? Because it's the antonym of "sacred," which I believe was the point of the pastor's words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris London 1955 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Having now had the opportunity to see the film on DVD, it turns out that the pastor didn't use a simple phrase as I thought. "Impure touching" sums up the gist of what he forces Martin to confess to - can I just belately add my appreciation of Ring Cinema's efforts here? The White Ribbon is an important movie, warranting a high quality article. DVD contains some additional material including an interview with Haneke, who stresses that the film is not just about Germany but the dangers of preaching an absolute ideal to young people, which he feels is the root of any form of terrorism.

Actually, the child doesn't confess to masturbation but is confused into an admission of some sort of guilt by his father's domineering and circumlocution.Sjwells53 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Marriage to Eva?

One question I'm unclear on: does the film establish if the narrator finally marries Eva? It seems to remain silent but I might have missed it. Thanks anyone who has a firm idea. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's left open - hinted at, like other events in the movie Chris London 1955 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Farmer's wife and husband

"The farmer's wife dies at the sawmill when rotten floorboards give way; her grieving husband later hangs himself." Does he? I don't recall seeing that he does hang himself? Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, his son finds him hung in a shed. Later a sequence with a coffin drawn on a wagon accompanied by people in black clothes is shown. It is however not explicitly said that he hung himself. ~ HannesP (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like everyone acts like it's suicide and that's how we know. Any dispute with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Im not really sure about that, but it seems to me that they carry the coffin out of the village. Maybe the cemetery is just little outside, but this scene seems to me, that they dont bury him at the official cemetery because hes a suicide. (sorry for language mistakes, Im German) --93.130.98.4 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Award succession box

I just undid Lugnuts' undoing of my edit (reverting to my original edit), but I accidentally hit enter before I had filled in the edit summary field properly. What I wanted to write was that I think that the information that I added in my edit was relevant an not redundant, as Lugnuts' edit summary suggested. Please motivate further why you reverted my edit. ~ HannesP (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

These succession boxes are generally deprecated and aren't used any more, esp. as their is a navigation box doing exactly the same thing. I'll try to find the discussions about this. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. That seems reasonable, considering that they contain the same information as the navboxes, only presented in a clumsier way. The reason that I didn't get you at first is that you didn't touch the other succession boxes, so I thought my edit in specific was redundant, rather than succession boxes in general :) ~ HannesP (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Yes, if there aren't other navigation boxes for awards, I don't get rid of them, as often articles don't mention those awards elsewhere (this one being a fairly known film doesn't have that problem). Hopefully all the major award succession boxes will have navigation boxes one day. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay! I'll go ahead and remove both the succession box that I added and the one for the European Film Award prize (as both have navigation boxes). Thanks for clarifying. ~ HannesP (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I do however think that presenting a simple list of the awards that it has won isn't a bad idea (in the Awards section), alongside with the current text. HannesP (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just created a navbox for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film (phew). Please let me know if you think it's okay (I've never created a navbox before :)) ~ HannesP (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me - excellent work and thanks for doing that! Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Italian?

I'm not clear why this is a French or Italian film. Director is Austrian, producer, location and language are German. Is there simply some French / Italian money involved? Personally, I don't think that is enough to qualify, euros being fungible. A Spielberg directed film financed by a Russian company is just an American movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the involvement of France and Italy is mentioned in the production section. But you're right that it probably isn't significant enough to be in the infobox. I'll remove them and do some other clean-up while I'm at it. Smetanahue (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox film template says we should include all films that contributed to the production. I've found sources here that indicate France and Italy: here, here, and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you also think the studio field (which I had planned to add but forgot, will do it now) should include the French and Italian co-producers in this case? From what I've researched the production was led by an Austrian company, and 50% of the budget was paid by a German company, and most of the rest of the money came from German and Austrian culture funds. The French and Italian involvement was too minor to mentioned in the studio field, and I don't think the country field should reflect anything other than that. Special cases definitely exist, but the priority here should be consistency within the infobox. Smetanahue (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Contributed" is up for interpretation. We don't include the nationalities of all the actors, cinematographer, gaffer, production designer, screenwriter!, etc., all of whom contribute more than a few euros. 2. The infobox template does not reflect common sense. Every Fellini movie is Italian, every Bergman movie is Swedish, every Ray movie is Indian, every Spielberg movie is American; why the excessive deference paid to the source of the money? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Contributed is production companies based on their country of origin. I'd take a look at the task forces: for example France states that "French cinema may include not only domestic films, but also films made by French filmmakers outside of the country, films produced or co-produced by French companies, and foreign films shooting within France.". We do not include these in the infobox, but these are for task-forces. If you feel this is incorrect, I'd suggest bringing it up with WP:FILM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't exactly agree with you and let me explain why. To make it as simple as possible, let me ask you this: if a Korean invested in a vineyard in Champagne, does that make the champagne Korean? Because that's the standard implied here. And I understand you're respecting the guidelines, which is great, but guidelines are not rules, they're just guides and we're free to use our judgment.

Then, there is a distinction that needs to be made between desert and recognition; if the goal is to cast the net widely and acknowledge all the countries that contributed, sure, the French standard you mention is even a little too narrow. But not every country that puts a euro into the budget deserves the same recognition. Personally, I'm comfortable with making distinctions. As I've mentioned, no one in their right mind would say that Fellini could ever make a Korean movie even if he shot it in Korea with a Korean production company; his films are Italian and it's obvious. If he goes to Korea he's shooting locations or something.

We're not making the article more useful or excellent by going through mental gymnastics to follow a bogus standard. The White Ribbon is every bit as Italian as schnitzel made from Italian noodles. It's not Italian and everyone knows it. So why would we say something else? The director is Austrian, the producer is too, it's shot in German and Germany and there is nothing Italian about it no matter where the money came from. If an Italian invests in Irish whiskey, does that make Jameson's Italian? Obviously no one believes that or would think it's better to think that way. Isn't that just falsification? Am I off base? I appreciate your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put a note on the film projet's talk page. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We aren't talking about Champagne so that's different. As I have shown in the links above it's very normal to list film's countries this way. Allmovie, Variety, and Screen International do this and it's a very standard procedure. I can't say the same for champagne as I'm not an expert, but for now we are just comparing apples and oranges. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as apples and oranges so perhaps you could cash that out. I see it as a fairly obvious argument by analogy with simple induction. However, if a Florida orange grower invested in Washington State apples, they would not instantly become Florida apples and I assume we are in agreement on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the other publications use the same practice. In our context, that's probably definitive, even if it is a little nuts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It does get a little over the top, but that's how film projects are organized by our standards and by major film sources. Some of them do get crazy, such as the Antichrist article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Template:Infobox film says: "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies." In this case the main production companies were Austrian and German. The French and Italian companies were only minor co-producers. A complete country list would by the way have to include every member of the Council of Europe, since the film received money from Eurimages. Smetanahue (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Council of Europe is not a country so it would not be included. No other source suggests other countries either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Council of Europe is an organization run by a whole lot of countries. That the film received money from Eurimages, which is financed through the Council of Europe, is already sourced in the article so you don't need any additional source for that. What I mean is that we must not include every country which was involved somehow in the production, but make a fair selection of the most prominent. This is also what the infobox guidelines encourage.

To include Les Films Du Losange and Lucky Red (the French and Italian co-producers) in the infobox' studio field would just feel weird, which is a good indicator that they don't belong in the country field either. Smetanahue (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Feel weird" is not the indicator. I've provided more than enough citations to note the important countries involved. We can not pick and choose which countries to include based on gut feelings. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you consider Les Films Du Losange and Lucky Red as main production companies then? To me it's obvious that the main production companies were Wega Film (led the production) and X Filme (the main financier). Smetanahue (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have a dollar value on what they contributed or more specifications, it's not up to us to decide what countries do not belong or what how little or largely they contributed. I've provided my sources and i'm sticking with them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wega Film's role of leading the production is sourced in the article's production section. One of X Filme's producers says in this interview that they financed more than half of the budget ("über die Hälfte des Budgets"): [1]. I'm the one who originally wrote most of the production section, and I've seen nothing that supports that the French and Italian companies were anything but minor contributors. Smetanahue (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But they still contributed and other countries took notice. If you ignore this it looks like they did not do anything at all. Not including at them in the infobox would make the article contradict itself. These companies must have done something important enough to be mentioned by the sources above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If the article is wrong, let's fix it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether they contributed at all, I definitely don't think their mention in the production section should be removed. But to fill the infobox with every country which contributed to a production, no matter how small the contribution was, is to go against the current guidelines, which explicitly say that only the countries of the main production companies should be included. None of the sources you have provided refers to the French or Italian companies as main production companies. Smetanahue (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is to vague to suggest that, what constitutes a main and a non-main one? . If their contribution was really that small, it wouldn't be included in the articles I listed. Here's another here. This is a normal procedure to list countries this way, and it's been done several times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Italian2

Many good thoughts. The elevation of investment source to the sine qua non of film nationality is probably misguided although I completely appreciate the reasons for the arguments offered. (If an American company organized in Belize for tax reasons and invested in a film by George Lucas, would it really be correct to attribute the film to Belize cinema?) I think that "feels weird" is actually a good standard. That's how we detect unreasonable or specious reasoning on the first approximation. Then we examine why it feels weird, we bring in the smart stuff and cash it out. That's normal epistemology and we shouldn't brush it off easily. Thanks for all the thoughts, which are excellent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem but bringing up this logic doesn't really talk about this article. If you are really concerned about this, I'd bring it up at infobox film talk page or on WP:FILM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, you brushed off Smetanhue's point by saying "feels weird" was the wrong standard. If you agree with me that it's a good standard, then you either concede his point or give another answer. His point was that it shouldn't feel weird, so if we agree it feels weird and agree that's a good standard, then we should find a solution that doesn't feel weird. And I think we should indeed use our common sense to avoid falsification in the service of an inflexible rule that actually is just a guideline. The White Ribbon is not an Italian film, no matter what the infobox says. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but sources I've mentioned above beg to differ. I'd rather go by guidelines than "feelings" about things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So now you're rejecting the standard again? It can't be good in theory and bad in practice; it's the same standard. We pay attention to reasoning that smells fishy because that's how we detect bad reasoning. Your reasoning smells fishy but you ask us to both ignore the smell and agree that fishy smells are bad. I'm not sure I can do that. And again I thank you for your thoughts and patience. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What standard? You are really getting off topic and sounding like a troll. All I can do is provide you with more professional sources that list the countries involved. If we ignore them, it's incorrect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not off topic. I'm patiently pointing out your suspect statements. We don't list every country involved in any small way, as has been pointed out before. The White Ribbon is not an Italian film. Calling it an Italian film doesn't make it so. The sources you list are apparently listing the countries of any company that invested any amount. That is one way to do it, but it's not our way or the right way. That's what we're discussing here. Obviously you don't have the patience for it at the moment. No problem. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you suggest it not being "our way" of doing it? The infobox suggests to list all companies involve as do other sources. You have only brought in opinions with no rules suggesting otherwise. Also, showing the links I brought in with their appropriate countries suggest it's quite normal and if anything, looking at those and than looking at what I've brought to the table "doesn't feel right". Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to add my opinion here. First of all, the "country" field in the infobox does not denote the "nationality" of the film, it just states the countries that are involved in the production. As far as I can tell four production companies were involved in the production of this film: X-Filme Creative Pool (German); Lucky Red (Italian); Les Films du Losange (France); WEGA-Film (Austria). This can be verified here and here. It is the norm on Wikipedia to list all the production companies, just as the sources provided have done, and I'm not aware of articles omitting companies because they were deemed peripheral. However, the 'country' field does carry the caveat that only the main production countries need to be listed. The question is how to define "main" in this context. I would say a good test for whether a company is a "main producer" is if the company name appears on the official poster. If one production company appears on the poster but another doesn't, then there is a strong argument for the view it isn't a main producer. In the absence of such a demonstration, all the countries should really be listed in accordance with WP:NPOV. If there is a still disagreement, then my suggestion is to include all the countries in the interim to ensure NPOV isn't violated, and ask at the film project for an RfC. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the poster actually does include Les Films du Losange and Lucky Red: [2] (large resolution). I guess I'll have to apologize. Smetanahue (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty, for your contribution. Seems like there is a misnomer in the infobox, since the implication is that "Countries" refers to the film's nationality. Perhaps it would be better practice to include each company's country paranthetically after their name in the production company field. Any objection to that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The country field isn't very well thought out because it's not clear what should go in there, and even if you look up the infobox rules to find out it's still misleading to readers. I've brought the issue up several times with the Wiki Film project but it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Personally I would reserve the country field just for the copyright country. As for listing the countries with the companies, it would make it clearer and more explicit, but I guess that's a format change so would need to be discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_film. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Worse than the confusion about what goes there is the confusion about what it means. I suppose the drafters of the guide think it's just one of those things that you should know, but that's a pretty egocentric view. The readers don't know the guidelines, so it's hopeless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries does not go by nationality. But what does that mean? Where the film maker was from? Where it was filmed? We can only go by what we are sourced upon. This issue you are discussing seems bigger than just this film. If you are still concerned, I'd bring it up on WP:FILM or at the film infobox. Unless it's been brought up already. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks again for your contribution. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for a review of the "country" field at Template_talk:Infobox_film#The_.22Country.22_field. These disputes crop up all the time simply because the criteria for listing countries is unclear. It might be useful if everyone here contributes their opinion at the discussion and hopefully sorted out. The discussion on here is hardly unique and it's time for it to properly addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this film

Two questions: So are the kids responsible for all the crimes in the movie? What does this have to do with WWI?

This article suggests the meaning is pretty straightforward and has something to do with terrorism and fascism. But for me the film left a lot of loose threads and/or tries to tie them together in a very lazy way.

So the kids mutilated Karli? I could buy this if his dad, the doctor, wasn't a sick pedophile to begin with. How do we know he didn't do it? I remember the scene where Eva doesn't want to go into the forest with the teacher - does that mean she knew that would happen? And there is the girl who saw it in her dreams. But it all seems so ambiguous to me. We don't even know which or how many children are involved. How are we to draw a moral from that?

I actually had the impression that other children in the movie were sexually abused besides the doctor's daughter. Why is the steward's son disappointed that the baby is a boy? Why does the Pastor's daughter freak out and kill his bird? There is also a strange scene where one of the father's sons lifts the veil on his dead mother, then notices a shadowy figure in the corner. Someone says, "Karli?" and he goes over to the shadowy figure - and if you look closely - it looks like the figure is masturbating. The problem is, with all these adult monsters in the film, how do we know the kids are involved in these crimes?

So there are all these 'mysteries' which to me are never really resolved. That to me is a very lazy ending and impossible to draw moral from - other than there is *some* connection between child abuse, patriarchy, feudalism, Protestantism, terrorism, fascism and WW1. But - please - what is that connection?

Unless someone can clarify this, I would like to add more critical remarks to the critical response section. For example, Mike Ward wrote "The White Ribbon is a captivating minimalist horror for about 100 minutes, but by the time the movie tries force its way into the historical context of WWI, it feels like bad history textbook fan fiction." And Matt Brunson wrote, "Haneke's implicit suggestion that the actions of this village reflect the ideologies that would propel the country through two world wars has apparently struck many as brilliant but seems merely facile to me."

Great performances and cinematography, but the plot resolution and moral of the story were lost on me.71.236.173.98 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that it's not really relevant exactly who did it. It's probably the kids, but the actual reason it happened was all the tension and dogmatic moralism and lack of social capital in Germany around the time, and those conditions are likely to result in terrorist movements no matter where and when they appear. But I completely agree that a well-sourced themes section and English-language reviews in the reception section would be very welcome. Go ahead and add whatever you've got. Smetanahue (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your points, but the connection between child molestation and WWI is still too vaguely defined for me. It seems like Haneke is saying if you sexually abuse children, they will become violent. That is a banal and gratuitous observation. I can see more clearly the connections between Protestant disciplinariasm and the aristocracy with WWI (i.e. Prussian militarism). But I don't really see what child molestation is supposed to represent. Also the link between Protestant asceticism and fascism/terrorism seems overdone. Wasn't Austro-Hungary a Catholic empire? How does this critique apply to Serbian nationalism? I think in the early 1900s, you would find a lot of Puritan, disciplinarian societies that had little to do with fascism/terrorism. Anyway, I added some quotes in the critical response section to balance it out a bit more and I would totally support a "Themes" or "Interpretations" section, since the movie is clearly more ambiguous than this article suggests.71.236.173.98 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Haneke doesn't provide an easy answer, there is no easy answer. That means that he's saying there is no easy answer. Perhaps you are saying that you don't understand the movie, but that doesn't give you a good position from which to judge it. You seem to associate "ambiguous" with "ineffective" and that is an error. "Too vaguely defined"? Do you want some kind of facile causality? Also, I don't see where the article suggests the movie is not ambiguous. In fact, it is clear that mysterious things happen and nothing definite is found out. I'm not sure if you want the film to be more obvious or more profound. I wouldn't endorse the view that it should be easy or simple. Cinema does not attain its highest expression in simple morals like a fairy tale. This film happens to announce itself as a children's story, and that is a rich irony rather than a promise of innocence, superficiality or naivete. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of laziness should be made before a mirror. The film is not a simple genre mystery or thriller from a preconceived mold but apparently something with deeper intents. The viewer does the thinking and finds the connections. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope that my analysis and attempts to solicit interpretations for this film prove that I myself am not being lazy. I am just challenging whether the "connections" and "deeper intents" hypothesized in this film actually sustain scrutiny. I think it is irresponsible to exploit the theme of child molestation without some point or message that is discernible to the audience. The film vaguely posits some causes or sociological background to WWI, and I am asking whether these sustain scrutiny. I'm not a historian, so it is possible that I'm missing something, in which case I'm eager to be enlightened. Unfortunately, I also read the German WP version and found little enlightenment there. So until someone corrects me, I feel compelled to say this Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Also I can understand now if the film is meant to be ambiguous, but that is not the impression I originally got from the WP article. So I added some quotes to the critical reception section to better reflect this. 71.236.173.98 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your connection between "ambiguous" and "not effective" is an error. Ambiguity is not a criticism. Your real problem with the movie seems to be that there's not an easy answer provided, but there's not an easy answer and that's what the film says. Apparently you thought that since Haneke tells us briefly what the film is about, he would then provide a film that can be summarized in a couple sentences. He's up to something more sophisticated than that. If you expect a simple explanation for terrorism or WWI, you will only hear them from simple-minded people. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If there were a simple way of expressing Haneke's point in a few sentences, he would have been well-advised to write an article. As it was, he made a film. The least we can expect of a film maker is that they have something to say that requires a film to say it. As in real life, lots of connections are left unexplored, some plot lines lead nowhere, and we don't really have a simple answer as to what happened and how it may be connected with post-war events. We gather is that the oppressive and claustrophobic life they lead has consequences, but we don't know what they are. It isn't as simple as the children being proto-brownshirts or even KPD members. The whole thing is told by a participant, the teacher, with no omniscient narrator. It isn't even just ambiguous, but multi-stranded. I'll be thinking about what I saw and heard in the film for years to come, which makes the couple of hours I invested in watching it a real bargain. The real problem though, is that the plot is extremely hard to summarise, especially as the connection between what is seen and what is happening is never simple, and actions are seldom related to intentions in a clear and linear way. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

R rating

I noticed the U.S. DVD is rated R and I wondered if anyone else thought this was silly. Of course, the film deals with sexual abuse, but it's never very explicit about it. The violence is also relatively mild. If anyone else can find sources on this, might be interesting to look into (speaking of Puritanism). Also I'd be curious if there are any differences between the U.S. and European versions.71.236.173.98 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

cross linguistic linking

Is there a problem linking to an actor's Deutsch page when there's not an English page? Seems like a good way to expand the resources available to our readers, especially since pages can be translated on the spot. Lugnuts, what is your objection, please? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Include wikilinks where there are none ...

• Gabriela Maria Schmeide as Emma, his wife
• Janina Fautz as Erna, their daughter

99.181.144.107 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)