The White Ribbon Review

I remember clearly the beginning teachings of my government class last semester. Our professor spoke of the age long issue of “order vs. freedom.” We explored various philosophies and political parties, ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism. Our teacher never sided with a single one, though he did greatly advise against the extremist philosophies and parties. “The White Ribbon” seems to be doing something similar. It gives no direct answer to the argument its making other than saying what it thinks shouldn’t be done.

“The White Ribbon” opens as a whodunit and closes in ambiguity. Such an approach may seem oxymoronic. However, it works to a certain extent. First presenting us with an accident with the local doctor (that seems more like a well planned and executed attempt at injuring him) and then working its way into more sinister events like the beating and blinding of a mentally retarded child “The White Ribbon” certainly has all the feel of a whodunit. It’s also urgently narrated by its central character, a school teacher. He is recalling events of his past as he is now an old man. He gives us dates and descriptions and recounting of facts and not much else. He narrates with detail and speaks of as many people and events as he can. The effect of this no doubt is a lateral spread of storylines. Things happen, people get hurt, some people get scared, some people feel guilty about some things, and we as an audience get closer to all the characters.

The film has several storylines that do intersect, however, they don’t all feel necessary to the point it’s attempting to convey. Take the perversion of the local doctor. He is secretive, cold, and utterly licentious old man. He takes advantage of a neighbor’s wife and then insults her and calls her “revolting” then terminating their affair and doesn’t even seem beyond sexually abusing his own daughter. However, all of this seems slightly irrelevant. It doesn’t eventually connect to the tragedies throughout the village and only establishes him as an independent monster with no real connection to the events at hand. Granted, most stories do in way convene because the tragedies are nucleus for the events surrounding them. However, there are ones like these that seem outright pointless.

The town in the film is yes, a very strict and very religious German town in the pre-WWI countryside. Its children all live under strict parents (most noticeable is the reverend who beats his children with the hope of instilling discipline) who create within them a fear of God and in turn force them into secrecy. Towards the end the children become one of the primary suspects and this is no doubt where the film could have drawn the most power; however it instead chooses to stop at this point. I find the best way to describe its end is anti-climactic. By the time we reach the conclusion, we as an audience are so eager for answers and motivations that when the film chooses to release us with its ambiguity we feel cheated and confused. Some may argue that “bad things just happen.” And yes, bad things do just happen, but a person doing bad things to other people doesn’t “just happen.” People have reasons for harming each other. Another answer that gets labeled onto this film is “an example of nascent fascism.” This is in a way true. However, by leaving us with no real answer at the end as to who committed the crimes the film in turn never shows the true result of the sort of lifestyle the town leads.

Immediately, what most viewers will notice about the film it that it’s filmed in black-and-white. This was a wise, wise choice by its director. The starkness of color further emphasizes the oppressive nature of the town and in scenes of suspense adds a certain quality that color can’t deliver. If ever it should be seen in color it would be wrong, this town seems too strict to allow for colors.