2 out of 5

Director: Michael Haneke

Ah, Mr. Haneke, how you so love to disappoint. …White Ribbon succeeds or fails depending on how you define “enjoyment” of films. I found the movie incredibly watchable, first off. The bits and pieces are interesting, if a bit wandering. The paced style of speaking and stark black-and-whiteness reminded me of some of Dryer’s films – specifically Ordet – though I have no idea if this was intentional. As to the black and whiteness: I won’t question Haneke’s skills behind the camera. A lot of period films don’t convince me – you can spend tons of money on lavish props or study study to get your set-pieces right, but I’m generally left with the feeling that I’m watching modern players acting like it’s yesterday. With this film, from beginning to end, I absolutely felt like I was watching a documentary. Everything came across as very real – both character and settings – and though the camera is mostly static, the shots are chosen amazingly well. Now, as with Cache, the film is not really what it’s about (there’s no resolution), so your tolerance and patience with that will depend. Admittedly, though, White Ribbon lacks the gritty edge of Cache, until about 2/3rds of the way through when Haneke starts putting out some other cards. Ultimately, though, what brings this rating down for me is that… I find Haneke’s films fascinating for execution, but not particularly good. It is an accomplishment that I normally go home and read what others are saying about his movies, but it is an ultimate failure that I’m never too surprised by what I read – it’s generally what I thought it was. So is that good or bad? Like his movies (by my opinion), it’s neither. It is what it is.