In a clammy scene from Haneke's The White Ribbon (2009)...
which starts off with a gravitating statement from Klara...
...and Martin, with eyes heavy as a bomb...
...I realize how Haneke's film style has drastically changed.
I came into a conclusion...This is Haneke's compositional language at its best!
And perhaps, this is why I love The White Ribbon...
...not necessarily that it is a 'Haneke'...
...but because Haneke developed a style of fullness...
...of high maturity and seriousness...
...that it demands analysis.Call it a type of restraint filmmaking, the way Ozu regulates his compositions (see Bordwell's book on Ozu's style), Haneke's version of composition is modestly poised in a sense that his frames not only adorned mostly by a focused image but also perplexed by a deep-focused mise-en-scene at the last shot.
A Uncommon Composition:
Violation of the 180 degree Rule
The best shot-by-shot exemplification of Haneke's compositional style is shown in the series of screen shots above arranged chronologically. The scene depicted above shows Klara and the rest of children being scolded by their father, the local pastor of their village, on their certain disappearance that afternoon when the doctor was tripped over. It was a strong scene composing of frontal shots on the face of each character.
At first we do not seem to know where they are, since the cut from the previous scene and the first frame was sharp. Establishing shots are not abound. We see an obvious difference in the background of the first two shots compared to the succeeding shots where the characters are obviously seated hinted by the blurred images of their seats. The camera is steady, focused and intense.
It almost pierces into the character like a knife. It has this leveling that conjures magnanimity of character, mysterious and guilt-stricken, perhaps this is what Haneke is trying to show us. It is a complex series of close-up shots functioning as a silent device to air the restraint voices of the characters, for in this scene, we only hear the father, the pastor in a dominant tone.
At one point, Haneke could have shown the whole scene in a series of establishing shot carefully situating the scene, with a few knock on a focused image. But he showed us this, a claustrophobic kind of shot, sharply centered and so direct it addresses the politics of the film.
At a perceptual level, this series of shots are adorned by a clear cinematography coupled with high contrast lighting to distinguished foreground from the background which inadvertently adds the austere and icy cold intensity of the image.
In this shot, the camera initially functions as an uncommon shot-reverse shot take between Martin (or Klara) and the pastor. Instead of cutting within the 180-rule, as dictated by continuity editing, the conversation between Martin and his father, Haneke poised the camera more than 180 degrees which, at first, appeared disorienting due the lack of establishing shots following the first violation.
180 degree rule
Many, of course, could find correlations with this style of cutting in film history which is very prominent in the works of Ozu. But Haneke has made one big modification: the removal of establishing shots, and this simple removal of the a establishing shot is part of the stylistic aspect he wants to portray in this film. I call it the Gasp style. If Ozu is famous for his ellipsis, in The White Ribbon (2009) Haneke is famous for his gasps: a style that delays gratification, resolution and absolution. The narrative tracks stays in suspension until the end of film. Each acclimating conversations are cut sharply out of scene as well as the pursuit of its characters. We immerse into their world but is cut out immediately and
Ciao!
*****
A Uncommon Composition:
Violation of the 180 degree Rule
The best shot-by-shot exemplification of Haneke's compositional style is shown in the series of screen shots above arranged chronologically. The scene depicted above shows Klara and the rest of children being scolded by their father, the local pastor of their village, on their certain disappearance that afternoon when the doctor was tripped over. It was a strong scene composing of frontal shots on the face of each character.
At first we do not seem to know where they are, since the cut from the previous scene and the first frame was sharp. Establishing shots are not abound. We see an obvious difference in the background of the first two shots compared to the succeeding shots where the characters are obviously seated hinted by the blurred images of their seats. The camera is steady, focused and intense.
It almost pierces into the character like a knife. It has this leveling that conjures magnanimity of character, mysterious and guilt-stricken, perhaps this is what Haneke is trying to show us. It is a complex series of close-up shots functioning as a silent device to air the restraint voices of the characters, for in this scene, we only hear the father, the pastor in a dominant tone.
At one point, Haneke could have shown the whole scene in a series of establishing shot carefully situating the scene, with a few knock on a focused image. But he showed us this, a claustrophobic kind of shot, sharply centered and so direct it addresses the politics of the film.
At a perceptual level, this series of shots are adorned by a clear cinematography coupled with high contrast lighting to distinguished foreground from the background which inadvertently adds the austere and icy cold intensity of the image.
In this shot, the camera initially functions as an uncommon shot-reverse shot take between Martin (or Klara) and the pastor. Instead of cutting within the 180-rule, as dictated by continuity editing, the conversation between Martin and his father, Haneke poised the camera more than 180 degrees which, at first, appeared disorienting due the lack of establishing shots following the first violation.
180 degree ruleMany, of course, could find correlations with this style of cutting in film history which is very prominent in the works of Ozu. But Haneke has made one big modification: the removal of establishing shots, and this simple removal of the a establishing shot is part of the stylistic aspect he wants to portray in this film. I call it the Gasp style. If Ozu is famous for his ellipsis, in The White Ribbon (2009) Haneke is famous for his gasps: a style that delays gratification, resolution and absolution. The narrative tracks stays in suspension until the end of film. Each acclimating conversations are cut sharply out of scene as well as the pursuit of its characters. We immerse into their world but is cut out immediately and
Ciao!
*****
