Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

December 20, 2009

The White Ribbon

Filed under: Fascism,Film — louisproyect @ 8:59 pm

Michael Haneke’s latest movie “The White Ribbon”, which opens this December at theaters everywhere, received my vote for best foreign film in 2009. Shot in black-and-white, it is the study of social relations in a German farming village on the eve of WWI. Nominally, a “whodunit” about a spate of incomprehensibly gratuitous violent crimes, it is much more of an attempt on Haneke’s part to understand the rise of fascism in Germany. Despite his claim that the movie is more generally about authoritarianism, it serves—at least for this viewer—as the artistic counterpart of Arno Mayer’s groundbreaking “The Persistence of the Old Regime”. For both Mayer and Haneke, the persistence of feudal relationships not only explains WWI, but the rise of fascism and WWII as well. Although Nazism is most associated with the motto Kinder, Küche, Kirche, “The White Ribbon” illustrates that these values had deep roots in German society. And Haneke’s main goal is to show their underlying perverse realities.

Unlike any film I have seen in years, “The White Ribbon” has the dimensions of a novel. The farming village is a kind of self-contained world in which each character’s path crosses with another, often fatally. The instruments of death ironically are very likely the children of the village’s Protestant pastor and their classmates in the local school. Early on the film, we seem them walking in a kind of procession down the main street. With their starched collars and corn-silk blond hair, they give the impression of angels. The more we see of them, however, the more we are reminded of “The Village of the Damned”.

The first crime in the movie is against the village doctor, who is spilled from his horse when it runs into a wire tied between two trees near his house. Immediately afterwards, we see two of the children emerge from the bushes.

However, this is not anything like “Village of the Damned”. Despite the fact that the police are eventually called from the outside to solve the crime spree, there is no final scene when a Lieutenant Colombo or Hercule Poirot reveals the killer. This is a function of Haneke’s determination to reveal the true crimes, which would never have been prosecuted in a German court for they ultimately uphold the values of Kinder, Küche, Kirche that the nation revered.

Three men symbolize the village’s warped ethos. At the top of the ladder is The Baron (Ulrich Tukur) who exemplifies Junker values. The villagers depend on him for their livelihood even when he is indifferent to their most basic needs. When the wife of one of his peasant hands falls to death in his sawmill (either from rotting floors or sabotage), her oldest son takes revenge in the best way known to him. During a harvest celebration paid for by the Baron, a kind of seasonal ritual going back perhaps a thousand years, he sneaks off to the Baron’s cabbage path and hacks it to pieces with his scythe. After he is caught, the Baron takes retribution by firing his father who then hangs himself in despair. In the feudal conditions of prewar Germany, labor markets in the countryside were as static as one of the levels in Dante’s Inferno.

Beneath the Baron is the Pastor (Burghart Klaussner) who is enough to turn anybody into an atheist. A rigidly authoritarian figure, especially to his own children, he decides to tie his teenaged son’s hands to the bed each night to prevent him from masturbating. The name of the movie originates from his decision to force his children to wear white ribbons as a reminder of their sins.

Finally, there is the Doctor (Rainer Bock, who played a Nazi general in “Inglourious Basterds”), who treats his long-time mistress, a midwife in his hire, as a piece of dirt. In one of the film’s most powerful scenes, he hurls invective at her in the course of explaining why he chooses not to screw her any longer. In the absence of the kind of physical violence that usually accompanies such a scene (face slaps, etc.), it reaches a far higher level of pain. His hatred for women is palpable.

Within this deranged universe, there is one voice of sanity. It is the local schoolteacher (Christian Friedel) who provides voice over commentary throughout the film. He symbolizes the urbane enlightenment values that get trampled underfoot in this rural dungeon held together by the iron bars of Protestantism and Privilege.

In an interview that appears in the Winter 2009 Cineaste, director Haneke explains his purpose:

The screenplay for the film has already existed for ten years. And before the script was completed I had already spent quite a few years on developing the idea. It is difficult to name a specific impulse or point of origin. There is a risk of naming things retroactively, of rationalizing the biography, when the development of such a project always tends to be affected by many coincidences. What made a big impression on me was a documentary about Eichmann and his trial in Israel. I was stunned by this man, who completely lacked any conscience, and by his attempt at justification: that he was a dutiful civil servant, that he merely did his job for the benefit of the state, and that he was actually uncomfortable with the fact that he had to do what he did. This mentality dumbfounded me. This fanaticism–that people don’t realize what kinds of things they cause.

Italian fascism was not exactly funny either, but the justifications of its criminals show that it articulated itself in very different ways. In Germany, it was the absolute belief in the “right thing”–the National Socialist ideology of the “Volk”–as well as a certain ideology of efficiency, which already has a lot to do with Protestantism, particularly with Lutheranism. There is, of course, also the Protestantism of Thomas Münzer, which was different, closer to communism. Lutheran Protestantism has always very much identified itself with authority.

While Haneke clearly intended the schoolteacher to be the character audiences would most clearly identify with, we are left with the conclusion that he was odd man out in pre-WWI Germany. This was a society soaked in feudal backwardness even as it was home to some of the most advanced industrial technologies in the world and a large socialist movement.

Turning to Arno Mayer’s “The Persistence of the Old Regime”, we discover why this was the case. It was rooted in the material reality of class relations. Germany, like most of Europe including even Britain, had never made a clean break with the powerful agrarian aristocracy.

Mayer makes the economics behind this quite clear. While Germany had the reputation, even deservedly so, as an industrial powerhouse, no more than 15 percent of the population was employed in the capital goods sector (steel, machine tools, etc.) Meanwhile, the landed aristocracy enjoyed enormous power through its vast holdings. A mere 3000 individuals owned some 15 percent of Germany’s arable land. Around the turn the turn of the century, more than 60 percent of the active work force was farm hands like those depicted in “The White Ribbon”.

Even as the new industrial bourgeoisie was in the ostensible position to assert itself, it was habitually appropriating the symbols and values of the feudal classes. Mayer writes:

Indeed, not only in Prussia but throughout Germany the nonagrarian economic elites and their retainers in the free professions never sought or found an autonomous social, cultural, and political ground from which to challenge the old society. The new men of exceptional wealth and talent fervently solicited or accepted the imperial and noble seal. In particular during the half-century preceding 1914, the “enriched bourgeois” systematically pressed their procurement of titles that legitimized “their connection with the dominant class and . . . adapted the new social forces to the old aristocratic environment,” thereby also “reinvigorating” the formerly hostile nobility with “new blood and new economic energy.” With equal effectiveness and greater frequency the new capitalists, after appropriating the aristocratic life-style, propelled their sons to become reserve officers, to join dueling fraternities, and to marry into the old society. This social climbing, including the ennobling marriages of daughters, never really waned. Nor was it dismissed as either ludicrous or eccentric. In fact, it may be said to have intensified with the atrophy of liberalism before 1914.

Interestingly enough, few reviewers or even Haneke himself makes the connection between “The White Ribbon” and American society today with its nonstop eruptions of small town idiocy, symbolized by Sarah Palin and the tea-baggers. Perhaps if the movie had been released during the Bush presidency, more commentators would have made the connection. Ironically, it has been Obama’s failure to take on these retrograde forces on that has emboldened him. Like the bourgeois elites of Arno Mayer’s fin de siècle Germany, Obama seems more intent on honoring the remnants of feudalism, including Saudi sheikhs and Japanese royalty. What Mayer refers to as the “atrophy of liberalism” is something of a chronic condition in the body politic.

In the final analysis, many of America’s problems stem from the “persistence of the old regime” here as well. When the U.S. ruling class had the opportunity to extirpate the landed gentry in the South, it lost its nerve during Reconstruction and allowed the Deep South to remain as a bastion against democratic rule and enlightenment values. The fight to preserve the flag of Dixie on State Capitol buildings throughout the South, and the failure of the Democrats to move forcefully on this issue, shows how persistent the old regime can be.

Ultimately the German working class gathered the social power and the self-confidence to challenge the old regime, but lost out to the fascists because of an inept leadership. While nobody can predict the pace of the class struggle in the U.S. and whether such a showdown will emerge in the near future, we can certainly understand and must act on the urgent need to develop a political leadership among working people that can confront our native would-be Adolph Hitlers.

17 Comments »

  1. Germany’s political trajectory I think was determined by the failure of the revolutionary uprisings of 1848. At that time it seemed that Germany might experience a bourgeois revolution not unlike the French Revolution but that was not to be. One reason for that was the vacillations of the German bourgeoisie. At the that time they professed to despise the noblemen and clerics who held political power in Germany’s multiplicity of kingdoms and dukedoms, but the emergence of the proletariat as a distinct political force during the 1848 uprisings frightened them so that they were all too willing to rush back into the arms of aristocrats. Later on it was a Prussian Junker, chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who would succeed in doing what the bourgeois liberals had failed to accomplish, namely the unification of Germany into a single state. Bismarck’s time in office saw the rising power of the workers movement and the SPD, which continued even when Bismarck sought to repress them. At any rate the growing power of the workers movement, I think, helped the aristocracy to keep its grip on political power since the aristocrats were all too willing to play the part of “honest brokers” between the bourgeoisie and the workers. Meanwhile, the Junkers and other aristocrats managed to create, in Prussia and the eastern states of Germany, a capitalistic agriculture that based on the use of wage laborers. This sort of agriculture proved quite profitable to the Junkers, and reinforced their political power, which they used to maintain protectionist policies which shielded them from foreign competitors (like the United States).

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — December 20, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

  2. ‘the aristocrats were all too willing to play the part of “honest brokers”’ – I’m had a rather different impression, that under Bismarck and the chancellor’s who followed, the parties of the Junkers were the most vehement advocates of the violent repression of the working class movement, while the left-liberals and the Catholic Center Party even collaborated with the Socil-Democrats on parliamentary and extra-parliamentary issues, the liberals because they they did support constitutional liberties if pressed far enough and the Center because they had a substantial work-class base in the Rheinland and Silesia.

    Comment by Chuckie K — December 21, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

  3. Haneke is a rare moviemaker for these pursy times. His last movie was based on the coverup of a pogrom of hundreds in the streets of Paris carried out by a Nazi functionary that happened in the Space age and yet was kept hidden in plain sight of world media:

    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/history/documents/2._gordon_world_reactions_to_the_1961_paris_pogrom.pdf

    Comment by Prem — December 22, 2009 @ 3:38 am

  4. The film sounds like utter bilge. Of all the prominent characters discussed only the school teacher would have worked for the Second Empire state – all schools had come under its control during the 19th century (Bismark famously finished the takeover during the 1870s by legally forcing Catholic run schools into the state system against the wishes of the Church and expelling the teacher-priests – half of whom ended up imprisoned). German thinkers (such as Fichte) had made it clear that the educational process had to be used by the state to indoctrinate children into working selflessly on its behalf. At the outbreak of war in August 1914, German university professors issued an astonishing joint declaration to the student body calling on them to rise up and fight for the nation.

    Left wingers (artists and scholars) typically present teachers and academics as progressive heroes however and so, like Haneke, distort historical truth.

    Your comparison of the Old South and the Confederacy with either the Second Empire or Nazi Germany is as risible as your proposition that the ‘de-Nazification’ of the South didn’t go far enough. The defeat Germany suffered in 1918 smashed the pre-war social order – the monarchy went for a start – and the Entente powers imposed a new constitution on the country. The rise of the Nazis took place in the context of the discrediting of the old order. If it had prevailed by winning the Great War no one would ever have heard of Hitler after he’d been demobbed by the German Army.

    Comment by Fellow Traveller — December 22, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

  5. Fellow traveler (there’s only one “l”, btw):

    The schoolteacher in “The White Ribbon” is not a “hero”. What made you infer that from my review? His only distinction is that he is repulsed by the village’s values.

    With respect to the Confederacy, my comparison was only with pre-WWI Germany. I did not have space in this review to expand on this, but this is what I have written previously:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/origins/brenner_thesis.htm
    Robert Brenner was often linked with Ernesto Laclau and Eugene Genovese in the 1980s. Although not quite forming a school, the three were widely regarded as upholding a classical tough-minded version of Marxism as opposed to the sort of wooly-headed populism that marched udner the banner of “dependency theory”. What they shared in common was a belief that the “mode of production” was key. If the system did not revolve around free labor and did not exhibit technological innovation driven by the lash of competition, then it did not deserve the name of capitalism. Social inequality was not sufficient.

    (Of the three, Brenner is the only one who still has an affiliation with Marxism. Laclau dumped Marxism for a version of post-Marxism called “Radical Democracy” that he co-developed with Chantal Mouffe. It serves as the ideological underpinning for much of the NGO-oriented experiments in “civil society” in Latin American today. Genovese’s evolution was more extreme. He started out as a “primacy of class” Marxist with hostility to black nationalism and feminism of the sort found in figures like Todd Gitlin, but eventually broke with the radical movement entirely. Today he is best described as a Roman Catholic southern agrarian reactionary. All sharing a background in 1960s Marxism, Genovese, David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh are among the most active and impassioned enemies of the left in the USA today.)

    With these connections in mind, it is interesting to turn to a paper written by Shearer Davis Bowman in the Oct. ’80 American Historical Review titled “Antebellum Planters and Vormarz Junkers in Comparative Perspective.” To set the context for his comparison, Bowman cites Genovese as arguing for “the genuine conservatism of the planters and proslavery thought by insisting upon the ‘precapitalist’ character of the Old South’s ‘paternalistic’ master-slave relation and the consequent ‘prebourgeois’ outlook of antebellum planters–’the closest thing to feudal lords imaginable in a nineteenth-century bourgeois republic.’”

    By this criterion, the Junkers were just as ‘prebourgeois.’ The term “Junker” is derived from the Middle High German “young nobleman” and designates both the noble and nonnoble owners of legally privileged estates (Rittengüter) in Prussia’s six eastern provinces, the breadbasket of modern Germany. Bowman identifies the similarities between the slave-states and these provinces in terms of class relations:

    “Although the legal and racial status of slaves on a plantation was certainly quite different from that of the laborers on a Junker estate (before as well as after the end of hereditary bondage in 1807), there were significant parallels between the productive purposes to which menials on plantations and Ritterguter were put and between the ways in which they were governed. Each work force was subject to the personal, nearly despotic, authority of the owner, and each worked to produce cash crops for foreign and domestic markets. While Southern planters were growing cotton or tobacco for shipment to Liverpool or New York, for example, East Elbian Junkers were producing wheat or wool for shipment to London or Berlin. At mid-century most plantations and Ritterguter also achieved a high, cost-efficient level of self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs as well. The functional and structural analogies between the plantation and the Rittergut are crucial to a comparative study of planters and Junkers, because these estates and their work forces constituted the foundations of their owners’ wealth, political influence, social status, and, in many instances, even their self-esteem.”

    While Brenner makes a strict linkage between capitalist farmers exploiting wage labor, Bowman points out that the Junkers were keen to make improvements to their land where labor was anything but free. Captain Carl von Wulffen-Pietzpuhl, writing in 1845, urged the creation of model farms so that his fellow Junkers could explore “the advancement of Prussia’s practical agriculture”. He declared that “the most rational” farmer managed to use “land and soil most effectively” and that the “most important aspect of rational agriculture” could be “reduced to the art of producing the cheapest dung.” (And this was over a century in advance of the introduction of electronic mailing lists.)

    The Junkers lord tended to have a view of himself as a kindly paterfamilias attending to the welfare of his faithful people, just like the American southern slave-owning class. While the slavocracy was able to impose its rule through outright ownership, the German oppressors had various labor codes–some extracted in the guise of “reforms” to keep his subjects in line. The proper way to regard both systems is as a mixture of economic control driven by the need for a capitalist gentry to support its life-style through the mass production of agricultural commodities, and political control based on forced labor. Reactionary authoritarian beliefs wed to militarism did not prevent these ruling class elites from extracting every bit of surplus from their properties through a combination of technological innovation and forced labor.

    Comment by louisproyect — December 22, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

  6. Thanks for the correction but I use the English spelling (as *clears throat* I’m British).

    As for why I took the teacher for a progressive hero, you wrote:

    Within this deranged universe, there is one voice of sanity. It is the local schoolteacher (Christian Friedel) who provides voice over commentary throughout the film. He symbolizes the urbane enlightenment values that get trampled underfoot in this rural dungeon held together by the iron bars of Protestantism and Privilege.

    and

    While Haneke clearly intended the schoolteacher to be the character audiences would most clearly identify with, we are left with the conclusion that he was odd man out in pre-WWI Germany. This was a society soaked in feudal backwardness

    which makes him the sole progressive figure (embodying enlightenment values opposed to feudal backwardness) and an alienated outsider (another very popular figure amongst artists predominating on the left) who gets the privileged position as narrator.

    Thank you for your observations on the similarities of the Second Empire and the Old South. The differences seem quite significant and problematic for a Marxist. The junkers dominated Prussia – the eastern part of Germany with a sizable Slav population. West and South Germany had land ownership of another order – fewer huge estates tended by semi-serfs and more of an independent farmer yeoman class. Also – the Prussians who had this feudal arrangement unified Germany into a single state and controlled it from Berlin – not something one would expect if holding to an orthodox Marxist line of development. It would be the equivalent, to use your analogy, of the Confederacy defeating the Union and not just holding on to its existing territory but taking over the other states and imposing its system on them.

    Comment by Fellow Traveller — December 22, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

  7. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be hero. A hero would have resisted the powers that be. All that the schoolteacher did was quit his job out of disgust and move back to the city where he became a tailor, the trade he learned from his father.

    Btw, my analysis of the Junkers was written before I had read Lenin on the development of capitalist agriculture in Russia. He has the same take.

    Comment by louisproyect — December 22, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

  8. Chuckie K objects to my characterization of the political role of the Junkers but he might want to keep in mind that back in the 1860s, the socialist leader Ferdinand Lassalle advocated a political strategy in which socialists would bloc with the Junkers against the bourgeois liberals, much to the consternation of Marx & Engels. In fact during the 1860s, Lassalle became pretty close to Bismarck, who accepted his advice on things like the utility of enacting universal male suffrage in Prussia. Yes, it is true that Bismarck’s government repressed the SPD and attempted to clamp down on the workers movement generally, but this was the also the same Bismarck who introduced social security legislation and was the founder of the modern welfare state. In other words they attempted to play a Bonapartist role in German politics.

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — December 24, 2009 @ 2:06 am

  9. Modern Germany has a birthrate per woman (non-Moslem) of 1.3—well under replacement. It has Lingerie ads featuring Burkhas.

    Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin support low taxes and self-reliance. They also don’t abort helpless infants. Liberals are scum.

    Comment by Occam's Tool — December 26, 2009 @ 4:46 am

  10. Your comments about the American South are ignorant and pathetic. You need to look no further than your own twisted views to see how murderous Nazis and Communists came into power. The specific differences might as well be widgets, because underneath it all is a denial of a loving God and replacement with self as God.

    Comment by southernman — December 31, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

  11. As an American of German descent, and as one who continues to be a student of history and psychology, I was delighted to come across this review and this film. Germany provides us with many lessons in the complexities of the human psyche and the ways in which behaviors and roles in the group (or town, or city, or nation, or plantation, etc.) interact and cause intense, sometimes fatal, mostly damaging consequences, especially in authoritarian or oppressive systems. The review continues to discuss the lessons of the film and allows us to go deeper into the faults inherent in pre WWI Germany, in the plantaions of the US and in all societies where there are the oppressed and the oppressors, the strict authoritarian abuser and the abused, the perpetrator and the victim, the sadist and the masochist. Further, other personality types exist in this mix of citizens. Some play enabler roles. Some rebel. Some cooperate enthusiatically with the authoritarians. Some reluctantly. This authoritarian-led society is an organism terribly complex yet visible clearly in its many parts through the microscope of this film, aided by this review. It is not an admirable way to structure society and it certainly causes damage to the children who become terribly flawed adults. I thank the reviewer.

    Comment by thomas — January 5, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

  12. [...] to this review for making the connection. [↩] Written by lukeprog in: Atheist Film & TV, Reviews [...]

    Pingback by Common Sense Atheism » Atheist Film: The White Ribbon — January 27, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

  13. Hello Louis Proyect. I thank you again for your recent post in response to my discussion of The White Ribbon, with Dan Jardine, at The House Next Door.

    I am responding exclusively to the review here and not to any of the commentary that has so far followed it, which I have not read. I speak not to the review’s treatment of The White Ribbon, with which I fundamentally concur, nor with the review’s analogous treatment of present US society and Nazi Germany, which I could only take along with a grain of salt. Precisely then, I am attending to the modernization theory underpinning the review.

    As I mentioned over at The House, I have not read Mayer so I am only able to address your presentation of the thesis that German fascism is to be explained in terms of the persistence of the old regime. I find your handling of the matter to be grounded in an historical materialist perspective that holds to a dichotomy between the feudal and the capitalist modes of production with corresponding polities just as clearly demarcated.

    Hence, as I understand it, the argument assumes that the development of liberalism is supposed to attend the emergence of capitalist relations of production; and what is but the inverted version of the same thesis, the “atrophy” of liberalism is necessarily a result of feudal vestiges adopted by the bourgeoisie, the very class that should be implementing liberalism.

    Now, I might object, in keeping with the tradition of E.P. Thompson, that this argument obliterates the agency of the working class, be it peasant or proletarian. But my intention here is instead to object to the assumption of liberalism necessarily attending capitalist relations of production in the first place. No doubt, there is something of a Whiggish strain in Marxism that might seem to lend credence to this notion. But this is a false lead in my estimation, based on an a priori development model rather than the history of actually existing capitalism.

    In my view, fascism needs to be explained less in terms of modernization theory and more in terms of the the systemic imperatives of capital accumulation grasped on a world scale. The necessity for uneven development exacted by way of monopoly capitalist imperialist international relations is itself at least partly and perhaps fundamentally explained as the necessity for variegated labour markets distinguished by gross wage differentials. As with any markets, these do not spring up naturally. They have to be politically forged. And relatively liberal and relatively illiberal or authoritarian forging corresponds to concrete historical and geographic circumstances. As a rule of thumb, though, fascism should be categorized as the “highest stage” response to accumulation rates in decline, or perceived to be in decline by the ruling strata of the bourgeoisie. On this score, it is not the persistence of the old regime. It is the prerogative of the new one.

    Having offered this, I wish to acknowledge that my approach is formulated on a different plane of abstraction than that of the historian focused on particularities down on the ground, in this case, those of Germany. On the other hand, Marxism demands that these specifics be brought into and informed by the critique of political economy conducted at a higher level of generality. This is to propose – again without having actually read Mayer – his thesis may be more of a culturalist description than a structural explanation, his class analytical priority notwithstanding.

    Or I could be full of shit. I wish you well Louis Proyect. I am encouraged by your unrepentant stance. I am a red diaper baby who took my late father’s unrepentant Marxism for granted. Now that he’s gone, well, I am pleased to meet you sir.

    Then – Ben

    Comment by Ben Livant — February 13, 2010 @ 5:59 am

  14. Ben, thanks for the interesting contribution. I have to say that my own analysis of the rise of fascism owes much more to Leon Trotsky than Arno Mayer even though I find Mayer’s insights useful. I should add that Mayer is one of the most compelling and readable historians I have encountered in my post-Trotskyist experience. I have enormous respect for him. Interestingly enough, he is a fairly regular contributor to Counterpunch–a radical website–and urge one and all to read his latest piece:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mayer02122010.html

    Comment by louisproyect — February 13, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

  15. Louis, I am familiar with Alexander Cockburn’s journal. (THAT’s where I heard Mayer’s name before.) As for your grounding in Trotsky, please do not think I want to rekindle old sectarian conflicts when I say that he upheld an historical theory of successive “stages” of development which in my estimation was surpassed in the second half of the 20th Century with the advent of world systems theory. This has the merit of accounting for uneven development as not a negative or accidental bi-product of the system but rather a positive or necessary product of it since its inception. The slogan I often use to capture the essence of this model is, Primitive Accumulation Ain’t So Primitive. I am making a very similar point but from the opposite historical direction when I regard fascism as modern matter and not antiquated remnants. Thanks for listening.

    Then – Ben

    Comment by Ben Livant — February 14, 2010 @ 8:03 am

  16. [...] 2009 The White Ribbon, a film focused on the rural social base of an incipient Nazi movement. In my review I [...]

    Pingback by Antibodies; Evil « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — February 28, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

  17. [...] I would see any film that Ulrich Tukur was in. “The White Ribbon”,  a masterpiece by the Austrian film-provocateur Michael Haneke, featured Tukur as a semifeudal [...]

    Pingback by Houston « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — January 25, 2013 @ 10:20 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,760 other followers

%d bloggers like this: