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)

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)

"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)

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)