ROSE - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “From the battlefields of the Thirty Years’ War, a soldier arrives in a small German village carrying a document proving his inheritance of a local farm. Facially scarred by a bullet wound, this mysterious figure proves himself to be hardworking and brave, and slowly but surely insinuates himself into the community. But the soldier has a secret: he is, in fact, a woman named Rose masquerading as a man. When she is married off to a neighbour’s daughter – with children expected from the union – Rose’s deception is put to the test.”

Markus Schleinzer's “Rose” is an outstanding look at gender inequality and gender privilege that sees Sandra Huller's titular character pose as a man to further her life in Germany after returning from being a soldier in the Thirty Years' War. It is an incredibly simple but powerful tale, told exceptionally well, that particularly focuses on the hardships and lack of propriety women had back in the 1600's, which then makes us ask the question just how far have we come since then. Sadly, the answer is not very far at all.

The first thing you notice about “Rose” is its striking black and white widescreen photography and the attention to period detail in the production design. It immediately paints a picture of a hard world, a world where no one gets anywhere without rolling up their sleeves and committing to the hard work to come. You really feel the dirt, mud and grime of this world forever at the mercy of the elements of any given season, and I think fans of Robert Eggers' work would get a lot out of “Rose” as it has the same kind of feel to his films and is made with the same exacting detail. Once you become immersed in the world of the film, that is when you then began to take notice of Sandra Huller's performance and at just how great she is here. Make no mistake about it, “Rose” is Huller's film and its success is owed to her full commitment to the title role.

I must admit that when films have women playing or posing as men, I usually have a hard time believing the other characters within the film would truly see that person as “male”. However, for once I found it very believable here, thanks entirely to Huller's performance. A huge part of this has to do with the gate of her walk and posture when she stands, as it comes across as quite masculine and rigid. Huller is also aided by some smart make-up design, where her character took a bullet through the right side of her face, leaving a massive scar across her cheek, which helps in hiding her femininity.

The power in the story comes from the fact that Rose succeeds in everything she tries to do whilst posing as a man, which benefits the rest of her community greatly. She farms her land so crops can grow strong once more, she teaches the locals how to read and write, not to mention that during the war, she fought for her country and survived, being wounded in the process. Furthermore, she marries a local girl and even father's a child (!); there is no denying it, as a man Rose is not only a success, but a model citizen and an important member of the local community. Her only “sin” is that she was born a woman, so should not have any of these things to begin with. It is then beyond frustrating when the town turns on Rose, who the locals call “The Soldier”, when suspicions fall upon her gender, because it is so obvious how much good she does for the community, and yet they all look past this just because she is a girl. Having two daughters of my own, the plight of women and the way they are treated in the world is quite a big concern of mine, and for anyone who thinks this story doesn't relate to the present is kidding themselves. Sure, things are better today, but gender inequality still exists. There is a moment late in the film when Rose is asked why she did what she did and whether or not she actually wanted to be a man. She sternly but quietly replies “No, I did not want to be a man, but there is more freedom in pants”. As I have just stated, sadly this is still true today. Think about it though, this is a film set in the 17^th century and yet it is still so relevant today; that is just shameful, I think.

Besides the physical hardships women had to face back then and the total lack of propriety, it was also the constant sexual abuse they suffered that is explored within “Rose”, although in this facet, director Markus Schleinzer is very subtle in his approach. To help disguise herself as a man, Rose wears a number of, what we would call today, “strap-on” devices. Nicknamed “the horn” is the flaccid device that rest between her legs posing as her penis, while “the spike” is the erect version of the same disguise that Rose had to use on her fallen enemies to “show them who their master was”. This is quite a shocking moment when we learn that Rose, while pretending to be a man, had to rape enemy women because to refuse would have been more dangerous to her than to commit such a heinous crime. She has to see the horrors men are inflicting upon women to exert some power or control over them, but then commits these same crimes first hand, all in an attempt to survive. That is some seriously heavy material, but through Schleinzer's sensitive handling thankfully it is never sensationalised. It is also alluded in the film that Rose's wife, Suzanna, is a victim of rape at the hands of her father, as she now bears a child which obviously cannot be Rose's.

While writing this review, I have only just realised that the director of “Rose”, Markus Schleinzer, also directed the brilliant (but horribly disturbing) film, “Michael”, back in 2011. What made that film so hard to watch, despite how well made it was, was the fact that it was a serious look at a paedophile and how in normal life, they come across as everyday people, whilst turning into the monsters they truly are behind closed doors. What is so impressive about “Michael” is that Schleinzer never over-sensationalises any of the shocking or controversial moments within the film, which makes them and the film more powerful, and he stays true to this approach in “Rose” as well. Whenever a female posing as a male is unmasked in cinema, it usually comes in the form of crass, graphic nudity as if to signpost the fact that yes, she is a woman. Schleinzer eschews this impulse, shooting said scenes respectfully from angles that expose nothing (because after all, we the audience already know she is a girl and need no confirmation of this fact), and when it comes to the rape or sex scenes of the film, he usually deals with these moments off camera. One moment that he does capture on camera that highlights just how hard living on the land was back then, is a scene involving a bear attack during a torrential storm, that sees Rose also need to help save a flock of sheep. It is a fantastic scene, and one that looked enormously difficult to shoot. I briefly want to mention the ending of “Rose” as it descends into something of a courtroom drama where Rose is forced to defend her actions, but which also shares a curious pictorial connection to Carl Theodor Dreyer's classic 1928 silent film “The Passion of Joan of Arc”, which I am sure is more than just coincidental. Make of that what you will, but I think the connection between Jeanne and Rose is obvious.

Overall, Markus Schleinzer's third feature film, “Rose”, is another outstanding film from this very talented German director. Whilst visually it is very beautiful with its stunning black and white photography courtesy of cinematographer Gerald Kerkletz, conversely it is a dark and tragic tale highlighting the inequality women have felt since the beginning of time. “Rose” is not an easy film, but it is a bloody good one, with another outstanding performance from Sandra Huller in the title role.

4 Stars.