Formal Film Study: German Film Through the Ages

My second semester formal film study consists of three very, very different German films. The first film I watched was an Italian Neo-Realist film from 1948, "Germany Year Zero" by Roberto Rossellini. I then went back in time and watched Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". Finally, I fast forwarded to nearly present-day and viewed a 2006 Foreign Film Academy Award Winner "The Lives of Others", directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.

Germany has had a very busy historical past, and all three films make some sort of commentary about war, government, and civilian life in one way or another. Before I connect all three of them with this idea, let me tell you about each one, because these films could not have been more different from each other.

This was a stunning film. Germany Year Zero is about a little boy living in Berlin in 1947. It is an Italian Neorealist film, but instead of being filmed in Italian streets/cities, it is shot in Berlin with Italian actors posed as German people. The boy lives in a crowded apartment with other families. Edmund must go out and find food/money for his sick father, older sister, and older brother. The father is so ill he is bed ridden, acting as an "inconvenience" for the rest of the family. He uses a lot of the rationed electricity to warm himself and make tea. The brother doesn't have a work card because he went to war but then had to go into hiding because of some duty he didn't fulfill in the war. In short, he is worthless. The older sister goes to fancy bars at night and flirts with men in order to get cigarettes to trade and/or sell. The situation is extremely dire. 

Edmund finds himself talking with his old school teacher, a Nazi sympathizer. The teacher, Mr. Enning, tells Edmund that the "weak will be sorted out" (talking about his father) and Edmund takes the advice extremely literally and makes his father overdose on medicine. Edmund goes to Enning, telling him of what he did, and Enning freaks out, calling Edmund a monster. 

The film then follows Edmund around, completely distressed, but also trying really hard to act like a kid again. He tries to join in on a game of soccer with other little boys, but is chased away. So, he plays by himself. Watching Edmund struggle to act like a kid again after acting like an adult (he tried to feign being 15 years old, but the workers knew he was only 12, in order to get a job digging graves) was really tough. Rossellini opened the film with a note to the viewer explicitly stating that the film's purpose is to show that German children need to relearn how to love life. In the end, Edmund jumps off a dilapidated  building, falling to his death. 

The Italian Neorealist style gives a chilling look into what life was like. We get a first hand look at the utter destruction left over from the war. There are many scenes of the camera just following Edmund around town. These long sequences add to the desolate feel of the both Edmund's world and Berlin. One scene in particular is chilling. Edmund is sent by Enning to sell a tape of Hitler speaking. When Edmund plays it, the camera pans to the destruction of Berlin, showing how Hitler still has an influence over it even though he is dead. 

This was not a film I enjoyed. At all. This is simply a massive, two-hour long conglomeration of Hitler, Nazi soldiers, night rallies, and speeches. There is no rhythm to the film at all. It is edited in a way that is a bit odd, and after doing some research, Hitler is said to have posed/rehearsed for some scenes, and the reason is strictly for propaganda purposes. There were close-ups on smiling faces of children, and flowers being handed to Hitler by old women. I don't think the film is fooling anyone today; only firm, brain-washed believers would have been captivated by Hitler's greatness, a greatness so falsely portrayed in the film. 

There are shots of pure plant life and growth juxtaposed with children, obviously showing the link between flourishing plant life and the flourishing Nazi youth. There are speeches, cut one right after the other, of the heads of department like the department of agriculture, or the department of highway construction. All speeches are aimed to show how Germany is thriving, growing, building....all of which happens because of Hitler. 

Everything is extremely dramatic. The night rallies are shot mysteriously, dripping with chiaroscuro technique, as if to make the viewer grow excited with anticipation. Other than a few interesting shots (all of which are made to make Hitler look grand and powerful), the film's purpose is to show the power and prestige of the Nazi party. Shot after shot of soldiers marching shows today's viewer the immense confomirty and loss of individualism during these rallies. I agree with Mr. Ebert when he says, "It is not a 'great movie' in the sense that the other films in this group are great, but it is 'great' in the reputation is has and the shadow it casts". This is a historically important film, but I don't see it as a crisp, well-edited documentary-like film, but as a brainwashed hodgepodge of scenes meant to show that power of the Nazi party. I think this is an important film to view from a historical point of view because it truly shows the power Nazism had on the German people before the breakout of World War Two.

This movie was my favorite of the three. The story takes place in 1984 East Berlin. There is an interrogator, Wiesler, who works for the Stasi. He is cold and ruthless, displaying very little emotion. In other words, he is perfect for the Stasi. During a classroom lecture, Wiesler plays a tape of an interrogation he did on a suspect. His method was to deprive the suspect of sleep to break him. One student asks, "Why keep him awake for so long? It's inhuman." And Wiesler simply puts a little blue "x" next to his name on the seating chart. This was a very important characterization scene of Wiesler. 

The other main characters are a playwright and an actress, who are boyfriend/girlfriend in the film. Dreyser, the playwright, must be careful what he writes because of the strict rules of the GDR. The Minister of East Germany has a crush on Christa, Dreyer's girlfriend, and he really wants to bust Dreyer for something, so he has the Stasi bug his apartment. Wiesler is assigned this particular case, watching/listening to everything that goes on in Dreyer's apartment. 

The film then follows Wiesler's transformation from a cutthroat rule-follower Stasi workman to a sort of guardian angel, hiding illegal activity that goes on in Dreyer's apartment. Wiesler's turning point is shown here. I loved this scene because, for me, it shows Wiesler truly believed in the good in people. He loved the state. That's why he followed the rules so closely. But, when the minister was trying to find something on Dreyer, and Wiesler's former classmate-turned-boss was trying to pressure Wiesler to find "anything", he lost faith in the state. So, in turn, he didn't want to follow their rules anymore.

Cinematically, the film was very gray, very subdued. All of the clothes were very plain; nothing was embellished. We often saw Wiesler in the same pants and jacket. The main female role, Christa, wasn't over the top beautiful. The only sophistication and emphasis we saw was geared toward the Stasi and the State. These choices were made to show the everyday life of East Berlin in 1984. The bugging of Dreyer's apartment scene here was really cool shot-wise. Every shot seemed like it was a "how to" video of bugging apartments. Everything was extremely formal and clear; it was almost eerie. The ruthlessness of the Stasi is exemplified with Frau Meineke. She watched them through her peephole bug Dreyer's apartment, and Wiesler caught her. By simply knocking on the door, threatening her daughter's spot in the university, and sending her a gift for her cooperation, the Stasi had complete control. 

I highly recommend this movie. It was a very, very well done film about a very dull, grey, dry way of life, but it exemplifies human optimism and resilience, leaving the viewer on a positive note after watching a little over two hours of heavy material.


The three films were all united by their political commentary. Germany Year Zero is revolved around the destruction in Berlin after World War Two. Hitler is still a prevalent force in this film, which is traced to Triumph of the Will. This Nazi propaganda film was obviously dripping with everything revolving around National Socialist German Worker's Party, and The Lives of Others was a look at life in East Berlin in the 80s. The way of life there was an indirect result of Germany's defeat in World War Two. All three films were very different stylistically, but each leaves you contemplating your own way of life, and how it could be very different. 

MYST Post #4: Melancholia

This was my first Lars von Trier film, and it was very interesting to say the least. Melancholia is about impending doom, and starts off with a sort of prologue, an overture, highlighting the main events to come. The opening scene is very surreal. One of the main characters, Justine, is seen trying to crawl through branches grappling her, in another scene the marshes are sucking at her feet, and then the camera switches to a horse, then a little boy whittling a stick into a spear. Finally the viewer sees the Earth colliding with a massive planet, "Melancholia," destroying Earth completely. 

So, from the very beginning, this almost Shakespearian-like introduction (when the plot line is completely uncovered coupled with the Ophelia references) gives the viewer an uncomfortable feeling, almost a feeling of being stuck. 

This feeling of nowhere to go is immediately reinforced with the first scene after the prologue. Newlyweds Justine and Michael are in a stretch limo, and the driver is trying to turn around on a cramped gravel road in the middle of the countryside. The scene is exceptionally light-hearted after the dramatic opening scene. Michael and Justine are giggling at the incompetence of the driver as he makes a zillion-point turn, von Trier using jump cuts to emphasize the lengthy floundering of the limo driver at the same time giving it a cool French New Wave feel like in Godard's Breathless. and finally Michael offers to try his hand at turning the car around. When he fails, Justine gives it a go, in her wedding dress and all, and clearly has no idea what she is doing either, especially when she is trying to put it in gear but hits the wind shield wipers instead. This scene is crucial to the rest of the movie for creating this "stuck" feeling, having no where to go. The viewer has no idea just how dysfunctional Justine and her family is. 

The movie then proceeds to the wedding party, set in Claire's (sister of Justine) husband's chateau. Claire is upset with the newlywed's tardiness, and the movie becomes darker and darker from then on. Justine ends up not being able to go through consummating her marriage but has sex with a complete stranger her boss introduced to her that night. Perhaps she did this because of the claustrophobic feeling marriage has given her (even if only for a few hours) and wanted to spite its constitution for doing so. 

Von Trier does not place marriage in a flattering light. Again, this stuck, claustrophobic feeling is felt by the viewer, watching Justine and Michael struggle to be happy on their wedding night. Von Trier's view is also relayed through Justine and Claire's mother, Gaby. She explicitly states in a wedding speech she despises marriage. If these things don't get you to rethink getting married, then look at the collision of the two planets. They will be joined in matrimony, ultimately destroying one part and damaging the other, as paralleled with Justine and Michael. 

Another element of this film is the lack of knowledge. No one knows what the deal is with Justine. She seems pretty alright at the beginning, but then she shows her true self. It seems like she had issues because of some of her dialogue with her sister, "Justine, I don't want you to make any scenes tonight." or "I tried Claire, I really tried." The only certainty provided in the film is the doom of the Earth, and this fact is made clear only to the viewer. The characters believe that the planet will simply pass by. Also, the setting is unclear. It seems this handful of characters is cut off from the rest of society. You don't get any outside sources about Melancholia. No scientists, no media. There is no other contact with the outside world, so it seems it is just these people's own personal world about to be obliterated. 

The way this film is shot is very much like a hand held, documentary style, similar to the bits of Hurt Locker we watched in class. The camera movements are shaky, with zooming in and out. A Wagner piece plays sometimes as the soundtrack, but many times the film is eerily silent. The lack of music adds to the film's feeling of isolation from the real world. They are so far removed from society there is no background noise. There is nothing, and this gives the film a very creepy quality. 

I enjoyed this film because I discovered a new director and I plan on exploring his other works, and also because it was a weird film. Something so average as marriage--representing life, new beginnings, etc...-- is juxtaposed with something extraordinary, the end of the world, and the feeling this paradox creates is different from the typical movies nowadays. 

3.5/4 stars