criterionforum.org

eez28 wrote:

Der Müde Tod wrote:

Darth Lavender wrote:Haven't actually seen any Fassbinder.

And: I wouldn't begin with BA to watch Fassbinder. I would pick something like Chinese Roulette or In a Year With Thirteen Moons.

Sorry to get off topic but my first RWF flick was Marriage of Maria Braun and I was hooked. I'm sure you don't want to shell out a lot of money for the BRD box, I'd go with Ali: Fear Eats the Soul.

There's plenty of discussion on the path through Fassbinder's films in this thread. It's reccomended to read the whole thing from the beginning.

Bookmarked the other thread. Thanks.

I'm leaning toward, when I finally make another overseas order (not for a while,) probably getting the Fassbinder set Volume II (with 13 Moons and Marie)

Very reasonably priced and I know that, even if I hate Fassbinder, I'll want to at least give him a second chance, so a double feature is probably the way to go.

I'm torn about purchasing this.

For the people who have seen it, is this something you would pick up and watch an episode or two of or will it only feel right by seeing it all the way through? Out 1 would be something I would want to own because I wouldn't have to invest the 13 hours all the time and could feel content spending time with one rehearsal or so.

Has anyone seen the 1931 version of this? There's a favourable review on the imdb website and a less enthusiastic one somewhere else.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm in the UK but the Criterion seems more tempting with this addition.

Murasaki53 wrote:The reason I'm asking is because I'm in the UK but the Criterion seems more tempting with this addition.

The Criterion is £43.99 delivered on CD-Wow, only a fiver more than the cheapest price I can find the Second Sight release for. I know which route I'll be going when I can justify the expense.

Anyone seen the book below? It's about $57 at Amazon after discount. Looks like a pretty hefty item. Supposed to include 500 stills, the complete script and essays by Fassbinder, Susan Sontag, and Klaus Biesenbach.

I've seen the book in a shop. German only text if I remember correctly. Beautiful thing though, the still look amazing.

I saw it last weekend at PS 1 in NY, where they are showing all episodes of the film simultaneously as well as other materials related to the film. It's mostly stills--not a lot of textual material, for that reason I was undecided whether to buy it, since I plan on buying the DVD.

I'm so mad at myself for not going to Berlin in Lights.

blindside8zao wrote:I'm so mad at myself for not going to Berlin in Lights.

It lasts another week. Check out the Carnegie Hall web site.

The showing of "Berlin, Sinfonie der Großstadt," with Edmund Meisel's original 1927 score performed live, was quite an occasion. Both performances were sold out.

Yeah, there's no way I can make it up there now. Too many committments here. Was really looking forward to hearing Mahler and Stravinsky and seeing the Fassbinder film. I'm sure the Rite of Spring sold out long ago, though.

Dave Kehr reports that Jutzi's 1931 version is unfortunately an "unrestored and poorly transferred print".

[quote]To watch Mr. Jutzi's “Berlin Alexanderplatzâ€

The 1931 print is definitely unrestored, and rather battered. I'm not one to mind--in fact, I enjoy seeing old prints. But for those who are bothered even by Eclipse-level prints, this is definitely a few steps below.

What struck me about the 31 version is how much it does contain. It's been around 6 months since I saw the RWF version, but it seemed like most of the plot points were there in the Jutzi's film. Of course, it's not the most plot-heavy novel, but I couldn't help feeling, while watching Jutzi's version, that Fassbinder's film was not so much more complete as it was just excessive. I'll probably take that back once I watch the Fassbinder again (although I didn't consider it among RWF's best work). But Jutzi's version didn't seem bastardized the way some film versions of, say, Anna Karenina, are.

The PAL issue is problematic though. That, along with the picture-boxing, makes me regret not buying the Second Sight version. I know some people are going to want the Criterion no matter what, but the only real benefit is the 31 version, which, while significant, can't atone for the set's flaws, especially as it can be rented from Netflix. The booklet, in my opinion, is fine, but nothing special.

HerrSchreck wrote: But I've never been a huge RWF fan.

But if you haven't seen Veronika Voss yet, then I think you'd be surprised.

My favorite RWF film by a mile.

I've never seen Jutzi's film, but what the NYT reviewer says about the opening scene, and its relationship to Ruttmann's 'Berlin, Symphony of the Metropolis,' was interesting. I watched about an hour of Berlin Alexanderplatz out at PS1 last weekend, and it seems focused very much on the story--Franz Biberkopf was RWF's alter-ego from his teen years on--and not on the dynamic urban texture of the city, which Döblin conveys through the juxtaposition of various kinds of texts, and this is one of the most striking features of his brilliant novel, which has been compared to Joyce's 'Ulysses.' Döblin constructed his book like a text collage with newspaper stories, weather reports, bureaucratic documents, tram routes, biblical and literary quotations, etc., inserted as discrete elements that seem to have nothing to do with Franz's story, but a lot to do with the experience of living in a modern city. Ruttmann, Jutzi, and Döblin were part of that moment (as was Lang when he made 'Mabuse, der Spieler' and 'M'). When Fassbinder shot his film Berlin, divided by a wall, was a melancholy shadow of its 1920s self. Döblin's novel is in large part about the character of life in the city--large chunks of it are not directly related to Franz's story-- and Fassbinder's film, it seems, is mostly about Biberkopf. Maybe I will think differently once I see the film.

I agree with you. The reliance on a handful of locations and the film's theatricality don't always fit with the expansiveness of the novel. That isn't necessarily a problem in theory, but because RWF made such an unusually long film with at least some intent of capturing the sheer scope of a novel (a luxury most films don't have), it's somewhat regrettable that he misses such an essential component of the novel itself. This is one reason why Jutzi's version, while a fraction of the length, is nearly as essential as RFW's, and in some ways, just as faithful to the novel.

montgomery wrote: This is one reason why Jutzi's version, while a fraction of the length, is nearly as essential as RFW's, and in some ways, just as faithful to the novel.

Or, according to some (like Kehr), more essential.

I doubt that Fassbinder wanted to capture the novel. He would have failed in many ways, beginning with the specific way Döblin uses language and ending with the lack of 'cityscape' in Fassbinder's film.
Fassbinder's main interest was in the characters, and his films are amazing 'soulscapes' without any glorious knickknack.

For those who find BA an odd piece in Fassbinder's oeuvre: Start with the epilogue, this is quite a typical Fassbinder by itself. The other episodes are then an explanation how the world has become the way Fassbinder sees it.

As for Jutzi: I have seen this film a couple of times, but always in horrible prints. It is certainly very much worth seeing, if alone for the pictures of Berlin between the wars. It's a pity if no good print has survived.

Der Müde Tod wrote:I doubt that Fassbinder wanted to capture the novel. He would have failed in many ways, beginning with the specific way Döblin uses language and ending with the lack of 'cityscape' in Fassbinder's film.
Fassbinder's main interest was in the characters, and his films are amazing 'soulscapes' without any glorious knickknack.

I would agree that Fassbinder may not have wanted to capture the novel, but one might expect that, given the length of the film, Fassbinder would use that length to capture a novel the way that few films are able to in 2 or 3 hours. So it's a surprise to find that, while the film is in some ways (i.e. plot) quite faithful to the novel, it ignores some core aspects of it. The film is not very novelistic; it is almost aggressively theatrical, even for a filmmaker whose work is often theatrical (to say nothing of his work in the theatre). With a 15 hour adaptation, you might expect a sprawling epic, but many episodes are essentially chamber plays. I can't quite decide if this always works in Fassbinder's favor. One problem is that part of this theatricality seems to be dictated by budgetary limitations. Although Fassbinder's main focus is clearly Bieberkopf (and, most significantly, the relationship between him and Reinhold), I find it difficult to believe that he wanted to ignore the importance of Weimar-era Berlin as a major element of the novel and on the character's lives, especially because RFW doesn't eschew this aspect completely. But that part of the film seems a bit clumsy at times. This is why, for me, the episodes that are more chamber-drama oriented, extended scenes with few locales are more successful than the episodes in which Bieberkopf is trying to make his way in the world.

Der Müde Tod wrote:For those who find BA an odd piece in Fassbinder's oeuvre: Start with the epilogue, this is quite a typical Fassbinder by itself. The other episodes are then an explanation how the world has become the way Fassbinder sees it.

Would others familiar with "BA" recommend this? Any reason not to start (and then end with a reviewing) of the Epilogue? I'm intrigued by this approach.

Rich Malloy wrote:

Der Müde Tod wrote:For those who find BA an odd piece in Fassbinder's oeuvre: Start with the epilogue, this is quite a typical Fassbinder by itself. The other episodes are then an explanation how the world has become the way Fassbinder sees it.

Would others familiar with "BA" recommend this? Any reason not to start (and then end with a reviewing) of the Epilogue? I'm intrigued by this approach.

Actually, I don't think this would work at all. The epilogue is completely different in tone to the rest of the film, and I don't think it's even particularly 'Fassbinderian' - certainly not more so than the rest of the film (RWF did plenty of work in the 'chamber drama' mode). At the end of the film it has a "whoa - what was that?" vibe, like you and RWF and the film have focussed so intently on this story for so long that you've all slipped into a communal trance. The transfigured details of the epilogue would make almost no sense at the outset and would wrong-foot you for fourteen hours.

And in defence of RWF's version of the novel, he has always been focussed on character and the social processes that determine / undermine it and is hardly ever concerned primarily with landscape or milieu independent of character - he's not a 'scenic' filmmaker. Berlin Alexanderplatz represents his most intent, extended focus on those primary concerns, and as such it's one of cinema's greatest character studies, so it seems a bit churlish to complain that it's not also a completely different kind of film.

Picked this up for just over 66 bucks at the DeepDiscount 20% off sale. Can't wait to see this, sounds like a very good mini-series.

How/When is everyone planning to tackle this beast? Two parts a night for a week? One day marathon viewing over Christmas vacation?