criterionforum.org

denti alligator wrote:This discussion raises an interesting point about the relative lack of auteurs in the German tradition of late. I mean, besides Haneke and the leftovers from the New Cinema (Wenders, Herzog, Schloendorff), who would be counted as an up and coming artist of the caliber of, say, Dumont or the Dardennes, Hou or Yang, etc. etc. ?

I would cite Fred Kelemen (four features since the mid-90s), whose style could be described as Tarr-esque miserablism (in fact he was the cinematographer on Man from London), with a deliberately lo-fi visual aesthetic. Full of aimless alcoholics and nocturnal alienation. I actually prefer him to Tarr. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any DVDs so far.

Gropius wrote:Unfortunately there don't appear to be any DVDs so far.

It's not very likely that there will be any in the near future given Kelemen's opinion about DVD as a medium.

Mr Finch wrote:Re the incredulous reaction to me saying Downfall is overrated:

Only one scene in the film left a lasting impression on me, when Goering's wife poisons her children which, to me, subtly evoked the industrialised killing in Auschwitz-Birkenau and other death camps and single-handedly proved more terrifying than anything else in the film. Bruno Ganz gives a great performance but does he really make us understand Hitler more in any way? I also couldn't fathom Hirschbiegel's decision not to show Hitler's and Goering's death in the film. On both occasions, it either happens off-screen or the camera "tastefully" pans away. Why the restraint? Why don't we get to see the deaths of those who most deserved it? It's particularly troubling when you compare this to a graphic shot of a mortally wounded soldier blowing his brains out. I wondered whether not showing Hitler's and Goering's suicides doesn't actually (and unintentionally) contribute to the myth of the Fuehrer. Why is it okay to show a soldier killing himself but not to show up Hitler for the coward he was and give him a pathetic death scene? Such a scene would have made a powerful statement and would have been true to the filmmakers' stated intention that they wanted to get close to Hitler, the man, to expose the coward behind the myth. By giving him and Goering the "dignified" off-screen exit, they achieve the opposite.

Sorry to ask, as I haven't seen the film, but do you mean Goebbels or Göring? Goebbels & his wife killed their kids and themselves in the bunker. Göring was captured and killed himself later in a Ally prison.

According to Wikipedia:

"At 8 p.m. on the evening of 1 May, Goebbels arranged for an SS doctor, Helmut Kunz, to kill his six children by injecting them with morphine and then, when they were unconscious, crushing an ampoule of cyanide in each of their mouths.[91] According to Kunz's testimony, he gave the children morphine injections but it was Magda Goebbels and Stumpfegger, Hitler's personal doctor, who then administered the cyanide.[92] Shortly afterwards, Goebbels and his wife went up to the garden of the Chancellery, where they killed themselves. The details of their suicides are uncertain. After the war, Rear-Admiral Michael Musmanno, a U.S. naval officer and judge, published an account apparently based on eye-witness testimony: "At about 8.15 p.m., Goebbels arose from the table, put on his hat, coat and gloves and, taking his wife's arm, went upstairs to the garden." They were followed by Goebbels's adjutant, SS-Hauptsturmführer Günther Schwägermann. "While Schwägermann was preparing the petrol, he heard a shot. Goebbels had shot himself and his wife took poison. Schwägermann ordered one of the soldiers to shoot Goebbels again because he was unable to do it himself."[93] One SS officer later said they each took cyanide and were shot by an SS trooper. An early report said they were machine-gunned to death at their own request. According to another account, Joseph shot Magda and then himself. This idea is presented in the movie Downfall"

and

"Following the end of the Second World War, Göring was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials. He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide the night before he was due to be hanged."

Also, Goebbels is thin, Göring is stout. Remarkable representation of Göring in "the Fall of Berlin", co-scenarist Stalin, which I just saw at the Telluride Film Festival, and apparently available on DVD from International Historic Films. Remarkable film, propaganda and all. Stalin introduced by showing him pruning trees in an orchard; lovers reunite in Berlin by seeing each other at a rally where Stalin comes after the capture of the city; the hand-to-hand combat to take the Reichstag.

Back to the topic at hand, please look into the films of Peter Liechti, Austrian. And of course the experimental films largely distributed (some on DVD) by Six Pack. Mostly Austrian & Swiss.

Gropius wrote:I would cite Fred Kelemen (four features since the mid-90s), whose style could be described as Tarr-esque miserablism (in fact he was the cinematographer on Man from London), with a deliberately lo-fi visual aesthetic. Full of aimless alcoholics and nocturnal alienation. I actually prefer him to Tarr. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any DVDs so far.

I agree with the value of Kelemen, but one does need to get a print. Are you getting prints for your class?

Tommaso wrote:Hmm, I didn't want to revive the old auteurism debate, and while I was agreeing with denti that there are few 'auteurs' in Germany at the moment, my emphasis was rather on the absence of many 'filmic' films (as opposed to films that are 'just' competently made). But in general I admit that I believe that many films that have a distinctive and innovative visual style possess this style because SOMEONE (and it might very well be the cinematographer rather than the director) exercises more control than the other valuable people needed to make a film.

If you are talking about a distinctive and innovative visual style, you mean in reality a very extroverted visual style, something like minimalism a la late Ozu or late Dreyer or the kinetic slambang of Tarantino or Stone. Again it's more easy to study or write about and it's better as a label for being identified.

In fact, why this obsession with style? It always seemed to me that film scholars look obsessively for the aspects which make film special and different from all other arts. Why exactly shouldn't be acting or the script be of equal importance. Let's say a film is marvellously written and has great acting, but a classical, solid style. and then let's take a daring visual approach which unfortunately reduces acting and script to mere bystanders. Strangely and again without any real justification the latter film will garner likely more attention in academic circles.

I agree that current German cinema doesn't push the limits of film art though it doesn't seem to me much different from most other countries. Having somebody like Tykwer on the one hand and Petzold on the other of the stylistic spectrum isn't that bad. And I find it hard to justify the funding of experimental films which are seen by nobody like most New German cinema films were.

The major problem I see is in fact that we don't have a solid level of high class professionals. There are dozens of small personal films and there are bigger films often about historical events like DER UNTERGANG or SOPHIE SCHOLL, but not enough of them and admittedly a bit stodgy. What is completely missing is an output of genre films and also a lack of actors which draw in crowds for sure. the only actor able to guarantee a big public is Til Schweiger, somebody like Alexandra Maria Lara who seems to fit the description of a movie star like a glove, sees most of her films sink without a trace, meaning she hasn't the drawing power to pull an audience.

The major problem is however simply a lack of interest in film in Germany. It isn't taught at school, it hardly exists at university with 3- institutes scattered over germany, it hasn't enough students and all attempts at publishing film literature perished within short time (we in Mainz are doing quite well, but the market is very limited).

The funding of the three Berlin operas is bigger than the support for the whole industry and the public doesn't care. Until today there's no CALIGARI DVD available and a set like the Lubitsch box lost a great deal of money. Compared to france or Spain and taking their lower population in account, the German silents are sold there 5-6 times as often as in their own country where they were made.

It all goes way back to the attacks against cinema from literature and theater people and still is effective in today's society. A ban which can only be broken with time, starting at school level.

Tommaso wrote:Yes, but having seen a few films outside the 'neorealist canon' I can't help but thinking that it is not by chance that Lattuada, Germi etc. are comparatively unknown, at least outside of Italy. They made competent films, probably films very typical and indicative for the period, worth studying if you're interested in the time and in the culture, but they simply don't reach the depth and artistic quality of those films universally known. And how many people outside Italy have ever seen another film by De Santis apart from "Riso amaro"? The canon can be deceptive, of course, but it hasn't come into being by chance. And the canon of course can change, though it took more than fourty years before "Vampyr" was recognized as the utter masterpiece it is. On the other hand, once much revered films might unjustly fall out of discussion due to these changes. Is anyone talking about Cocteau anymore, academically?

Obviously some films must be better known as others. The problem is that these films aren't comparatively unknown. They are not known at all (granted there are a few scholars who have seen them, but that's beside the point). If nobody knows them, nobody wants to see them. They are not shown on TV, not released on VHS or DVD or Blu-ray which are all great advances regarding the availability of films, but strongly tend to confirm the existing canon (redicsoveries like Naruse or Bernard notwithstanding).

And it's very interesting to study film history as it was written. Take THE CHEAT by DeMille, his by far best known film of the 10s. Why? Well a few french critics loved it back then. DeMille was puzzled, but pleased. Robert birchard writes in his very valuable book that it's hard to see what makes the film so special, it has a atypical racism and isn't in great advance of other films. he likes something like THE GOLDEN CHANCE more and I fully agree. But it's a judgement reprinted again and again until the films are readily available now. Just try to go against the judgement of decades even if it's founded on an ancient judgement made with a lack of knowledge about DeMille's films.

You can play this game on and on if you ask yourself why exactly Russian cinema and its fast cutting is deemed so important if the French did it a few years earlier. Well for left-wing critics and that's the majorityuntil the late 70s, films had to be of social value, the french films didn't fit the bill, the Russian ones which are arguably even more simple-minded did it better.

To take an example for German history which will puzzle me to my death. I take it for granted that most non-German readers have a huge gap after DIE MÖRDER SIND UNTER UNS regarding West German cinema and even this films is generally considered important and very good, but not great (it has its share of weaknesses, to be sure, especially Staudte's tenedency to idealize women to the nth degree). On the other hand everybody knows ROMA CITTA APERTA.

Now let's take a good look at both films. We have two dictatorships, the nasty Italian one whose nastiness was only limited by a lack of military power and a lack of ideology - and Germany which was unfortunately a much stronger military power and whose crimes are hard to put in words. The director of the first German postwar film, Staudte, had some small supporting in propaganda films like JUD SÜSS which made him feel guilty all his life. He determinedly fought in the next decades to make films which analyzed the German errors of past and present until he went bankrupt and his two German trilogies are among the best films ever produced here. MÖRDER not only shows an annihilated country, it shows that the regular army forces slaughtered women and children at the Eastern front (standing apart from excuses that only SS forces did the massacres) and it even shows that most of the NS criminals will find their way back to German society and prosper there. If you need a cinema with social conscience, a re-birth you can find it here and you can find it in some other films until 1949 which no one knows outside of Germany.

The director of the Italian film has made three features which all are propaganda features which is an astonishing achievement because you won't find a German director who worked so exclusively for propaganda aims even real Nazis like Karl Ritter or Hans Steinhoff have a mixed output. This person makes now a film showing us ... heroic Italian resistance fighters against nasty German nazis whose commander is additionally homosexual. There's the wrong person making the absolutely wrong kind of film, but his film is praised as the beginning of a new great style (which was in use since the 10s, pick your films from REGENERATION by Walsh down to SO IST DAS LEBEN by Junghans).
Erm ... am I the only one who is a bit puzzled by this reaction. And then Italian cinema is apparently unable to come to terms with the dark past of its country. Most directors don't even touch political themes like Fellini or antonioni though the latter wrote a glowing review of JUD SÃœSS which has to be seen to be believed. And if Visconti, Pasolini, Rossellini, Bertolucci or Cavani tackle fascism it degenerates into sexual perversion showing an impressive lack of political vision. I think until now there's not a single film which deals with Italy's horrible war againts Ethiopia. Nevertheless the films of mentioned directors are widely available.

Staudte's brillant studies of the national developments leading Germany into catastrophe and the bitter critique of yesterday's criminals being integrated onto post-war german society are almost completely unknown in other countries. If I take a look at Bordwell's film history and the few remarks on German film between 1945 and 1965 picking quite irrelevant films I know that he's seen very little and that's film history for you. sometimes it has much more to do with chance than we would like it.

I'd love it if we could put together once an international congress where every country sends a team of 10-20 film historians which present a detailed list of the films they think are important ones and then these films are seen by all other teams and finally there's a big final discussion and everything is beautiful and if they all haven't died they live forever ... seriously I'd love to start from the scratch instead of having the baggage of old ideas and concepts

Adam wrote:Sorry to ask, as I haven't seen the film, but do you mean Goebbels or Göring? Goebbels & his wife killed their kids and themselves in the bunker. Göring was captured and killed himself later in a Ally prison.

My mistake, got the names mixed up

denti alligator wrote:Frank Beyer: [haven't chosen one yet]

I've only seen a handful of his films, but Spur der steine seems to me the best choice. It's a great film, is really revealing about East Germany in the 60s and about East German cinema and censorship in the 1960s (plus there's the happy ending of its ultimate blockbusting release).

EDIT: I see Lubitsch got there first. What he said.

Also, a great 'last 25 years' film that hasn't been mentioned yet is Hauff's Stammheim. Surely that's out on DVD somewhere, even if it hasn't got subs.

lubitsch wrote:If you are talking about a distinctive and innovative visual style, you mean in reality a very extroverted visual style, something like minimalism a la late Ozu or late Dreyer or the kinetic slambang of Tarantino or Stone. Again it's more easy to study or write about and it's better as a label for being identified.

That is certainly true, but it may simply be a personal thing. I'm interested in all sorts of arts, and so the thing that interests me most in film is that which I cannot have from, say, literature, and that is the visual side. So the films that are 'real' films for me are those that pronounce that aspect very much; also it is the aspect that lies at the origin of film: photography and visual representation. Elaborate scripts, dialogue etc. all came later. This is a point of view one need not share, but to quote Greenaway (who is obsessed with style, obviously), I'm simply not very much interested in films as 'illustrated texts'.

lubitsch wrote:In fact, why this obsession with style? It always seemed to me that film scholars look obsessively for the aspects which make film special and different from all other arts. Why exactly shouldn't be acting or the script be of equal importance. Let's say a film is marvellously written and has great acting, but a classical, solid style. and then let's take a daring visual approach which unfortunately reduces acting and script to mere bystanders. Strangely and again without any real justification the latter film will garner likely more attention in academic circles.

Is that really so? I remember Schreck somewhere (in the Eclipse thread?) criticizing your namesake, Ernst Lubitsch, precisely for his visual uninventiveness. While I don't necessarily agree, and was initially surprised at that point of view on someone who is actually one of my favourite directors, I can see where he's coming from if you compare Lubitsch only a purely visual level to Sternberg or Murnau. But neither does that distract from Lubitsch's films, nor from any critical attention. There is a style in Lubitsch, PLUS the elaborate scripts and dialogue. In this respect, he's perhaps one of the most perfect of filmmakers. But the same dialogues filmed in an uninteresting, TV-film like manner simply wouldn't interest me. In other words: while Lubitsch certainly wasn't a great 'inventor', no 'avantgardist' like Dreyer, he nevertheless managed not to forget that film is an essentially visual medium.

lubitsch wrote:And I find it hard to justify the funding of experimental films which are seen by nobody like most New German cinema films were.

Would you say that Harriet Shaw Weaver and Sylvia Beach shouldn't have financed Joyce writing "Ulysses", a book that 'nobody' wanted to read? Funding of experimental works needs to be done, even if the results are uncertain or in retrospect might even be bad. Without funding we wouldn't have films like Jarman's "Last of England" or Ottinger's "Dorian Gray", and in my view hits as these excuse quite a few misses. And the same goes for the experimental films made nowadays.

About the actors: I don't know about Alexandra Maria Lara, but actresses like Nina Hoss or Veronica Ferres would draw ME to the cinema in any case, theoretically; the only problem is that the films they're acting in don't interest me very much. Or a different example: would anyone care for films – or even only release them on disc - like "Seven Sinners" or "Pittsburgh" if Marlene Dietrich hadn't acted in Sternberg's films? A good actress is certainly an asset, but can never make up for an uninspired director/script. Tilda Swinton is breathtaking in all her films (even in something like "Ada" or "Technolust", both of which are truly bad films), but nothing she made with other directors came even close to Jarman's movies. And much as I admire her, her presence alone doesn't make me go to the cinema.

I agree with a lot of the other things you say about the current state in Germany.. The interest in films is generally low in Germany, and to hear that the Lubitsch set lost a lot of money is a crying shame. Even arte TV doesn't seem to help. I'm not sure those attacks against cinema you mention are responsible. These attacks were made in all sorts of countries. I'd rather suspect it was the break of tradition that occured with the Nazi regime, and from which German cinema on a broad basis has never really recovered. The utterly sentimental films made in the 50s may have played their part, too. And Herzog , Wenders and Fassbinder were probably deemed too 'artsy'.

lubitsch wrote:You can play this game on and on if you ask yourself why exactly Russian cinema and its fast cutting is deemed so important if the French did it a few years earlier. Well for left-wing critics and that's the majorityuntil the late 70s, films had to be of social value, the french films didn't fit the bill, the Russian ones which are arguably even more simple-minded did it better.

A good point, certainly. Perhaps the 'self-propagandizing' (in the form of essays) helped the Russians as well. On the other hand, the French also made a lot of social-conscious films, think of Feyder or L'Herbier, so what was it that the Russians had? The emphasis on technique and a more visible style, which extended much further than just fast cutting.

I deplore very much that Staudte or Käutner are so unknown outside Germany (simply because these are great films); and I didn't know about Rossellini's early flirts with fascism. But the question whether cinema has to have a social conscience might asked with the same right as your question about why cinema has to be obsessed with style. Why this emphasis on social matters, especially in Germany, especially in academia? Historical reasons, of course, but I can't see any artistic ones.

lubitsch wrote:Most directors don't even touch political themes like Fellini or antonioni though the latter wrote a glowing review of JUD SÃœSS which has to be seen to be believed.

I haven't read Antonioni's piece, but having been lucky enough - for a German - to have actually seen the film in a special presentation (it was an 'eductional' retrospectice of NS films organized by FWMS at the local art cinema a few months ago) I at least can understand where he might come from. I found the film impressive, too, and found it interesting how from a contemporary point of view the propaganda is almost reversed. The somewhat Byronesque 'evil Jew' is the only interesting character in the film, the 'good Aryans' are all so unbelievably stupid and dull that I clearly sympathized with the Suss character all the time, despite of his 'evil' deeds. And as the subsequent discussion in the cinema showed, I was not in the minority. That the film certainly had quite another impact in Nazi Germany is a different matter, but that Antonioni , especially as an 'outsider', might have found something interesting in it doesn't surprise me very much. You'd hate to hear it, but it IS a very well-made and stylish film. That doesn't make me forget its unforgivable intentions and its perversity, but that's simply a different approach and level of discussion. On the other hand, I found "Kolberg" utterly boring and badly constructed. The worst thing is that any actual discussion of these films is almost impossible due to the fact that they are only allowed to be shown on these special occasions. Like it or not, it only adds to their mystique for those who have never seen them, and THAT I find really unfortunate.

lubitsch wrote:And if Visconti, Pasolini, Rossellini, Bertolucci or Cavani tackle fascism it degenerates into sexual perversion showing an impressive lack of political vision.

Agreed for all of them apart from Pasolini. I can't repeat all that was said in the CC "Salò" thread, but in my view sexual perversion is clearly NOT what is in the centre of that film. And if there's one director whose political vision was razor-sharp, I can't think of anyone else than Pasolini.

lubitsch wrote:I'd love it if we could put together once an international congress where every country sends a team of 10-20 film historians which present a detailed list of the films they think are important ones and then these films are seen by all other teams and finally there's a big final discussion and everything is beautiful and if they all haven't died they live forever ... seriously I'd love to start from the scratch instead of having the baggage of old ideas and concepts

In our own limited and non-scholarly way, I think this is the main reason for the criterionforum.org list threads. I learned a lot from individual members defending their favourites and the final assembly of those lists, though I never actively participated in the voting.

Mr. Lubitsch, much respect for trying to push the films that are not in the canon yet - and i can agree that the canon gets abused here and there without second thoughts - however you should give your theory a second thought as well and not fall in jealous sentiments! Even though i feel the same respect for Staudte and some other "Nachkriegsfilme" its plainly irresponsible to compare tham to Roma città aperta - in fact the question is why the German films you mentioned (with all the great scripts etcetera) did not leave a mark on my parents generation whereas in Italy it probably did found some "audience"? And i do share your thoughts about the abandonce of cinema as an artform in Germany but easily come to think that this is because of the same problem people had with the Staudte film in the "50s". Just look at La grande Nation after the war where they build up an intellectual powershield (good & bad) with literature, philosophy and cinema - as opposed to Germany where the term "Intellectual" to this day is a cuss!
What i am trying to say here is that film and (its) history can`t be viewed seperatly. The only way to do this is if you look at film just from a handcraft point of view (something that is respectable but to my personal thought out dated). Something i experienced during my time at probably one of the three universities you mentioned is nostalgia and the focus on play - in short, the handcraft part of cinema - and that the deconstrution of cinema brought the downfall of this very seventh art ... Unnecessary to say that i am coming right from from the opposite position...

Concerning your supa-dupa gremium of the major film theorists (probably including Lubitsch on the german team) who play out Rossellini against Staudte (not to mention all the non occidential films that get no love at all!) ... with final justice making clear for all time to come that the winner is ...

Mr Finch wrote:Re the incredulous reaction to me saying Downfall is overrated:

Only one scene in the film left a lasting impression on me, when Goering's wife poisons her children which, to me, subtly evoked the industrialised killing in Auschwitz-Birkenau and other death camps and single-handedly proved more terrifying than anything else in the film. Bruno Ganz gives a great performance but does he really make us understand Hitler more in any way? I also couldn't fathom Hirschbiegel's decision not to show Hitler's and Goering's death in the film. On both occasions, it either happens off-screen or the camera "tastefully" pans away. Why the restraint? Why don't we get to see the deaths of those who most deserved it? It's particularly troubling when you compare this to a graphic shot of a mortally wounded soldier blowing his brains out. I wondered whether not showing Hitler's and Goering's suicides doesn't actually (and unintentionally) contribute to the myth of the Fuehrer. Why is it okay to show a soldier killing himself but not to show up Hitler for the coward he was and give him a pathetic death scene? Such a scene would have made a powerful statement and would have been true to the filmmakers' stated intention that they wanted to get close to Hitler, the man, to expose the coward behind the myth. By giving him and Goering the "dignified" off-screen exit, they achieve the opposite.

You could argue that the film does show how he loses control over everything and becomes more delusional but I think the film is not thorough enough: I find the reticence in these key moments, especially in comparison to graphic deaths elsewhere in the film, misplaced and problematic. Apart from that issue, the film looked and felt for the most part like a banal television two-parter with one or two impressive outdoor setpieces, bathetic music and a cloying ending. I also remember thinking that it can't make up its mind over whether it's Traudl Junge's story or Hitler's story, and characters come and go, and nothing really lingers in the mind afterwards, except for the one scene I mentioned above.

Bruno Ganz' performance is impressive on a technical level but the effect wore off for me after the initial goosebumps. I'm sort of thinking the film got so many raves abroad because non-native German speakers finally got to see a German film not just about Hitler but with an actor whose first language is German (although Ganz is actually Swiss) and whose performance therefore tends to feel more authentic to anyone outside Germany when compared to Hitler portrayals by foreign actors (mostly Brits; can't recall off-hand if any American ever played the Fuehrer?).

So yeah, I stick to my guns: massively overrated film.

Thanks for your response. I should probably keep such outspoken opinions for myself since I've seen the film once four years ago, so I cannot discuss the film in any detail. The meticulous sound design and Bruno Ganz' role left me quite impressed, all the more because finally there seems to be a German film that combines popular entertainment with a somewhat more intelligent and ambitious approach, a marriage that seems to be quite rare in German cinema, qualities that don't necessarily make a great film of course.

A second viewing (on a normal television set) would probably leave me considerably underwhelmed. Sorry, not a very solid argumentation (I would probably fail that seminar miserably).

Quite interesting pod/videocasts with Hochhäusler, Schanelec & Karmakar on Univ-Paris Sorbonne nouvelle website http://webcast.univ-paris3.fr/podcasts/ ... istes.html
ah ... and Petzold.

The Edukators inspires some real life hijinks.

Romuald Karmakars Warheads to be re-released.

Great, as far as this is a tremendous Documentary.

My favourite German language film of the last 25 years is probably Requiem (2006) by Hans-Christian Schmid. It features a heart wrenching performance by Sandra Hüller. Loosely based on the notorious Anneliese Michel exorcism case which also was the inspiration for the exploitative The Exorcism of Emily Rose, it's the perfect anti-dode to every pro-Catholic possession film ever made. It's about a young woman trying and failing to break free from her religiously oppressive family and provincial community during the "permissive 70s" and as a result suffers a devastating emotional breakdown, which in combination with her epilepsy gets misinterpreted as demonic possession by the Catholic church. What's particularly admirable about the film is that despite the terrible choices being made, their are no easy villains. There is a scene where the heroine gets a brief taste of freedom of body and soul at a college disco to Deep Purple's Anthem, which is transcended. This had the emotional impact on me many claimed Von Trier's Breaking the Waves had on them, a film which still strikes me as a practical joke at the expense of the audience.

I found the 2002 documentary Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary far more chilling and insightful than Downfall. It just consists of an interview with Taudl Junge and it covers the same events as Dowfall, but not dramatised. Watching the real Junge attempting to come to terms with her being in the very centre of evil as a moral being, is truly gripping.

If Not Us, Who? (2011) about the early life of future Baader Meinhof member Gudrun Ensslin was far better than the superficial action movie theatrics of The Baader-Meinhof Complex.

Last year's Stations of the Cross was excellent.

Though made in 1990, I'll also sneak in The Nasty Girl, one of the best films about Germany and the fall out from the Third Reich ever made. Based on a real case, a 70s schoolgirl innocently writes an essay on her town's recent history and opens a can of worms which has her community become increasingly more threatening in an attempt to cover up its involvement in war crimes.

Lost Highway wrote:My favourite German speaking film of the last 25 years is probably Requiem (2006) by Hans-Christian Schmid. It features a heart wrenching performance by Sandra Hüller. Loosely based on the notorious Anneliese Michel exorcism case which also was the inspiration for the exploitative The Exorcism of Emily Rose, it's the perfect anti-dode to every pro-Christian possession film ever made. It's about a young woman trying and failing to break free from her religiously oppressive family in the "permissive 70s" and as a result suffering a disastrous emotional breakdown, which in combination with her epilepsy gets misinterpreted as demonic possession by her parents and the Catholic church.

Mark Kermode was also a big fan of it at the time it of its release, which coming from an Exorcist-fanatic was quite a recommendation!

colinr0380 wrote:

Lost Highway wrote:My favourite German speaking film of the last 25 years is probably Requiem (2006) by Hans-Christian Schmid. It features a heart wrenching performance by Sandra Hüller. Loosely based on the notorious Anneliese Michel exorcism case which also was the inspiration for the exploitative The Exorcism of Emily Rose, it's the perfect anti-dode to every pro-Christian possession film ever made. It's about a young woman trying and failing to break free from her religiously oppressive family in the "permissive 70s" and as a result suffering a disastrous emotional breakdown, which in combination with her epilepsy gets misinterpreted as demonic possession by her parents and the Catholic church.

Mark Kermode was also a big fan of it at the time it of its release, which coming from an Exorcist-fanatic was quite a recommendation!

Now you made me hate it.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of Kermode and his fixation on The Exorcist, a film which I can admire for its formal qualities, but not for its Catholic propaganda.

This thread seems the best place to ask this request, since I'm uncertain whether demands for recommendations are even allowed hon this forum, and I wouldn't want to create an unnecessary thread. As someone who is just beginning a foray into early German cinema, I'd be grateful for any fingers pointing me in the right direction. I've seen Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, and three films of Fritz Lang (Metropolis, Spione, and M). What should I get to next? What are the most essential early German films? I suppose I should mention I have also seen Murnau's Sunrise and some of the American films of Lang.

adarkworldandwide wrote:This thread seems the best place to ask this request, since I'm uncertain whether demands for recommendations are even allowed hon this forum, and I wouldn't want to create an unnecessary thread. As someone who is just beginning a foray into early German cinema, I'd be grateful for any fingers pointing me in the right direction. I've seen Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, and three films of Fritz Lang (Metropolis, Spione, and M). What should I get to next? What are the most essential early German films? I suppose I should mention I have also seen Murnau's Sunrise and some of the American films of Lang.

I'm assuming you liked all of the films you listed. I personally have never been much a fan of Lang (with the very notable exception of M, to which I am quite attached, although partially for personal reasons - it was my gateway into international cinema) and I can't say my own favorites will be too representative of critical consensus at large, but I'd steer you towards the Carl Mayer scripted Kammerspielfilme, which could be described as intensely psychological chamber dramas. A good entry-point is Murnau's The Last Laugh, which you may well have heard of - it's easily the most famous of these films, and readily available from MoC (or Kino, if you're locked in Region A). Its fame is largely because of the director, who, as I'm sure you know, is one of the biggest names of the era, and he certainly pulls out all of the stops in terms of camera effects and, especially, movement. The others are by much more obscure figures and a fair bit less flashy in terms of visual style, but no less impressive. Hintertreppe (directed by Leopold Jessner and Paul Leni) might be the most outwardly impressive (you can find it on a Grapevine double-feature disc) and somewhere in the bowels of this forum Herrschreck has a wonderful write-up on it. The Street (directed by Karl Grune) is also marvelously bizarre, the kind of film that has a frightening, gonzo magnificence that can only be understood by direct exposure, so seek it out. It can be viewed on Youtube, I believe, which, while obviously not ideal, is necessary for some of the more obscure films of this era. The same goes for my personal favorite, Scherben (or Shattered, directed by Lupu Pick), which is one of those films that just seems ethereal and frozen in time, somehow. It's an almost uncanny experience. (There's another Pick film, also scripted by Mayer, called Sylvester or New Year's Eve that I've never gotten a chance to see - so, if I could take a moment, does anybody know where I can find it?)

I would also suggest that you definitely look into the films of G. W. Pabst and Ernst Lubitsch. For more recommendations, take a look at the List Project threads for the 20's and 30's, paying special attention to our resident experts on German cinema, lubitsch and Tommaso.

Edit: Here is Schreck's write-up on Hintertreppe and here is his thread on Carl Mayer, which I had forgotten existed.

Edit again: Here is Scherben and here is The Street.

I assume the early in early German cinema ends with Weimar. You should basically be aware that
a) many of the films are lost
b) of the surviving films many have survived incomplete and were changed one way or the other
c) of these films outside of archives only a fraction is available on DVD, screenings, Youtube or underground channels on the internet
d) what you get on DVD in decent restored transfers is again a tiny selection which corresponds to and reflects the way these films were perceived by critics and is in no way representative (though this is true for most classical cinemas).
Especially problematic for Weimar cinema is a scholarship that was and partly still is plagued by the shadows of the Third Reich and stupid attempts to somehow extract signs from the films of the things to come. So first, forget Hitler. The second major problem is the frequent association of early German cinema with expressionism which is mostly nonsense from an art historian's perspective. There is half a dozen films which is indeed visually influenced by Expressionism and a considerably larger chunk influenced by Romanticism, see e.g. Nosferatu. But again this is a small chunk out of thousands of genre films in all varieties which you however mostly will not be able to see.

That being said German film is internationally renowned for three innovative aspects, one indeed being the Kammerspielfilm or chamber drama mostly written by Carl Mayer which is mentioned in the previous post. The second is a design approach to film which means that the picture is conceived as a painting surface to be filled either with architectural design in the early 20s, see Caligari, or later with an approach more based on lighting, see e.g. Faust. Third German cinematographers especially Karl Freund are credited with the unchained camera which means the modern freely roaming camera which explores film space, see the mentioned Der letzte Mann (The last laugh).
Less prominent in international discussion but no less important is the German mountain film for outdoor fictional filmmaking as well as the early sounf operettas.

You've already seen the four most famous films (though hardly the best). So a suggested curriculum would be

1) German Lubitsch. Get Madame Dubarry as the most prominent and watchable of the large scale German epics of the inflation era (1919-23) which were widely exported. It's reasonably entertaining, has a great leading lady with Pola Negri and represents Lubitsch already grasping American fast cutting. The film is available from MoC which is also true for his comedies which are available in a nice and currently cheap box. Die Austernprinzessin, Die Puppe and Die Bergkatze are terrifically funny and partly very stylized especially the last film. The films are a nice andidotes to the usual stupid cliches about German doom, gloom and humourlessness.

2) To complement the architectural/design approach of Caligari watch Die Nibelungen and Von morgens bis Mitternacht (Edition Filmmuseum), the latter is the single purely expressionist film made during the Weimar years. Arguably add Das Wachsfigurenkabinett though the US DVD overdoes the tinting a bit.

3) Hintertreppe and Scherben as chamber dramas. Hintertreppe is available in a pretty good copy from Grapevine, for Scherben you got a link, not many intertitles and a very easy to understand plot. These films have exactly the opposite approach of Lubitsch's films in every conceivable way. The cutting is ultra slow even for the time of its making and the film grammar is also very conservative but effective. The chamber dramas represent a breakthrough of psychology on film compared to lots of trashy writing in the 10s.

4) To complement Nosferatu watch Der müde Tod (problematic but serviceable US DVD) and Faust which show most clearly the heavy influence of the 19th century Romantic period in visual but also narrative terms.

5) For camera mobility add Der letzte Mann and Variete (German DVD with English subs) though prepare to suffer from the worst soundtrack ever commited to a silent for the latter film. These films mark the beginning of the late 20s international silent film style which merges the national schools of the previous 10 years and their preferred stylistics into unified visual narratives.

6) For social realism take Die freudlose Gasse (Edition Filmmuseum) by Pabst and preferably add one of the two Gerhard Lamprecht double features by the same publisher. This realistic strand of German cinema is usually totally forgotten in international histories.

7) For the less commercial fringe Berlin - Symphonie einer Großstadt (Edition Filmmuseum) is by a wide margin the most famous documentary of the Weimar era, arguably you could add Wunder der Schöpfung from the same DVD publisher to further explore the uniquely German Kulturfilm approach which tried to present scientific facts in myriads of shorts and occassionally features.
The Berlin DVD also offers Ruttmann's experimental abstract shorts which you have to see together with Hans Richter's and Oskar Fischinger's films which are available on different DVD sets.

8) For mountain films take Der heilige Berg (MoC), Die weiße Hölle vom Piz Palü (Kino) and Das blaue Licht. These films were probably only published because riefenstahl acts in them and directed the last one which is not why you should watch them but because they are the most impressive outdoor features of the first half of the last century. Under extremely diffcult conditions director Arnold fanck created a heavily romantic and mystic approach and created the most germanic genre in film history.

9) Die Abenteuer des Prinzen Achmed because its the first feature length animation film and still one of the best, painstakingly handmade via paper cuts by Lotte Reiniger.

10) Die Büchse der Pandora for the late silent fluidity and the miracle of Louise Brooks the leading actress. Also add Asphalt (MoC), Abwege https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waVuoOfguhU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and Die wunderbare Lüge der Nina Petrowna https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnoivyY0JPw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; all gorgeous examples for prestige productions with glamorous actresses and lots of visual style.

Until 1930 it's possible to put together a agreeable list if you don't speak German and have only access to commercial DVDs and Internet sources like Youtube. For the remainder the lack of subtitles commercial copies is extremely problematic which is all the more regrettable because the years 1930-33 are arguably the best in German film history, not even classics like Liebelei are easily available with English subs. many possible recommendations would therefore only be available via underground internet channels or film collectors, maybe something appears on Youtube.

11) Late German realism spreads out in many interesting ways. Only Menschen am Sonntag is however available as a Criterion, films like Jenseits der Straße, Mutter Krausens Fahrt ins Glück and Abschied are all very interesting for their flashier approach to realism, but not easily available.

12) Serious dramas are represented at least on Youtube with English subs via Pabst's anti-war film Westfront 1918 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tY4WaWZzA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and Sagan's Mädchen in Uniform https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bj1Z5Pd7vc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I'm not a big fan Die Dreigroschenoper but it's a Criterion and it's at the very least significant and a musical classic.

13) With this box http://www.buecher.de/shop/komoedie/deu ... /30548030/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you get ten films with English subs and for Weimar it's especially important for the early sound operettas Die Drei von der Tankstelle and Der Kongreß tanzt. The sound operettas are crucial for early sound experiments and far more advanced than their American counterparts save for the films of Lubitsch and Mamoulian's Love me Tonight. Tankstelle has very nice ideas and extremely iconic songs though it's rather roughly written and directed, Kongreß is the iconic Viennese with a much higher polish and a mixture of irony and unrestrained cliches. You also get Der blaue Engel with Marlene Dietrich though the film was restored once more in the meantime.

14) To round off this highly incomplete look at the sound films, BFI nicely released Emil und die Detektive, a children's classic with lots of visual ideas and a swiftly moving story.

Lubitsch, thank for for such a well put-together and exhaustive guide. I've seen a lot of the classics, but this gives me great context and destinations for the next rounds of exploration. An excellet service to the site and to all of us enthusiastic film-lovers.

Eight Wild boys on the Road to Alexander Platz sell their bodies at Zoo station.

What a wonderful novel I'read yesterday after 80 years of silence. Haffner speaks about the UFA myth and unreal look of Berlin low, very low crooks places in 1932.

From wikipedia: Blood Brothers, titled Blutsbrüder in German, was reissued in 2013 by the German publishing house Metrolit Verlag (Berlin) The first ever English edition, titled Blood Brothers, translated by Michael Hofmann and published by Other Press (New York), is due to appear in March 2015

This novella deserves a film.

lubitsch wrote:13) With this box http://www.buecher.de/shop/komoedie/deu ... /30548030/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you get ten films with English subs and for Weimar it's especially important for the early sound operettas Die Drei von der Tankstelle and Der Kongreß tanzt. The sound operettas are crucial for early sound experiments and far more advanced than their American counterparts save for the films of Lubitsch and Mamoulian's Love me Tonight. Tankstelle has very nice ideas and extremely iconic songs though it's rather roughly written and directed, Kongreß is the iconic Viennese with a much higher polish and a mixture of irony and unrestrained cliches. You also get Der blaue Engel with Marlene Dietrich though the film was restored once more in the meantime.

I seem to have left it too late, as this boxset is apparently out of print now, but if anyone could help me obtain a copy, please send me a private message. Thanks.

Seeing this thread lifted reminds me I haven't posted anything here about one of the best German-language films I've seen in a while: Finsterworld (Frauke Finsterwalder, 2013). In another connection I (inadequately) described it as resembling Magnolia, but with that particular Anderson replaced with equal parts Roy and Wes (actually the director has cited Rushmore as a major influence - along with, rather more obliquely, Starship Troopers!) In a way it's another anti-German-cinema-movie, an approach that seems to be producing very good results lately, but Finsterworld's dark comedy probes both German culture and the human condition in at least equal measure, so that its appeal is by no means limited just to those familiar with German culture. There's an excellent English-language interview with the filmmakers here. Highly recommended, and guaranteed to rearrange my personal 2013 top ten when I get around to updating it.

mizoguchi5354 wrote: (There's another Pick film, also scripted by Mayer, called Sylvester or New Year's Eve that I've never gotten a chance to see - so, if I could take a moment, does anybody know where I can find it?)
.

Nice to see these films being discussed, and maybe one of these centuries the powers that be will open up their goodie bags and let us get a peek and what they're sitting on. I'm tired of the same varying copies of the same gross telecine of SYlvester and the flat contrast of Scherben. And Hintertreppe... and Die Strasse... and.

Really, the same old regurgitating of the same old Langs and Murnaus is starting to bore me and make me gag, alternately. Variete was an unexpected godsend, but they had to torture us with the most absurd soundtrack in the history of western man.

Mizoguchi, did you get your Mayer/Sylvester yen cured yet? IMHO the best film of the whole lot mentioned above.

HerrSchreck wrote: Really, the same old regurgitating of the same old Langs and Murnaus is starting to bore me and make me gag, alternately.

I guess your mood will not get better if you hear that they've just restored "Tartüff" again (this time with orchestral soundtrack, and using the Russian export print instead of the US one, and admittedly the result is much superior to the older resto), and that they've started restoring Lang's "Der müde Tod", too... I'd say that particular Lang badly needs a new version, but to think that they're sitting on such gems as "Nina Petrowna" and a perfect copy - shown last summer in Berlin - of the unbelievably good crime comedy "Ihr dunkler Punkt" by Johannes Guter and do nothing about it...