criterionforum.org

So many people on this forum seem to love The Baader-Meinhof Complex, but no one's said why. There wasn't even a thread for it. I thought it was a confusing mess of a film, and I had a good knowledge of the people and events before watching it. I'd love it if someone posted their appreciative comments.

I thought it was done pretty well, that the cast is good too and that the directing was adapted to the subject.
I thought though, like you, that the movie is quite confused, but I did some research for my german class, and the events are confused too : a lot of things, people, countries and motivations involved, so I think that, when trying to sum up all this, the movie couldn't be that clear anyway.

But, as an introduction and some kind of a sum up of all these events, I think it's a pretty good movie. Moreover, I didn't find it to take a side (especially by trying not to say much about their deaths at the end), which is the best thing they could do, since their deaths stay quite controversial (and still are).

I do think that its surprising impartiality is the best way to tell the story (these, after all, are no heroes, despite their high ideals), but it does run the risk of making you think, "Now why am I supposed to care about these people?" Perhaps, for me, the film just tried to accomplish too much. For example, the death of Petra Schelm was kind of a major event in the actual RAF history, even though she was not a core member of the group. In the film, she is basically introduced as a character just before she is killed and then not mentioned again. Now, you could either drop the event entirely to streamline the film or expand on its significance (and make a long film even longer), but to what end? As I'm thinking about it now, it seems like the whole idea of the film is flawed: to create a journalistic re-enactment of several years' worth of chaotic events by shoehorning them into a 2.5-hour mainstream narrative movie. Perhaps it's a miracle that the film succeeds as much as it does.

I have to agree with Matt on this. The film had noble enough ambitions and respect the way it kept impartial throughout. Actually I'd like to give additional compliment on how well it brought me, someone who was completely ignorant of the RAF, up to speed. Despite this though I never felt it went above a nice educational piece.
I was in tears of laughter and nostalgia though when I found out what one of the director's previous efforts was.

^^^

I assume you're referring to Body of Evidence. I have this on the instant queue and there are two reasons I haven't watched it yet: the fact I haven't found a 150 minute time period where I can just sit and watch it, and the fact that Uli directed it. I have no idea what else the guy has done, and maybe he's good otherwise, but I remember after sitting through Body of Evidence I looked up the director and vowed to never sit through one of his films again.

And I just looked up his IMDB entry and see he did another gem called Purgatory, which I recall being along the lines of a dismal Twilight Zone/Tales From the Crypt episode...

I was thinking of The Little Vampire, which I had to take my kid siblings to about fifty times in 2000. It wasn't terribly awful, but it was no Gremlins.

cdnchris wrote:...and the fact that Uli directed it. I have no idea what else the guy has done, and maybe he's good otherwise, but I remember after sitting through Body of Evidence I looked up the director and vowed to never sit through one of his films again.

Edel's had a wayward career and there are a number of genuine stinkers in there (Body of Evidence, Ring of the Nibelungs). But he's also difficult to write off entirely thanks to Christiane F. and especially Last Exit to Brooklyn, not to mention episodes of Twin Peaks and Oz.

I sort of agree with Matt about this. I didn't mind the movie, but the history is so potent that I was dismayed that such a plodding film resulted. And when you compare this to a couple of sharp, fiery masterpieces that were tossed out much closer to the events - The Third Generation and Stammheim - the conservatism of this film looks even more dreary.

Another particular bugbear for me was the extremely boring and literal use of old pop songs - but this bugs me about lots of films. Am I misremembering, or did they really go with a cover of 'My Generation'? I wonder what they were trying to express with that choice? And maybe I just wish somebody would make a film on the subject that uses Luke Haines' brilliant Enofied scratchy kraut-funk Baader Meinhof album for its soundtrack.

Thanks, zedz, for referencing two of the best works inspired by the real events: the Fassbinder film and the Luke Haines album. I'd much rather that everyone had a look and a listen to those two (and a flip or two through Astrid Proll's book of photographs and a tour through an installation of Gerhard Richter's October 18, 1977 series of paintings) instead of watching this film.

Fassbinder's The Third Generation is the reason I haven't been in hurry to watch this film. With Fassbinder's film in mind, I don't think I could fairly evaluate what ever good, bad or indifferent elements are at play in The Badder Meinhof Complex. The Third Generation is such a powerful piece of work, that my inability to not make the comparison almost guarantees I'll end up massively disappointed. Then again I am interested in seeing some of the other films revolving around the same subject, like von Trotta's Marianne and Juliane and The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum so maybe my problem is that this film looks like just another underachieving bio-pic gussied-up with overbearing stylistic flourishes, much in the same vein as I felt that the Italian film Il Divo was.

joshua wrote:Fassbinder's The Third Generation is the reason I haven't been in hurry to watch this film. With Fassbinder's film in mind, I don't think I could fairly evaluate what ever good, bad or indifferent elements are at play in The Badder Meinhof Complex. The Third Generation is such a powerful piece of work, that my inability to not make the comparison almost guarantees I'll end up massively disappointed. Then again I am interested in seeing some of the other films revolving around the same subject, like von Trotta's Marianne and Juliane and The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum so maybe my problem is that this film looks like just another underachieving bio-pic gussied-up with overbearing stylistic flourishes, much in the same vein as I felt that the Italian film Il Divo was.

I feel that slur against Il divo is an oft one, which I feel is unfair. In the overwhelming majority of reviews I saw for Il divo that criticised it heavily, it was usually the same argument as you've made, when the real problem was the viewer not being familiar with Italian politics at that time. I don't think judging Il divo as a "underachieving bio-pic gussied-up with overbearing stylistic flourishes" is particuarly fair unless you lived through that period in Italy or you have studied the history of that time. The director himself conceded that it was never his intention to water down the film to create a more accessible movie for foreign audiences. It has an expectation that the audience knows the setting well, in the same way a viewer would feel more acquainted with a more "famous" period in time.

Please forgive me if your familiarity with Italy in that period does go far beyond the phrase anni di piombo but after that terrible DVDTimes review for the film, which gave the film an absurd score of 0, I feel the need to defend it.

Meinhof is nothing like Il Divo. Its stylistic flourishes are nip.
(I agree with TM on this, even though as a character study I don't think you need to know anything about Italian politics, but that is getting very off topic)

Yeah, I knew that line was going to come back and bite me in the ass. As you say, I am not as familiar as I should be with that period to fully appreciate the film in the way that you obviously did. I did look into some of what was written on that period when I first saw Good Morning, Night many years ago but my knowledge is not to the detail that would be considered anything above general awareness. I do feel though that Il Divo gave enough information inside of its narrative construction to understand what the film's general arguments were. My personal feeling while watching the film was that if (by playing a mental game) I stripped away the whiz-bang camera/editing techniques and the droll sarcasm, what was left underneath seemed to be a this-happened-then-that-happened kind of history lesson flick, one that I did not feel had its style and substance elements operating on the same level. As you say though, its probable that the more I know about the historical/social background, the more I'll get out of the film itself. My argument would be that if I played the same game with The Third Generation, the layers of complexity remaining are still pretty potent regardless of ones knowledge of the time period. It is a film that, even if it had no ties to real world events, would not be lacking for layers of thought provoking material. To bring it back to Baader, I got the impression from the trailer and articles about the film that those layers would be missing from the experience. By the way, just to clarify that I would not be in the 0/10 camp, in the "rate the year's films" list I make with some friends in Denver I gave Il Divo a 7.

I'll reiterate my comments on the blu ray release:

But the release is incredible, and so far top release of the year for me. the film looks amazing and there seems to be close to 3 hours of extras. My only quibble is what i've watched so far of the supplements there isn't enough historical background for my liking. Such a fascinating story, it would have been good to get more context, particularly the aftermath - what happens after the film ends?

But it is otherwise exhaustive, and is a first rate treatment for an incredible film. I saw this at a festival last summer, and it was just as good as I recalled from that experience. It doesn't seek to glorify them in any way, shape or form, nor does it fall prey to the simplistic American tendencies towards blanket moralism....it was refreshingly unromantic and straightforward in simply rehashing the terror and chaos of the period. though it clocks in at 2 1/2 hours already, some recognition of the Stasi connections we now know exist would have made it even better.


And add: What I loved most about it is the fact that they don't try to make us care about the main characters - because no one should. beyond the political story, I think it's the best film I've seen on the dangers of wayward youth who become obsessed with activism for the sake of activism - and in this case it got WAY out of hand. Looking at the lives of the survivors for example - one became an embittered Nazi for crying out loud - it becomes even clearer that this movement was nothing but unfocused anger and led by dangerously misguided people who would have ended up fighting whatever the times presented them. I think what the above commenters took as "muddled" is a perfect representation of the ad hoc nature of their psychopathic rebellion. Just look at the last act in prison - they weren't working together, and Ulrike could never iterate a coherent defense. The scenes in the Middle East likewise reflect their immaturity and failure to see the world for what it is, not what they wanted it to be. In a lot of ways they are pretty pathetic individuals that collectively caused a lot of grief and pain, and I love that this film reveals that truth with stark verisimilitude.

I don't know what else I can say to defend it, other than I found it riveting from start to finish.

I'm also in the corner of this being a weak effort, and I'm a sucker for the AK-47s and bellbottoms genre. Not quite biopic and not quite action movie, the narrative is scattered and the politics are too wishy-washy. My preference is Le Chinoise, which is both less politically correct, yet questions and gets to possible contradiction at the heart of armed resistance.

I guess I'll ask again: weren't THEIR politics awfully "wishy washy"? Isn't that kind of the point? I may be completely wrong here - it certainly wouldn't be the first time - but that's part of what endeared me to the film. I loved that Edel didn't try to spiff them up and give them some flashy radical monologues...which would have turned it into a major Oliver Stone-esque groaner.

Having just read Christopher Hitchens review of The Baader Meinhof Complex, I felt compelled to resurrect this old thread and rap on some of the particular feelings I had about this movie and The Third Generation. I poked around a bit on the internet for other reviews as well, and I ended up feeling particularly troubled about the bizarrely varied reactions to the two films. I find myself hating The Baader Meinhof Complex for what seemed to me to be a superficial stylistic approach and a cynical attitude towards the "idiotic hijinks" of the RAF, and conversely loving The Third Generation for what seems to me its much larger understanding of and sympathy for people and their alienation--as a result of those feelings, the range of reviews and the politically- and film-theoretically-charged perspectives by which people approach the two films really disturb me.

Hitchens review of the film is quite positive, for many of the same reasons HistoryProf elucidates in this thread. And Hitchens is approaching the film as a journalist and an historian, and as someone fundamentally opposed to sectarian violence in any form. He applauds the film because it doesn't fail to point out every idiocy and vanity behind the Baader Meinhof group's thuggery. He feels the film essentially de-romanticizes the Red Army Faction in an essentially prosocial way. I've managed to turn up many reviews online where people feel the exact opposite about the film, and it seems in Germany the film was commonly accused of, in fact, romanticizing the group––making it out to be a sexy collection of fashion-plates, who get a powerful fix of sex and violence through their shared radicalization.

For background, I must say that I had the luck of a very weird coincidence, wherein I managed to see first The Baader Meinhof Complex and second The Third Generation within the same week-–without having any introduction to either film before seeing them. And in that light, it seemed rather clear to me that The Third Generation was a complex and fascinating movie--one that worked upon several levels of insight at once, and which was the product of an inspired and sensitive filmmaker.

On the other hand, The Baader Meinhoff Complex seemed to me to be a slick gloss on the Scorcese-hit-parade style of filmmaking, providing a very superficial historical review of the Red Army Faction and the characters and events surrounding it. The picture seemed to me to follow a current vogue for quickly-edited, reality-show-like immediacy, coupled with a protracted stretch of narrative progression that is almost like an endurance test of direct, prosaic assault--not on one's senses so much as one's sensitivity. How many scenes of unadorned, furious steadicam confrontation between actors can we take? The Edel film did seem to me to be substantially right-wing in its sympathies, and that might have been my own reactionary feeling operating against the film. But there was such an unrelenting focus upon the members of the RAF behaving badly, in scene after scene of extended behavioral "observation." The style seemed to me very reminiscent of Adam Sandler's unending, repetitive and humiliating confrontations with every character in Punch-Drunk Love. In that film we laugh at the mute idiocy of the central character, until it becomes clear that he is deeply hurt by these exchanges, and that he is ready to explode into violence as a result. It did seem to me as if Edel was making the RAF out to be a collection of idiots every chance he got, but the effect of the mis-en-scene in Baader Meinhof is different than in the Sandler movie, in that while we gain sympathy for Sandler, the same stylistic flourish distances us from the RAF members. The resounding impression I had of the Edel film was that it was a contemporary action movie, with exploitative nudity, steadicam violence, overheated editing and pop music as its driving filmic forces. Thus the stylistic approach gave the film a sheen of cynicism that I found very off-putting. Hitchens in his review doesn't seem to have felt any of that encounter with the film's style, or the alienation I experienced because of that encounter.

Conversely, The Third Generation was a film that lived and breathed before me. There is nudity in The Third Generation, but it hardly seems to be cut from the same cloth as that lascivious and tacked-on nudity in the Edel film. There is action in The Third Generation, but it is tiny moments, un-fetishized and unromantic, and it is buried within a much more thoughtful and unique mis-en-scene than anything that graced The Baader Meinhof Complex. To me The Third Generation is far more penetrating--it's a film that really reaches into its characters and shows us souls within, even as the film is critical of its RAF-manque. It's a film that evokes insights into its own society, whereas the Edel film seems to be all surface. The Third Generation also uses film style to make its points, rather than simply supplying narrative illustration, a la The Baader Meinhof Complex.

I think Hitchens probably hasn't seen the Fassbinder film, but a quote from the end of his article about the Edel movie stuck a bit in my throat:

"It’s high time that the movie business outgrew some of the illusions of “radical” terrorism, and this film makes an admirably unsentimental contribution to that task."

I guess Hitchens is coming at this from the standpoint of someone who really doesn't see an enormous amount of movies. His approach is entirely socio-historical. He looks at the picture in terms of the historical events it illustrates, and he reads into the picture a tone which corresponds to his hopes for what the movie could do. He wants the film to debunk the mythic glamour of "radical" terrorism, and so he sees the film doing that (interesting that German audiences seemed to feel the film did the opposite). There is a level on which the film operates, however, that Hitchens appears to ignore--the level I believe zedz is referring to when he talks about the conservatism of the film. For a film-lover, the Edel movie is genuinely dreary, because of this layer of sub-Bond-ian apparatus which Edel brings to bear. The jolting from location to location, like an exotic travelogue. The steadicam flurry of the action. The blatantly exploitative nudity, and the clear fetishization of it. And especially the cutting of "sign of the times" history to period pop music. The craft of the film is essentially crass and cynical––because it is entirely commercial, and it makes no attempt to interface the subject matter in a productive way––and I guess to my mind it warps the film as a result. It makes the movie seem a history showreel, for fun and profit, more than an attempt to understand people and their times (Here's looking at you, Argo). The Third Generation, to me, gives one a contrasting sense of the space surrounding its would-be revolutionaries in a way to which Edel seems entirely oblivious--and it makes a huge difference in how I perceive the value of the two films. In the Fassbinder movie, we feel the things in their society which the RAF members feel they are responding to––the atmosphere of The Third Generation is filled with harsh menace and weird, mordant humor and social observation. There is almost no "atmosphere" present in the slick package of The Baader Meinhof Complex, and no sense that society is operating around the RAF members, sending out signals and pulsing with spheres of influence.

Still, I wonder if my preference for filmic style--coupled with an interest, drawn from Renoir films, to look at everybody with their own reasons, ne justifications--puts me on the wrong side of history in a certain respect. Because I do want to sympathize with--or at least understand--the people who are the subjects of a film. I instinctively want to relate to those characters in a sympathetic way, and I applaud filmic style that provides that kind of depth. But Hitchens and HistoryProf make a case that sympathy for the RAF is unwarranted, and I can see the social efficacy--and basic human rightness--of such an argument. The RAF were dubious in their political conviction and organization, and they were most likely manipulated by and funded by the Stasi, and the things they did hurt innocent people. Incidentally, Fassbinder's film does not refute any of these ideas, even as it finds time to appreciate a dehumanizing world to which his protagonists respond with understandable alienation. Is it wrong to look at these people and feel sympathy for their alienation, even if their actions in the service of hope or despair are misguided and deplorable? Is that "humanist" film theory, dangerously infiltrating history?

I think it's entirely possible to make a cutty fast moving action film about 1970s Euro terrorism that addresses all of your concerns with the facile approach of The Baader Meinhof Complex. Exhibit A: Carlos. Heck that film even has some RAF players in supporting roles. I'd say that Assayas portrays all of his characters' reasons with a terrible clarity that isn't exactly judgment. But in the case of his protagonist in particular it comes close, just because there's almost no practical difference between seeing Carlos for what he is and declaring him one of the bigger and more narcissistic assholes in recent world history.

I agree with you about Carlos 100%. But Carlos never feels like an exploitative movie to me, and Baader Meinhof often does. There is action in Carlos, but I wouldn't identify the movie as primarily an action film. The style of Carlos fits the subject matter well, and allows space for us to observe the society in which Carlos functions.

I don't mind that Baader Meinhof is critical of the RAF. But I feel as if the film paints a very biased picture, simply by dint of being superficial and glib in its style. Conversely, the style in Carlos--with its extended shots where we follow Carlos himself--allows us to see him making the decisions that make him more dangerous and which fulfill his unbridled sense of himself. The style Assayas uses never seems glib or unnecessary to his reading of the material. And you never get the feeling of tunnel vision in Carlos which is present in Baader Meinhof. The society in which Carlos sets out to become bete noir is always on display in the film, but it's never given the music-video-sequence summary that Baader Meinhof often reaches for.

Fassbinder's film, also, is never slow, and it never seems less than commercial in its aims, to me. But I think what we're seeing in both The Third Generation and Carlos is the expanded understanding--or at least the expanded ability to communicate that understanding--given a really sensitive film artist. Whereas Baader Meinhof feels to me like a kind of "hack" popular film. I think that praise for the endeavor comes largely from people who are not very sensitive to the effects of movies, and who are more immediately energized by the movies' relationship to history--maybe in the same way some of us comic book fans are thrilled by a somewhat accurate film adaptation of our favorite comic book characters, and rather less motivated by comic book films that change the tone and the details of our favorite characters' comic stories in order to make a more accessible or accomplished film?

But I guess the central question I have is...are there instances in which film artistry is less important than being on the "right" side of an issue? We film fans praise Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, in spite of the general consensus that these movies are propaganda agents of abhorrent, nihilistic causes. Is Baader Meinhof a better film for not really having sympathy for its heroes (even as the question remains whether the film is in fact directly mocking them or dressing them up as the coolest kids in school), or is the more sensitive understanding available to films like The Third Generation somewhat irrelevant in this case? Is The Third Generation a more admirable movie for showing sympathy for its foolish, self-centered, manipulated and finally, dangerous heroes, or should such feelings even be considered? Does it matter that Baader Meinhof can offer little realistic atmosphere of the time and place that might explain more coherently the background of these characters glamorous nihilism?

To my surprise, after a repeat viewing the other day what before seemed to me an utterly dismal affair now seems at least somewhat tolerable. Bombastic but tolerable.

zedz wrote:Another particular bugbear for me was the extremely boring and literal use of old pop songs - but this bugs me about lots of films.

It bothers me too. But far worse than that was the score which does its damndest to match the director in hamfistedness. This is confirmed in the extras where the musicians in question outline (and show) their strategy of trying to hit as hard as the action depicted on screen. Surely it would've been wiser to take the opposite tac and perform with as light a touch as possible. No doubt they made the movie much, much worse.

warren oates wrote:I think it's entirely possible to make a cutty fast moving action film about 1970s Euro terrorism that addresses all of your concerns with the facile approach of The Baader Meinhof Complex. Exhibit A: Carlos

Perhaps it should be de rigeur when talking about commercial political suspense films to bring up Costa Gavras's State of Siege. It's nowhere near as exhaustive as BM or Carlos for that matter, but it does pull off that tricky balance of building suspense agilely while not losing sight of the roiling subtext underneath.

feihong wrote:The Edel film did seem to me to be substantially right-wing in its sympathies, and that might have been my own reactionary feeling operating against the film. But there was such an unrelenting focus upon the members of the RAF behaving badly, in scene after scene of extended behavioral "observation."

I don't think it's that Edel or Bernd Eichinger are necessarily right wing. For instance, a right winger might not have have depicted that fissure between Meinhof and the others right at the end. It's more to do with Eichinger and Edel's commercial background. Eichinger especially seems to have thought in purely commercial terms judging from what he said in the extras. Though granted one could argue that any practical distinctions between working in that commercial milieu and being a right winger are irrelevant.