Oscar nominations and a film review
Oscar nominations: I squeed when I saw Spielzeugland - aka the one I just gave an award to at the end of the Short Film Festival in Bamberg - got nominated for best life action short film. I really hope it wins, because it rocks and the director, who was at the festival, appears to be a great guy.
Meanwhile, consider me amazed Der Baader Meinhoff Komplex made it into the "best foreign language" film. While it had its moments, it wasn't anywhere near as good as Das Todesspiel (still the best take on the entire RAF/ 70s terrorism/ response to same subject for my money). Also, speaking purely from a cinematic point of view, while it does get a sense of personality across for Ulrike Meinhoff (great performance by Martina Gedeck - her scenes are definitely the stand-out sequences of the film, and she's the only character whom you see a believable psychological development of, from idealistic journalist to radical to murderer to complete breakdown), Gudrun Ensslin and Andreas Baader, it doesn't for the rest of its huge sensemble - if you're not familiar with some 70s who is who, you're bound to be confused. Which is a failure in an ensemble film. Consequently, I really don't see how it could win.
Speaking of ensemble films, I was a bit torn about whether or not to see Valkyrie, because on the one hand, Bryan Singer, whom I love as a director, on the other, Tom Cruise (whom I have nothing against as an actor and actually consider a good one in films like Born on the 4th of July or Rain Man, but whose public bashing of psychiatry and medication, and scientology membership are off-putting, to put it mildly. Then I got an invitation, and so I went. One of life's ironies about Valkyrie: when it was shot last year, there was much controversy over here (Stauffenberg's surviving family was less than thrilled at the idea of Cruise as Stauffenberg because of the Scientology factor, and then there was the debate about whether or not the historical sights should be available as film locations). Now that the film is released, the American reviews were very mixed, but the German reviews I've seen so far are all positive.
As for me: I thought it showcased Singer's ensemble film skills (see also: The Usual Suspects, X-Men), as well as his ability to create suspense. In contrast to the Baader Meinhoff Complex mentioned above, here all the characters are distinguishable from each other and you get a sense of what they were like. (And not just because they're acted by great English Actors like Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy or Tom Wilkinson - Der Baader Meinhoff Komplex boasts of some of the finest German actors, too - it's really the script that makes the difference.) The fact you know Hitler died in 1945, not 1944 doesn't make a difference. The downsides? Well, the use of music is less than subtle - I could have done without sinister themes the three or so times Hitler shows up on screen (even a historically ignorant audience would know he's the bad guy without that). Also, while I think for the kind of film it is - a suspenseful thriller, like a said - it was the right choice to start it when all the principal characters have already made their decision to act against Hitler (i.e. you don't get flashbacks explaining why and when Beck or von Tresckow or any of them made the step from loyal army officer to deciding the patriotic thing to do was to get rid of Hitler and the party), there is one scene in which this didn't work, and that's when Stauffenberg gets a new attaché, and tells him they're about to committ high treason in their very first encounter. This requires too much of a suspension of disbelief.
Now, this isn't the first movie treatment of this story. There have been five or so, two of which I've seen (a black and white one, the first one, I believe, which was well meant - at that point the July 20th conspirators weren't yet heroes in the public consciousness - this was the early 50s - and the film visibly argued against the "traitor" charge - but nothing special, and a more recent one by Jo Baier with Sebastian Koch as Stauffenberg which tried for a very critical perspective - starting in '33, pointing out how many of the future conspirators were on board with the idea of Hitler-as-saviour back then - but alas suffered from a bad script in terms of storytelling.) And of course it can't be seen context free. If the July 20th conspirators were reviled as traitors when it happened and in the years immediately after, they were later dismissed as unworthy of the term "resistance" because they were a case of "too little, too late". I've seen that charge in several English language reviews. While I myself find people like the White Rose students or Georg Elser (who tried to kill Hitler in '39) easier to admire - they were never guilty themselves - I always thought that glib dismissal to be massively unfair. You can't offer more than your own life, and they all knew what would happen if they failed, so how was what they did "too little"? As for "too late", obviously it would have been vastly preferable if it had happened years earlier, but during the last nine months because the failed assassination and Hitler's actual death, so many people more died both in battle, in bombed cities and in the camps, and they could have been saved, so I'd argue there is no such thing as "too late" when it comes to tyrannicide.
(You can argue with the benefit of hindsight that it probably was better that WWII ended the way it did because that way, there was no legend of "we could have won if only those officers hadn't killed Hitler" developing, and there was a confrontation with the enormity of the holocaust and all war crimes which might not have happened in this form if there had been a negotiated surrender instead of an unconditional one. But that's a big picture point of view that doesn't take into account the deaths which could have been prevented, see above.)
So does a film like Valkyrie glorify the conspirators beyond their due? I don't think so. (It also doesn't make the mistake of proprogating the myth the army never ever participated in war crimes, that it was all the SS. In his opening monologue, Stauffenberg talks about what the army under Hitler has become and lists several war crimes.) It doesn't paint a complete picture of the group, either. If I have a historical complaint, it's that Goerdeler (Kevin McNally) - who would have become chancellor had the coup succeeded, and was the civilian head of the group - comes across as somewhat unfavourably in his arguments with Stauffenberg, which doesn't do justice to the man. (He was an arch conservative but one who as mayor of Leipzig in April of 1933 ordered the SA to stop their boycott of Jewish businesses and in 1936 stepped down from his office on the occasion of the demolition of a monument to German-Jewish composer Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy.) But as a way of portraying the tensions between the civilian and the military sides of the conspiracy - which did exist - it works. What the film also effectively conveys is why this, out of the 15 known attempts to kill Hitler, was the one which had the best chance to succeed (because there was a plan that covered more than just Hitler's death - a dead Hitler would still have left Himmler, Goering, Goebbels as well as the entire party apparatus - and the army was the only institution which realistically could have overthrown the goverment at that point) and why it failed (which wasn't just to the bad luck of Hitler surviving but due to mistakes by the conspirators, who are presented as flawed.
Accents: I watched the dubbed version, so I couldn't say how it comes across in the original English, but the dubbing was very thoroughly done. (For example, Hitler has that slight Austrian accent his normal speaking voice - when he wasn't ranting in orator mode - had, Goebbels has his Rhineland intonation, and so forth.)
Most effective visual getting across of a point: Olbricht talks to Stauffenberg early in the film, recruiting him, in the Frauenkirche in Munich. First we see them at eye level, and there isn't anything unusual about two men talking in a church. Then, once Olbricht gets up and leaves and the scene ends, the camera goes higher, and we see that some of the ceiling has been destroyed; this church is damaged and something of a war ruin through which we see the open sky.
By contrast, most clunky getting across a point (other than the sinister music whenever Hitler shows up): during a visit with his family, one of Stauffenberg's kids puts on Ride of the Valkyries. I mean, I get why Singer does this (and also, kudos for using an actual recording of the time, with Knappertsbusch conducting), and it's not false to character (Stauffenberg was a Wagner fan), but it still feels forced. I'm in two minds about the music during the credits, too. On the one hand, good idea to use Goethe's Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh* - which has been called the most perfect German poem ever and is as anti-megalomania as they come in its quietness and subtle evocation of nature and death both - but bad idea to store it with a chorus. One single voice, yes; chorus, no. The quietness and not-grandiosity is the very point of the poem, after all.
Finally, regarding Tom Cruise: he does a good job. Not a standout performance, but as the script as far as Stauffenberg is concerned doesn't go beyond "hero, tries his best" with the characterisation, it's not demanded. Where he's most effective and able to make the audience flinch in a good way is in the scene where Stauffenberg after having lost one hand and several fingers of another as well as one eye for the first time gets himself dressed (and much later, gets the bomb ready); these are entirely silent scenes that don't dwell but still get across both what it means to be handicapped like this and the determination to cope.
*Also known as Wanderers Nachtlied: Goethe inscribed it on the planks of a shack in the mountains as a young man, and saw it last months before his death in old age.
Über allen Gipfeln
Ist Ruh'
In allen Wipfeln
Spürest Du
Kaum einen Hauch;
Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde
Warte nur, balde
Ruhest Du auch.
An English so-so translation, which doesn't quite convey the sound experience:
Over all the hilltops
is peace,
in all the treetops
you notice
hardly a breeze;
the forest birds cease singing their song,
wait a while - ere long
you'll rest like these!
Meanwhile, consider me amazed Der Baader Meinhoff Komplex made it into the "best foreign language" film. While it had its moments, it wasn't anywhere near as good as Das Todesspiel (still the best take on the entire RAF/ 70s terrorism/ response to same subject for my money). Also, speaking purely from a cinematic point of view, while it does get a sense of personality across for Ulrike Meinhoff (great performance by Martina Gedeck - her scenes are definitely the stand-out sequences of the film, and she's the only character whom you see a believable psychological development of, from idealistic journalist to radical to murderer to complete breakdown), Gudrun Ensslin and Andreas Baader, it doesn't for the rest of its huge sensemble - if you're not familiar with some 70s who is who, you're bound to be confused. Which is a failure in an ensemble film. Consequently, I really don't see how it could win.
Speaking of ensemble films, I was a bit torn about whether or not to see Valkyrie, because on the one hand, Bryan Singer, whom I love as a director, on the other, Tom Cruise (whom I have nothing against as an actor and actually consider a good one in films like Born on the 4th of July or Rain Man, but whose public bashing of psychiatry and medication, and scientology membership are off-putting, to put it mildly. Then I got an invitation, and so I went. One of life's ironies about Valkyrie: when it was shot last year, there was much controversy over here (Stauffenberg's surviving family was less than thrilled at the idea of Cruise as Stauffenberg because of the Scientology factor, and then there was the debate about whether or not the historical sights should be available as film locations). Now that the film is released, the American reviews were very mixed, but the German reviews I've seen so far are all positive.
As for me: I thought it showcased Singer's ensemble film skills (see also: The Usual Suspects, X-Men), as well as his ability to create suspense. In contrast to the Baader Meinhoff Complex mentioned above, here all the characters are distinguishable from each other and you get a sense of what they were like. (And not just because they're acted by great English Actors like Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy or Tom Wilkinson - Der Baader Meinhoff Komplex boasts of some of the finest German actors, too - it's really the script that makes the difference.) The fact you know Hitler died in 1945, not 1944 doesn't make a difference. The downsides? Well, the use of music is less than subtle - I could have done without sinister themes the three or so times Hitler shows up on screen (even a historically ignorant audience would know he's the bad guy without that). Also, while I think for the kind of film it is - a suspenseful thriller, like a said - it was the right choice to start it when all the principal characters have already made their decision to act against Hitler (i.e. you don't get flashbacks explaining why and when Beck or von Tresckow or any of them made the step from loyal army officer to deciding the patriotic thing to do was to get rid of Hitler and the party), there is one scene in which this didn't work, and that's when Stauffenberg gets a new attaché, and tells him they're about to committ high treason in their very first encounter. This requires too much of a suspension of disbelief.
Now, this isn't the first movie treatment of this story. There have been five or so, two of which I've seen (a black and white one, the first one, I believe, which was well meant - at that point the July 20th conspirators weren't yet heroes in the public consciousness - this was the early 50s - and the film visibly argued against the "traitor" charge - but nothing special, and a more recent one by Jo Baier with Sebastian Koch as Stauffenberg which tried for a very critical perspective - starting in '33, pointing out how many of the future conspirators were on board with the idea of Hitler-as-saviour back then - but alas suffered from a bad script in terms of storytelling.) And of course it can't be seen context free. If the July 20th conspirators were reviled as traitors when it happened and in the years immediately after, they were later dismissed as unworthy of the term "resistance" because they were a case of "too little, too late". I've seen that charge in several English language reviews. While I myself find people like the White Rose students or Georg Elser (who tried to kill Hitler in '39) easier to admire - they were never guilty themselves - I always thought that glib dismissal to be massively unfair. You can't offer more than your own life, and they all knew what would happen if they failed, so how was what they did "too little"? As for "too late", obviously it would have been vastly preferable if it had happened years earlier, but during the last nine months because the failed assassination and Hitler's actual death, so many people more died both in battle, in bombed cities and in the camps, and they could have been saved, so I'd argue there is no such thing as "too late" when it comes to tyrannicide.
(You can argue with the benefit of hindsight that it probably was better that WWII ended the way it did because that way, there was no legend of "we could have won if only those officers hadn't killed Hitler" developing, and there was a confrontation with the enormity of the holocaust and all war crimes which might not have happened in this form if there had been a negotiated surrender instead of an unconditional one. But that's a big picture point of view that doesn't take into account the deaths which could have been prevented, see above.)
So does a film like Valkyrie glorify the conspirators beyond their due? I don't think so. (It also doesn't make the mistake of proprogating the myth the army never ever participated in war crimes, that it was all the SS. In his opening monologue, Stauffenberg talks about what the army under Hitler has become and lists several war crimes.) It doesn't paint a complete picture of the group, either. If I have a historical complaint, it's that Goerdeler (Kevin McNally) - who would have become chancellor had the coup succeeded, and was the civilian head of the group - comes across as somewhat unfavourably in his arguments with Stauffenberg, which doesn't do justice to the man. (He was an arch conservative but one who as mayor of Leipzig in April of 1933 ordered the SA to stop their boycott of Jewish businesses and in 1936 stepped down from his office on the occasion of the demolition of a monument to German-Jewish composer Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy.) But as a way of portraying the tensions between the civilian and the military sides of the conspiracy - which did exist - it works. What the film also effectively conveys is why this, out of the 15 known attempts to kill Hitler, was the one which had the best chance to succeed (because there was a plan that covered more than just Hitler's death - a dead Hitler would still have left Himmler, Goering, Goebbels as well as the entire party apparatus - and the army was the only institution which realistically could have overthrown the goverment at that point) and why it failed (which wasn't just to the bad luck of Hitler surviving but due to mistakes by the conspirators, who are presented as flawed.
Accents: I watched the dubbed version, so I couldn't say how it comes across in the original English, but the dubbing was very thoroughly done. (For example, Hitler has that slight Austrian accent his normal speaking voice - when he wasn't ranting in orator mode - had, Goebbels has his Rhineland intonation, and so forth.)
Most effective visual getting across of a point: Olbricht talks to Stauffenberg early in the film, recruiting him, in the Frauenkirche in Munich. First we see them at eye level, and there isn't anything unusual about two men talking in a church. Then, once Olbricht gets up and leaves and the scene ends, the camera goes higher, and we see that some of the ceiling has been destroyed; this church is damaged and something of a war ruin through which we see the open sky.
By contrast, most clunky getting across a point (other than the sinister music whenever Hitler shows up): during a visit with his family, one of Stauffenberg's kids puts on Ride of the Valkyries. I mean, I get why Singer does this (and also, kudos for using an actual recording of the time, with Knappertsbusch conducting), and it's not false to character (Stauffenberg was a Wagner fan), but it still feels forced. I'm in two minds about the music during the credits, too. On the one hand, good idea to use Goethe's Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh* - which has been called the most perfect German poem ever and is as anti-megalomania as they come in its quietness and subtle evocation of nature and death both - but bad idea to store it with a chorus. One single voice, yes; chorus, no. The quietness and not-grandiosity is the very point of the poem, after all.
Finally, regarding Tom Cruise: he does a good job. Not a standout performance, but as the script as far as Stauffenberg is concerned doesn't go beyond "hero, tries his best" with the characterisation, it's not demanded. Where he's most effective and able to make the audience flinch in a good way is in the scene where Stauffenberg after having lost one hand and several fingers of another as well as one eye for the first time gets himself dressed (and much later, gets the bomb ready); these are entirely silent scenes that don't dwell but still get across both what it means to be handicapped like this and the determination to cope.
*Also known as Wanderers Nachtlied: Goethe inscribed it on the planks of a shack in the mountains as a young man, and saw it last months before his death in old age.
Über allen Gipfeln
Ist Ruh'
In allen Wipfeln
Spürest Du
Kaum einen Hauch;
Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde
Warte nur, balde
Ruhest Du auch.
An English so-so translation, which doesn't quite convey the sound experience:
Over all the hilltops
is peace,
in all the treetops
you notice
hardly a breeze;
the forest birds cease singing their song,
wait a while - ere long
you'll rest like these!