Surveillance cameras and security cameras have played a role in previous Petzold’s films, but not as significantly and prominently as in Dreileben. In this film, the monitors are significant since the film uses the nursery home’s security cameras as a narrative propeller. For example, they help Johannes to know when Ana comes to see him, and consequently show Ana coming and leaving while he is being embraced by the head doctor—a detail that would otherwise be unknown. This aspect is important in that sense, but it is not the only way those fragmentations—both in terms of color disruption and stylistic variation—come ianto play. The cinematography itself takes on a type of surveillance tonality. The black and white monitors, in this film, as well as the two examples that occur in Ghosts, become a micro-eye reflective of the way that Petzold’s camera is working. In that sense, the style of surveillance displays a viewing that is not tainted by human subjectivity—at least, not constantly. The surveillance/security cameras are static and lack mobility. They are positioned and shoot only one frame for an extended period of time. This is reinforced through the extensive usage of static long-takes in Dreileben. The camera is static in one frame and even when movement does occur, it is limited to slow pans from left to right, or vice versa—Johannes bedroom scenes come to mind. The dolly shots that occur are controlled and smooth, mimicking the motions of a mechanized surveillance, or security camera that moves within a specified range. They are precise measured movement that are still restricted by their spatial environments, and respect it. In the sequence where Johannes is walking Ana to work, this is displayed with jump-cuts that transition from one location to another. Rather than following the characters, the camera is static, and it is the characters that move. It is a series of surveillance/security camera shots played in continuous motion. Consequently, when Ana and Johannes spot the moytorcycle guy, them stopping creates the illusion of a freeze frame. This style is reinforced again when Ana sits in the logs by the road, and the camera does a point-of-view shot from the cave looking downward. When Ana turns, the camera, like the eye of its beholder, shields behind the rocks. This choice of cinematography heightens the sense of paranoia, the feeling of constant surveillance, and an omniscient presence. The final shot of the film, holding the open door of the car, as the voice of Sara streams in from outside the frame, exemplifies the limitations and assets of the style. It displays the sense of ambiguity and anxiety heightening restriction that a limited eye has. Furthermore, it prevents us from becoming the subjects performing the surveillance. By letting the camera hold an unbiased, unaltered shot—as limiting and frustrating as it might be—it gives it the sense of realism and sincerity that tints Petzold’s work.
A side thought: Considering the ever-present theme of ghosts, it makes sense that anxiety and fear are interwoven into the mixture of the film. Is it then, that Petzold’s camera becomes a ghostly eye that hunts modern society? Is it threatening to watch modern society’s every move and play the surveillance role?
I'd like to expand on your idea of surveillance in the film, which literally by definition means, "the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime" (retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online). We often associate surveillance with the latter part of the definition when it comes to thinking of watching over something via security cameras. However, this idea of surveillance is more literally applicable when we think about how Molesch carefully watches over Johannes and Ana. At first, we aren't necessarily aware of this fact, but we are aware that something eerie is occurring when Ana and Johannes travel through the forest area and we see them often from a view up higher and further away from where they are. Additionally, we hear suspenseful music, eluding to the fact that something is amiss. It is at the moment when this view of them actually moves that we realize that the camera isn't the one watching them, but rather, Molesch is keeping watch over them. It is difficult to interpret Molesch's motive for watching and targeting them, but upon further analysis, we might understand that his motive isn't as important as what he represents. Jaimey Fisher suggests that the forest is an area that is a "ghost zone," and is representative of Ana's desire to escape from an impoverished lifestyle (Fisher 135). Molesch watches from afar as it appears that Johannes is possibly helping Ana out of this ghost zone. However, once Johannes chooses Sara over Ana, we see Molesch's pursuit of Ana, and as viewers, we can assume he ultimately kills her.
I find Johannes' reference to the river Styx in the picture he has hanging in his room to be connected with Molesch's killing of Ana. The river, in Greek/Roman mythology, is essentially the connection between the real world and the underworld (or afterlife). The boatman, Charon, transports the deceased to the underworld. It seems as though Molesch is playing the role of Charon, as he waits for Ana's possible escape from her ghostliness to be impossible. Once she is stuck in the "ghost zone," we might consider that her spirit (for lack of a better word) is dead, and thus we have Molesch transport her from the real world to the world of the dead.
I love your break down of the static nature of the camera. Petzold creates a number of excellently composed shots that utilize the very confined scenery of the little valley that the film takes place in. Given the very confined location and the heavy police presence I got a very "Big Brother is Watching" vibe from the film. Even when the camera was not mimicking a cctv camera it felt as though the audience was constantly spying on this young couple as they journeyed together. The repeated use of the more traditional static shots gave the dollies and tracking shots a more powerful impact on the viewer. I was also especially intrigued by the repeated placement of the camera in the first person POV of various characters. Petzold strikes an interesting contrast between voyeurism and the more intimate first person. While I have seen a theme of placing the camera behind characters to place the audience in their perspective, this one really made me feel a part of the young love that made up the backbone of the plot. Excellent point about the cctv cameras being used as a plot forwarding device. I hadn't considered it in that way, but I agree.
I'm always intrigued by how Petzold forecast's the endings of his films from the very beginning, and yet I'm still intrigued by how he'll bring it all together. As a filmmaker he is repeatedly asking the audience questions with his shots and then answering them a moment later with a cut. A sound will be heard, the camera will wait a moment, then cut to the source of the noise. These little reveals enable the audience to act as co-creators and immerse themselves in Petzolds various worlds.
Like Megan talked about there was definitely something eerie going on throughout the entire film. And even if ones eyes couldn’t see it, their ears would hear it. The score was very consistent, even if it was suspenseful or happy or sad, it all had the same tone or use of instruments might be better. It was repetitive almost as if when they were alone in the forest you could suspect what kind of music was going to be playing. The audience was forced to feel a certain way during these times, good or bad, the music forces feelings upon the viewers. Also, going off what Jessica said, the surveillance aspect of the film was definitely noticeable. Yes there were the cameras and being able to see things from a different view allowed the audience in on secrets that we ordinarily wouldn’t have known. And yes Molesch was the main character when it came to surveillance. He was one that was present with out being seen, but what I was interested in was the characters in plain sight.
We often watched Johannes act as a spy or maybe he was just a starrer but he would always look at things longer than he should or just sit back and watch things pan out. A couple instances were when he woke after skinny-dipping he waited until the last possible second to help out Ana, or when he eyes would linger as he looked at Sara. He just had this way about him that made him seem as though he was always on the look out for something. Up until he starts talking with Ana all we actually see him do is stare at people and maybe say a couple words. Sara had this same feel to her, maybe it was because she was intrigued by her ex-boyfriend, but the silver Audi shows up quiet often when Johannes is walking to and from work, and she always seems to be in plain sight when Johannes is present. Every now and then the head doctor would creep in on scenes, it just seemed like these people were always interested in spying on each other. One link to explain all of this spying is what Jason said that there is a theme of feeling wanted and belonging with someone or somewhere. This makes complete sense of why the characters fell in love fast and out of love even faster. Why when Sara comes back into town she finds herself wanting Johannes back.
On another note, the final scene is a bit trippy for me. I understand the killing of Ana because she was finally left alone in the “Ghost Forest,” but what was questionable was how Johannes just slowly stops the car. As Sara repeats his name why does she get out and go to the other side of the car. First of all it is still in drive, second she is just as close to him in the car than out. And the kicker was, was that the audience has no idea; all the camera focuses on is the door being left open.
Continuing on Megan's thought on the river Styx, it is continuing along the same lines as the fairy tale in Ghosts where the child is stuck in the "in-between" because the mother can't move on. It seems that Johannes can't move on either until Ana is gone. She is haunting him as he drives away with Sara, which brings up Petzold's common ghost theme. The fact that Petzold placed that scene directly after the one containing Ana and the murderer perhaps is a nod to the idea of an actual ghost instead of a ghostly person. Especially since the cd that Sara played in the car played the same song that Johannes and Ana heard together. Any other thoughts on that?
A quotation by Petzold that seems relevant to the overall topic of the course:
"Back in the day we had stories of medical doctors and nurses who not only had small affairs but also really married each other. Today, where in soccer as well as in real life people rave about ‘flat hierarchies’, such phenomena no longer exist. After "Pretty Woman" [the movie] it was all over for good. Love crossing class boundaries is no longer possible.”
"Dreileben" may feature the relationship between love and money the most prominently out of all the films we have viewed yet. It was particularly distinguishable because of the presence of a love triangle of sorts between Johannes, Ana and Sara.
There is obviously tension between Johannes and Sara at the beginning of the film, but it is not until near the end that viewers learn the details of their common history. Although the reasons that Sara broke off their relationship are not stated expressly, Johannes makes it clear to her that he wanted to become successful in order to impress her and win her back.
For Johannes, to decide whether to love Sara or Ana is to decide whether to love someone "wealthy" or to love someone "poor." While Sara is not likely wealthy in her own right, she appears to be of a privileged background. Her father is the head physician and although medicine might not be as lucrative as a career in Germany as it is in the U.S., he does appear to possess some power and influence. This is evidenced by his ability to get Sara into a school despite her poor grades.
Ana, on the other hand, works as a maid in a hotel and supports her mother and siblings. This relationship is not explored extensively, but it appears as though her mother may possess slothful tendencies. This is seen in the mild hostility that Ana displays toward/regarding her mother during the brief scene in which she returns to her home.
So, for Johannes, still brokenhearted to some extent over Sara, Ana becomes a "painkiller," providing him with physical and emotional pleasure until Sara comes around and takes him back. Thus, when Johannes ends up with Sara instead of Ana, he effectively chooses wealth over modesty.
I definetly agree, there seems to be the biggest rift of class status between Johannes and Ana in this film, not only contextually but also thematically. Throughout the film, Ana is depicted walking throughout the forests along with her biker companions, and never seems to occupy the same spaces that Johannes does, aside from his room in the hostel. Whenever Johannes works at the clinic, Ana is always waiting for him outside, despite Johannes intruding upon her workspace at his own leisure, This displays a sort of moving between spaces of classes only available for those who occupy a space in the upper classes, to which Ana does not.
This display between Johannes and Ana is mentioned in Fisher's text, including a comment on how Johannes seemingly stops Ana from moving up on the class scale (Fisher, 137). His behavior to her quitting her job and her wanting to go to the party are clearly dismissive, and not a good example of someone who "loves" her.
This give a new perspective to "love without money", as Johannes seems to be the only perpetuating this rule, forcing Ana away from his, as opposed to this theme in Jerichow, where Thomas and Laura were the victims of this rule, Johannes is in his own way the oppressor, and he doesn't seem aware of this. He may even feel guilt, as evidenced by his hesitation near the end, but by then Ana's already been murdered, and the film is over.
I couldn't agree more with your interpretation but I would like to add that I also believed that although he chose Sara, his heart was still with Ana. At the end when Johannes heard the song that he played and translated for Ana, he suddenly started acting up as though he starts realizing what he did wrong and felt a deep guilt. He did not feel a hinge of sadness when he played it for Ana as compared to when he played it for Sara. So at the end of the day, the film indirectly sends us a message that love prevails all, even wealth.
I also agree with your assessment of the economic dynamic of Johannes’s choice. It’s made clear in the film that money is something he is concerned with, both his own and that of his current partner, as evidenced by his checking the book to see if Ana stole from him when they first met and when he asks Ana what she’ll do for work after she tells him she quit her job at the hotel.
I’d like to delve a little further into this - how does the amount of money we have affect us and our behavior? Our attitudes and personalities? I noticed a stark difference between the temperaments of Ana and Sara - Ana was hotheaded, rash, irrational, immature, and a bit dumb (I mean, come on, who just walks right into a creepy cave when there’s a killer on the loose and then STANDS THERE after figuring out that the thing making noises inside wasn’t who they thought it was?). Desperation is an extremely unattractive quality in a romantic partner, and she is desperate for many things - for love, for comfort, for attention, for a less shitty job, for financial security. Her life seems to be in a constant state of flux, as are her moods. “Johannes never appears likely to stay with Ana, particularly when her fantasies for self- and social promotion become more manifest.” (Fisher, 137) I can’t help but think that her petulant fits of anger might have something to do with the fact that she has never been financially secure and safe. Living life on the edge of poverty can be taxing on a person’s mental health and behavior. I think that Johannes was driven away from her by her economic status in two ways: she didn’t have a good job or prospects, and she often exhibited unpredictable, risky, or weird behavior.
Sara, on the other hand, was cool, demure, and quiet. She’s clearly lived a life of comfort, and it is reflected in her calm demeanor. By choosing Sara, Johannes isn’t just choosing someone with money, he’s also getting someone who has grown up with the luxury of being able to be relaxed, laid back, and low key. Sara seems to want for very little, so she is more satisfied with life and able to go with the flow. Although we don’t see much of her in the film, I highly doubt she’d be the type of person to shove Johannes around calling him a cocksucker in response to a tiny, not even insulting question he asked about her.
What I’m mainly getting at here is that I think Johannes’s decision was made due to the difference in personalities of the girls, but that their personalities were probably shaped by their financial upbringing, thus doubling the effect that money had on his choice.
As Jessica has stated, surveillance camera images are important tools in Petzold's films but especially in Dreileben. It was interesting to me to see the surveillance cameras being used throughout the film, especially in beginning. In the beginning of the film, I was under the impression that Johannes was a ‘bad’ character or creepy because he was watching this girl (Sara) in the cameras. The black and white cameras make the film more intimidating. Another view/position in the film that was somewhat alarming was in the forest, which most of the film took place, in this small town. As the criminal, who escapes the hospital, slips into the background thematically and is lurking in the forest on the hillside above the path that Johannes and Ana use daily, the audience gets an uncomfortable vibe from this criminal without seeing him personally until the very end. You do see the criminal in the forest in the beginning of the film when Ana is left behind but it isn’t until the next day that the hospital reports that he is missing. Sounds throughout the film also play a significant role in the film. Though you do see a lot of people, the city seems very busy with the sounds of police officers and sirens going off. Overall, the film different camera views in the film, is what makes the film thrilling along with the different sound effects.
Sara’s role in the film was intriguing to me. Sara is the daughter of a doctor, who you don’t see throughout the film very much but realize the impact that she has on Johannes. From the beginning of the film you can tell that Sara has some type of meaning to Johannes by the connection the make when they look at one another. Sara’s dad has to make an excuse that Sara is jetlagged but in reality it seemed that Sara had no interest in Johannes. When Sara is driving her father’s car and is then invited to a party later, Sara doesn’t seem bothered or upset that Johannes is with another girl. Though Ana thinks that Johannes doesn’t want to go to the party because he is embarrassed of her, in my opinion I think it is because Johannes knows the power that Sara has over him. Johannes knows that he will end up talking to Sara, in which he ends up dancing with her. There you find out that Johannes has a dream of moving to LA because he wanted to impress Sara.
Similar to Yella, Dreileben exemplifies Johannes’ future. The fact that Johannes wakes up in the car after having a dream about Ana was similar to Yella who dreams about what her future could have been. Also, there is the thought that Johannes could partially be blamed for the escape of the criminal. The setting of this film is what made the film feel eerie. The film does a good job at tying all three characters together with the song ‘Cry Me a River.’ The hunt for the criminal forms the backdrop to a summer romance between Ana and Johannes. The end of the film makes me curious whether or not Johannes regrets leaving with Sara because Sara is a symbol of his past. The romance between Ana and Johannes seemed stronger than Sara’s feelings toward Johannes.
Something we haven't really had much during the other Petzold films was background music. In Beats being dead, we have a lot of extra-diegetic sound going on. I know I heard someone saying after the movie ended, that finally we had some background music. For Petzold, this was a lot of background noise, but for other directors and movies, this would still be considered just a limited amount. For Beats being dead, the extra-diegetic noise was crucial to the movie.
The reason I think this film warranted it is pretty simple. Petzold needed to tell us how to feel during the scenes. This film had a lot of different vibes going on for the entirety of the story. There was a creepy feeling with the loose patient, who has killed someone and gives a sense of danger to the film. There's the love story vibe, for the most part, between Ana and Johannes. There's also this comedic relief throughout the movie. There were some other vibes during the movie also, but for this reason, the background music was necessary. One of the first lectures we had, professor Abel told us that the purpose of the background music was to tell the audience how to feel. With all the varying moods and feelings going on in this film, the background music was essential to guiding the audience in the right direction.
Yeah, there is noticeable difference in how much Petzold used music to influence the mood of the scenes when compared to the other films we watched. The difference between these films and the other films is that this one was made for television and that may be the reason (Fisher 131). He uses the music to coach the audience to pay attention to this scene or call them back to another. There are a lot of differences between the two audiences, but it’s interesting to see how Petzold used the music to overcome this. It doesn't seem tiring.
In a way they act like a distraction or misdirection. Petzold calls your attention to one moment, but nothing happens until three moments down the line. It is a way to build tension. While it can forecast what is going to happen soon, it doesn’t give it completely away. The two jump-scares are good examples.
Aside from the aesthetic observations that have been mentioned in the posts above I tried to find a common theme Petzold uses throughout the films we viewed this week and in Beats Being Dead I noticed yet again the theme of feeling wanted and belonging with someone or somewhere.
The characters Johannes and Ana, although from different social and economic settings, shared the same sense of being trapped in their situations. Johannes spoke throughout the film of his plan to move to LA but he was working at a hospital essentially because of a favor to his mother from the head doctor. A situation he was dropped into. Ana conversely was working a job that was not all that glamorous, but it was work. Ana eventually began to share Johannes dream of moving to LA. That is all LA was. A dream. The reality was they were both stuck in their situations of despair.
I'm not really sure what to think of the escaped killer because it was a large enough story arc within the plot that I'm sure it served a purpose, I'm just not sure what. After reading up on the film a little more I found out that this was the first of 3 movies made by 3 different directors that all revolve around an escaped killer on the loose in this town. Maybe that is all there is to it but I highly doubt it.
It's been incredibly easy to discuss the economic elements at play in Petzold's films. "Jerichow" and "Yella" both focus on their main characters' jobs and how their lives are affected by them. Thomas was broke and needed money quickly, and Yella sought to participate in venture capitalism at a higher level.
To paraphrase a line from Abel's essay on Yella, venture capitalism, or capitalism overall, has the ability to instill desires into the people who live in capitalist societies.
For the citizens of former East Germany – the protagonists of "Jerichow" and "Yella" – this is abundantly clear. Their actions in the plot are clearly motivated by the need for money.
"Beats Being Dead" is certainly set in the same paradigm. Johannes is studying medicine, the viewer learns, so that he can make money and impress Sara in the future. Given the choices that other Petzold characters have made, this is no surprise.
What came as a surprise, in the economic conditions of the film, was Ana's decision to leave her job. Johannes reminds her that finding a job in their part of the country is difficult (a clue that this film is probably set in the east as well).
Ana's character is an interesting statement about the people that Germany's modern economy left behind. We can tell that she doesn't subscribe to the modern economy because of her decision to quit the hotel.
What happens to her is, in a way, what happened to east Germans. She made the decision to "unite" with Johannes, and ultimately got left behind. She was already in a dire economic situation, and she was even worse off by the film's conclusion (arguably dead).
Her and Johannes' relationship also shows Germany's complacency with neoliberalism, despite its drawbacks.
People might still long for the way things used to be. This is represented by Ana and Johannes' relationship. Johannes might like the old, classical capitalist economy characterized by hard work (Ana was a maid, which is a tough job sometimes). But in the end, he chooses to stick to the path that was already before him and embrace the modern economy. I can't think of a better image to represent that than riding in a BMW with a pretty blonde girl into the sunset.
The final Petzold film of the week echoed a lot of similar styles that we’ve seen throughout his previous films. Similar to what Yella said about East and West Germany, it is also like the territory involved in Beats Being Dead where the setting is divided in two by a bridge and a forest. Ana’s home is on one side and Johannes’ on the other and their relationship begins and takes place for most of the film between the two cities they work in. It also appears that neither of them own a car or use another form of transportation as they are always walking everywhere. The noticeable absence of a TV in Johannas’ apartment and how Ana tossed her motorcycle boyfriend’s phone into the lake suggests that Petzold rejects the notion of technology in his characters lives.
I’ve begun to better understand Germany’s landscape and geography because of Petzold’s films. The forest represents a place outside of civilization where Ana and Johannas can be together without the worries of their jobs or other worries of the world. In Petzold’s films, the forest is always used as a sort of enchanting location where you never know could be hiding in the thick trees and hills, or who could be watching you. The forest featured in the film is Thuringian and according to Jaimey Fisher, “A number of myths and fairy tales are set in this forest” which helps understand what Petzold was trying to accomplish with this setting (133). Noises startle characters when they’re in the forest alone prompting them to call out to whom they hope is hiding but the fear that it isn’t keeps them walking on. The most startling camera work was the hillside view from the forest looking downward at Ana and Johannas as they walk through the forest throughout the film. It seems to just be a shot, but when Ana looks up at the shot, the camera hides behind a rock. When Ana goes up to confront who she believes is Johannas in the cave, the camera continues to play hide-and-seek. I thought that this would be the POV of the blonde motorcycle boyfriend that Ana has in the beginning. He confronts Johannas and Ana when they walk to Ana’s work and we never see him again. I’m really unsure of his role in the film.
I knew this film was too enjoyable and easy to follow for it to end predictably, and without failure, the ending is probably the most ambiguous of the one’s we’ve seen this week. Fischer says that the premise of the film is “a convicted murderer escapes and terrorizes a small town and its rapidly overmatched police” (132) but I beg to differ. I feel like Molesch’s role in the plot seemed forced in order to make the story more conforming to the genre and it was very forgettable. I was much more intrigued by the development of the characters and their relationships with one another.
Earlier this week, we discussed Petzold's use of genre. Unlike most arthouse films, he is prone to incorporating some mainstream genre effects. Though it goes against his arthouse cinema background, he manages to reconcile the differences between arthouse and mainstream in his films by working socioeconomic themes into films that more or less fit into some kind of genre. Fischer describes this saying, "It is indeed a peculiar sort of archaeology if genre, one that excavates piecemeal, recombines, and reexhibits in the service of his own aesthetic and political vision" (15). That being said, Beats Being Dead is more stylized in a mainstreamed way than any of the other Petzold films we've watched this week.
At times I felt like a was watching a Wes Anderson-esque rom-com. The characters were a bit quirky; Johannes makes the hotel bed after three separate guests stop to see he and Ana make out. There was an odd sense of symmetry when they walked together, shot from just behind the couple. As a class, we laughed more during this movie than any other.
Other instances were obviously straight out of the horror movie genre. This notably happens at the end when the escaped murderer follows and then pops out behind Ana. We also sense that Ana and Johannes, on separate occasions, are being stalked in the woods, which gives the viewers a sense of paranoia.
As a number of students have posted above, there are definitely socioeconomic themes that run throughout Beats Being Dead, but I argue they are not nearly as prevalent. Whereas in Jerichow, Ghosts, and Yella, the main characters were essentially driven by money, Johannes and Ana appear to enjoy the simpler things in life more. Johannes naps in the nude out in the grass rather than in his comfortable bed and Ana does not find money an important enough factor to keep her job. Though there are a few points of tension between the two that distinctly have to do with money, they are few and far between compared to the other Petzold films.
What I found most interesting in Beats being dead was the use of the woods. In the film the main characters use the path in the woods to go to a variety of their destinations: the hospital, Ana’s house, the lake, etc. What makes the woods interesting is a reoccurring soundtrack that plays when our characters are in it. The soundtrack, interestingly enough, is set in a minor key to set the tone of being watched, or something ominous occurring. When Ana and Johannes are in this the camera angle is placed in within the woods to represent the escaped patient. This is important because the plot line of the escapee is almost forgotten midway through the story, which heightens The Gothic feel when he finally appears. The wood, in my opinion, is used for the idea of “finding one’s self.” Ana and Johannes meet and break up while in the woods. He is always attempting to find her in this forest. This notion of getting lost/found in the woods is a literally trope that has been used for hundreds of years from Hansel and Gretel to the aptly named musical Into the Woods. Something else that hopefully I will get to examine this weekend (depending on the prompt) is the use of women in Petzold’s films. From the four films we have watched this week all of his female leads seem to have extremely similar qualities. They are often battered women who have a hard time expressing themselves and are either lost or need to be saved by their male counter part. These women being portrayed as “damaged” may just be me reading to much into this but lacking a powerful female lead creates a scene of misogyny that I can’t figure out if its intentional.
The role of women in his films would indeed be interesting to discuss. Petzold is generally considered one of the grest direcotrs for women. I'm not aware of his films having been accused of misogyny; quite the opposite. Nina Hoss, his main actress, would not act in his films if she were asked to play characters she felt were conceived misogynistically. I think it stands to reason that Johannes is the least sympathetic character in BBD. And I dont think Yella has to ve saved, and she certainly is not. She is a stronger character than the men, even tho she too "fails" in the end. And as suggested in class, Nina rejects the narratives others want her to be part of just as Francoise actually does not allow herself to be saved by her husband. And in Jerichow, L is making fun of T as a "hero" who falls quiet when it really matters etc. all of this is to say, then, that you would want to put more pressure on the films thru analysis to tease out if and how they are misogynist ...
Among the other Christian Petzold films that we have watched, this was by far the most misleading one. At the start I really thought that it was going to be a horror film, not just because of its title, “Dreileben: Beats being dead”, but also because of the music used and the way the title was displayed. It gave a very eerie feeling. However, as I continued watching the film, it turns out to be a slight mixture of romance, comedy and drama. The storyline plays with status, love and money.
At first, I did know how the title connects to the movie. After much research, I found out that Dreileben holds two meaning. It is a village in Germany and meant “three lives”. So, the three lives was Johannes, Ana and Sara. There was an obvious distinction of class between the Johannes, Ana and Sara. Sara may not be the brightest student, but she comes from a wealthy and powerful family which puts her in the upper class. Ana, on the other hand, is a young Bosnian immigrant. She falls under the lower class category where she works as a ‘room maid’ at the Aurora to support her family. However, I couldn’t confidently distinct which class Johannes was but after knowing his story where he would collect golf balls to sell, I would think that he falls under lower-middle class. However, I still could not figure out the connection between the title, “Beats being dead”, and the movie. In this film, Molesch was not shown much until the end although he was supposed to be the main focus of the whole trilogy. Nonetheless, he was always there, watching them from afar. It is as though Petzold was trying to show us how he targets his next prey.
The song that he played for Ana in the movie stood out to me because of how accurate it explained Johannes and Ana’s relationship –
Now you say you're lonely You cry the long night through Well, you can cry me a river Cry me a river I cried a river over you
Now you say you're sorry For being so untrue Well, you can cry me a river Cry me a river I cried a river over you
You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my head While you never shed a tear Remember, I remember, all that you said You told me love was too plebeian Told me you were through with me and
Johannes showed no remorse for what he had done to Ana. He had broken her heart and she clearly has cried a lot for him but I noticed that he did not even shed one tear. So Ana “cried him a river” but he did not.
“You told me love was too plebeian” – This explains Johannes’ perception on love. Ana was too plebeian for him, hence why he chose Sara.
Furthermore, a sentence stood out to me as I was reading through “Contemporary Film Directors” by Jaimey Fisher: “This intersection between German classical culture and a landscape of myth and fairy tales underscores how Petzold, as a film genre, consistently returns to recurring stories to register historical change.” (Fisher 133)
This then made me realize that the love story between Johannes and Ana was like a fairytale. Johannes was Ana’s savior from her abusive biker boyfriend and from the person that scared her in the woods (whom I believed was Molesch). He gave her shelter and money. He would chase after her and when she quit her job, she wanted to travel to L.A with Johannes and live happily ever after. However, Petzold then adds in realism into the love story where “Love crossing class boundaries is no longer possible” and that was the recurring event.
As other classmates mention in the blog, I also notice that Petzold really likes using the monitor as a significant property skillfully in his works. This is a special way to connect different roles together, like Francoise finds Nina by watching surveillance videos; and Johannes knows Ana is waiting for him by watching videos, too. In different surroundings or spaces, every action, every behavior of people is monitored; it may makes persons have a strong sense of unsafe. The connections of people (their relationships) are changed very frequently. The small connections between Johannes and Sara shows that they are not only know each other but also in a relationship before, such as his glimpse of her, and he tries to hide from her at the beginning. The film does not give any reason why they broke up, but these details are a case of foreshadowing. The most parts are telling what happens between Ana and Johannes. At first Ana and Johannes are together just because they attract to each other, and then constantly argument makes them more closer to each other. I consider the basic reason for their conflicts and arguments is still the money. Johannes’s mother sends him money sometime, and he has a longer plan for going abroad, but his outfit, and the style of his living room shows that he is a fairly frugal person, and not that rich. Meanwhile, Ana is living in a very poor condition, she also needs money, and she is quite a vain girl. Seriously, I think she is very super-facial. She becomes Johannes girlfriend just because he promises her he has money, and she thinks Johannes can pay her everything so she quits her job. Then she takes Johannes’s money to buy a pretty dress for herself without his agreement. She is living in a fantasy, and she puts highly expectation on him, like she hopes Johannes can lead her to upper class environment (the party). Obviously Johannes cannot satisfy her, and all of her actions and behaviors make Johannes very disappointment about her. Instead, he realizes that staying with Sara is more comfortable- she is a daughter of the doctor, wealthy and gentle, not that bossy like Sara. When Ana stays with Johannes, there are a lot of blue big car passing by, I think this shows that she is in a fantasy, and have a good expectation of his boyfriend. After he leaves her, the car becomes red color. This color indicates that her dream is broke; and she is a reality. Moreover, Fisher says, in Ana, Petzold offers one of many examples of a woman set on improving her lot who mistakenly places her fantasies of neoliberal self-improvement in a stranger she meets (125). I also notice this. Ana is very similar to Yella, they focus more on individual, they have fantasies, trust to strangers without any doubt, and they all back to statuses of beginnings; they lost everything. This film also leaves an open ending and more spaces for audiences to think about them, like, what does Johannes’s mother do, and why does that criminal always follows Ana. Petzold really likes making a combination of reality and dream together in his works, it is hard for audience to distinguish them; but also that's a common and special characteristic of his films.
In our final Christian Petzold film. Petzold shows us once again how being from two different socioeconomic backgrounds can effect relationships and romance. This movie can also be viewed as politically themed with characters as someone who grew up in East Germany and someone on the other side of the wall in West Germany.
Sara and Johannes come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds. Johannes and Sara must have known each other for quite some because Johannes was able to build up a strong rapport with Sara’s father. Enough for him to be aware that Thomas was interested in his daughter AND liked him enough to want to help. It is obvious that Sara has no interest in Johannes from the beginning of the film by her lack of interest in him when they interact. Sara’s dad tries to console him a bit, clearly rooting for our protagonist. The thing that Johannes needed in order for Sara to like interest in him was value. Enter Ana.
Ana is from the opposite end of the economic ladder. Her character is impulsive and carefree. Essentially the exact opposite of Johannes and Sara. Ana and Johannes seemed to have a strong relationship physically, but socially, their relationship showed its weaknesses. This is portrayed very well from the birthday party scene by Petzold. Every other character is together celebrating enjoying the party under the lights and music. Johannes and Ana however, are positioned by the director as outcast of the group. They are sitting on a hill, not standing, drinking to themselves in the dark.
Once Ana and Johannes return to the party and Ana gets a glimpse of what Johannes’s life is like living with more money and opportunity, she gets jealous. Ana has only love to give. She gives that that to Johannes many times throughout the film, but when she sees him dancing with Sara, she realizes it’s not enough. Ana sees that Sara can give Johannes love, and money. Something Ana could never do.
The struggle between going after love, and having the security of money seems to be a powerful theme in Petzold’s films.
I'm having a little bit of technical difficulties tonight because my laptop charger ended up breaking as I was posting so I'm posting from my phone tonight and after I typed everything out, ended up disappearing as I pushed the post button. So I'll try to write it out again without missing any of my points. Sorry if it is a little briefer than I intended.
In the reading fisher says "self improvement is mapped directly onto sexual, fantasy, and the body in emphatic economic transformation." (Pg. 136). I found this quote especially interesting because Ana clearly views Johanna as an escape from her life of cleaning rooms to support her family and demanding mother. This is shown by her quitting her job when she gets serious with Johanna. However, I also think that on the other hand this is how Johanna views Sara. The irony of the film is quite literally that Ana ends up pushing him back into Sara's arms because she's worried about losing that financial security. However I do think it is worth mentioning that in Pezold's theme of love and money, I found this film to be the most complicated because it does focus on a younger generation and in essence, love and money get more confused and intertwined as a result.
Surveillance cameras and security cameras have played a role in previous Petzold’s films, but not as significantly and prominently as in Dreileben. In this film, the monitors are significant since the film uses the nursery home’s security cameras as a narrative propeller. For example, they help Johannes to know when Ana comes to see him, and consequently show Ana coming and leaving while he is being embraced by the head doctor—a detail that would otherwise be unknown. This aspect is important in that sense, but it is not the only way those fragmentations—both in terms of color disruption and stylistic variation—come ianto play.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography itself takes on a type of surveillance tonality. The black and white monitors, in this film, as well as the two examples that occur in Ghosts, become a micro-eye reflective of the way that Petzold’s camera is working. In that sense, the style of surveillance displays a viewing that is not tainted by human subjectivity—at least, not constantly. The surveillance/security cameras are static and lack mobility. They are positioned and shoot only one frame for an extended period of time. This is reinforced through the extensive usage of static long-takes in Dreileben. The camera is static in one frame and even when movement does occur, it is limited to slow pans from left to right, or vice versa—Johannes bedroom scenes come to mind. The dolly shots that occur are controlled and smooth, mimicking the motions of a mechanized surveillance, or security camera that moves within a specified range. They are precise measured movement that are still restricted by their spatial environments, and respect it.
In the sequence where Johannes is walking Ana to work, this is displayed with jump-cuts that transition from one location to another. Rather than following the characters, the camera is static, and it is the characters that move. It is a series of surveillance/security camera shots played in continuous motion. Consequently, when Ana and Johannes spot the moytorcycle guy, them stopping creates the illusion of a freeze frame. This style is reinforced again when Ana sits in the logs by the road, and the camera does a point-of-view shot from the cave looking downward. When Ana turns, the camera, like the eye of its beholder, shields behind the rocks. This choice of cinematography heightens the sense of paranoia, the feeling of constant surveillance, and an omniscient presence.
The final shot of the film, holding the open door of the car, as the voice of Sara streams in from outside the frame, exemplifies the limitations and assets of the style. It displays the sense of ambiguity and anxiety heightening restriction that a limited eye has. Furthermore, it prevents us from becoming the subjects performing the surveillance. By letting the camera hold an unbiased, unaltered shot—as limiting and frustrating as it might be—it gives it the sense of realism and sincerity that tints Petzold’s work.
A side thought: Considering the ever-present theme of ghosts, it makes sense that anxiety and fear are interwoven into the mixture of the film. Is it then, that Petzold’s camera becomes a ghostly eye that hunts modern society? Is it threatening to watch modern society’s every move and play the surveillance role?
I'd like to expand on your idea of surveillance in the film, which literally by definition means, "the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime" (retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online). We often associate surveillance with the latter part of the definition when it comes to thinking of watching over something via security cameras. However, this idea of surveillance is more literally applicable when we think about how Molesch carefully watches over Johannes and Ana. At first, we aren't necessarily aware of this fact, but we are aware that something eerie is occurring when Ana and Johannes travel through the forest area and we see them often from a view up higher and further away from where they are. Additionally, we hear suspenseful music, eluding to the fact that something is amiss. It is at the moment when this view of them actually moves that we realize that the camera isn't the one watching them, but rather, Molesch is keeping watch over them. It is difficult to interpret Molesch's motive for watching and targeting them, but upon further analysis, we might understand that his motive isn't as important as what he represents. Jaimey Fisher suggests that the forest is an area that is a "ghost zone," and is representative of Ana's desire to escape from an impoverished lifestyle (Fisher 135). Molesch watches from afar as it appears that Johannes is possibly helping Ana out of this ghost zone. However, once Johannes chooses Sara over Ana, we see Molesch's pursuit of Ana, and as viewers, we can assume he ultimately kills her.
DeleteI find Johannes' reference to the river Styx in the picture he has hanging in his room to be connected with Molesch's killing of Ana. The river, in Greek/Roman mythology, is essentially the connection between the real world and the underworld (or afterlife). The boatman, Charon, transports the deceased to the underworld. It seems as though Molesch is playing the role of Charon, as he waits for Ana's possible escape from her ghostliness to be impossible. Once she is stuck in the "ghost zone," we might consider that her spirit (for lack of a better word) is dead, and thus we have Molesch transport her from the real world to the world of the dead.
I love your break down of the static nature of the camera. Petzold creates a number of excellently composed shots that utilize the very confined scenery of the little valley that the film takes place in. Given the very confined location and the heavy police presence I got a very "Big Brother is Watching" vibe from the film. Even when the camera was not mimicking a cctv camera it felt as though the audience was constantly spying on this young couple as they journeyed together. The repeated use of the more traditional static shots gave the dollies and tracking shots a more powerful impact on the viewer. I was also especially intrigued by the repeated placement of the camera in the first person POV of various characters. Petzold strikes an interesting contrast between voyeurism and the more intimate first person. While I have seen a theme of placing the camera behind characters to place the audience in their perspective, this one really made me feel a part of the young love that made up the backbone of the plot. Excellent point about the cctv cameras being used as a plot forwarding device. I hadn't considered it in that way, but I agree.
DeleteI'm always intrigued by how Petzold forecast's the endings of his films from the very beginning, and yet I'm still intrigued by how he'll bring it all together. As a filmmaker he is repeatedly asking the audience questions with his shots and then answering them a moment later with a cut. A sound will be heard, the camera will wait a moment, then cut to the source of the noise. These little reveals enable the audience to act as co-creators and immerse themselves in Petzolds various worlds.
Like Megan talked about there was definitely something eerie going on throughout the entire film. And even if ones eyes couldn’t see it, their ears would hear it. The score was very consistent, even if it was suspenseful or happy or sad, it all had the same tone or use of instruments might be better. It was repetitive almost as if when they were alone in the forest you could suspect what kind of music was going to be playing. The audience was forced to feel a certain way during these times, good or bad, the music forces feelings upon the viewers. Also, going off what Jessica said, the surveillance aspect of the film was definitely noticeable. Yes there were the cameras and being able to see things from a different view allowed the audience in on secrets that we ordinarily wouldn’t have known. And yes Molesch was the main character when it came to surveillance. He was one that was present with out being seen, but what I was interested in was the characters in plain sight.
DeleteWe often watched Johannes act as a spy or maybe he was just a starrer but he would always look at things longer than he should or just sit back and watch things pan out. A couple instances were when he woke after skinny-dipping he waited until the last possible second to help out Ana, or when he eyes would linger as he looked at Sara. He just had this way about him that made him seem as though he was always on the look out for something. Up until he starts talking with Ana all we actually see him do is stare at people and maybe say a couple words. Sara had this same feel to her, maybe it was because she was intrigued by her ex-boyfriend, but the silver Audi shows up quiet often when Johannes is walking to and from work, and she always seems to be in plain sight when Johannes is present. Every now and then the head doctor would creep in on scenes, it just seemed like these people were always interested in spying on each other. One link to explain all of this spying is what Jason said that there is a theme of feeling wanted and belonging with someone or somewhere. This makes complete sense of why the characters fell in love fast and out of love even faster. Why when Sara comes back into town she finds herself wanting Johannes back.
On another note, the final scene is a bit trippy for me. I understand the killing of Ana because she was finally left alone in the “Ghost Forest,” but what was questionable was how Johannes just slowly stops the car. As Sara repeats his name why does she get out and go to the other side of the car. First of all it is still in drive, second she is just as close to him in the car than out. And the kicker was, was that the audience has no idea; all the camera focuses on is the door being left open.
Continuing on Megan's thought on the river Styx, it is continuing along the same lines as the fairy tale in Ghosts where the child is stuck in the "in-between" because the mother can't move on. It seems that Johannes can't move on either until Ana is gone. She is haunting him as he drives away with Sara, which brings up Petzold's common ghost theme. The fact that Petzold placed that scene directly after the one containing Ana and the murderer perhaps is a nod to the idea of an actual ghost instead of a ghostly person. Especially since the cd that Sara played in the car played the same song that Johannes and Ana heard together. Any other thoughts on that?
DeleteA quotation by Petzold that seems relevant to the overall topic of the course:
ReplyDelete"Back in the day we had stories of medical doctors and nurses who not only had small affairs but also really married each other. Today, where in soccer as well as in real life people rave about ‘flat hierarchies’, such phenomena no longer exist. After "Pretty Woman" [the movie] it was all over for good. Love crossing class boundaries is no longer possible.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Dreileben" may feature the relationship between love and money the most prominently out of all the films we have viewed yet. It was particularly distinguishable because of the presence of a love triangle of sorts between Johannes, Ana and Sara.
ReplyDeleteThere is obviously tension between Johannes and Sara at the beginning of the film, but it is not until near the end that viewers learn the details of their common history. Although the reasons that Sara broke off their relationship are not stated expressly, Johannes makes it clear to her that he wanted to become successful in order to impress her and win her back.
For Johannes, to decide whether to love Sara or Ana is to decide whether to love someone "wealthy" or to love someone "poor." While Sara is not likely wealthy in her own right, she appears to be of a privileged background. Her father is the head physician and although medicine might not be as lucrative as a career in Germany as it is in the U.S., he does appear to possess some power and influence. This is evidenced by his ability to get Sara into a school despite her poor grades.
Ana, on the other hand, works as a maid in a hotel and supports her mother and siblings. This relationship is not explored extensively, but it appears as though her mother may possess slothful tendencies. This is seen in the mild hostility that Ana displays toward/regarding her mother during the brief scene in which she returns to her home.
So, for Johannes, still brokenhearted to some extent over Sara, Ana becomes a "painkiller," providing him with physical and emotional pleasure until Sara comes around and takes him back. Thus, when Johannes ends up with Sara instead of Ana, he effectively chooses wealth over modesty.
I definetly agree, there seems to be the biggest rift of class status between Johannes and Ana in this film, not only contextually but also thematically. Throughout the film, Ana is depicted walking throughout the forests along with her biker companions, and never seems to occupy the same spaces that Johannes does, aside from his room in the hostel. Whenever Johannes works at the clinic, Ana is always waiting for him outside, despite Johannes intruding upon her workspace at his own leisure, This displays a sort of moving between spaces of classes only available for those who occupy a space in the upper classes, to which Ana does not.
DeleteThis display between Johannes and Ana is mentioned in Fisher's text, including a comment on how Johannes seemingly stops Ana from moving up on the class scale (Fisher, 137). His behavior to her quitting her job and her wanting to go to the party are clearly dismissive, and not a good example of someone who "loves" her.
This give a new perspective to "love without money", as Johannes seems to be the only perpetuating this rule, forcing Ana away from his, as opposed to this theme in Jerichow, where Thomas and Laura were the victims of this rule, Johannes is in his own way the oppressor, and he doesn't seem aware of this. He may even feel guilt, as evidenced by his hesitation near the end, but by then Ana's already been murdered, and the film is over.
I couldn't agree more with your interpretation but I would like to add that I also believed that although he chose Sara, his heart was still with Ana. At the end when Johannes heard the song that he played and translated for Ana, he suddenly started acting up as though he starts realizing what he did wrong and felt a deep guilt. He did not feel a hinge of sadness when he played it for Ana as compared to when he played it for Sara. So at the end of the day, the film indirectly sends us a message that love prevails all, even wealth.
DeleteI also agree with your assessment of the economic dynamic of Johannes’s choice. It’s made clear in the film that money is something he is concerned with, both his own and that of his current partner, as evidenced by his checking the book to see if Ana stole from him when they first met and when he asks Ana what she’ll do for work after she tells him she quit her job at the hotel.
DeleteI’d like to delve a little further into this - how does the amount of money we have affect us and our behavior? Our attitudes and personalities? I noticed a stark difference between the temperaments of Ana and Sara - Ana was hotheaded, rash, irrational, immature, and a bit dumb (I mean, come on, who just walks right into a creepy cave when there’s a killer on the loose and then STANDS THERE after figuring out that the thing making noises inside wasn’t who they thought it was?). Desperation is an extremely unattractive quality in a romantic partner, and she is desperate for many things - for love, for comfort, for attention, for a less shitty job, for financial security. Her life seems to be in a constant state of flux, as are her moods. “Johannes never appears likely to stay with Ana, particularly when her fantasies for self- and social promotion become more manifest.” (Fisher, 137) I can’t help but think that her petulant fits of anger might have something to do with the fact that she has never been financially secure and safe. Living life on the edge of poverty can be taxing on a person’s mental health and behavior. I think that Johannes was driven away from her by her economic status in two ways: she didn’t have a good job or prospects, and she often exhibited unpredictable, risky, or weird behavior.
Sara, on the other hand, was cool, demure, and quiet. She’s clearly lived a life of comfort, and it is reflected in her calm demeanor. By choosing Sara, Johannes isn’t just choosing someone with money, he’s also getting someone who has grown up with the luxury of being able to be relaxed, laid back, and low key. Sara seems to want for very little, so she is more satisfied with life and able to go with the flow. Although we don’t see much of her in the film, I highly doubt she’d be the type of person to shove Johannes around calling him a cocksucker in response to a tiny, not even insulting question he asked about her.
What I’m mainly getting at here is that I think Johannes’s decision was made due to the difference in personalities of the girls, but that their personalities were probably shaped by their financial upbringing, thus doubling the effect that money had on his choice.
As Jessica has stated, surveillance camera images are important tools in Petzold's films but especially in Dreileben. It was interesting to me to see the surveillance cameras being used throughout the film, especially in beginning. In the beginning of the film, I was under the impression that Johannes was a ‘bad’ character or creepy because he was watching this girl (Sara) in the cameras. The black and white cameras make the film more intimidating. Another view/position in the film that was somewhat alarming was in the forest, which most of the film took place, in this small town. As the criminal, who escapes the hospital, slips into the background thematically and is lurking in the forest on the hillside above the path that Johannes and Ana use daily, the audience gets an uncomfortable vibe from this criminal without seeing him personally until the very end. You do see the criminal in the forest in the beginning of the film when Ana is left behind but it isn’t until the next day that the hospital reports that he is missing. Sounds throughout the film also play a significant role in the film. Though you do see a lot of people, the city seems very busy with the sounds of police officers and sirens going off. Overall, the film different camera views in the film, is what makes the film thrilling along with the different sound effects.
ReplyDeleteSara’s role in the film was intriguing to me. Sara is the daughter of a doctor, who you don’t see throughout the film very much but realize the impact that she has on Johannes. From the beginning of the film you can tell that Sara has some type of meaning to Johannes by the connection the make when they look at one another. Sara’s dad has to make an excuse that Sara is jetlagged but in reality it seemed that Sara had no interest in Johannes. When Sara is driving her father’s car and is then invited to a party later, Sara doesn’t seem bothered or upset that Johannes is with another girl. Though Ana thinks that Johannes doesn’t want to go to the party because he is embarrassed of her, in my opinion I think it is because Johannes knows the power that Sara has over him. Johannes knows that he will end up talking to Sara, in which he ends up dancing with her. There you find out that Johannes has a dream of moving to LA because he wanted to impress Sara.
Similar to Yella, Dreileben exemplifies Johannes’ future. The fact that Johannes wakes up in the car after having a dream about Ana was similar to Yella who dreams about what her future could have been. Also, there is the thought that Johannes could partially be blamed for the escape of the criminal. The setting of this film is what made the film feel eerie. The film does a good job at tying all three characters together with the song ‘Cry Me a River.’ The hunt for the criminal forms the backdrop to a summer romance between Ana and Johannes. The end of the film makes me curious whether or not Johannes regrets leaving with Sara because Sara is a symbol of his past. The romance between Ana and Johannes seemed stronger than Sara’s feelings toward Johannes.
Something we haven't really had much during the other Petzold films was background music. In Beats being dead, we have a lot of extra-diegetic sound going on. I know I heard someone saying after the movie ended, that finally we had some background music. For Petzold, this was a lot of background noise, but for other directors and movies, this would still be considered just a limited amount. For Beats being dead, the extra-diegetic noise was crucial to the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I think this film warranted it is pretty simple. Petzold needed to tell us how to feel during the scenes. This film had a lot of different vibes going on for the entirety of the story. There was a creepy feeling with the loose patient, who has killed someone and gives a sense of danger to the film. There's the love story vibe, for the most part, between Ana and Johannes. There's also this comedic relief throughout the movie. There were some other vibes during the movie also, but for this reason, the background music was necessary. One of the first lectures we had, professor Abel told us that the purpose of the background music was to tell the audience how to feel. With all the varying moods and feelings going on in this film, the background music was essential to guiding the audience in the right direction.
Yeah, there is noticeable difference in how much Petzold used music to influence the mood of the scenes when compared to the other films we watched. The difference between these films and the other films is that this one was made for television and that may be the reason (Fisher 131). He uses the music to coach the audience to pay attention to this scene or call them back to another. There are a lot of differences between the two audiences, but it’s interesting to see how Petzold used the music to overcome this. It doesn't seem tiring.
DeleteIn a way they act like a distraction or misdirection. Petzold calls your attention to one moment, but nothing happens until three moments down the line. It is a way to build tension. While it can forecast what is going to happen soon, it doesn’t give it completely away. The two jump-scares are good examples.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAside from the aesthetic observations that have been mentioned in the posts above I tried to find a common theme Petzold uses throughout the films we viewed this week and in Beats Being Dead I noticed yet again the theme of feeling wanted and belonging with someone or somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe characters Johannes and Ana, although from different social and economic settings, shared the same sense of being trapped in their situations. Johannes spoke throughout the film of his plan to move to LA but he was working at a hospital essentially because of a favor to his mother from the head doctor. A situation he was dropped into. Ana conversely was working a job that was not all that glamorous, but it was work. Ana eventually began to share Johannes dream of moving to LA. That is all LA was. A dream. The reality was they were both stuck in their situations of despair.
I'm not really sure what to think of the escaped killer because it was a large enough story arc within the plot that I'm sure it served a purpose, I'm just not sure what. After reading up on the film a little more I found out that this was the first of 3 movies made by 3 different directors that all revolve around an escaped killer on the loose in this town. Maybe that is all there is to it but I highly doubt it.
It's been incredibly easy to discuss the economic elements at play in Petzold's films. "Jerichow" and "Yella" both focus on their main characters' jobs and how their lives are affected by them. Thomas was broke and needed money quickly, and Yella sought to participate in venture capitalism at a higher level.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase a line from Abel's essay on Yella, venture capitalism, or capitalism overall, has the ability to instill desires into the people who live in capitalist societies.
For the citizens of former East Germany – the protagonists of "Jerichow" and "Yella" – this is abundantly clear. Their actions in the plot are clearly motivated by the need for money.
"Beats Being Dead" is certainly set in the same paradigm. Johannes is studying medicine, the viewer learns, so that he can make money and impress Sara in the future. Given the choices that other Petzold characters have made, this is no surprise.
What came as a surprise, in the economic conditions of the film, was Ana's decision to leave her job. Johannes reminds her that finding a job in their part of the country is difficult (a clue that this film is probably set in the east as well).
Ana's character is an interesting statement about the people that Germany's modern economy left behind. We can tell that she doesn't subscribe to the modern economy because of her decision to quit the hotel.
What happens to her is, in a way, what happened to east Germans. She made the decision to "unite" with Johannes, and ultimately got left behind. She was already in a dire economic situation, and she was even worse off by the film's conclusion (arguably dead).
Her and Johannes' relationship also shows Germany's complacency with neoliberalism, despite its drawbacks.
People might still long for the way things used to be. This is represented by Ana and Johannes' relationship. Johannes might like the old, classical capitalist economy characterized by hard work (Ana was a maid, which is a tough job sometimes). But in the end, he chooses to stick to the path that was already before him and embrace the modern economy. I can't think of a better image to represent that than riding in a BMW with a pretty blonde girl into the sunset.
The final Petzold film of the week echoed a lot of similar styles that we’ve seen throughout his previous films. Similar to what Yella said about East and West Germany, it is also like the territory involved in Beats Being Dead where the setting is divided in two by a bridge and a forest. Ana’s home is on one side and Johannes’ on the other and their relationship begins and takes place for most of the film between the two cities they work in. It also appears that neither of them own a car or use another form of transportation as they are always walking everywhere. The noticeable absence of a TV in Johannas’ apartment and how Ana tossed her motorcycle boyfriend’s phone into the lake suggests that Petzold rejects the notion of technology in his characters lives.
ReplyDeleteI’ve begun to better understand Germany’s landscape and geography because of Petzold’s films. The forest represents a place outside of civilization where Ana and Johannas can be together without the worries of their jobs or other worries of the world. In Petzold’s films, the forest is always used as a sort of enchanting location where you never know could be hiding in the thick trees and hills, or who could be watching you. The forest featured in the film is Thuringian and according to Jaimey Fisher, “A number of myths and fairy tales are set in this forest” which helps understand what Petzold was trying to accomplish with this setting (133). Noises startle characters when they’re in the forest alone prompting them to call out to whom they hope is hiding but the fear that it isn’t keeps them walking on. The most startling camera work was the hillside view from the forest looking downward at Ana and Johannas as they walk through the forest throughout the film. It seems to just be a shot, but when Ana looks up at the shot, the camera hides behind a rock. When Ana goes up to confront who she believes is Johannas in the cave, the camera continues to play hide-and-seek. I thought that this would be the POV of the blonde motorcycle boyfriend that Ana has in the beginning. He confronts Johannas and Ana when they walk to Ana’s work and we never see him again. I’m really unsure of his role in the film.
I knew this film was too enjoyable and easy to follow for it to end predictably, and without failure, the ending is probably the most ambiguous of the one’s we’ve seen this week. Fischer says that the premise of the film is “a convicted murderer escapes and terrorizes a small town and its rapidly overmatched police” (132) but I beg to differ. I feel like Molesch’s role in the plot seemed forced in order to make the story more conforming to the genre and it was very forgettable. I was much more intrigued by the development of the characters and their relationships with one another.
Earlier this week, we discussed Petzold's use of genre. Unlike most arthouse films, he is prone to incorporating some mainstream genre effects. Though it goes against his arthouse cinema background, he manages to reconcile the differences between arthouse and mainstream in his films by working socioeconomic themes into films that more or less fit into some kind of genre. Fischer describes this saying, "It is indeed a peculiar sort of archaeology if genre, one that excavates piecemeal, recombines, and reexhibits in the service of his own aesthetic and political vision" (15). That being said, Beats Being Dead is more stylized in a mainstreamed way than any of the other Petzold films we've watched this week.
ReplyDeleteAt times I felt like a was watching a Wes Anderson-esque rom-com. The characters were a bit quirky; Johannes makes the hotel bed after three separate guests stop to see he and Ana make out. There was an odd sense of symmetry when they walked together, shot from just behind the couple. As a class, we laughed more during this movie than any other.
Other instances were obviously straight out of the horror movie genre. This notably happens at the end when the escaped murderer follows and then pops out behind Ana. We also sense that Ana and Johannes, on separate occasions, are being stalked in the woods, which gives the viewers a sense of paranoia.
As a number of students have posted above, there are definitely socioeconomic themes that run throughout Beats Being Dead, but I argue they are not nearly as prevalent. Whereas in Jerichow, Ghosts, and Yella, the main characters were essentially driven by money, Johannes and Ana appear to enjoy the simpler things in life more. Johannes naps in the nude out in the grass rather than in his comfortable bed and Ana does not find money an important enough factor to keep her job. Though there are a few points of tension between the two that distinctly have to do with money, they are few and far between compared to the other Petzold films.
What I found most interesting in Beats being dead was the use of the woods. In the film the main characters use the path in the woods to go to a variety of their destinations: the hospital, Ana’s house, the lake, etc. What makes the woods interesting is a reoccurring soundtrack that plays when our characters are in it. The soundtrack, interestingly enough, is set in a minor key to set the tone of being watched, or something ominous occurring. When Ana and Johannes are in this the camera angle is placed in within the woods to represent the escaped patient. This is important because the plot line of the escapee is almost forgotten midway through the story, which heightens The Gothic feel when he finally appears. The wood, in my opinion, is used for the idea of “finding one’s self.” Ana and Johannes meet and break up while in the woods. He is always attempting to find her in this forest. This notion of getting lost/found in the woods is a literally trope that has been used for hundreds of years from Hansel and Gretel to the aptly named musical Into the Woods.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that hopefully I will get to examine this weekend (depending on the prompt) is the use of women in Petzold’s films. From the four films we have watched this week all of his female leads seem to have extremely similar qualities. They are often battered women who have a hard time expressing themselves and are either lost or need to be saved by their male counter part. These women being portrayed as “damaged” may just be me reading to much into this but lacking a powerful female lead creates a scene of misogyny that I can’t figure out if its intentional.
The role of women in his films would indeed be interesting to discuss. Petzold is generally considered one of the grest direcotrs for women. I'm not aware of his films having been accused of misogyny; quite the opposite. Nina Hoss, his main actress, would not act in his films if she were asked to play characters she felt were conceived misogynistically. I think it stands to reason that Johannes is the least sympathetic character in BBD. And I dont think Yella has to ve saved, and she certainly is not. She is a stronger character than the men, even tho she too "fails" in the end. And as suggested in class, Nina rejects the narratives others want her to be part of just as Francoise actually does not allow herself to be saved by her husband. And in Jerichow, L is making fun of T as a "hero" who falls quiet when it really matters etc. all of this is to say, then, that you would want to put more pressure on the films thru analysis to tease out if and how they are misogynist ...
DeleteAmong the other Christian Petzold films that we have watched, this was by far the most misleading one. At the start I really thought that it was going to be a horror film, not just because of its title, “Dreileben: Beats being dead”, but also because of the music used and the way the title was displayed. It gave a very eerie feeling. However, as I continued watching the film, it turns out to be a slight mixture of romance, comedy and drama. The storyline plays with status, love and money.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I did know how the title connects to the movie. After much research, I found out that Dreileben holds two meaning. It is a village in Germany and meant “three lives”. So, the three lives was Johannes, Ana and Sara. There was an obvious distinction of class between the Johannes, Ana and Sara. Sara may not be the brightest student, but she comes from a wealthy and powerful family which puts her in the upper class. Ana, on the other hand, is a young Bosnian immigrant. She falls under the lower class category where she works as a ‘room maid’ at the Aurora to support her family. However, I couldn’t confidently distinct which class Johannes was but after knowing his story where he would collect golf balls to sell, I would think that he falls under lower-middle class. However, I still could not figure out the connection between the title, “Beats being dead”, and the movie. In this film, Molesch was not shown much until the end although he was supposed to be the main focus of the whole trilogy. Nonetheless, he was always there, watching them from afar. It is as though Petzold was trying to show us how he targets his next prey.
The song that he played for Ana in the movie stood out to me because of how accurate it explained Johannes and Ana’s relationship –
Now you say you're lonely
You cry the long night through
Well, you can cry me a river
Cry me a river
I cried a river over you
Now you say you're sorry
For being so untrue
Well, you can cry me a river
Cry me a river
I cried a river over you
You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my head
While you never shed a tear
Remember, I remember, all that you said
You told me love was too plebeian
Told me you were through with me and
Johannes showed no remorse for what he had done to Ana. He had broken her heart and she clearly has cried a lot for him but I noticed that he did not even shed one tear. So Ana “cried him a river” but he did not.
“You told me love was too plebeian” – This explains Johannes’ perception on love. Ana was too plebeian for him, hence why he chose Sara.
Furthermore, a sentence stood out to me as I was reading through “Contemporary Film Directors” by Jaimey Fisher: “This intersection between German classical culture and a landscape of myth and fairy tales underscores how Petzold, as a film genre, consistently returns to recurring stories to register historical change.” (Fisher 133)
This then made me realize that the love story between Johannes and Ana was like a fairytale. Johannes was Ana’s savior from her abusive biker boyfriend and from the person that scared her in the woods (whom I believed was Molesch). He gave her shelter and money. He would chase after her and when she quit her job, she wanted to travel to L.A with Johannes and live happily ever after. However, Petzold then adds in realism into the love story where “Love crossing class boundaries is no longer possible” and that was the recurring event.
As other classmates mention in the blog, I also notice that Petzold really likes using the monitor as a significant property skillfully in his works. This is a special way to connect different roles together, like Francoise finds Nina by watching surveillance videos; and Johannes knows Ana is waiting for him by watching videos, too. In different surroundings or spaces, every action, every behavior of people is monitored; it may makes persons have a strong sense of unsafe.
ReplyDeleteThe connections of people (their relationships) are changed very frequently. The small connections between Johannes and Sara shows that they are not only know each other but also in a relationship before, such as his glimpse of her, and he tries to hide from her at the beginning. The film does not give any reason why they broke up, but these details are a case of foreshadowing. The most parts are telling what happens between Ana and Johannes. At first Ana and Johannes are together just because they attract to each other, and then constantly argument makes them more closer to each other. I consider the basic reason for their conflicts and arguments is still the money. Johannes’s mother sends him money sometime, and he has a longer plan for going abroad, but his outfit, and the style of his living room shows that he is a fairly frugal person, and not that rich. Meanwhile, Ana is living in a very poor condition, she also needs money, and she is quite a vain girl. Seriously, I think she is very super-facial. She becomes Johannes girlfriend just because he promises her he has money, and she thinks Johannes can pay her everything so she quits her job. Then she takes Johannes’s money to buy a pretty dress for herself without his agreement. She is living in a fantasy, and she puts highly expectation on him, like she hopes Johannes can lead her to upper class environment (the party). Obviously Johannes cannot satisfy her, and all of her actions and behaviors make Johannes very disappointment about her. Instead, he realizes that staying with Sara is more comfortable- she is a daughter of the doctor, wealthy and gentle, not that bossy like Sara. When Ana stays with Johannes, there are a lot of blue big car passing by, I think this shows that she is in a fantasy, and have a good expectation of his boyfriend. After he leaves her, the car becomes red color. This color indicates that her dream is broke; and she is a reality.
Moreover, Fisher says, in Ana, Petzold offers one of many examples of a woman set on improving her lot who mistakenly places her fantasies of neoliberal self-improvement in a stranger she meets (125). I also notice this. Ana is very similar to Yella, they focus more on individual, they have fantasies, trust to strangers without any doubt, and they all back to statuses of beginnings; they lost everything. This film also leaves an open ending and more spaces for audiences to think about them, like, what does Johannes’s mother do, and why does that criminal always follows Ana. Petzold really likes making a combination of reality and dream together in his works, it is hard for audience to distinguish them; but also that's a common and special characteristic of his films.
In our final Christian Petzold film. Petzold shows us once again how being from two different socioeconomic backgrounds can effect relationships and romance. This movie can also be viewed as politically themed with characters as someone who grew up in East Germany and someone on the other side of the wall in West Germany.
ReplyDeleteSara and Johannes come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds. Johannes and Sara must have known each other for quite some because Johannes was able to build up a strong rapport with Sara’s father. Enough for him to be aware that Thomas was interested in his daughter AND liked him enough to want to help. It is obvious that Sara has no interest in Johannes from the beginning of the film by her lack of interest in him when they interact. Sara’s dad tries to console him a bit, clearly rooting for our protagonist. The thing that Johannes needed in order for Sara to like interest in him was value. Enter Ana.
Ana is from the opposite end of the economic ladder. Her character is impulsive and carefree. Essentially the exact opposite of Johannes and Sara. Ana and Johannes seemed to have a strong relationship physically, but socially, their relationship showed its weaknesses. This is portrayed very well from the birthday party scene by Petzold. Every other character is together celebrating enjoying the party under the lights and music. Johannes and Ana however, are positioned by the director as outcast of the group. They are sitting on a hill, not standing, drinking to themselves in the dark.
Once Ana and Johannes return to the party and Ana gets a glimpse of what Johannes’s life is like living with more money and opportunity, she gets jealous. Ana has only love to give. She gives that that to Johannes many times throughout the film, but when she sees him dancing with Sara, she realizes it’s not enough. Ana sees that Sara can give Johannes love, and money. Something Ana could never do.
The struggle between going after love, and having the security of money seems to be a powerful theme in Petzold’s films.
I'm having a little bit of technical difficulties tonight because my laptop charger ended up breaking as I was posting so I'm posting from my phone tonight and after I typed everything out, ended up disappearing as I pushed the post button. So I'll try to write it out again without missing any of my points. Sorry if it is a little briefer than I intended.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading fisher says "self improvement is mapped directly onto sexual, fantasy, and the body in emphatic economic transformation." (Pg. 136). I found this quote especially interesting because Ana clearly views Johanna as an escape from her life of cleaning rooms to support her family and demanding mother. This is shown by her quitting her job when she gets serious with Johanna. However, I also think that on the other hand this is how Johanna views Sara. The irony of the film is quite literally that Ana ends up pushing him back into Sara's arms because she's worried about losing that financial security. However I do think it is worth mentioning that in Pezold's theme of love and money, I found this film to be the most complicated because it does focus on a younger generation and in essence, love and money get more confused and intertwined as a result.