Early on in Ghosts, I noticed that during the scene where Francoise was being lead through the hospital, she's brought through three sets of doors. Normally exiting a scene through a door isn't abnormal, but focusing on the act of entering/leaving a location three times in a scene is enough to bring suspect, and that's where I believe one of the key themes comes from. I believe this theme of doors (along with windows) as barriers and exits of "spaces" runs parallel with our discussions and readings of the "spaces" Germans cohabit in their society.
Throughout the film, Nina is very passive in her activities. Despite having an antisocial personality, she's often prone to follow and depend on others. From the moment she meets Toni during their breakfast, Toni is the one instigating her independence from her foster home. The earliest moment of Nina's inability to lead herself to places is seen in this scene, as she barely is able to pass through the door to sneak into her home with Toni. Later on, Toni is seen outside of Nina's window, commanding her to open it. Nina does, and toward the end of the scene Toni escorts Nina out of their home and onto the streets. Another example would be after the shoplifting scene where Nina runs from Francoise into a wooden gate and is unable to open the door to escape. One more example would be Nina and Toni waiting in front of the studio they were being interviewed in (which I didn't seem to understand the purpose of. Does anyone know what function it serves?). Nina seems apprehensive, and required Toni to lead her.
While there are some scenes where Nina moves through doorways, the motivation behind these is to stay with Toni, whom she is wholly dependent on, such as the scenes where she wanders through Oliver's mansion looking for Toni, in both occasions. The former scene she's ushered back into the mansion by Toni, whereas in the latter she's told to leave by Oliver's wife. In the latter we're not shown her departure. I interpreted this decision as an intentional absence of an exit, because if it were filmed then we would associate her departure with her characters leaving independently.
In the end, it's my interpretation that Nina represents German society, or perhaps the younger generation born during the age of neoliberalism. Here she shifts from depending on one person to another (first the foster home/whoever was the man instructing the children to pick up garbage, then Toni, then Francoise) and is unable to find her own place like many Germans are inhabiting spaces they are unable to choose from, and find it difficult to leave. If my memory serves well, I remember some of these themes also appearing in the Petzold film we watched for Professor Abel's last class I attended, The State I Am In, which also featured a young girl who was constantly on the move, although there are distinct differences. It's clear that there are overarching themes throughout Petzold's films, and perhaps this is one of them.
Petzold’s point of view (POV) from behind the back of an individual is an essential component in “Ghosts”. As we discussed in class about camera angles, one student excellently describes the shot as the character holding our hands and leading us throughout the film. This is notable with Francoise as she is walking through the hospital. There is an ominous feeling, and the viewer is made curious as to what might be her ailment. Moreover, it seems as though her illness is a lonely burden, as the hospital is empty with only the nurse and her husband there with her. This lonely and voided feeling is felt by the viewer, displayed throughout the major actors in in the film, and is a main tone in the film.
In an interview with Petzold, his inspiration for “Ghosts” is quite intriguing as Jaimey Fisher expresses, “Petzold describes the intersection—a typical intersection for him—of the fantastical-mythical with the change wrought by the contemporary world” (Fisher 79). Of course, Petzold parallels his work with a Grimm’s fairy tale “The Burial Shirt” and we see this parallel in Francoise, as she cannot let go of her daughter, Marie, just like the mother in the tale who cannot let go of her son. Francoise’s intersection with Nina can be observed as the fantastical-mythical, almost as if fate had a hand in their paths crossing or perhaps it is a curse due to the circumstances both Francoise and Nina is in. After all, we learn that according to Pierre, Marie is dead and Francoise’s illness is not being able to let go of her daughter. It is a fantasy that she carries with her to fill that void of loss and separation. Her meeting with Nina is how the fantastical-mythical meets the contemporary world.
The issue Petzold engages in the film is addressing the state of troubled young adults in Germany. According to the film, it appears as if the trouble young adults are left without identities. We see this with Nina especially when she defines home as, “Not a home, something like that” and of course, with Toni as she does not have any home to go to. Moreover, a question that emerges is how can German society reform the foster care system to be more effective? The film exposes an internal structure within foster care youths that should be examined closely.
We can tie this issue with Petzold’s musing about the fantastical-mythical. Aptly naming his film “Ghosts”, we observe the characters wandering and searching for that something to fill the void in their lives. Francoise wants her daughter, and Nina wants a friend. These “specters” in society are an enigma to the people who do not know them. Thus, it can be difficult when they interact with society. For instance, Nina has a difficult time anchoring her life to something meaningful. Even when she truly believes that Francoise is her mother, society (Pierre) walls her off from that connection with Francoise. For Francoise, the final moments suggests that she realizes she is living a fantasy, but she still cannot break free. So, how do these people find ways to cope with their personal dilemmas and integrate themselves back into society? The ending of the film suggests that they might never find a solution, as the ambiguity of Nina’s possible baby photos leaves the viewers with even more questions and Nina simply trashes the photos and soldier on.
I previously discussed how Petzold’s interest in transitional spaces dictated the movement in Jerichow. In Ghosts, we also see the importance of this state of uncertainty between past events and future events, especially in Nina’s and Françoise’s actions. Nina’s existence in a transitional space is rather obvious once we learn of her movement between foster homes. Her lack of a real home creates an ongoing uncertainty in her pursuit to be loved, which makes her very quick to give love away. It becomes evident that Nina loves Toni more than Toni loves Nina, which we have discussed gives Toni a certain kind of power over Nina. Toni exercises this power by abandoning her for Oliver, most likely due to some sort of ulterior motive, such as money. If this is the case, one might consider the statement, “One cannot love without money” from Jerichow, and here, we might assume that money is a priority for Toni, so she will go where the money is in order to find love.
Additionally, I’d like to focus more on Françoise’s desperation to find Marie. Françoise has lived in a transitional period ever since she lost Marie. Jaimey Fisher explains “the past trauma comes to anchor their [Françoise’s] personalities and remake their persons, though not producing identities grounded so much in melancholic lethargy as a disconcertingly obsessive movement forward” (Fisher 85). Fisher’s perspective is that Françoise, rather than becoming overwhelmed by depression upon losing her child, she has gained an obsession with finding Marie. Pierre expresses to Nina that Françoise is sick, so one might infer that Françoise may never leave this transitional state. While she is moving forward, trying to find Marie, she will never be able to move forward far enough in order to escape the transitional space.
So we are left with a film that expresses two different but also quite similar desires for love. The camera often follows Nina from behind, giving viewers the feeling of a constant searching and longing to have a home, and to have love. We also find that Françoise will never let go of her search for her daughter, and ultimately that love between a mother and her child. As I have said, it seems as though Françoise will never escape this transitional space, however, Nina’s outcome seems a little more hopeful. At the end of the film, we see Nina alone again, but perhaps with more life experience to be able to move forward and define who she is.
I agree Megan. One theme that we have seen from Petzold in the two films we have watched is the search for love. This is shown in many characters throughout Ghosts. Francoise wants to once again possess the love of being a mother and cherishing her daughter. She valued the long car ride she took with Nina and longs to relive those day.
Nina herself is searching for love from any outside source. Her character is very "ghostly" in demeanor. She doesn't seem to have many close connections with those around her and clings to anyone who would show her attention. This includes when she entertained the thought of being Marie even if she did feel Francoise was probably mentally ill.
One quote from Frisher really stood out to me. "Ghosts revisits many fairy tales' trajectory of the child leaving the forest, recasting the recurring story to register historical change."(p.95)
I think the camera being behind Nina lends to the "fairy tale" feel. We feel like we are following Nina on her adventure and feel more immersed in scenes like being lead in to the forest.
One question to think about could be what the transposition of a fairy tale into post millennial Germany DOES: to what end, with what effect or intent? What does one gain by doing so? How does the notion of the ghost, or ghosts, or ghostliness, contribute to an analysis of the present world?
On speaking about Petzold’s inspirations for the film, Fisher says, “This intersection of the mythic with the contemporary world shapes and confines basic human behavior, especially around private loss and obsession” (80). Although here he speaks of the loss of a child, I think it can also be applicable to the loss of another human, and not necessarily through death. In this case, the influence of “The Burial Shirt” and a limbo state grounded nowhere, along with Nina’s and Françoise conversation, “Did you want to leave with her?” “No. I wanted her to stay with me,” resonated with the idea of mobility.
Nina’s differentiation of the two things highlights the relationship between leaving and staying. Rather than setting them up as opposites—one movement the other idleness—it showcases how closely related they are in modernity. It is a difference that is recurrent and persistent: a leaving-by-staying duality of sorts. It is a threat to “love” and relationships directly delivered from the system of capitalism, or at least, it is the illusion of a threat. With a world increasingly globalized, the ability to move seems like a real threat, but with what Bauman called “information highways” (5) the world is reachable with out actual mobility. This becomes important since mobility is a theme that is present in Ghosts (2005) and Jerichow (2000).
In the latter film, mobility is observable through the character of Laura who “leaves” her problems and debts by staying with Ali. In Ghosts, for example, Oliver’s wife, after smacking him, leaves. However, the next morning, Nina finds her, statically in place by the window of the upstairs bathroom. Similarly, in the beginning of the movie, Toni takes leave of Nina multiple times, but counteracts her departures through her continuous reappearances. This is also present with Françoise who at one point remarks, “Are you scared I will run away again?” indicating she also has a leaving-and-staying duality.
This “threat” of taking leave of love could be attributed to changing ideas about modern love. It could also be said that the leaving-and-staying duality is part of the natural progression of deteriorating relationships. However, in the films, it means more. There is a sense of leaving mentally, emotionally, intellectually, but physically staying. Through the lens of capitalism’s influence, this idea of leaving without really leaving shows 1) the sense of static inescapability and 2) the display of conformism. The leaving-by-staying duality is complex, in that, it arises from the fakeness of the seeming ability to leave. The mobility of Petzold’s characters is the same type of illusion.
In Ghosts, the usage of German, French, and what could be Italian—in one of the songs—shows a geographical outreach, but the shot compositions and overall sense of the movie is claustrophobic. The boundaries, existing both in the frame and in physical reality, limit mobility. In the driving scenes when Pierre or Françoise are driving, the camera is placed in the back seat, angled and focused on a barely discernable profile. When they are traveling together, the closeness of the camera limits the space within the car. As Françoise reclines her head in Pierre’s shoulder, the close-up doesn’t leave room for the viewer.
Even in places where the camera is outside, where there should be room for mobility, such as the scene of Nina standing outside looking at Toni and Oliver through the window. Nature isn’t liberating. It is a fake sense of freedom that mimics the artificiality of the modern world’s mobility. In Petzold’s films, this is reflected by the characters stagnant state. Just like ghosts, they remain static. This is most highlighted by Nina, who starts and ends the film in the same situation. She is alone, in the middle of a park, a bright color shirt differentiating her from the mass of green, but utterly undistinguishable and faceless as her back is to the camera. She is an individual buried in the inescapability of capitalism.
I wonder whether Nina does indeed end (@ film's end) where she started (@film's start). In my chapter on Petzold in my book, The Counter Cinema of the Berlin School, I argue otherwise 😀
In the film Ghosts, Petzold presented another contemporary story about finding home. Like we discussed in class today about Jerichow being about belongingness. In this case, Nina and Francoise weren't searching for a physical home, but rather an emotional one. Both characters were searching for someone. Nina wanted someone in her life, and she thought that person was Toni, but that wasn't the case. Francoise had been searching for the missing piece to her family, her daughter Marie. Without her daughter, Francoise developed a sickness. That label comes from her husband Pierre. Her "sickness" drove her to Nina, who had a scar on her ankle. As we never get a shot of Nina's back to she if she has the mole Francoise describes until the end of the movie. We get a shot of Nina's back after she slept with Toni and she disappeared the next morning. Thus, Nina had lost her home, so she went to try and fit into a new one with Francoise. Even that option is lost, as both characters are left to continue their search for a home.
I completely agree with your statement, "Nina and Françoise weren't searching for a physical home, but rather an emotional one." I wrote about that mainly focusing on Nina in my blog post. I don't believe that Nina had written Françoise off as an option as her "home" though because of Toni. In the restroom scene when Nina asked Toni to look at her back I can see the correlation of how Nina was not able to completely settle on using one person over the other. It just happened that at the time when the three of them were together Nina had already started to rely heavily on Toni.
I believe that Nina had already the seedlings that she knew that Toni was not her "home" when she told Françoise, "No, I wanted her to stay with me." Nina had tried much harder for her relationship with Françoise to work at the end then when Toni had left her. Nina wanted Françoise more than she wanted Toni, and Françoise wanted Nina more than Toni wanted her. So Nina never truly had a “home” with Toni, and her going back to Françoise was her actively seeking out her home that is something she never did with Toni.
This film is interesting to me because as Fisher states, “Ghosts does not tell its story by way of a conventional plot erected on clear cause-and-effect events in a protagonist’s pursuing a stated goal, but rather on the aftershocks and/ or remnants of such events” (Fisher, 83) The film enters each of the women’s lives after they have suffered from an event(s) in their past, leaving the audience to wonder how they ended where they are. All three of these women are lonely but in different ways. For example, Francoise, who you can assume her and husband are well-off by the BMW they drive and the hotel they stay, is still lonely because of the loss of her daughter. She feels comfort in having breakfast with Nina because that is what she could be doing if her daughter was still alive. Whereas, Nina becomes obsessed with Toni because as she states “Toni is the queen of her class” and Nina knows that she is pretty but yet feels empty because she has been taken advantage of. At the party, the room is red, where Nina and Toni have a connection while dancing, but is soon ended when Toni leaves with Oliver.
All three of these characters symbolize a sense of loneliness, and as Eric states, this another story about finding home. Nina doesn’t consider the orphanage a home and Toni doesn’t have a home. Francoise doesn’t want to go home because she is reminded of the loss of her child, who would have brought joy to her house and would have made it a home. The scene of the picture of Marie as a child reminded me of the tree house in the beginning of the scene in Jerichow. At the end of the film, the audience is reminded that Nina will always be alone while she walks through the park.
In Fisher's chapter about Ghosts, there is a section detailing the different occurrences of "afterness" present in the film. Toni is introduced only AFTER she has done something to upset the men, we find out Nina and Toni had sex only AFTER its done, etc. These instances of "afterness" are not only present in this film but perhaps in all of Petzhold's work. For instance, in Jerichow, we discussed in class how the beginning of the film feels like it is really the end of a different story. In The State I Am In, the film takes place years AFTER the character finished living their active terrorist lifestyle. These are films about how history interferes with personal lives months, years, decades after the events occurred. Marco described it as "in media res" as if it the story begins in the middle, but really, I think these stories begin at the end. By this, in reference to Ghosts, I mean that the real beginning of this story might be when Francoise lost her kid more than a decade previously, or the incident which caused her to be admitted to the hospital from the beginning of the film. When we meet Nina, she is a character with no history. She doesn’t know who her parents are and has been moving between foster homes. She doesn’t know how she came into this world; she is a consequence of an event of which she knows nothing about. When Francoise is driving Nina around, both appear to be quite happy speaking to each other. At this point, both characters believe they have history with each other,that fate, genetics, scars, and memories are enough for them to stay together. Francoise says she feels “more alive than ever.” But when it is revealed that this is most likely not the first time Francoise has mistaken a young girl for her dead daughter Marie, Nina once again loses a person “who wants to stay with her.” With Francoise gone, also gone is Nina’s history. In both The State I Am In and Ghosts, the protagonists become orphans by the end. They have no home, no family, no history, no friends. This lack of connection to the world is ghostly and obviously, quite sad.
p.s. seriously though, can we just talk about how god damn sad all of Petzold’s movies are? Also, we talked earlier about how Jerichow was a genre film. Is Ghosts a genre film? If so, which one? Does plain old Tragedy count?
His films are sad indeed! I just watched a film not listed on the syllabus, "Barbara" and the ending of this film is more "happy" than the ones we have viewed so far. This film also resonates greatly with my own exposition to the separation of countrymen as it takes place in 1980 East, Germany and the ending of the film is very much like most of the immigrant situations during the Vietnam War.
I think that "Ghosts" is difficult to define as a genre film because it straddles different "genres" such as tragedy, drama, and romance. However, it is difficult to gauge how Petzold operates with genre in "Barbara" compared to "Jerichow" and "Ghosts". There are moments that I would compare "Barbara" to a chick flick, but most of the time, Petzold engages on social issues such as the sick role, class separation, and gender roles.
Your argument, Kyle, is excellent. There is a fundamental sense of "coming too late" permeating this and other CP films, including a political sense of lateness: coming after '68 and its sense of political possibility (for the left, and from its pov). As for the genre element, the genre of ghost stories would be the prime genre framework, no? Fisher points out the importance of Nosferatu for the film's genesis as well.
“Petzold’s films consistently explore these new and transformational modes of individualities, especially the compromised, even tainted, character of desire in the wake of such economic adaptability, accommodation, and mobility” (Fisher 5) I find that Nina, as an individual, shows how having an undetermined identity will lead to her being easily manipulated by other trying to use her for their own desires.
I find this especially true in several key scenes in the film. Right away, Nina watches Toni being beat behind the tree but doesn’t try to stop it. She later finds Toni again behind a bush and Toni (though she should be in the weaker position of the two) is the more dominant character demanding things of Nina that she doesn’t refuse. Again, when Toni comes into Nina’s room and eventually kisses Nina, Nina meekly complies because she is looking for something (or someone) to connect her with the “city” instead of her ghostly life (Fisher 83).
The second time I see Nina crumble under someone else’s desire is when Françoise approaches Nina and demands to see her ankle. Nina has no reason to believe Françoise, but Nina is again looking for something to fill her. Nina questions herself after leaving Françoise because of the coincidence of her scar, and her own shady childhood. She wants to believe Françoise could be telling her the truth, because it would bring her back to the living world from her ghostly one. With this thought Nina starts to make her own decisions, therefore bringing herself out of the ghost world, but finally as she seeks out Françoise when her other option (Toni) leaves she finds that Françoise was projecting her own longing of her daughter and need to fill that dead space in herself onto Nina.
Nina then goes off back into her ghost form to return to her “fair tale” forested area. She was so close to rejoining the world, but was unable to step out of her meekness and try life without someone else telling her who she is. In the same way, Françoise and Toni fall back into their ghost worlds to maybe never get as close to rejoining life as meek Nina did. Ironically it seems, that the least dominant character was the one to almost come out of the shadows, but as it seems in both of Petzold’s films we have watched, it is just not possible for the ghosts to live again.
Yes, and i wonder whether Nina does not in fact get to move on, get out, as it were. She seems to reject the narratives others impose on her by the end, no?
I agree with what Emily is saying in her post because what caught my attention the most was also the sequence of events in which the film's story line was told. It confused me at first, the fact that we see these two seemingly separate story lines for a huge portion of the film before they finally intertwine. However, I think that because Toni, Nina, and Francoise's "aftershocks" are the only thing we really know for sure, the time it takes for the separate story lines to interact with each other is what makes the film so powerful.
Also in page 83, Fisher states that "without conventional plot exposition, much of the film remains fallout of past events". This makes sense because there is so much of the film that is unknown, and leave a lot open to speculation. I think that many mainstream movies focus on singular big events but fails to address what happens after. in contrast, Ghost focuses on the idea that the past does linger and is a driving force on not just current but future pursuits of love and happiness.
An example of this can be seen in all three of the main characters. When Nina is so quick to befriend Toni, a complete stranger, and follow her out of the "foster" home she was given, it proves that growing up without parents or a permanent place to live has left her with a desperation to find that place. She feels an instant connection to Toni so she follows her everywhere even after witnessing her commit various crimes and shady behavior. In Toni, she has apparently no family and no place to live; we don't know how she came to be that way but it affects her current behavior because she only sees people as what they can do for her. She steals and takes advantage of NIna's feelings in order to get farther in her day to day life. For Francoise, it is obvious what her aftershock is caused by, the kidnapping of her child. What I find the most interesting is that Francoise has been searching so long for her missing child so relentlessly that it has turned into a mental illness leading her husband to believe that their daughter will never be found.
In pure speculation, maybe Nina really was Marie, but because of the aftershock effect on both Francoise and her husband, they are so quick to decide Nina was a fraud, another figment of Francoise's grief clouded mind. So they might have found their lost daughter but end up leaving her on her own when Francoise knows she has nothing.
Good. The role of the husband might be worth looking at in more detail. For example, though he ostensibly comes to Berlin to pick up F, he also sets up a business meeting as if F in and of itself were not wor his troubles. She certainly seems to wonder about him.
I find it very interesting how precise Petzold uses cinematography to echo the overlying plot and the emotional state of the characters. Fisher writes about Petzold during an interview “I don’t like it when filmic settings are initially shot in a long shot like a postcard. The place has to have something to do with the staging! I like it when a place is shown so that one feels a certain disquiet” (Page 87)
This holds true all throughout Ghost. There are no establishing shots during this film, rather Petzold uses many shots near the doorway or window of a building—transitional spaces. As Fisher writes, even the scene between Francoise and Nina near Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, after the two first meet, has much greater significance than just the composition. Not only does Nina show Francoise the scare on her ankle, the two are placed in front of a wall scared from the battles during WWII. (Pages 90, 91)
Petzold’s driving scenes between both Jerichow and Ghost follow a precise style too. The camera POV is always solid, which lets the actors take on the focus. However, the surrounding space is not ambiguous either. If the viewer takes notice, the surrounding motion sets a tone as well. For one example in Ghost, these patterns can be noticed in the driving scenes at the beginning and end of the film. Towards the beginning after Francoise is picked up by her husband at the hospital, they take a ride to a hotel. The surrounding traffic is passing by quite noticeably as Francoise’s emotional state is somber, while their motion is slow the two seem to linger as traffic passes. By contrast, later in the film, at what seems like one of the most uplifting moments, Francoise offers Nina a ride to breakfast. The surrounding traffic is parked, Francoise seems bright and cheery while their motion moves forward. With Petzold there is no shot that seems out of place in relation to the plot and characters. It’s these cinematic details that make Petzold an extremely detailed and unique director.
I will briefly analyze the title of the film itself and how it relates to the theme of "transitional spaces," as many people have mentioned above.
The quote that made me start thinking critically about the film title came towards the end of the film. Pierre says to Nina, "Marie is dead." Whether or not Nina really is Marie, Pierre views his lost daughter as nothing more than a ghost now.
The denotation of the word "ghost" refers to a between-our-world-and-the-next state, a sort of transition from which there is no going back. Because the title of the film uses this word in its plural form makes me believe Petzold made this film not about one central character or even a couple characters going through transitions. Because the word is plural, I think that every character we meet in this movie is going through some transition, even if we as viewers barely see any of it.
For example, the casting director, Oliver, is a minor character in the film. We only see him in a couple scenes. Yet, we learn that he has gone off to have an affair with Toni, which hints at his unhappy marriage. From this, we can infer that he is transitioning from an discontented married man to a happier singleton.
Wow, I really like your interpretation of the title and how it relates to the characters in terms of "transitional spaces." To add to what you are saying, Marie's mother Francoise saw the ghost of her daughter in the face of many girls. She believes Nina is her daughter because she had a scar on her ankle and heart shaped mole on her back, but it never revealed how Nina acquired the scar or if the mole actually does resemble a heart.
Toni is a character who could be described as a ghost in many ways. Nina spends half her time in the movie looking for where Toni ran off to, it also seems like Toni does not have a lot of close/stable relationships in her life. She is merely a ghost to people she meets. This is evident in the way she runs off with the casting director. The casting director’s wife feels like a ghost as she probably spends most of her party going time chasing off the women her husband finds interest in.
Lastly Nina herself is a ghost. Until she meets Toni, Nina is the loner type who doesn’t fit in with the kids around her. She doesn’t have a positive relationship with her mother. Nina might even know that she is not Marie, but likes the attention she is receiving from Francoise because it makes her feel less like a ghost.
Casey: nice observation indeed. Please keep in mind the need to work on occasion ,with assigned texts. I just don't want you to forget about this requirement :)
I find the three main characters particularly interesting because of how their traits seem to contrast with one another. At the beginning, I can immediately noticed the contrasting characteristics of Nina and Toni. Nina was wearing a dull grey and blue shirt, as if she tries to blend in with the surrounding and not catch anyone’s attention. Toni, on the other hand, was wearing a bright red t-shirt and white pants which is pretty bold and stands out. This says a lot about their characteristics already. I also noticed that Nina tends to wear blue throughout the whole movie. Blue represents pureness and conservativeness. Both these traits can be found in Nina. Red usually represents danger, power and passion. Based on Nina and Toni’s relationship/friendship, Toni was clearly the dominant one. Everything she asked, Nina obeyed and followed (she even started shoplifting). I believe that the reason why Nina obliged to Toni’s ways were because she was lonely and was desperate for her company. Clearly she had sexual attractions towards Toni. As soon as Toni saw what Nina wrote about her in her diary, she then knew about how Nina felt. She tend used this as a way to manipulate Nina by falsifying her feelings (because she ended up leaving Nina behind with the Oliver).
Another interesting contrast in character that particularly intrigue me was between Nina and Francoise. Nina tends to look down to the ground a lot, even when she speaks. She speaks with a very soft tone that is sometimes tough to comprehend. It is as tough she thinks that whatever she says won’t matter or make a difference because people has been pushing her around a lot and not believe what she says. For example, when she told her employer that she really did pick up all the rubbish but he did not believe and assumed that she slacked off. Francoise also face the same phenomenon. However, she was more stern and aggressive with her words. When she first saw Nina, she kept on insisting that Nina was Marie. She did not give up, regardless whether or not people believed her. She tends to look at people straight in the face all the time when she speaks as if she is trying her best to convince others.
Consequently, after watching the movie, Ghost, I noticed there were a few similarities to the movie, Jerichow, when it comes to their cinematic qualities. Both the movie starts off with an orchestral music along with silent scenes that shows a few characters. There were no “formal” introductions on the characters and no back-stories. Even after the movie, the viewers will still not know much about the past of each characters. Both the movie starts of in the “middle of the story” but Ghost also ends in the middle. We still don’t know if Nina truly was Marie and where exactly Toni did ran off too. I find this slightly frustrating but that is also a good technique to leave the rest of the story for the viewer’s self-imagination. This allows viewer engagement in a way.
Nicely done. Please keep in mind, though ,that on occasion your posts should work with some of the assigned readings. I just don't want you to forget about this requirment.
There have been a lot of interesting and astute points brought up about the use of transitional spaces and transitional storylines in this film by other students so far. I agree with those that have stated that the interesting cinematography choices used to highlight the characters (no establishing shots) and the mood of their stories (lots of doorways and windows) helped make this film a unique viewing experience. For me, though, what stood out the most were several of the questions raised by the interaction between characters as well as parallels drawn between certain types of action.
First of all, I think that this film (perhaps unintentionally) showed an important but not often thought about issue regarding the interactions between hetero and homosexual women. While Toni and Nina’s sexualities are never explicitly stated, one can gather from the clues given to us that Toni is probably straight while Nina is most likely questioning or a lesbian. There is nothing wrong with being open to trying new things sexually - however, I personally have seen several of my unlabeled and lesbian friends fall into the unfortunate “straight girl acting gay for attention” trap and am not a fan of girls who exhibit this behavior. It is quite clear that Toni uses her physical intimacy with Nina for her personal gain. Initially, she does it to get Nina attached to her. Then, she uses it to attract Oliver to her. For Nina, however, there are definitely feelings involved in her physical affections for Toni. While many straight women may see something like kissing another girl in a bar for free drinks or the attention of males as harmless fun, such interactions can be exceptionally damaging and hurtful for lesbians, to whom physical intimacy with a woman means something more. Where is the line? How can such a boundary be communicated between women whose sexualities differ on the homosexual spectrum?
Another scene that struck me was the breakfast between Nina and Francoise. I think many teenagers find themselves walking a line between the life they live with their peers and the life they live with their families as they grow older. There’s just a natural difference between the way in which we behave and the activities we engage in depending on the context of our company. But when is it that we really feel alive? What is it that we really need, what will truly make us feel satisfied? Is it wildly running through the streets, high on the buzz of shoplifting? Is it dancing in a room filled with red light, surrounded by music and booze and strange people in the arms of someone you desire? Or is it sitting in the morning sunlight, sipping coffee and orange juice, exchanging quiet conversation with those with who raised you? (Although in this case Nina was not raised by Francoise.) There is an odd dichotomy in the modern world regarding the fulfillment we receive from our peers and from our families. Balance between these would be ideal, but what if you can’t get it? Which do you choose? Which will make you happier, if it’s the only one you can have?
Finally, I wanted to share two parallels I saw in the film that intrigued me. The first was the use of CCTV footage - we only saw it twice: when baby Marie was stolen from the grocery store and when teenage Nina was stealing from the department store. I’m not sure if “parallel” is quite the right term for it, but I found the relationship between the nature of those sequences to be clever. The second was the use of breakfast. When Nina and Toni first meet, Nina asks if she wants some breakfast. When Nina finally decides to talk to Francoise, Francoise invites her to share the same meal. It seems like the significance of breakfast was related to the significance of getting to know one another.
This film was strange to me, and I’m not sure if I connected with it as much as some of you might have, but those are the things that I found most interesting about it.
Please remember the requirement that you need to work, occasionally, with assigned course texts in your posts. I just don't want you to forget about this requirement.
Many posts on here discuss transition and transitional spaces. What stuck out to me was the sound of footsteps. Footsteps are the most recurring sound in the movie. If a soundtrack was released for this film it would be 60 minutes of sneakers on white rock trails.
The footsteps help emphasis the long walks and transitions that Toni and Nina face across the city. Stuck without a place to stay they are forced to keep walking and running. They represent the physical transition from place to place.
When the walking stops, they end up at their homes. Nina and Toni end up in a few places, but in the end it is followed by more footsteps. The end of the film reaffirms that transition is a main theme running through the film. It could have ended with Nina looking through the pictures, but it shows Nina’s journey to find her home.
I also noticed the music and extradiegetic sounds throughout the movie and found it interesting that the only time music was heard was during car rides and while Toni and Nina danced at Oliver's party. Other than those few instances I cannot recall another time music was used in the film. It definitely made you feel like you were there with the characters on their search for a "home."
Jacob: good observation about sound and how it ight function in film. Remember the requirement to work occasionally with assigned readings ,though. I don't want you to forget about this.
Nicely done, overall. I do wonder whether it might be worth reflecting on the status of the French couple's daughter: do we know for sure she is dead? Or is this the narrative the husband has settled on and that he imposes on his wife?
Music plays a large part in a cinematic story, it can create tension, convey mood, or simply further the story in ways dialogue cannot. While watching Ghost the film starts of with a German operetta (Perhaps Johannes Brahms?). This classical music is played often through out the film and because classical music is the main music the film uses and often intentionally it bears our examination into this. Now from my count classical music is played four times throughout the film and often it is played in the presence of the Pierre or Francoise to possibly symbolize class and wealth. Toni stated in the movie that Francoise was wearing Prada so we can assume their wealth to be true. Also what is fascinating about this film and it’s use of music is that when Pierre or Francoise is playing classical music it is diegetic however when the music is playing in a scene featuring Nina it is extra-diegetic. I think this is something to take note of because it represents the fact that Nina is not a part of that world, she literally can’t hear the music. However the one bit of music she can hear and is diegetic for her is at Oliver’s party and that music is Jazz. Now Jazz is a highly disorganized genre of music, melody is something not often featured in this genre. The wild and surprising tones of the music represents her life at that stage, wild and chaotic while she is being influenced by Toni. The music crew for this movie Stefan Will and Marco Dreckkotter obviously wanted to mesh the two genres to show almost a divide in the two stories going on here. First we have Toni and Nina with their adventure and we have Francoise and Pierre on their quest. This last idea might be reaching but I have to believe that this use of story telling through music was a cinematic troupe intentionally planned by the crew of this film.
Good observations about the use of music, including the connection of class. In Fisher's discussion of e film he identifies the classical score: it's Bach's Streams of Salted Tears, a title that seems fitting for the film (how?).
Compared to "Jerichow," "Ghosts" occupied a much busier setting. Seeing as the rural setting of "Jerichow" was an important thematic element, I took special note of where the events of today's film took place.
"Ghosts" obviously took place in an urban environment. It opened with Francoise's husband driving down the busy freeway. There were plenty of cars present, and it was a perfectly normal scene.
This was because we didn't know about some of the weirder things going on film yet.
Once the viewer meets Nina and Toni, the oddities of the plot begin to reveal themselves. One should take special note of how Petzold crafted the urban setting throughout the rest of the movie.
One thing stood out to me – how empty the city was.
I'd certainly expect a city, especially the centralized, pedestrian-friendly cities of Europe, to be full of people. Instead, there were hardly anyone there besides the main characters.
This could very well be because Petzold couldn't afford to hire a ton of extras. We've discussed how there isn't much money in the German film industry.
Or it could be a visual representation of the film's main theme – ghosts. There are a lot of things associated with ghosts, like eeriness. It was weird to see a city that empty.
Popularly, ghosts occupy places where people aren't. Nina, in a way, was the ghost that Francoise was seeking. She occupied this city.
Towards the end of the film, the city is populated by a few more extras. They're seen milling around here and there, and things felt more normal. It was a clue that the film was nearing its conclusion, for someone who isn't paying attention to the clock.
Things, in a sense, return to reality when Francoise brings Nina back to the hotel. Her husband blatantly tells Nina that she is not Marie was one thing, but the scene taking place in the hotel, somewhere we've seen other people (like the receptionist), is another way that the film pulls away from the theme of ghosts. Where people are, ghosts aren't.
While there might not necessarily be a cause and effect relationship between the film's plot/ thematic elements and the setting, there certainly seems to be a kind of correlation.
Good observation about the film's use of the city, which is Berlin, Germany's largest city (3.5 million or even more) and one of the great tourist centers in the world. The movie certainly does not fulfill expectations we tend to have of a film set in such an environment and you provide an intereting idea about why it may depict it in the way it does.
Ghosts was one of those movies that I didn’t really enjoy watching, but I was engaged with the entire time. The plot was convoluted from the start, the pacing was jumpy at times and it wins the award for most sour-tasting ending I’ve seen all year, but for some reason I was intrigued. I think a large part of my curiosity came from the lack of information that Petzold provided. As with Jerichow, the film begins with the camera focusing on the backs of the main characters’ heads, as if to place the audience in their position and their perspectives. The only character that doesn’t get the ‘head’ treatment is Toni and I found that the camera lens rarely focused on her. Even early on in the film her actions are questionable. When she asks Nina for coins she leaves the shot and we aren’t aware of what she needed them for until we hear her on the phone. When she goes to Matthias house and enters, the camera stays with Nina. I felt that my curiosity mimicked Nina’s own at times. The theme of the broken home was very prevalent in this film. I saw an oft repeated visual motif of square frames around characters that elicited the idea of family portraits. Francious is framed by the design of her hotel, Nina is framed by her artificially aged picture at the end of the film and Toni is framed at one point by a window pane that bisects her, which I found representative of her possible split personality and her bi-sexuality. She often existed as two people on screen: one is calm and in control and the other violent, sexual and dismissive. Yet none of these framed “photos” ever had a full family in it. Nina is constantly searching to complete her family in some way. Whether it’s through Toni, who she wants to “stay with her” or with her “mother and father”, who have been searching for family so long that they can’t even see that this might be the person they needed, Nina is constantly chasing the dream of a family and a home. I found it powerful that the home in which they attended the party was being remodeled. Especially after the realization that it is broken in more than just the physical sense.
Great observations about some of the film's formal aspects and the effect they appear to have. It seems important that we see mostly with Nina as is the case in the apartment scene you reference. Question: are the photos *really* artificially pictures of Nina?
After reading through the above posts I agree with the common theme of belonging that seems to occur throughout Ghosts as well as Jerichow. The 3 lead female characters (Nina, Toni, and Francoise) in Ghosts are all searching for someone who can fill a hole in their life whether it be a friend, lover, or daughter. They each embody a specific trait or archetype. Nina seemed to be naive, Toni was deceptive, and Francoise was delusional. They all wanted to achieve the sense of belonging but they all had drastically different personalities which influenced their interactions and motivations.
Compared to "Jerichow," "Ghosts" occupied a much busier setting. Seeing as the rural setting of "Jerichow" was an important thematic element, I took special note of where the events of today's film took place.
"Ghosts" obviously took place in an urban environment. It opened with Francoise's husband driving down the busy freeway. There were plenty of cars present, and it was a perfectly normal scene.
This was because we didn't know about some of the weirder things going on film yet.
Once the viewer meets Nina and Toni, the oddities of the plot begin to reveal themselves. One should take special note of how Petzold crafted the urban setting throughout the rest of the movie.
One thing stood out to me – how empty the city was.
I'd certainly expect a city, especially the centralized, pedestrian-friendly cities of Europe, to be full of people. Instead, there were hardly anyone there besides the main characters.
This could very well be because Petzold couldn't afford to hire a ton of extras. We've discussed how there isn't much money in the German film industry.
Or it could be a visual representation of the film's main theme – ghosts. There are a lot of things associated with ghosts, like eeriness. It was weird to see a city that empty.
Popularly, ghosts occupy places where people aren't. Nina, in a way, was the ghost that Francoise was seeking. She occupied this city.
Towards the end of the film, the city is populated by a few more extras. They're seen milling around here and there, and things felt more normal. It was a clue that the film was nearing its conclusion, for someone who isn't paying attention to the clock.
Things, in a sense, return to reality when Francoise brings Nina back to the hotel. Her husband blatantly tells Nina that she is not Marie was one thing, but the scene taking place in the hotel, somewhere we've seen other people (like the receptionist), is another way that the film pulls away from the theme of ghosts. Where people are, ghosts aren't.
While there might not necessarily be a cause and effect relationship between the film's plot/ thematic elements and the setting, there certainly seems to be a kind of correlation.
I’ve already begun to pick up on Director/Writer Christian Petzold’s style from the two films of his we’ve already screened. The role of the camera and the audience is a very voyeuristic sense where we are positioned behind the character soaking in what they are seeing followed by a cut to a reaction shot. The camera, in many ways, is the, or one of the, “ghosts” in Gespenster,
The second scene of the opening is when we’re introduced to Nina and she watches a woman be assaulted in front of her in the park. She curiously watches and keeps a distance, never saying attempting to stop the violence or call for help. Nina is a follower, an on-looker, just like us (the audience). We can’t say or stop this from happening on screen and throughout the film we follow Nina being dragged along everywhere Toni wants to go. Toni knows that it doesn’t take a lot to keep Nina around. She can persuade Nina to do anything by sweetly coaxing her almost like a siren saying “Nina, come.” By the end of the film, Toni has vanished without a trace leaving Nina homeless, without money, and stranded from the only woman she thought could care for her – Françoise.
A particular theme I found interesting in Petzold’s films thus far is that both Thomas, in Jerichow, and Nina did favors for Ali and Toni that were unwarranted. Thomas did not owe it to this drunk driving lunatic to save him from getting a DUI and pretending he was behind the wheel. Similarly, Nina protects Toni from getting caught by her fellow clean-up crew in the beginning before either of them have a connection; she owes Toni nothing. Both protagonists sort of fall into the lives of the ‘antagonists’ who end up in control of their lives and getting them in trouble. It will be interesting to see if these themes show up in other ways. This again, goes into the idea of power and how power can even be used as a currency when it comes to favors owed.
One question to ask, then, is why Thomas and Nina do what they do. What desires manifest in their actions?
I wonder if CP's camera can be called "voyeuristic" as its common use is a pejorative one. Does his camera, for example, exhibit tendencies associated with Laura Mulvey's "male gaze"?
Also: please keep in mind the requirement to work, occasionally, with some of the assigned readings in your posts. I don't want you to forget about this requirement.
Early on in Ghosts, I noticed that during the scene where Francoise was being lead through the hospital, she's brought through three sets of doors. Normally exiting a scene through a door isn't abnormal, but focusing on the act of entering/leaving a location three times in a scene is enough to bring suspect, and that's where I believe one of the key themes comes from. I believe this theme of doors (along with windows) as barriers and exits of "spaces" runs parallel with our discussions and readings of the "spaces" Germans cohabit in their society.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, Nina is very passive in her activities. Despite having an antisocial personality, she's often prone to follow and depend on others. From the moment she meets Toni during their breakfast, Toni is the one instigating her independence from her foster home. The earliest moment of Nina's inability to lead herself to places is seen in this scene, as she barely is able to pass through the door to sneak into her home with Toni. Later on, Toni is seen outside of Nina's window, commanding her to open it. Nina does, and toward the end of the scene Toni escorts Nina out of their home and onto the streets. Another example would be after the shoplifting scene where Nina runs from Francoise into a wooden gate and is unable to open the door to escape. One more example would be Nina and Toni waiting in front of the studio they were being interviewed in (which I didn't seem to understand the purpose of. Does anyone know what function it serves?). Nina seems apprehensive, and required Toni to lead her.
While there are some scenes where Nina moves through doorways, the motivation behind these is to stay with Toni, whom she is wholly dependent on, such as the scenes where she wanders through Oliver's mansion looking for Toni, in both occasions. The former scene she's ushered back into the mansion by Toni, whereas in the latter she's told to leave by Oliver's wife. In the latter we're not shown her departure. I interpreted this decision as an intentional absence of an exit, because if it were filmed then we would associate her departure with her characters leaving independently.
In the end, it's my interpretation that Nina represents German society, or perhaps the younger generation born during the age of neoliberalism. Here she shifts from depending on one person to another (first the foster home/whoever was the man instructing the children to pick up garbage, then Toni, then Francoise) and is unable to find her own place like many Germans are inhabiting spaces they are unable to choose from, and find it difficult to leave. If my memory serves well, I remember some of these themes also appearing in the Petzold film we watched for Professor Abel's last class I attended, The State I Am In, which also featured a young girl who was constantly on the move, although there are distinct differences. It's clear that there are overarching themes throughout Petzold's films, and perhaps this is one of them.
Nina's dependence, and whether or not she becomes independent, whether or not there is a transformation, would be interesting to think through more.
DeletePetzold’s point of view (POV) from behind the back of an individual is an essential component in “Ghosts”. As we discussed in class about camera angles, one student excellently describes the shot as the character holding our hands and leading us throughout the film. This is notable with Francoise as she is walking through the hospital. There is an ominous feeling, and the viewer is made curious as to what might be her ailment. Moreover, it seems as though her illness is a lonely burden, as the hospital is empty with only the nurse and her husband there with her. This lonely and voided feeling is felt by the viewer, displayed throughout the major actors in in the film, and is a main tone in the film.
ReplyDeleteIn an interview with Petzold, his inspiration for “Ghosts” is quite intriguing as Jaimey Fisher expresses, “Petzold describes the intersection—a typical intersection for him—of the fantastical-mythical with the change wrought by the contemporary world” (Fisher 79). Of course, Petzold parallels his work with a Grimm’s fairy tale “The Burial Shirt” and we see this parallel in Francoise, as she cannot let go of her daughter, Marie, just like the mother in the tale who cannot let go of her son. Francoise’s intersection with Nina can be observed as the fantastical-mythical, almost as if fate had a hand in their paths crossing or perhaps it is a curse due to the circumstances both Francoise and Nina is in. After all, we learn that according to Pierre, Marie is dead and Francoise’s illness is not being able to let go of her daughter. It is a fantasy that she carries with her to fill that void of loss and separation. Her meeting with Nina is how the fantastical-mythical meets the contemporary world.
The issue Petzold engages in the film is addressing the state of troubled young adults in Germany. According to the film, it appears as if the trouble young adults are left without identities. We see this with Nina especially when she defines home as, “Not a home, something like that” and of course, with Toni as she does not have any home to go to. Moreover, a question that emerges is how can German society reform the foster care system to be more effective? The film exposes an internal structure within foster care youths that should be examined closely.
We can tie this issue with Petzold’s musing about the fantastical-mythical. Aptly naming his film “Ghosts”, we observe the characters wandering and searching for that something to fill the void in their lives. Francoise wants her daughter, and Nina wants a friend. These “specters” in society are an enigma to the people who do not know them. Thus, it can be difficult when they interact with society. For instance, Nina has a difficult time anchoring her life to something meaningful. Even when she truly believes that Francoise is her mother, society (Pierre) walls her off from that connection with Francoise. For Francoise, the final moments suggests that she realizes she is living a fantasy, but she still cannot break free. So, how do these people find ways to cope with their personal dilemmas and integrate themselves back into society? The ending of the film suggests that they might never find a solution, as the ambiguity of Nina’s possible baby photos leaves the viewers with even more questions and Nina simply trashes the photos and soldier on.
I'll be interested in hearing more about the ending and what happens there. The photos do appear to resemble Nina and yet....
DeleteI previously discussed how Petzold’s interest in transitional spaces dictated the movement in Jerichow. In Ghosts, we also see the importance of this state of uncertainty between past events and future events, especially in Nina’s and Françoise’s actions. Nina’s existence in a transitional space is rather obvious once we learn of her movement between foster homes. Her lack of a real home creates an ongoing uncertainty in her pursuit to be loved, which makes her very quick to give love away. It becomes evident that Nina loves Toni more than Toni loves Nina, which we have discussed gives Toni a certain kind of power over Nina. Toni exercises this power by abandoning her for Oliver, most likely due to some sort of ulterior motive, such as money. If this is the case, one might consider the statement, “One cannot love without money” from Jerichow, and here, we might assume that money is a priority for Toni, so she will go where the money is in order to find love.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I’d like to focus more on Françoise’s desperation to find Marie. Françoise has lived in a transitional period ever since she lost Marie. Jaimey Fisher explains “the past trauma comes to anchor their [Françoise’s] personalities and remake their persons, though not producing identities grounded so much in melancholic lethargy as a disconcertingly obsessive movement forward” (Fisher 85). Fisher’s perspective is that Françoise, rather than becoming overwhelmed by depression upon losing her child, she has gained an obsession with finding Marie. Pierre expresses to Nina that Françoise is sick, so one might infer that Françoise may never leave this transitional state. While she is moving forward, trying to find Marie, she will never be able to move forward far enough in order to escape the transitional space.
So we are left with a film that expresses two different but also quite similar desires for love. The camera often follows Nina from behind, giving viewers the feeling of a constant searching and longing to have a home, and to have love. We also find that Françoise will never let go of her search for her daughter, and ultimately that love between a mother and her child. As I have said, it seems as though Françoise will never escape this transitional space, however, Nina’s outcome seems a little more hopeful. At the end of the film, we see Nina alone again, but perhaps with more life experience to be able to move forward and define who she is.
I agree Megan. One theme that we have seen from Petzold in the two films we have watched is the search for love. This is shown in many characters throughout Ghosts. Francoise wants to once again possess the love of being a mother and cherishing her daughter. She valued the long car ride she took with Nina and longs to relive those day.
DeleteNina herself is searching for love from any outside source. Her character is very "ghostly" in demeanor. She doesn't seem to have many close connections with those around her and clings to anyone who would show her attention. This includes when she entertained the thought of being Marie even if she did feel Francoise was probably mentally ill.
One quote from Frisher really stood out to me. "Ghosts revisits many fairy tales' trajectory of the child leaving the forest, recasting the recurring story to register historical change."(p.95)
I think the camera being behind Nina lends to the "fairy tale" feel. We feel like we are following Nina on her adventure and feel more immersed in scenes like being lead in to the forest.
One question to think about could be what the transposition of a fairy tale into post millennial Germany DOES: to what end, with what effect or intent? What does one gain by doing so? How does the notion of the ghost, or ghosts, or ghostliness, contribute to an analysis of the present world?
DeleteOn speaking about Petzold’s inspirations for the film, Fisher says, “This intersection of the mythic with the contemporary world shapes and confines basic human behavior, especially around private loss and obsession” (80). Although here he speaks of the loss of a child, I think it can also be applicable to the loss of another human, and not necessarily through death. In this case, the influence of “The Burial Shirt” and a limbo state grounded nowhere, along with Nina’s and Françoise conversation, “Did you want to leave with her?” “No. I wanted her to stay with me,” resonated with the idea of mobility.
ReplyDeleteNina’s differentiation of the two things highlights the relationship between leaving and staying. Rather than setting them up as opposites—one movement the other idleness—it showcases how closely related they are in modernity. It is a difference that is recurrent and persistent: a leaving-by-staying duality of sorts. It is a threat to “love” and relationships directly delivered from the system of capitalism, or at least, it is the illusion of a threat. With a world increasingly globalized, the ability to move seems like a real threat, but with what Bauman called “information highways” (5) the world is reachable with out actual mobility. This becomes important since mobility is a theme that is present in Ghosts (2005) and Jerichow (2000).
In the latter film, mobility is observable through the character of Laura who “leaves” her problems and debts by staying with Ali. In Ghosts, for example, Oliver’s wife, after smacking him, leaves. However, the next morning, Nina finds her, statically in place by the window of the upstairs bathroom. Similarly, in the beginning of the movie, Toni takes leave of Nina multiple times, but counteracts her departures through her continuous reappearances. This is also present with Françoise who at one point remarks, “Are you scared I will run away again?” indicating she also has a leaving-and-staying duality.
This “threat” of taking leave of love could be attributed to changing ideas about modern love. It could also be said that the leaving-and-staying duality is part of the natural progression of deteriorating relationships. However, in the films, it means more. There is a sense of leaving mentally, emotionally, intellectually, but physically staying. Through the lens of capitalism’s influence, this idea of leaving without really leaving shows 1) the sense of static inescapability and 2) the display of conformism. The leaving-by-staying duality is complex, in that, it arises from the fakeness of the seeming ability to leave. The mobility of Petzold’s characters is the same type of illusion.
In Ghosts, the usage of German, French, and what could be Italian—in one of the songs—shows a geographical outreach, but the shot compositions and overall sense of the movie is claustrophobic. The boundaries, existing both in the frame and in physical reality, limit mobility. In the driving scenes when Pierre or Françoise are driving, the camera is placed in the back seat, angled and focused on a barely discernable profile. When they are traveling together, the closeness of the camera limits the space within the car. As Françoise reclines her head in Pierre’s shoulder, the close-up doesn’t leave room for the viewer.
Even in places where the camera is outside, where there should be room for mobility, such as the scene of Nina standing outside looking at Toni and Oliver through the window. Nature isn’t liberating. It is a fake sense of freedom that mimics the artificiality of the modern world’s mobility. In Petzold’s films, this is reflected by the characters stagnant state. Just like ghosts, they remain static. This is most highlighted by Nina, who starts and ends the film in the same situation. She is alone, in the middle of a park, a bright color shirt differentiating her from the mass of green, but utterly undistinguishable and faceless as her back is to the camera. She is an individual buried in the inescapability of capitalism.
I wonder whether Nina does indeed end (@ film's end) where she started (@film's start). In my chapter on Petzold in my book, The Counter Cinema of the Berlin School, I argue otherwise 😀
DeleteIn the film Ghosts, Petzold presented another contemporary story about finding home. Like we discussed in class today about Jerichow being about belongingness. In this case, Nina and Francoise weren't searching for a physical home, but rather an emotional one. Both characters were searching for someone. Nina wanted someone in her life, and she thought that person was Toni, but that wasn't the case. Francoise had been searching for the missing piece to her family, her daughter Marie. Without her daughter, Francoise developed a sickness. That label comes from her husband Pierre. Her "sickness" drove her to Nina, who had a scar on her ankle. As we never get a shot of Nina's back to she if she has the mole Francoise describes until the end of the movie. We get a shot of Nina's back after she slept with Toni and she disappeared the next morning. Thus, Nina had lost her home, so she went to try and fit into a new one with Francoise. Even that option is lost, as both characters are left to continue their search for a home.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement, "Nina and Françoise weren't searching for a physical home, but rather an emotional one." I wrote about that mainly focusing on Nina in my blog post. I don't believe that Nina had written Françoise off as an option as her "home" though because of Toni. In the restroom scene when Nina asked Toni to look at her back I can see the correlation of how Nina was not able to completely settle on using one person over the other. It just happened that at the time when the three of them were together Nina had already started to rely heavily on Toni.
DeleteI believe that Nina had already the seedlings that she knew that Toni was not her "home" when she told Françoise, "No, I wanted her to stay with me." Nina had tried much harder for her relationship with Françoise to work at the end then when Toni had left her. Nina wanted Françoise more than she wanted Toni, and Françoise wanted Nina more than Toni wanted her. So Nina never truly had a “home” with Toni, and her going back to Françoise was her actively seeking out her home that is something she never did with Toni.
This film is interesting to me because as Fisher states, “Ghosts does not tell its story by way of a conventional plot erected on clear cause-and-effect events in a protagonist’s pursuing a stated goal, but rather on the aftershocks and/ or remnants of such events” (Fisher, 83) The film enters each of the women’s lives after they have suffered from an event(s) in their past, leaving the audience to wonder how they ended where they are. All three of these women are lonely but in different ways. For example, Francoise, who you can assume her and husband are well-off by the BMW they drive and the hotel they stay, is still lonely because of the loss of her daughter. She feels comfort in having breakfast with Nina because that is what she could be doing if her daughter was still alive. Whereas, Nina becomes obsessed with Toni because as she states “Toni is the queen of her class” and Nina knows that she is pretty but yet feels empty because she has been taken advantage of. At the party, the room is red, where Nina and Toni have a connection while dancing, but is soon ended when Toni leaves with Oliver.
ReplyDeleteAll three of these characters symbolize a sense of loneliness, and as Eric states, this another story about finding home. Nina doesn’t consider the orphanage a home and Toni doesn’t have a home. Francoise doesn’t want to go home because she is reminded of the loss of her child, who would have brought joy to her house and would have made it a home. The scene of the picture of Marie as a child reminded me of the tree house in the beginning of the scene in Jerichow. At the end of the film, the audience is reminded that Nina will always be alone while she walks through the park.
The dance scene seems worth investigating more. What is its role? How does it work by itself and in context of larger narrative?
DeleteIn Fisher's chapter about Ghosts, there is a section detailing the different occurrences of "afterness" present in the film. Toni is introduced only AFTER she has done something to upset the men, we find out Nina and Toni had sex only AFTER its done, etc. These instances of "afterness" are not only present in this film but perhaps in all of Petzhold's work. For instance, in Jerichow, we discussed in class how the beginning of the film feels like it is really the end of a different story. In The State I Am In, the film takes place years AFTER the character finished living their active terrorist lifestyle. These are films about how history interferes with personal lives months, years, decades after the events occurred.
ReplyDeleteMarco described it as "in media res" as if it the story begins in the middle, but really, I think these stories begin at the end. By this, in reference to Ghosts, I mean that the real beginning of this story might be when Francoise lost her kid more than a decade previously, or the incident which caused her to be admitted to the hospital from the beginning of the film. When we meet Nina, she is a character with no history. She doesn’t know who her parents are and has been moving between foster homes. She doesn’t know how she came into this world; she is a consequence of an event of which she knows nothing about. When Francoise is driving Nina around, both appear to be quite happy speaking to each other. At this point, both characters believe they have history with each other,that fate, genetics, scars, and memories are enough for them to stay together. Francoise says she feels “more alive than ever.” But when it is revealed that this is most likely not the first time Francoise has mistaken a young girl for her dead daughter Marie, Nina once again loses a person “who wants to stay with her.” With Francoise gone, also gone is Nina’s history. In both The State I Am In and Ghosts, the protagonists become orphans by the end. They have no home, no family, no history, no friends. This lack of connection to the world is ghostly and obviously, quite sad.
p.s. seriously though, can we just talk about how god damn sad all of Petzold’s movies are? Also, we talked earlier about how Jerichow was a genre film. Is Ghosts a genre film? If so, which one? Does plain old Tragedy count?
His films are sad indeed! I just watched a film not listed on the syllabus, "Barbara" and the ending of this film is more "happy" than the ones we have viewed so far. This film also resonates greatly with my own exposition to the separation of countrymen as it takes place in 1980 East, Germany and the ending of the film is very much like most of the immigrant situations during the Vietnam War.
DeleteI think that "Ghosts" is difficult to define as a genre film because it straddles different "genres" such as tragedy, drama, and romance. However, it is difficult to gauge how Petzold operates with genre in "Barbara" compared to "Jerichow" and "Ghosts". There are moments that I would compare "Barbara" to a chick flick, but most of the time, Petzold engages on social issues such as the sick role, class separation, and gender roles.
Your argument, Kyle, is excellent. There is a fundamental sense of "coming too late" permeating this and other CP films, including a political sense of lateness: coming after '68 and its sense of political possibility (for the left, and from its pov). As for the genre element, the genre of ghost stories would be the prime genre framework, no? Fisher points out the importance of Nosferatu for the film's genesis as well.
Delete“Petzold’s films consistently explore these new and transformational modes of individualities, especially the compromised, even tainted, character of desire in the wake of such economic adaptability, accommodation, and mobility” (Fisher 5) I find that Nina, as an individual, shows how having an undetermined identity will lead to her being easily manipulated by other trying to use her for their own desires.
ReplyDeleteI find this especially true in several key scenes in the film. Right away, Nina watches Toni being beat behind the tree but doesn’t try to stop it. She later finds Toni again behind a bush and Toni (though she should be in the weaker position of the two) is the more dominant character demanding things of Nina that she doesn’t refuse. Again, when Toni comes into Nina’s room and eventually kisses Nina, Nina meekly complies because she is looking for something (or someone) to connect her with the “city” instead of her ghostly life (Fisher 83).
The second time I see Nina crumble under someone else’s desire is when Françoise approaches Nina and demands to see her ankle. Nina has no reason to believe Françoise, but Nina is again looking for something to fill her. Nina questions herself after leaving Françoise because of the coincidence of her scar, and her own shady childhood. She wants to believe Françoise could be telling her the truth, because it would bring her back to the living world from her ghostly one. With this thought Nina starts to make her own decisions, therefore bringing herself out of the ghost world, but finally as she seeks out Françoise when her other option (Toni) leaves she finds that Françoise was projecting her own longing of her daughter and need to fill that dead space in herself onto Nina.
Nina then goes off back into her ghost form to return to her “fair tale” forested area. She was so close to rejoining the world, but was unable to step out of her meekness and try life without someone else telling her who she is. In the same way, Françoise and Toni fall back into their ghost worlds to maybe never get as close to rejoining life as meek Nina did. Ironically it seems, that the least dominant character was the one to almost come out of the shadows, but as it seems in both of Petzold’s films we have watched, it is just not possible for the ghosts to live again.
Yes, and i wonder whether Nina does not in fact get to move on, get out, as it were. She seems to reject the narratives others impose on her by the end, no?
DeleteI agree with what Emily is saying in her post because what caught my attention the most was also the sequence of events in which the film's story line was told. It confused me at first, the fact that we see these two seemingly separate story lines for a huge portion of the film before they finally intertwine. However, I think that because Toni, Nina, and Francoise's "aftershocks" are the only thing we really know for sure, the time it takes for the separate story lines to interact with each other is what makes the film so powerful.
ReplyDeleteAlso in page 83, Fisher states that "without conventional plot exposition, much of the film remains fallout of past events". This makes sense because there is so much of the film that is unknown, and leave a lot open to speculation. I think that many mainstream movies focus on singular big events but fails to address what happens after. in contrast, Ghost focuses on the idea that the past does linger and is a driving force on not just current but future pursuits of love and happiness.
An example of this can be seen in all three of the main characters. When Nina is so quick to befriend Toni, a complete stranger, and follow her out of the "foster" home she was given, it proves that growing up without parents or a permanent place to live has left her with a desperation to find that place. She feels an instant connection to Toni so she follows her everywhere even after witnessing her commit various crimes and shady behavior. In Toni, she has apparently no family and no place to live; we don't know how she came to be that way but it affects her current behavior because she only sees people as what they can do for her. She steals and takes advantage of NIna's feelings in order to get farther in her day to day life. For Francoise, it is obvious what her aftershock is caused by, the kidnapping of her child. What I find the most interesting is that Francoise has been searching so long for her missing child so relentlessly that it has turned into a mental illness leading her husband to believe that their daughter will never be found.
In pure speculation, maybe Nina really was Marie, but because of the aftershock effect on both Francoise and her husband, they are so quick to decide Nina was a fraud, another figment of Francoise's grief clouded mind. So they might have found their lost daughter but end up leaving her on her own when Francoise knows she has nothing.
Good. The role of the husband might be worth looking at in more detail. For example, though he ostensibly comes to Berlin to pick up F, he also sets up a business meeting as if F in and of itself were not wor his troubles. She certainly seems to wonder about him.
DeleteI find it very interesting how precise Petzold uses cinematography to echo the overlying plot and the emotional state of the characters. Fisher writes about Petzold during an interview “I don’t like it when filmic settings are initially shot in a long shot like a postcard. The place has to have something to do with the staging! I like it when a place is shown so that one feels a certain disquiet” (Page 87)
ReplyDeleteThis holds true all throughout Ghost. There are no establishing shots during this film, rather Petzold uses many shots near the doorway or window of a building—transitional spaces. As Fisher writes, even the scene between Francoise and Nina near Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, after the two first meet, has much greater significance than just the composition. Not only does Nina show Francoise the scare on her ankle, the two are placed in front of a wall scared from the battles during WWII. (Pages 90, 91)
Petzold’s driving scenes between both Jerichow and Ghost follow a precise style too. The camera POV is always solid, which lets the actors take on the focus. However, the surrounding space is not ambiguous either. If the viewer takes notice, the surrounding motion sets a tone as well. For one example in Ghost, these patterns can be noticed in the driving scenes at the beginning and end of the film. Towards the beginning after Francoise is picked up by her husband at the hospital, they take a ride to a hotel. The surrounding traffic is passing by quite noticeably as Francoise’s emotional state is somber, while their motion is slow the two seem to linger as traffic passes. By contrast, later in the film, at what seems like one of the most uplifting moments, Francoise offers Nina a ride to breakfast. The surrounding traffic is parked, Francoise seems bright and cheery while their motion moves forward. With Petzold there is no shot that seems out of place in relation to the plot and characters. It’s these cinematic details that make Petzold an extremely detailed and unique director.
Nice observation about the use of driving and motion--what is and is not and when-- in the film.
DeleteI will briefly analyze the title of the film itself and how it relates to the theme of "transitional spaces," as many people have mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteThe quote that made me start thinking critically about the film title came towards the end of the film. Pierre says to Nina, "Marie is dead." Whether or not Nina really is Marie, Pierre views his lost daughter as nothing more than a ghost now.
The denotation of the word "ghost" refers to a between-our-world-and-the-next state, a sort of transition from which there is no going back. Because the title of the film uses this word in its plural form makes me believe Petzold made this film not about one central character or even a couple characters going through transitions. Because the word is plural, I think that every character we meet in this movie is going through some transition, even if we as viewers barely see any of it.
For example, the casting director, Oliver, is a minor character in the film. We only see him in a couple scenes. Yet, we learn that he has gone off to have an affair with Toni, which hints at his unhappy marriage. From this, we can infer that he is transitioning from an discontented married man to a happier singleton.
Wow, I really like your interpretation of the title and how it relates to the characters in terms of "transitional spaces." To add to what you are saying, Marie's mother Francoise saw the ghost of her daughter in the face of many girls. She believes Nina is her daughter because she had a scar on her ankle and heart shaped mole on her back, but it never revealed how Nina acquired the scar or if the mole actually does resemble a heart.
DeleteToni is a character who could be described as a ghost in many ways. Nina spends half her time in the movie looking for where Toni ran off to, it also seems like Toni does not have a lot of close/stable relationships in her life. She is merely a ghost to people she meets. This is evident in the way she runs off with the casting director. The casting director’s wife feels like a ghost as she probably spends most of her party going time chasing off the women her husband finds interest in.
Lastly Nina herself is a ghost. Until she meets Toni, Nina is the loner type who doesn’t fit in with the kids around her. She doesn’t have a positive relationship with her mother. Nina might even know that she is not Marie, but likes the attention she is receiving from Francoise because it makes her feel less like a ghost.
I hadn't thought about the title until I read your post, and I totally agree with your assessment of how it fits with the film.
DeleteCasey: nice observation indeed. Please keep in mind the need to work on occasion ,with assigned texts. I just don't want you to forget about this requirement :)
DeleteI find the three main characters particularly interesting because of how their traits seem to contrast with one another. At the beginning, I can immediately noticed the contrasting characteristics of Nina and Toni. Nina was wearing a dull grey and blue shirt, as if she tries to blend in with the surrounding and not catch anyone’s attention. Toni, on the other hand, was wearing a bright red t-shirt and white pants which is pretty bold and stands out. This says a lot about their characteristics already. I also noticed that Nina tends to wear blue throughout the whole movie. Blue represents pureness and conservativeness. Both these traits can be found in Nina. Red usually represents danger, power and passion. Based on Nina and Toni’s relationship/friendship, Toni was clearly the dominant one. Everything she asked, Nina obeyed and followed (she even started shoplifting). I believe that the reason why Nina obliged to Toni’s ways were because she was lonely and was desperate for her company. Clearly she had sexual attractions towards Toni. As soon as Toni saw what Nina wrote about her in her diary, she then knew about how Nina felt. She tend used this as a way to manipulate Nina by falsifying her feelings (because she ended up leaving Nina behind with the Oliver).
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting contrast in character that particularly intrigue me was between Nina and Francoise. Nina tends to look down to the ground a lot, even when she speaks. She speaks with a very soft tone that is sometimes tough to comprehend. It is as tough she thinks that whatever she says won’t matter or make a difference because people has been pushing her around a lot and not believe what she says. For example, when she told her employer that she really did pick up all the rubbish but he did not believe and assumed that she slacked off. Francoise also face the same phenomenon. However, she was more stern and aggressive with her words. When she first saw Nina, she kept on insisting that Nina was Marie. She did not give up, regardless whether or not people believed her. She tends to look at people straight in the face all the time when she speaks as if she is trying her best to convince others.
Consequently, after watching the movie, Ghost, I noticed there were a few similarities to the movie, Jerichow, when it comes to their cinematic qualities. Both the movie starts off with an orchestral music along with silent scenes that shows a few characters. There were no “formal” introductions on the characters and no back-stories. Even after the movie, the viewers will still not know much about the past of each characters. Both the movie starts of in the “middle of the story” but Ghost also ends in the middle. We still don’t know if Nina truly was Marie and where exactly Toni did ran off too. I find this slightly frustrating but that is also a good technique to leave the rest of the story for the viewer’s self-imagination. This allows viewer engagement in a way.
Nicely done. Please keep in mind, though ,that on occasion your posts should work with some of the assigned readings. I just don't want you to forget about this requirment.
DeleteThere have been a lot of interesting and astute points brought up about the use of transitional spaces and transitional storylines in this film by other students so far. I agree with those that have stated that the interesting cinematography choices used to highlight the characters (no establishing shots) and the mood of their stories (lots of doorways and windows) helped make this film a unique viewing experience. For me, though, what stood out the most were several of the questions raised by the interaction between characters as well as parallels drawn between certain types of action.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think that this film (perhaps unintentionally) showed an important but not often thought about issue regarding the interactions between hetero and homosexual women. While Toni and Nina’s sexualities are never explicitly stated, one can gather from the clues given to us that Toni is probably straight while Nina is most likely questioning or a lesbian. There is nothing wrong with being open to trying new things sexually - however, I personally have seen several of my unlabeled and lesbian friends fall into the unfortunate “straight girl acting gay for attention” trap and am not a fan of girls who exhibit this behavior. It is quite clear that Toni uses her physical intimacy with Nina for her personal gain. Initially, she does it to get Nina attached to her. Then, she uses it to attract Oliver to her. For Nina, however, there are definitely feelings involved in her physical affections for Toni. While many straight women may see something like kissing another girl in a bar for free drinks or the attention of males as harmless fun, such interactions can be exceptionally damaging and hurtful for lesbians, to whom physical intimacy with a woman means something more. Where is the line? How can such a boundary be communicated between women whose sexualities differ on the homosexual spectrum?
Another scene that struck me was the breakfast between Nina and Francoise. I think many teenagers find themselves walking a line between the life they live with their peers and the life they live with their families as they grow older. There’s just a natural difference between the way in which we behave and the activities we engage in depending on the context of our company. But when is it that we really feel alive? What is it that we really need, what will truly make us feel satisfied? Is it wildly running through the streets, high on the buzz of shoplifting? Is it dancing in a room filled with red light, surrounded by music and booze and strange people in the arms of someone you desire? Or is it sitting in the morning sunlight, sipping coffee and orange juice, exchanging quiet conversation with those with who raised you? (Although in this case Nina was not raised by Francoise.) There is an odd dichotomy in the modern world regarding the fulfillment we receive from our peers and from our families. Balance between these would be ideal, but what if you can’t get it? Which do you choose? Which will make you happier, if it’s the only one you can have?
Finally, I wanted to share two parallels I saw in the film that intrigued me. The first was the use of CCTV footage - we only saw it twice: when baby Marie was stolen from the grocery store and when teenage Nina was stealing from the department store. I’m not sure if “parallel” is quite the right term for it, but I found the relationship between the nature of those sequences to be clever. The second was the use of breakfast. When Nina and Toni first meet, Nina asks if she wants some breakfast. When Nina finally decides to talk to Francoise, Francoise invites her to share the same meal. It seems like the significance of breakfast was related to the significance of getting to know one another.
This film was strange to me, and I’m not sure if I connected with it as much as some of you might have, but those are the things that I found most interesting about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe use of surveillance camera is indeed interesting--& occurs inother of his films as well--& it might be worthwhile reflecting on its use further.
DeletePlease remember the requirement that you need to work, occasionally, with assigned course texts in your posts. I just don't want you to forget about this requirement.
DeleteMany posts on here discuss transition and transitional spaces. What stuck out to me was the sound of footsteps. Footsteps are the most recurring sound in the movie. If a soundtrack was released for this film it would be 60 minutes of sneakers on white rock trails.
ReplyDeleteThe footsteps help emphasis the long walks and transitions that Toni and Nina face across the city. Stuck without a place to stay they are forced to keep walking and running. They represent the physical transition from place to place.
When the walking stops, they end up at their homes. Nina and Toni end up in a few places, but in the end it is followed by more footsteps. The end of the film reaffirms that transition is a main theme running through the film. It could have ended with Nina looking through the pictures, but it shows Nina’s journey to find her home.
I also noticed the music and extradiegetic sounds throughout the movie and found it interesting that the only time music was heard was during car rides and while Toni and Nina danced at Oliver's party. Other than those few instances I cannot recall another time music was used in the film. It definitely made you feel like you were there with the characters on their search for a "home."
DeleteJacob: good observation about sound and how it ight function in film. Remember the requirement to work occasionally with assigned readings ,though. I don't want you to forget about this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicely done, overall. I do wonder whether it might be worth reflecting on the status of the French couple's daughter: do we know for sure she is dead? Or is this the narrative the husband has settled on and that he imposes on his wife?
DeleteMusic plays a large part in a cinematic story, it can create tension, convey mood, or simply further the story in ways dialogue cannot. While watching Ghost the film starts of with a German operetta (Perhaps Johannes Brahms?). This classical music is played often through out the film and because classical music is the main music the film uses and often intentionally it bears our examination into this.
ReplyDeleteNow from my count classical music is played four times throughout the film and often it is played in the presence of the Pierre or Francoise to possibly symbolize class and wealth. Toni stated in the movie that Francoise was wearing Prada so we can assume their wealth to be true. Also what is fascinating about this film and it’s use of music is that when Pierre or Francoise is playing classical music it is diegetic however when the music is playing in a scene featuring Nina it is extra-diegetic. I think this is something to take note of because it represents the fact that Nina is not a part of that world, she literally can’t hear the music. However the one bit of music she can hear and is diegetic for her is at Oliver’s party and that music is Jazz. Now Jazz is a highly disorganized genre of music, melody is something not often featured in this genre. The wild and surprising tones of the music represents her life at that stage, wild and chaotic while she is being influenced by Toni. The music crew for this movie Stefan Will and Marco Dreckkotter obviously wanted to mesh the two genres to show almost a divide in the two stories going on here. First we have Toni and Nina with their adventure and we have Francoise and Pierre on their quest. This last idea might be reaching but I have to believe that this use of story telling through music was a cinematic troupe intentionally planned by the crew of this film.
Good observations about the use of music, including the connection of class. In Fisher's discussion of e film he identifies the classical score: it's Bach's Streams of Salted Tears, a title that seems fitting for the film (how?).
DeleteCompared to "Jerichow," "Ghosts" occupied a much busier setting. Seeing as the rural setting of "Jerichow" was an important thematic element, I took special note of where the events of today's film took place.
ReplyDelete"Ghosts" obviously took place in an urban environment. It opened with Francoise's husband driving down the busy freeway. There were plenty of cars present, and it was a perfectly normal scene.
This was because we didn't know about some of the weirder things going on film yet.
Once the viewer meets Nina and Toni, the oddities of the plot begin to reveal themselves. One should take special note of how Petzold crafted the urban setting throughout the rest of the movie.
One thing stood out to me – how empty the city was.
I'd certainly expect a city, especially the centralized, pedestrian-friendly cities of Europe, to be full of people. Instead, there were hardly anyone there besides the main characters.
This could very well be because Petzold couldn't afford to hire a ton of extras. We've discussed how there isn't much money in the German film industry.
Or it could be a visual representation of the film's main theme – ghosts. There are a lot of things associated with ghosts, like eeriness. It was weird to see a city that empty.
Popularly, ghosts occupy places where people aren't. Nina, in a way, was the ghost that Francoise was seeking. She occupied this city.
Towards the end of the film, the city is populated by a few more extras. They're seen milling around here and there, and things felt more normal. It was a clue that the film was nearing its conclusion, for someone who isn't paying attention to the clock.
Things, in a sense, return to reality when Francoise brings Nina back to the hotel. Her husband blatantly tells Nina that she is not Marie was one thing, but the scene taking place in the hotel, somewhere we've seen other people (like the receptionist), is another way that the film pulls away from the theme of ghosts. Where people are, ghosts aren't.
While there might not necessarily be a cause and effect relationship between the film's plot/ thematic elements and the setting, there certainly seems to be a kind of correlation.
Good observation about the film's use of the city, which is Berlin, Germany's largest city (3.5 million or even more) and one of the great tourist centers in the world. The movie certainly does not fulfill expectations we tend to have of a film set in such an environment and you provide an intereting idea about why it may depict it in the way it does.
DeleteGhosts was one of those movies that I didn’t really enjoy watching, but I was engaged with the entire time. The plot was convoluted from the start, the pacing was jumpy at times and it wins the award for most sour-tasting ending I’ve seen all year, but for some reason I was intrigued. I think a large part of my curiosity came from the lack of information that Petzold provided. As with Jerichow, the film begins with the camera focusing on the backs of the main characters’ heads, as if to place the audience in their position and their perspectives. The only character that doesn’t get the ‘head’ treatment is Toni and I found that the camera lens rarely focused on her. Even early on in the film her actions are questionable. When she asks Nina for coins she leaves the shot and we aren’t aware of what she needed them for until we hear her on the phone. When she goes to Matthias house and enters, the camera stays with Nina. I felt that my curiosity mimicked Nina’s own at times.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of the broken home was very prevalent in this film. I saw an oft repeated visual motif of square frames around characters that elicited the idea of family portraits. Francious is framed by the design of her hotel, Nina is framed by her artificially aged picture at the end of the film and Toni is framed at one point by a window pane that bisects her, which I found representative of her possible split personality and her bi-sexuality. She often existed as two people on screen: one is calm and in control and the other violent, sexual and dismissive. Yet none of these framed “photos” ever had a full family in it. Nina is constantly searching to complete her family in some way. Whether it’s through Toni, who she wants to “stay with her” or with her “mother and father”, who have been searching for family so long that they can’t even see that this might be the person they needed, Nina is constantly chasing the dream of a family and a home. I found it powerful that the home in which they attended the party was being remodeled. Especially after the realization that it is broken in more than just the physical sense.
Great observations about some of the film's formal aspects and the effect they appear to have. It seems important that we see mostly with Nina as is the case in the apartment scene you reference. Question: are the photos *really* artificially pictures of Nina?
DeleteAfter reading through the above posts I agree with the common theme of belonging that seems to occur throughout Ghosts as well as Jerichow. The 3 lead female characters (Nina, Toni, and Francoise) in Ghosts are all searching for someone who can fill a hole in their life whether it be a friend, lover, or daughter. They each embody a specific trait or archetype. Nina seemed to be naive, Toni was deceptive, and Francoise was delusional. They all wanted to achieve the sense of belonging but they all had drastically different personalities which influenced their interactions and motivations.
ReplyDeleteCompared to "Jerichow," "Ghosts" occupied a much busier setting. Seeing as the rural setting of "Jerichow" was an important thematic element, I took special note of where the events of today's film took place.
ReplyDelete"Ghosts" obviously took place in an urban environment. It opened with Francoise's husband driving down the busy freeway. There were plenty of cars present, and it was a perfectly normal scene.
This was because we didn't know about some of the weirder things going on film yet.
Once the viewer meets Nina and Toni, the oddities of the plot begin to reveal themselves. One should take special note of how Petzold crafted the urban setting throughout the rest of the movie.
One thing stood out to me – how empty the city was.
I'd certainly expect a city, especially the centralized, pedestrian-friendly cities of Europe, to be full of people. Instead, there were hardly anyone there besides the main characters.
This could very well be because Petzold couldn't afford to hire a ton of extras. We've discussed how there isn't much money in the German film industry.
Or it could be a visual representation of the film's main theme – ghosts. There are a lot of things associated with ghosts, like eeriness. It was weird to see a city that empty.
Popularly, ghosts occupy places where people aren't. Nina, in a way, was the ghost that Francoise was seeking. She occupied this city.
Towards the end of the film, the city is populated by a few more extras. They're seen milling around here and there, and things felt more normal. It was a clue that the film was nearing its conclusion, for someone who isn't paying attention to the clock.
Things, in a sense, return to reality when Francoise brings Nina back to the hotel. Her husband blatantly tells Nina that she is not Marie was one thing, but the scene taking place in the hotel, somewhere we've seen other people (like the receptionist), is another way that the film pulls away from the theme of ghosts. Where people are, ghosts aren't.
While there might not necessarily be a cause and effect relationship between the film's plot/ thematic elements and the setting, there certainly seems to be a kind of correlation.
I’ve already begun to pick up on Director/Writer Christian Petzold’s style from the two films of his we’ve already screened. The role of the camera and the audience is a very voyeuristic sense where we are positioned behind the character soaking in what they are seeing followed by a cut to a reaction shot. The camera, in many ways, is the, or one of the, “ghosts” in Gespenster,
ReplyDeleteThe second scene of the opening is when we’re introduced to Nina and she watches a woman be assaulted in front of her in the park. She curiously watches and keeps a distance, never saying attempting to stop the violence or call for help. Nina is a follower, an on-looker, just like us (the audience). We can’t say or stop this from happening on screen and throughout the film we follow Nina being dragged along everywhere Toni wants to go. Toni knows that it doesn’t take a lot to keep Nina around. She can persuade Nina to do anything by sweetly coaxing her almost like a siren saying “Nina, come.” By the end of the film, Toni has vanished without a trace leaving Nina homeless, without money, and stranded from the only woman she thought could care for her – Françoise.
A particular theme I found interesting in Petzold’s films thus far is that both Thomas, in Jerichow, and Nina did favors for Ali and Toni that were unwarranted. Thomas did not owe it to this drunk driving lunatic to save him from getting a DUI and pretending he was behind the wheel. Similarly, Nina protects Toni from getting caught by her fellow clean-up crew in the beginning before either of them have a connection; she owes Toni nothing. Both protagonists sort of fall into the lives of the ‘antagonists’ who end up in control of their lives and getting them in trouble. It will be interesting to see if these themes show up in other ways. This again, goes into the idea of power and how power can even be used as a currency when it comes to favors owed.
One question to ask, then, is why Thomas and Nina do what they do. What desires manifest in their actions?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if CP's camera can be called "voyeuristic" as its common use is a pejorative one. Does his camera, for example, exhibit tendencies associated with Laura Mulvey's "male gaze"?
Also: please keep in mind the requirement to work, occasionally, with some of the assigned readings in your posts. I don't want you to forget about this requirement.