MovieChat Forums > Germania anno zero (1949) Discussion > What a waste...

What a waste...

posted 16 years ago by AKHeart
11 replies | jump to latest

Berlin, 1947. A city utterly shattered and the remaining inhabitants cowed and barely surviving in the ruins of their former glory. What an incredible and historically unique backdrop to make a film in. Just a shame the film is not very good. The story is slight, the dialogue stilted and unfortunately the hero Edmund is wooden and unconvincing even by the standards of the time. It’s a shame the director did not focus more on the well-played sinister ex-nazi teacher and his entourage, the engaging feral gang of kids or even the the women, particularly Edmund’s surprisingly glamorous sister Eva.

[–] Pinheadsbitch 16 years ago

Personally I don't think this film was a waste, I find it very powerful. The film is not intentionally made to entertain, Rossellini explains this in the intro that this is to show how life in Berlin is desperate, and he shows this by centralizing a character on a boy to symbolize the loss of future Germany will have. Rossellini further explains in the intro that this is not made in favour of the German people nr a derogative comment on how the Entente has left the city. He made this film to make people aware of the desperate lives people had lived in that time, and like Rome Open City he used children to show how these times will affect them, affecting their countries future.

"Explorers in the further regions of experience. Demons to some. Angels to others."

[–] Noir-It-All 15 years ago

It's almost like the Third Reich reached out beyond the grave and pulled Edmund back down into it.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] rebbardoux 14 years ago

AKHeart, you are incredibly limited.

[–] chrissso 8 years ago

And you AK Heart are incredibly limitless ... or so you like to think.

[–] MrCarmady 14 years ago

"What a waste [of an interesting backdrop". My thoughts exactly. Heavy-handed, poorly acted, intrusively scored, insanely plotted... Ugh.

[–] henrimaine 11 years ago

"Poorly acted"
Indeed, why didn't they put Clark Gable and Lana Turner into this movie?

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

At least Gable and Turner were actors. Or perhaps you prefer circus performers being cast solely because they bear a resemblance to someone's deceased family member. Possibly the strangest and most idiotic method of casting I've ever heard of.

[–] mmadyb 11 years ago

remember you're not retarded, you're special

[–] greendahlias 11 years ago

Engaging in name calling, you lose the argument right out of the gate.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jeorj Euler 8 years ago

Just a shame the film is not very good. The story is slight, the dialogue stilted and unfortunately the hero Edmund is wooden and unconvincing even by the standards of the time.

Perhaps, but what caused it? Lack of resources?