MovieChat Forums > Funeral in Berlin (1967) Discussion > The plot - can anyone help?

The plot - can anyone help?

posted 18 years ago by Cinemasitter
17 replies | jump to latest

I saw this the other day, and really enjoyed it - a real Cold War thriller like they don't make any more. I have a few questions about the plot though - not sure I understood it! Can anyone help?

Spoilers below...

I got the whole bit about the Swiss bank accounts and the Israeli(?) secret service agants. But -

Am I right in thinking that Stok never intended to defect?

If so, why did he set up his defection?

Why was the guy who devised escape plans for would-be defectors killed?

Thanks!

[–] Byronik 18 years ago

Stok never intended to defect. It was an ingenious way to kill Kreutzman. Stok wanted Kreutzman dead because there were too many embarrassing escapes ("Who's that playing the piano wiv 'is elbows?").

http://byronik.blogspot.com

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cinemasitter 18 years ago

Excellent - makes perfect sense. Thanks for your help guys. I forget how these two plot strands linked together now - I think it was the fact that Palmer was being shadowed as soon as he arrived in Berlin, which seemed to be part of the defection plot, but in fact ended up being a completely seperate plot?

[–] schull 18 years ago

Yes Stok never intended to defect; and that is just one deception. Kreutzman is complicite with Vulcan to get the Paul Louis Broum documents from british intelligence; and (although never stated specifically, but why would Stok be so eager to help get Vulcan across into East Berlin and through Czechoslovakia to get to his Swiss money unless Vulcan gives him something) Vulcan betrayed Kruetzman to Stok in exchange for a route into the east to get to Switzerland. Moreoever, Hallum was also in the conspiracy with Vulcan and is also betrayed. Vulcan is the centre of the entire plot and Palmer finds out not until near the end. Wonderful plot on its own but throw in Palmer and Mossad and it becomes the greatest spy movie ever!

[–] paul-fisher-ctr 17 years ago

IF YOU LIKED 'FUNERAL IN BERLIN' ------- TRY 'THE IPCRESS FILE'. IT IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL FILM -- HARRY PALMER'S INTRO.

[–] Byronik 17 years ago

Ipcress File is nowhere near as powerful as FIB. It's like a Manchurian Candidate for dummies.

http://byronik.com

[–] info-13039 17 years ago

Thats a little off-topic maybe – but it can be important to know...In Germany of the sixties there was a real "business" in helping east germans crossing the border. Some germans from the western Bundesrepublik – like Kreutzmann in the movie – made their money engineering out shemes for getting people over the wall. Many of those operations were (as we know today) supported by the west german government with money, information and sometimes a blind eye on diplomatic reasons. Escaping was very dangerous and in fact there was only one try – so every single plan must be a fresh and sophisticated one (border police of course learned from every succeeded getaway and quickly jammed the hole).

In western Germany (of 1950 or 1960) people like Kreutzmann were highly regarded for their job because its dangerousnes and its demand for brainpower. For east germany every escape was a diplomatc affront (under the eyes of the big brother in Moskow !) so I'm sure that one – by intelligence well known supporter like Kreutzman – could be a big red target in reality, too. You must know that not a single one escape was commented by the east german government. East germans hear from that just by listening western tv oder radio. All that diplomatic trouble caused by a man like Kreutzmann would have given enough reason to liquidate him.

Two notes: In the 50ies or 60ies a british BBC-team filmed a documentation while some westeners build a tunnel below the Berlin wall to start a mass exodus. BBC gave money for that operation and the tunnel was open for two days. It helped many people to escape. I dont't know if that documentation is available on DVD.

In Berlin you can find a private museum were many gadgets that are used in getaways can be seen. It's very interesting (there's a small "mini cooper" car with a scooped out seat and an incredible self-made underwater boat...) and its called "Haus am Checkpoint Charly"...

[–] steve.schonberger 16 years ago

Getting out wasn't always all that difficult. If someone had a financial backer in the west with enough money, the East would find a way to let the escape happen -- because that money was one of the East's biggest sources of hard currency. The dangerous, only-works-once escapes were the ones that people pulled off without the aid of the west opening the door for them with cash.

(I learned that from a lecture by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, director of The Lives of Others. I assume he knew what he was talking about.)

[–] michael-heathcote3 16 years ago

Not me, I've just watched this film and I've got a headache from trying to follow it. This plot was far too convoluted to make into a successful film. Even if you could manage to follow it I suspect you had to concentrate so hard that you didn't really watch it as you would a normal film.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] karpizan 16 years ago

Not me, I've just watched this film and I've got a headache from trying to follow it. This plot was far too convoluted to make into a successful film. Even if you could manage to follow it I suspect you had to concentrate so hard that you didn't really watch it as you would a normal film.

I'm sure there are some Sesame Street DVDs out there that won't tax your brain too much.

[–] laddiebuck 16 years ago

If you liked Funeral in Berlin, check out Where Eagles Dare. I'm not saying I didn't like FIB -- I did -- but I thought that both films tried to do the same thing and this one just wasn't as good as Eagles.

Both films have a plot where there are more twists than you've had hot dinners, but in FIB, the first hour or so seems to be just preparation, with all the twists being packed into the last third or fourth of the film, and you then have to untangle what happened from all the little clues that were dropped in the whole preparation phase (where plot-wise little happens). The delineation between these two phases is pretty sharp -- it's from when the coffin is opened.

Also, a lot of the dialogue is great but seems better on paper than when the actors say their lines (Bitte, Mein Herr?, not "Bitter").

Eagles on the other hand spreads the plot twists out nicely, and never fails to explain something within about 10 minutes of its first being introduced. And for all that it is an even more suspensful and intricate film than FIB.

But don't take this as a jab at FIB. Though I've only just seen it, I love many things about it too, and think it's a splendid film.

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

I don´t see much of a similarity between FIB and Where Eagles Dare at all - the former is a rather thoughtful film that gets to the dirty, treacherous heart of the Cold War very effectively with its downbeat and cynical approach while in WED the plot was totally out there and quite dumb, only serving as a means to allow for some war adventure/action fun (at which it´s undeniably good). I think FIB is actually a bit of an improvement over The Ipcress File, with a tone not much different from something like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, the plot being somewhat secondary to the authentic feeling depiction of a cruel world drenched in paranoia. Overall though my favourite Palmer film remains Billion Dollar Brain from 1967 with its borderline surreal flourishes brought along by its auteur director Ken Russell and an absolutely outstanding score. All 3 are good stuff though.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jd-276 13 years ago

Am I right in thinking that Stok never intended to defect?

Yes, you are right.

If so, why did he set up his defection?

An overture to the British. Stok ends up a British asset, though not a fully fledged one. This puts him in the pay of the British and a bit of spare cash wouldn't go astray, even to a Russian colonel. I suspect there was a lot of this going on in Berlin at the time. To cover for this, an elaborate system of plays and blinds has to be constructed; the deaths of Kreutzmann and Vulkan are in part to remove suspicion from Stok. With Kreutzmann out of the way, Stok doesn't have to work so hard either. He even gets to play in Am Zoo! So...

Why was the guy who devised escape plans for would-be defectors killed?

To remove suspicion from Stok. The British wouldn't have cared one way or the other about another people smuggler but having someone like Stok on the payroll would be extremely important to them. Why? Information.

[–] profh-1 12 years ago

"Stok ends up a British asset, though not a fully fledged one. This puts him in the pay of the British and a bit of spare cash wouldn't go astray, even to a Russian colonel."

This is amazing. I just got done watching the film for maybe the 4th or 5th time... and somehow, I NEVER got this out of it. (Then again, my copy is in terrible shape, and there may be some bits missing.)

But it would explain why Harry makes the comment at the end about "Stok would appreciate that" (when he went out of his way to make it look like Broum was killed "escaping to the West", something that-- IF true-- would make Stok look good to his superiors.

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

I don't want to seem patronising but yes; you're getting it.

He's protecting Stok because he's now a British asset.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5965) 3 years ago

No, this is never established. Very imaginative though.

Stok just wanted to kill the embarrassing Kreutzmann so he didn't get purged.