How does Fassbinder's version compare to the book?
Someone please explain.
shareThe book is unreadable. The film is stellar. The epilogue is awful. I would recommend watching the whole thing up until the epilogue.
Apart from that bit, I'd say it's one of those rare cases where the film is better than the book.
The book is great! It's just different from "normal" books. I just read it and I think it is facinating how Döblin uses all these different elements like articles, bible passages, songs ect. to create the atmosphere of Berlin in the 20s.
The film is also great and very close to the book, but I woudn't say it is better.
Please exuse any mistakes but I'm not from an English-speaking country.
"The book is unreadable."
Well, I have to disagree, and so would the millions of people that have read it [it's been in print for 80 years now]. So do some literary critics, placing it in the top 100 books OF ALL TIME:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews
I've read it at least 6 times - so IT IS NOT UNREADABLE.
It's actually quite wonderful IMHO.
Yes - it it written in a very particular manner, with seemingly random quotes/facts/trivia all over the place.
These are used in the film also, so I guess that would make the film unwatchable?
The epilogue is rather controversial and is Fassbinder's interpretation of what becomes of Franz and Germany after his 'rebirth' [to put it in the simplest possible terms]. Since this book was probably the single most influential work in Fassbinder's life, his take on this, while controversial and often scorned, is an important part of the overall work of this film. To skip it is to miss a portion of the film as Fassbinder intended; like it or not, it's a part of the film.