Hey everyone!
I've seen this film once, so far so maybe I missed something or didn't understand things right, but is Peter really a former angel or might he be some kind of demon who is instructed to get as many angels as possible to become humans? I mean, what else does he do that companero-stuff for?
Peter Falk's character is a former angel all right. Who's to say that it's a bad thing for an angel to become human. In some sense the whole movie is a celebration of our human lives, by endorsing Damiel's decision to become human, his exchange of endless mere knowing for a finite life that includes sense experience and love. In this (for me at least) the movie is a life-affirming experience. As Richard Raskin puts it in his article "What is Peter Falk Doing in Wings of Desire?" (here's a link: imv.au.dk/publikationer/pov/Issue_08/section_2/artc8A.html), "Peter Falk is not only the catalyst for Damiel's actually going through with his plan; Falk is also - in our eyes - the guarantor of the rightness of Damiel's plan."
-- TopFrog
quote:[Who's to say that it's a bad thing for an angel to become human.]
God perhaps? Genesis 6:1,2 2Peter 2:4 Jude 6 Matthew 25:41
in the context of the movie the quotes from the bible are irrelevant. The movies overarching theme is that it's quite a wonderful thing to abandon being an angel in favor of being a person. now obviously there is a christian mythology having to do with fallen angels, but it's clear that this film at least gives it a different spin.
shareI'll agree with the other poster who already replied to this that the Bible references aren't exactly germaine to the question of whether or not it is a good idea for an immortal incorporeal angel to become a mortal human. Traditional Christian theology doesn't allow for such a transformation. According to Aquinas, angels do not naturally have bodies. When angels assume bodies they do not exercise life functions (speaking, eating, sensing through sensory organs, begetting children) through their assumed bodies (www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm). Hence the situation in the movie and the rhetorical question I raised are not addressed by Christian doctrine (at least not by Catholic doctrine).
-- TopFrog
Who's talking about 'doctrine'?God's word is enough for me.
shareWho's talking about 'doctrine'? God's word is enough for me.
Then the matter is even easier to resolve. Nothing in the Bible, including the passages you cited in your previous message (even Genesis 6:1-2), describes angels as becoming human.
-- TopFrog
Then what do you think it descibes?
shareI already linked to writings of Aquinas that provide two interpretations of Genesis 6:1-2, neither of which involves angels transforming into humans. If you disagree with both of his interpretations, what do you think the passage describes, and why do you think that?
-- TopFrog
Please read all the scriptures I cited,and then read these 2 Peter 1:20,Gen 40:8.
What I or Aquinas 'think' is of no consequence!
What I or Aquinas 'think' is of no consequence!
Since the Bible does not in plain language describe angels as transforming into mortal humans, and since it is your view that interpretation "is of no consequence," there is no point in discussing the matter further.
-- TopFrog
It does seem ironic to be discussing bible interpretation with someone that insists they are not interpreting the bible but are objectively revealing an absolute truth. Once you have that mindset, there really is no space for critical discussion as all one can say is that they agree or they disagree as anything else would be 'interpreting' what is claimed to be an objective source of absolute truth.
share 'In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you. Luke 10:21
This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it; and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, ‘By hearing, YOU will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, YOU will look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes; that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back, and I heal them.’Matthew 13:13-15
Now, speaking as the agnostic I trully am, I can only ponder about why on earth are we citing christian scripture, to explain stuff from a movie that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with religion and angels as messangers of your god.....
Either someone is being a troll here, or someone has missied thepoint of the film....
See, here's where I agree with afjarvis-1, even if I have no interest in giving the Bible any props whatsoever. But since we're discussing something as absurd as angels:
Angels are distinctly Judeo-Christian beings, and thus it's perfectly legitimate to introduce the Bible and what it says in relation to this matter. It's an intriguing question about Peter Falk's role in all this - an entirely positive one, if taking a humanistic stance as the film does. If the Bible is to be taken at face value (say, about the existence of angels), it must be said, he's certainly not working in the interests of that same God who inspired it. This bit of subtle theological rebellion is to the film's credit.
Angels are distinctly Judeo-Christian beings
This appears to be incorrect based on what I find. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=angel, "angel" goes back to a Greek word "angelos" which means "messenger". The origin of the Greek word is unclear but may go back to an Oriental or Sanskrit source. The modern English word is a fusion of Old English and Old French words which predate modern translations of the Christian bible.
OTOH, the word used in the Old Testament is "mal'akh" (obviously that's a transliteration of the Hebrew), or "mal'akh yehowah" -- "messenger of Jehovah".
The two words became associated only in English translations of the Christian bible. But those translations, instead of consistently saying "angel of god" as a translation of "mal'akh yehowah", often just say "angel". As a result, they gave the word "angel" a new meaning. That meaning now dominates English usage, but the older meaning of "messenger" does appear, especially poetically. The full OED gives several examples of this usage.
So I'd have to say that neither the word nor the concept is "distinctly Judeo-Christian".
Of course it appears that afjarvis-1 regards modern English translations as the definitive bible, so my argument, being based on original sources, is unlikely to convince him/her.
Edward
You will find angels, or equivalents, in most religions. I distinctively remember them being featured in Islam.
But anyway, Wim Wenders can use the concept of angels in any context he wants to. You should check out the series Neon Genesis Evangelion, which interprets the concept in a fairly untraditional way.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
it's OUR not "your" GOD, pagan...
shareAlthough Angels are primarily out of Judeo-Christian mythology (and probably were an adaptation of pagan tradition). This is not meant to be a biblical or faithful representation of either, but something out of the imagination of the writer. Had the writer been of some other religion, they may have been called something else. They could have been invisible aliens, and the story would still have meaning.
maybe he was just laid off b/c of the economy.
“Can't go wrong with taupe."- Wynn Duffy
I personally think that Falk was Lucifer. Always giving the same old cunning speech to lure in old and bored angels to his side.
That's why he just shakes his head when Cassiel comes to him and refuses to give him a handshake.
The club scene is to me the epitome of Damiel's fallen grace and "taste of the forbidden fruit" which is why you see Cassiel pushing his head against a wall in pure despair and disappointment .
[deleted]
This thinking that Falk in the movie is Lucifer is ludicrous. Methinks your imagination is working overtime! Just take it for what it was meant to be and enjoy it. Expounding on whether or not he was the devil, or whether it's okay with God for angels to become mortal is pointless. We're talking about a MOVIE, for "heaven's" sake! It always irks me when people attempt to over-analyze a film and complicate a simple concept instead of just enjoying it for what it is. Are you that unfulfilled in your life, that you have to spoil a beautiful idea by turning it into something sinister?? This reminds me of people who tried to find deeply intellectual, hidden meanings in Beatles' lyrics back in the day, and John Lennon finally told them, "They don't mean anything! They're just words, man!"
"Think slow, act fast." -- Buster Keaton
Hmmm....I remember from a literature class I took in college that you have to be careful to only use what the creator (writer, director, etc ) puts into a story in order to truly get to what they're trying to say - it's very easy to bring personal experience, ideas, whatever, and apply it to a story, which seems to be what's going on with trying to name Peter Falk Lucifer (unless I missed something - I remember a quick mention of demons early in the film, but I don't remember hearing anything about Lucifer)...
On the other hand, as was mentioned in a prior post....there HAS to be something to the spiel Peter Falak repeats whenever he feels an angel present, and he has a chance to speak to them (almost) one on one....I found it very interesting and mysterious.
I wonder if the answer is in Faraway, So Close....after seeing the amazing WoD, I can't wait to see the story continued!
"It is hard to be a man of peace. It would be so pleasant to kill Mr. Weddle." - Massai, 'Apache'
[deleted]
Hi, this will give my view on Peter's role. This year as part of a special on the director we saw bother parts of the Sky Over Berlin. (at the university). Writing to Peter Falk, I want to say I enjoyed your portrayal of the meta-angel, the human-angel connection. All involved gave heartfelt performances, and being American, I noteparticularly you. Matt Erickson --
shareHe was once an angel and I took his little speech as a script he's working on at the moment that just so happened to make sense when there actually is someone invisible right next to you. Also, if he was once an angel, he'd know they are all around, always.
shareMy question is why is Peter Falk playing Peter Falk?
share[deleted]
All evidence points to angel except for that one strange interaction (he's even in the sequel helping out, which removes all doubt). What I can't figure out is if he was an angel 30 years ago and then became human, why is he reminiscing about his grandmother several times during the film? Do angels have grannies?
shareWim Wenders, from a 1999 interview (http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_08/section_1/artc1A.html):
I had written some material for Peter because we had already recorded a voice-over with him before he had left Berlin. But it had been done when we were still shooting and I didn't really have a clear idea yet where the whole idea with the voices would take us. When we started editing, the elements we had recorded with Peter turned out to be rather useless. So I wrote a couple of pages of material for him, ideas for the voice-over, and Peter tried some of it when he was in the studio and always sort of took off on the basis of the material I had given him and started to ramble on and improvise around the material. And most of what's in the film is now material that Peter improvised. Most of it. Some lines, I think about 20% or 30%, are lines I had actually written for him and all the rest is stuff that he came up with, probably by just closing his eyes and continuing on his own, just associating ideas.share
For instance, the Van Gogh improvisation - about yellow. Somehow he got into it via yellow. Or his grandmother. I mean, how a former angel can have a grandmother is still a rather doubtful matter (laughter).