MovieChat Forums > Der Himmel über Berlin (1988) Discussion > What the - ??!!

What the - ??!!

posted 18 years ago by mooninbalance
13 replies | jump to latest

Could someone help me to understand why I can't get into this film? I've always considered myself to be a reasonably intelligent and sensitive man; and I'd heard so much about how 'moving', etc. it is. I've tried to watch it twice now, and can't make it past the first 25 minutes. Endless dreamy,seemingly pointless images of people and their rambling, incoherent thoughts. The first viewing, I literally was induced into sleep! The next time, I just couldn't take it. Whatever the reason, it's not my attention span: I can sit mesmerized through things like 'Barry Lyndon' and Wagnerian opera.

Did I give up too soon? Does something happen? It's been my experience that if *something* interesting doesn't develop in the first 20 minutes of a film, it probably won't; but there are exceptions to every rule.
I'm sorry, I mean no offense to those who can get something out of this, but I was sharply disappointed. I'm still willing to give it another try, if you can offer me some hope that there is a plot, meaningful dialog, characters to identify with and care about; things like that.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mooninbalance 18 years ago

<<You're honestly judging this film after only seeing 25 minutes of the beginning, and that's it?>>

Not exactly. To be more precise, I'm only judging the first 25 minutes, which I have to confess, seemed longer. I thought the point was made that we're experiencing people's sort of random lives and thoughts - but that they were belaboring a rather vague point. I thought the photography was impressive, and indeed, the part I watched did have a hypnotic, poetic quality. But the sequence went on for so long, I assumed (incorrectly, I guess) that the entire film was like this.
No, I didn't watch City of Angels, because I always suspected it was an inferior version of this one.
Thank you for your imput.

[–] rooprect 18 years ago

mooninbalance, I think I have the answer to all your problems.

For one, the KEY to liking this movie is in understanding the significance of its true title Der Himmel über Berlin "The Heavens over Berlin". This movie is not about love nor is it about angels. This movie is about Berlin in the late 80s, and the movie's value lies in the nostalgic past of that unique time (a new culture awakening, the Berlin wall about to come down, etc). I'm not saying you have to be a Berlinner yourself, but you have to put yourself in the place of someone who is experiencing a truly historic decade.

For example, the Potzdammer Platz scenes may seem tedious and boring to most people, but there's a lot of unspoken history about that site (which has since been bulldozed and raped by highrise condos). The old man's delirious rambles actually have a point.

And then there's the obvious symbolism of the Berlin wall, the division between East & West (heaven & earth) and the "no man's land" inside the wall itself which is where Damiel's transformation takes place. Clever stuff.

My second suggestion to you is this: WATCH CITY OF ANGELS. Yes, it'll hurt like hell, I know. But that's the point. I too was wavering on Wings of Desire after I saw it the 1st time, but then I happened to catch City on tv one night. It was soooooo horrible that I immediately realized how great Wings is in comparison. I went back and watched Wings a second time, and I've loved it ever since.

[–] fw-bz 18 years ago

I liked the movie very much. But you don't have to like it only because you think many intelligent and sensitve men or women like it. This movie maybe isn't your taste. Thats o.k. - I loved it but it is not a movie I could watch over and over again. And if you don't like the first 25 minutes you will maybe not like the rest. Many people even like the beginning most. Normaly I like "art"-movies, but sometimes there is one I don't like. There are even days I would prefer some simple Holywood like Lord of the Rings, which is in my opinion realy not intelligent and sensitive but shows you some realy nice pictures. Never mind.

Have you seen "Schultze gets the blues"? If you don't like Der Himmerl über Berlin maybe you will also not like this one - but I think thats nearly a perfect film.

[–] mooninbalance 18 years ago

Actually I thought I'd like it because it sounded intriguing and the sort of film I often go for: something "different" and artsy. Plus, of course, it does have a wonderful critical reputation. I'm pretty sure I'll try again and watch the entire film. Hopefully, I'll get into it. (Also 'Schultze'!)

BTW, I thought LOTR was pretty sensitive especially cpompared to many action/fantasy adventures. It said a lot about such matters as loyalty;and I found several scenes to be quite thoughtful and touching.
Thanks!

[–] fw-bz 18 years ago

Yes in comparison to other action/fantasy films LOTR was pretty good (compared to the in my opinion very stupid King Kong 2005 for example, but also this movie has many fans - like always a matter of taste). But it would be never a 9 or 10 out of 10 film for me. -

[–] Aizyk 18 years ago

I too was intrigued by the things I'd read about this movie. I enjoy many indies and foreign films of various genres. One of my favorite films is Dogville, which many people have apparently accused of being "too long" among other things. And I have an appreciation for the films of Ming Liang Tsai, which are very slow, meandering, and what some people call "plotless". But I could not sit through this. I found the concept of listening to people's mental ramblings to be a pretentious attempt at profundity. After about 1/3 of the way into this film, I turned it off.

Perhaps if I could rent this film for free from the library, and on DVD this time rather than VHS, with better picture and sound, I'd try it again. But in the meantime there are other films I'd rather watch.

| Fools rush in--and get all the best seats. |

[–] mehmet_p 17 years ago

In my opinion, the movie is very good from an artistic point of view. But when it comes to catching the audience's attention it kind of fails. It is unnecessarily long and the ending is nowhere near powerful.

I know that the director did not intend to finish the movie at that point but he ran out of money. But I wish new funds were available and he could finish what he started in only one movie.

As a result, I can say that City of Angels succeeds over this one. It has successful explanation of some plot points and some scenes make more sense in COA. There is no need to mention the ending I suppose, COA hit it hard.

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

The dreadful City of Angels is a treacly, empty, Hollywoodized travesty of Wings of Desire, which is a poetic masterpiece.

[–] georgeoscarbluth 17 years ago

Well if you haven't already rewatched it yet, original poster, I say that it does indeed become more interesting, so to speak. I also had trouble getting through the first hour or so's repetitive, dreamy inner monologue sequence without falling asleep. I suppose starting it around midnight each time didn't help.
But around my third attempt watching it, I had reached about an hour into it, and I guess it got "easier" to watch. More engaging I suppose to a tired viewer in a darkened room. Around the time the man commits suicide by jumping off the top of the Benz building, the random montage of people's thoughts starts to stop, and the movie focuses on a few main characters. We start to see their plot more clearly and start to care for their fulfillment and happiness. Won't say more to avoid spoilers, but it turns into in my opinion an uplifting ending emerging from a dreary setting. Sweet, even.

[–] caged_angel 16 years ago

I hated it. I love City of Angels though, I see very few similarities betweem these movies.

[–] skay_baltimore 12 years ago

I watched it in stages and maybe that helped. I gave this film 9/10 stars. (I HATED Barry Lyndon, BTW).

Thematically, this movie fired on a lot of cylinders. It touched upon not only human struggles, but by contrast, an angel's struggles to be immortal and "voyeuristic" into many people's lives, but empty at the same time because of the inability to be able to really touch/feel/smell anything. A scene after Damiel becomes mortal, where he's asking someone what the different colors are, really drove home that point. The film really accentuated the fact that things human beings take for granted are, in fact, quite precious. And that's what really moved me, along with showing just how powerful beauty is -- in the form of Solveig Sommartin, RIP. It also highlighted how history unfolds, and how we're living in a time of many many wars. But even with human shortcomings, there are aspects in which human life is actually more desirable than angelic eternity. Very few films that I've seen have impacted me the way this film did. But as I said...I watched it in stages -- maybe 5 or 6 -- because at times it did feel either boring or somewhat unintelligible. I'm glad I did see it to the end, however.

The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

can't win em all

so many movies, so little time