after the perfection that was 'wings of desire', 'faraway so close' is pretty much an embarassement, and an unecessary one at that. wim would have been better off leaving perfection well enough alone, instead of making this stinker of a sequel
shareAllow me to disagree. Wenders' motivation is clearly obvious: "Der Himmel über Berlin" was made in 1987, that is, 2 years before the (then unexpected, don't forget!) German re-unification, and the Berlin of 4 years later was a very different place (and was about to become even more different). Many of the locations where the first film was shot didn't exist any more, and all the parts shot in East Berlin in the second film were inaccessible before. Not surprising at all that Wenders wanted to continue his exploration of the city under the new conditions and circumstances. Only the second film makes the first one complete, else it might have soon looked dated, but now we have this amazing piece of researching a city before and after a landslide change.
Regards, Rosabel
I agree, although in all honesty, I've not seen all of Wings of Desire. I recently watched FSC for the first time, and enjoyed it immensely. In the commentary for FSC, Wenders denies that it is a "sequel" in the usual sense. He explained that he thought of it merely as a continuation of the story, showing the characters several years down the road. I guess in some sense that's a sequel, but I think he's playing with the usual meaning of that term. The movie's about timelessness, so it can exist on its own, as not in relation to any other time or movie. That's how I see it, anyway.
shareBecause of the profound changes in Germany in the meantime and more especially because Wings of Desire left things so to speak hanging in the air somewhat, it was a perfectly reasonable idea to make a film that continues from the first (as was promised). Unfortunately the second film, though beginning well enough, transpires not to be the film one would wish for and is considerably inferior to its predecessor. There are many fine scenes and beautiful images, but who can honestly deny it is marred by the rather cartoonish gangster business? and to my mind the Willem Dafoe character doesn't quite work either. It's at its best when traversing a space similar to Wings of Desire, not least those parts relating to the unvoiced thoughts which only angels can hear. On this site is a review by Tug-3 which I think sums it up pretty well.
Btw the young girl who played Damiel's and Marion's daughter looked as if she could develop into another Nastassja Kinski; I wonder what she looks like now?
It's not nearly as good as Wings of Desire but I liked it. It was consistently interesting. I never knew where it was going or what Wenders was going to do next and that kept me involved.
shareIt's a different sort of movie than Wings... less introspective and poetic perhaps, but more conventionally plot-driven. I don't think it's a bad film though I could see how someone expecting another Wings might be disappointed.
(of course it's still miles better than that horrid City of Angels derivation)