MovieChat Forums > Auf der anderen Seite (2007) Discussion > Most Annoying (Trivial) Matter

Most Annoying (Trivial) Matter

OK, actually liked the movie, quite a bit really. However, I found the main character quite annoying and pretentiously self-righteous in the zealous pursuit of her causes, even thought I largely sympathized with her views. I think we all know these type of people, ones whom we implicitly agree with politically, but aggravate us with the nature in which they push for those causes.

Anyway, one particular scene annoyed me that highlights this attitude. Ayten is given a shirt to wear, but refuses, saying she wont wear any "American" clothes to which Lotte quickly concurs. Ugh, the sanctimonious BS was waist high at this point and awfully rich concerning the heritage of these two. I mean, two countries, Turkey and Germany, responsible for two of the worst genocides in the 20th century and this bit of America as the Bad Guy line gets thrown in the mix? If this scene was designed to help highlight the pretentious, selfish and immature nature of the two women, then it worked. I couldn't stand either of them from the middle of the film until nearly the end.


I'm not being funny, but America has had it's fair share of being responsible for the deaths of people in the name of ideology, and possibly the most alarmingly ironic example.

Anyway, the point of the scene was because Ayten is a communist, therefore she hates capitalism. America is symbolic of capitalism, ergo why she refused to wear it. Lotte agreed because she fancied Ayten.

I don't see why the hell you're bringing that *beep* up, particularly with Germany which is highly democratic and where it has worked so hard to stop anything like that part of their history happening again.

- We could be men with ven!


See the above. I didn't make the connection between a woman refusing to wear a Nike T-shirt and the two World Wars. Hmmm...


The point was that she used a sweeping and stereotypical generalization of an entire nation in a pretentious way, which was ironic since the same could be used for the backgrounds of either character. It's the same moral self-righteousness and arrogance that a number of Europeans use to blame America for the ills of the world when, in reality, European colonialism is more often the root of the problem. Americans provide convenient scapegoats for them.

So, yes, it fits into their characters, which is why I liked the movie. However, it also makes me annoyed at the lead characters.


Estratton, I hate to say it but I think you're being the ignorant one here.

The only logical conclusion you're reaching is that any individual from a country in which human rights abuses has occurred has no right to an ideology?

Therefore being British, I am not allowed to disagree with neo-capitalism because of the atrocities committed by the British Empire?

Nike represents all that is wrong with big corporation America. It has zilch to do with world wars and genocides.

People who believe in their cause and actually want to effect change can't just sit on their arses and wait for it to happen. The ones that's are called 'champagne' socialists for good reason. You should admire that Ayten made enormous personal sacrifices for her beliefs - not be suspicious of her. It's people like Ayten that change the world, and if they don't, they at least have tried.


Ugh, spare me the condescension and lessons on neo-capitalism and greed as if America is the only one who possesses these types of companies. I'm sure Ayten wouldn't wear a shirt with Siemens on it because "it's German", right? If she wanted to criticize Nike, fine, but she specifically states it's "an American" representation, not some evil multinational. It's simply lazy self-righteousness I can't stand and the three responses following me (who seem to think they are enlightening me in something) fell for it. Ayten is the pretentious type who would rail against an American for Bush's policies, stereotypically thinking 300 million Yanks were in full agreement.

Otherwise, people like Ayten are part of the problem, not people to be admired. She narrow mindedly pursued her goals without regards for others in order to satisfy her egotistical and rigid belief system. Along the way, as is usual for those of a radical bent, she damages those within her circle than actually provides change. People like Ayten don't change the world, they make their causes more difficult to attain. If you want someone to admire who made real sacrifices of themselves and still effectively advanced their cause, then look at Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi.

Like I said, I may implicitly agree with the aims of people lke Ayten or, say, The Weather Underground, but I completely oppose their self-righteous, dangerous and ineffective methods.


"The point was that she used a sweeping and stereotypical generalization of an entire nation in a pretentious way..."

I think that's exactly what you did with your opening post.

As far as i can remember this film has nothing to do with America. Surely there are better examples in other films that you can highlight and use their message boards for a better debate.

Anyway, sorry i didn't enlighten you. It's 'cos i think you've over-reacted and subverted the main messages of the film by starting this thread. And in a really boring way too.


I see the point flew right over your head. The point was that these two, supposedly, tolerant and open-minded individuals decided to arbitrarily and narow-mindedly condemn an entire country when the same disservice could be easily done to them.

As for your own self-righteousness and commentary on my "boring" message, my post seems to be interesting enough for you to make two comments on it. So, either you simply feel the need to say how much smarter you are than me or lying.

Otherwise, I very much DO find it interesting that these two individuals are less principled and benevolent than they seem (to themselves) or by those rabidly defending them here. The whole notion about the shirt is that is a moment of revelation to their vacuous morality that allows for no other world view other than their own.

It's quite a bit deeper than you are either unwilling or unable to see and most definitely not boring.


Yup, still boring!

I keep coming back because i enjoy your opening post so much. I find it funnier each time - the bit about reminding people about Nazi Germany and all that.

Perhaps you have a point. But you seem to be getting a bit worked up over a matter that you yourself refer to as (trivial).

I just didn't see it as a slight against America. It was a simple 10 second section that informed us of a characters political views, not some anti-American conspiracy.

I'm having a dinner party next week. Would you like to come?


You're still failing to see the point beyond a simple throw-away line. Particularly in movies with depth as this one, subtleties are always the key and reveal so much. Once again, it's not the connection to Nazi Germany or the Armenian genocide, but the nature of the people involved in the commentary. There are other examples, but this scene demostrates the epitome of their character. This meaning they are principled, yes, but moreso self-righteous, doggedly dogmatic and hypocritical, like many radical activists and sympathizers.

It's too bad you are so unwilling to explore the theme, for whatever reason, but there's certainly a legitimate point and character examination I expressed. Personally, I think you want to say it's boring in order not to concede that I may have something here, although, if your dinner party is anywhere near Nashville, Tennessee, I'll be happy to elaborate further.


Yeah, i agree with you. I agree with your invention, your grand scheme of things - this thematic discovery that characters tend to have a bit of depth.

I don't mean to cause a fuss but you have deviated a lot in a few short posts.

Oh, and this film has nothing to do with America.


Deviated, no. Expanded upon my answer, yes. And, I never said this film was about America, I have no idea where you got this idea. Her line about America was revealing, howerver, I have repeatedly said. My point about it revealing the character of Ayten I find so disatasteful really isn't that difficult.

I do find it interesting that you've called my post "boring" and not wanting to cause a "fuss", yet you keep responding. Sort of contradictory, don't you think?


I got this:

Ayten is not the great grand daughter of the Ottomans. Neither Lotte niece of Hitler. Ayten is hated in her own country for being a 'commie' (Larry David calls them Commies). You DO understand these before making such an observation, don't you? I hope not.

On another level, Germany or Turkey states are NOT responsible for the genocides you're talking about. Stalin is responsible for Holodomor. NOT every Russian we know today?

I am sure you're an intelligent person otherwise. There's nothing to be annoyed.

Wonderful movie. Beautifully crafted. At some point it seemed a bit too predictable. Until Lotte is shot is a manner you'd never expect.


Huh? What point, or counterpoint, are you trying to make to my observation? My point was that Ayten refused to wear the shirt because of some ridiculous perception of America she held. To go along the lines of your comment, what does Nike have to do with American policy that Ayten finds so distasteful that she refuses to wear a shirt with a swoosh on it?

The point I was making, as I also explained above, was regarding my annoyance with Ayten's rigid,immature and hypocritical perceptions of the world. The refusal to wear the American shirt just made me roll my eyes at her character.


Well that scene doesn't bother me at all. We are all fed up with america and american dream.


Are you the group spokesperson? What do you mean "fed up with the American dream"? I'm not even sure as to what that means.

I still think her comment is simply a reflection of the deflection many culpable societies use in their criticisms of America. I have no issue with criticism of American policy,I just realize that many of the problems non-Americans constantly whine about are actually creations of their own country. Slavery, imperialism, arbitrary borders, ethnic violence, etc. are not American inventions. We just provide you the opportunity to wash your own sins with our own flawed history and policies.


Well that scene doesn't bother me at all. We are all jealous of America and American dream.


I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!


OP is one sensitive american. I think it's really common for people to demonstrate their ideology with their clothes :)

Btw.Which one has bombed more innocent people after ww2: Germany, Turkey or USA?


I was not aware Nike had bombed anyone.

My point about others using America's flawed history to wash away their own sins still stands.


This film is not about which culture or country or ideology is better, more righteous or worthy, about which character is morally more upright and which less so, or less or more hypocritical or anything like that. It's not really about anything like that. It's about flawed human nature, love, growing up, growing wiser, confrontation with one's very own demons, humility and forgiveness. It's also about the importanceof learning how to think deeply, widely and from varied perspectives...about education of mind and soul. Nejat is really the character who most symbolises this, though he too must come to terms with his own demons of anger, resentment and pain inflicted unwittingly upon him by his father .

Much of it could said to hinge around the Goethe quotes used by Nejat . A sort of key that helps unlock the film's content really.


ALL their clothes were most likely made in that bastion of humanity and morality that they both attempted to espouse: China lol!!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!