golddjlr,
First, that Johnny did not realize it was Nelly sooner. She had some physical similarities to Nelly, matched Nelly's handwriting, and knew his name was Johnny.
For me, that's one of the main reasons I really loved this movie: Somehow, Johnny physically and sub-consciously knew it was Nelly from the moment he saw her again after the war! But he was unable to admit it to himself
consciously until the very end of the movie. And not only because he assumed she was killed in the camps, but also because 1.) he felt guilty about his betrayal and 2.) he saw an opportunity to make money in desperate times after the war.
Watching Johnny being this (mentally) broken character in a very delusional state is so fascinating, because he's so different from his former self presented to us viewers by Nelly's memory of him. And it's even more heart-breaking in the context of Nelly coming back for him considering she wanted her beloved (old) Johnny back and claimed that he was the sole reason she survived the camp. But the (old) Johnny was long gone; and for him to realize it was Nelly had to be something extremely unique and unraveling: her (singing) voice at the end, combined of course with the number on her arm.
I loved watching this complex relationship of these two "ghosts" who couldn't recognize each other anymore, because they were both completely different persons while playing the happy re-united couple. And the writers/director of the movie explicitely went for this - IMDb user Craven80 made a thread with several different quotes about their intention here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2764784/board/nest/258013167 For me, this isn't too much suspension of disbelief at all - it's actually what I like very much about the movie.
Second, the Swiss and the Germans were very reluctant to give any money out to Jews. The was no way that Lena could have bought a car and arranged surgery for Nelly in Germany or Switzerland for that matter immediately after World War II. Although the Swiss were supposedly neutral, there was a lot of anti-Semitism at the time. It has taken many long years for Jews to reclaim the money and the property they lost to Germany and Switzerland.
I disagree with you about the following observations/points:
1.) Lene never said she
bought the car in Switzerland. She only said the car survived the war in Switzerland, implying that's why it's in such a good condition. It's not even made clear that it's her own car; it could be the car given to her by her employer. Later in the movie she says she has to go to Poland for a longer time, so I assumed she needed the car for her work, not only personally.
2.) After Lene saw Johnny leaving the office in a hurry and before she found out about him divorcing Nelly, she said to the woman in the office that she works for the "Jewish Agency." I read that this non-profit organization helped Jews during the war and Jewish survivors of the camps right after the war to immigrate to Palestine - in some cases securing some of their assets along the way. I'm not an expert regarding this time period and this organization in particular, but I interpreted Lene's efforts during the whole movie not only as a personal matter for Nelly and her friends. I assumed it's also a part of her work for this organization who helped many survivors financially beyond personal support.
3.) With the help of the "Jewish Agency," I think it was possible for Lene to organize and arrange the operation for Nelly immediately after the war, knowing that Lene (would) inherit(ed) money/assets from her family, who all died, and given that Nelly was severely injured.
4.) When you state that the Germans/Swiss were reluctant to give money/assets/property back to Jews for a long time after the war, you're looking at this from our point of view many years later. I don't think this view is appropriate in the context of the movie and the characters within it, because they live in this very time and can't look back like we do now. In short, you can't put your own (better) knowledge from now into the heads of the people/characters who lived through this.
For example, when Lene says that Nelly will inherit property and a lot of money from her dead family, she adds that it might take some time to get the property back from the new German "owners." She's aware of the difficulties - at the same time, she gives the impression to Nelly that she's hopeful that it will happen soon. In her mind, it just has to happen because of this barbaric injustice they suffered. How could she imagine/foresee it wouldn't happen for so many people for such a long time?
In fact, I assumed she would mention it vaguely in the letter to Nelly as one of the reasons for taking her own life; something along the lines that she's frustrated by the long process of claiming their own things from the people who (helped to) kill(ed) their/her families and friends. As long as I remember, there wasn't a hint on that point specifically - however, that Lene had in fact lost all hope looking forward was evident from her note.
So, for me, as a character in this movie, it was believable for Lene to act hopeful at the beginning and look forward to a better future, especially around Nelly for moral support and for her to get better. However, I as a viewer could feel Lene's deep loneliness, frustration, anger and sadness in many scenes during the whole movie. At most when she spoke with Nelly about the past and Johnny - she couldn't understand what Nelly was still seeing in him? Trying to convince Nelly to immigrate to Palestine with her inheritance/money and get away from Johnny was Lene's idea to survive; in the context of the movie, it makes a lot of sense to me that she painted this hopeful picture of immediate restoration for Nelly. Sadly, for many people it turned out to be an illusion ...
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
reply
share
dgoldmeier
8 years ago
I think this will be my last post in this thread. My position, and that of my wife, is that, FOR US, the movie was not believable for several reasons. You never addressed the plastic surgery issue. I am a psychiatrist, and have been one for 30 years. I still do not believe Johnny would not have been more suspicious. Again, you can disagree, but if you do not want to acknowledge that I have a right to my opinion, that is your issue, not mine. Finally, though I am not sure, I believe you are not Jewish. Your other posts suggest you had family surviving the war in East Germany, and I am sorry that happened. There were certainly German victims of the war, though a large number of Germans were culpable. I personally do not believe you can understand the perspective of a Jewish person with German heritage watching this movie. As I said earlier, most German Jews have NEVER been compensated for their losses during the war.
What troubles me about your position is that you simply do not seem capable of accepting that it is reasonable for someone to have trouble believing the premises of the movie. I believe it is reasonable for you to have no trouble with this, but you are not willing to acknowledge others opinions. That is sad.
To loosely quote Shakespeare, you "doth protest too much, methinks" I will leave it to other readers to determine how reasonable each of us is. Best wishes.
reply
share
janar72
8 years ago
dgoldmeier,
I think this will be my last post in this thread. [...] Your other posts suggest you had family surviving the war in East Germany, and I am sorry that happened.
You replied to my post, this was my first post in this thread, I am not filmflamfilm. You wrote in an earlier post:
BTW, any other comments on this thread would be appreciated. Let's all just be respectful, OK?
That's what I did.
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
reply
share
golddjlr
8 years ago
As far as Jews reclaiming their seized property, this was difficult, both in Germany and in Switzerland. It was Nelly's inheritance from German banks or Swiss banks that supposedly paid for her amazing plastic surgery. I cannot imagine her getting her money that quickly from either group. The "Jewish Agency" in the movie is probably the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which helped with basic needs and resettlement. With the huge number of refugees, I doubt they could help anyone regain their rightful property.
Watching this from the Jewish perspective, when Lene tells Nelle that she has this huge inheritance, the movie lost me right there. Many Jews are still trying to reclaim lost property.
reply
share
filmflamfilm
8 years ago
Part of the problem here is that this is no longer a discussion. You have made a conclusion and you believe your conclusion is correct despite evidence to the contrary. Your conclusion, furthermore, seems based on your opinion, rather than on facts: for example, "I cannot imagine" "is probably" "I doubt" etc.
Here are some facts for you: the majority of Jews murdered by the Nazis were Poles and Ukrainians. Of the six million Jews murdered, these two groups accounted for almost four million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Jewish
As I had written previously, Lene, being Swiss, had a much better chance of helping Nelly withdraw her own money from a Swiss bank, than say, a Pole helping Nelly. And I doubt there were many Jewish assets in Polish banks, for the simple reason that, unlike German Jews, most Polish Jews were middle class or lower.
Your assumption that the Jewish Agency was the American Jewish Joint Distribution Comittee is also false. In the scene when Johannes tries to leave the office with some records, the woman who runs after him speaks like an American. However, when Lene arrives at the scene she has to introduce herself to the American woman because she works for a different agency. This is exactly what I mean by clinging to a flawed conclusion despite evidence to the contrary.
You are quick to assume, but you seem unable to accept that your assumptions could be incorrect.
reply
share
janar72
8 years ago
golddjlr,
As far as Jews reclaiming their seized property, this was difficult, both in Germany and in Switzerland. It was Nelly's inheritance from German banks or Swiss banks that supposedly paid for her amazing plastic surgery. I cannot imagine her getting her money that quickly from either group.
Regarding the property: Yes, that's what Lene told Nelly in the movie; she assumed it would take a long time to get the property back. So, I don't see any dissens between Lene's judgement and your disbelief regarding what was shown in the movie.
Regarding the money for the plastic surgery: In the hospital, Lene told Nelly that she inherited money from her dead family members, adding later in her apartment that Nelly has a lot of money in Switzerland left by the dead ("Aber in der Schweiz ist viel Geld. Das Geld der Ermordeten."). If I understand you correctly, you think it would've been nearly impossible for Nelly to use the money from the Swiss bank to pay for the operation - the bank wouldn't have given it to her this quickly.
Maybe I overlook something - and I'm not an expert on this at all -, but I actually don't understand why you think that's impossible? By Lene stating there is money, that she found out that Nelly did indeed inherit the money, and that this money is on a Swiss bank account, it is established in the narrative of the movie that Nelly could use it for the operation. Why wouldn't she have been able to do that - I don't get what you see could've stood in her way to use the money?
What's more questionable for me is how Lene did find out about the money? My answer to this would be her job - she was helping survivors of the camp managing exactly these things to get back into life. However, even given her job and research, to find these specific details about Nelly and the money must've been great luck. Not unplausible, but unlikely, in my opinion.
The "Jewish Agency" in the movie is probably the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which helped with basic needs and resettlement. With the huge number of refugees, I doubt they could help anyone regain their rightful property.
No, I don't think they mean the "American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee" in the movie. I think it's meant to be the "Jewish Agency for Palestine," still existing today and now known as the "The Jewish Agency for Israel" (
http://www.jewishagency.org/). I wish I had more time to search for and read more about their huge efforts to help Jews immigrate into Palestine during and after the war, but I don't. However, I found this longer German article here:
http://www.bpb.de/internationales/asien/israel/44987/shoah-und-einwanderung?p=allThere's a paragraph describing how the "Jewish Agency" helped Jews who were hiding from the Nazis during the war - besides a lot of other things financially (unfortunately, it's only in German and I don't have the time to translate just now - maybe later ...):
Sie unternahmen zahlreiche Aktivitäten, die in zwei Kategorien unterteilt werden können: Erstens waren dies begrenzte Rettungsaktionen mit dem Ziel, das Überleben der Juden in den besetzten Gebieten zu ermöglichen: durch die Bereitstellung von Geld, Lebensmittelpaketen, Bekleidung, Medizin und gefälschten Papieren; durch das Schmuggeln von Juden über die Grenze in weniger gefährliche Gegenden; durch das Schmuggeln von Waffen zur Selbstverteidigung; und durch die Bereitstellung von organisatorischer Hilfe und finanzieller Unterstützung für Juden, die sich versteckt hielten.
When the war was over, the "Jewish Agency" helped in the same way many of those people who survived the camps. The article also says, that helping them was often very difficult and had to be done secretly, which is one of the reasons historians still don't have a very good picture about the amount of efforts this organization did after the war.
Reading all this and regarding the movie, I figured that Lene as an employer of the "Jewish Agency" was actually able to help Nelly to pay for the surgery and to get the money from the Swiss bank. Or, maybe Lene just lent her money for the operation per "Jewish Agency," assuming Nelly would get her money later from the bank and could pay all the money back. I'm aware that the vast majority of the survivors wasn't that "lucky" after the war ended - but I don't see why this couldn't have happened to some of them like Nelly in the movie.
Watching this from the Jewish perspective, when Lene tells Nelle that she has this huge inheritance, the movie lost me right there. Many Jews are still trying to reclaim lost property.
Yes, I agree that's correct from a Jewish perspective
right now, in our time, with our knowledge now, knowing that many things for many survivors didn't happen as they hoped they would, and as it was their right. However, like I wrote in my earlier post, Lene and Nelly don't live now. Being characters of this movie in the time right after the war, they don't have the same knowledge about what happened to many Jews after the war as you and I do. I think it's important to reflect on this and try to look through Lene's and Nelly's eyes when it comes to their situation and why they act like they do in the movie. For me, it does make sense from their, the character's perspective, but I understand what you're meaning from your personal perspective.
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
reply
share
filmflamfilm
8 years ago
Watching this from the Jewish perspective, when Lene tells Nelle that she has this huge inheritance, the movie lost me right there
And you lost me right there. Lene never uses the word "huge". She uses "substantial" which, AFAIK, is quite different from huge, unless one is trying very hard to exaggerate one's point.
My mother, who left Germany when she was 22, until she died a few years ago, had been collecting a pension from Germany. As I keep saying, people who survived the Holocaust and were German natives were in a much better position to petition the government for some kind of financial benefit. Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians and other nationalities would have a much harder time.
reply
share
dgoldmeier
8 years ago
Really? My dad is turning over in his grave. Still waiting for compensation for my GERMAN grandfather's vineyards and prosperous estate. Perhaps the employee who stole his property will have descendants who have a change of heart? Give me a break. BTW, he fought for Germany in WWI. Sadly, you 2 have made up your minds. I accept that people can watch this and not have a problem with the movie's premises. You 2 cannot accept that a reasonable person could find this movie's premise to be too much. That is just ridiculous. Still waiting for you to defend the plastic surgery angle, BTW.
Why not just say, "I totally disagree that this movie is not believable, but I can understand how you might disagree?" I have tried not to say this, but if you cannot accept that someone could find the movie's premise unbelievable, then I think you have a bias here. Can you say "Anti-Semitism"? I knew you could!
Would love to see what an objective jury would say about this discussion. Thank G-d my family escaped Nazi Germany!
reply
share
bringbackberniew
8 years ago
making the case that the entire film is about someone deluding himself, out of guilt or name-your-reason is the only way to defend the film.
It is a swiss-cheese defense though.
reply
share
janar72
8 years ago
bringbackberniew,
Of course, Johnny HAD to know it was Nelly, so making the case that the entire film is about someone deluding himself, out of guilt or name-your-reason is the only way to defend the film.
It is a swiss-cheese defense though.
That's not a defense, it's in fact the premise of the film! The director, Christian Petzold, explained that this was the starting point to do the movie (source:
http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/surviving-the-shipwreck-christian-petzold-and-nina-hoss-on-phoenix):
The whole film’s existence is predicated on a supreme dramatic risk about Johnny not being able to identify his actual wife. The more literal minded are likely to be resistant to the very structure.
Christian Petzold: We read three or four books by [Austrian essayist] Jean Amery. After he survived Auschwitz, he wrote in one essay, about being in a camp for displaced persons, and how after he came back to Germany, he thought the people there would embrace him and show their interest in forming a new society. He came back and nobody looked at him. Friends didn’t recognize him. His friends had cut him not only of their memories but also out of their senses. He said, “I’m like a ghost.” At this moment, the idea was borne to Harun [Farocki = co-writer] and I, and we came up with the idea that Johnny can’t recognize her. His body recognizes her a little bit. He wants to touch her, a glance in his eyes, for a little moment, but in his soul, she does not exist anymore.
You're certainly entitled to say: "This premise doesn't work for me at all because it feels unrealistic that Johnny can't recognize Nelly for this and that reason." I have no problem if that's how you feel about the movie!
But saying it's a defense to argue like I did is certainly absolutely wrong - because it's the core of what the director wanted to achieve with this movie! He wanted to examine the blurred identities and broken relationships between human beings; it is about people not recognizing the one's they loved before, and about finding her-/himself after what has happened due to the holocaust. As I wrote in my earlier post, I loved this movie for exactly this premise and how the director achieved to delve into the possibilities of broken identities.
For me, watching this non-relationship of Nelly and Johnny was fascinating and heartbreaking, and it made sense to me that Johnny didn't recognize her until the very end; or, to be more precise, that he didn't allow himself to do so despite (unconsciously) knowing that she was indeed his wife. I liked watching this unfold very much, and I don't see a reason myself to question this premise for it's credibility.
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
reply
share
bringbackberniew
8 years ago
saying
Well, that is the premise.
in reply to complaints about the preposterous premise, IS A DEFENSE. It is nothing more than a defense, a swiss-cheese defense. It is, in fact, the #1 hole in the cheese.
I had read those comments. They make me think the pair couldn't hit trip-digits on an IQ-meter, COMBINED. They cannot see the obvious differences between the original comment & their implementation. Amazing. What morons. Then again, nobody ever said you have to be "smart" to make films. In fact, being smart & rational probably inhibits most "artistes".
reply
share
janar72
8 years ago
bringbackberniew,
When a fictional story uses a preposterous premise, saying
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that is the premise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in reply to complaints about the preposterous premise, IS A DEFENSE.
Yes, you're certainly correct with this, but I did no such thing. As I wrote above, I have no problem to discuss with you if this premise is preposterous or not? That's what you think of the movie, and if you believe it's unrealistic and full of holes I'll try to understand and can argue with you about that. The premise makes sense to me, I explained earlier in this thread why - it doesn't make sense to you, you gave your reasons why.
However, you wrote in your first reply to me:
Of course, Johnny HAD to know it was Nelly, so making the case that the entire film is about someone deluding himself, out of guilt or name-your-reason is the only way to defend the film.
Maybe I misunderstand your words, but the bolded part isn't you "complaining about the preposterous premise". Instead, you seemed to ignore and dismiss the premise entirely ("Johnny HAD to know it was Nelly"), implying that it's "swiss-cheesy" to assume the director and writers of the movie did intend that Johnny didn't know it was Nelly and that he can't recognize her.
Your words sounded like
I made a case in my argumentation with this interpretation to defend the movie - but it's in fact the core theme of it. The director made the explicit choice to let Johnny not know - it's what he wanted to show with his movie. So, if you ask me, that's not a defense of the movie at all; it's what he wanted to achieve by developing this initial idea into a movie.
In short: You can say the director failed because you think the premise is preposterous - yes (and I could and did defend the film against that). But you can't really say that my interpretation of Johnny as a self-deluding, guilt-ridden, psychologically broken person, who can't or won't allow himself to recognize his own wife because of what happened to them in the past, is "the only way to defend" the movie. Because that's exactly the core element of what the director chose to show in his movie.
I can't figure out why you seem to think that he (or I) has (have) to defend this initial choice? Like I wrote, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your words in your first post? Maybe I took them too literal ...
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
reply
share
bringbackberniew
8 years ago
Dear Sirs:
I read with interest the news about 2 robbers who tried to rob the bank in our fair burg, using nothing but 4 rolls of toilet paper as weapons. You say they threw 2 rolls at the security guard and held the other 2 rolls menacingly at a teller. You say that was a preposterous plan. While they may have failed, I have to disagree that the plan was preposterous.
Those actions were exactly the PREMISE of their plan, so it is not possible for them to be preposterous.
Yours truly in inanity,
janar72
reply
share
janar72
8 years ago
Dear janar72,
I received your kind letter regarding our news article about the (alleged) bank robbery in our fair burg in yesterday's paper. I can't tell you how truly sorry I am about this article! I have to apologize to you and all our readers for publishing it without checking all the facts and for not talking to the authorities, or anyone at all at the "crime" scene. I understand from your satirical and comical letter to me that you already heard that it wasn't a "real" bank robbery. But, please, let me try to explain why we did run with this story yesterday, unfortunately.
The writer of this article, Mr. Bernie W., is new to our fair burg and not accustomed to our small town folks and quirks, yet. He accidentally stumbled into what happened at our bank the day before yesterday, and he called me immediately at my cell about it. From the little pieces that he told me on the phone, it seemed to be a real robbery that he witnessed at our bank, and he begged me to write a news story about it for our paper.
I admit that I was sceptical about it being true and that I should've asked him about the details of what he saw with his own eyes, and that it was my duty as the chief editor to insist that he has to investigate the "robbery" and talk to some people on the spot. However, it was my first free day as the new chief editor since April, and I was distracted by my two sons Orpheus and Linus at the playground when Mr. Bernie W. called me on my private cell, and I didn't think that nobody from our editorial staff at the paper would revise and counter-check his article before it went into print. I fully trusted my staff and I trusted our new writer because he came to our town with great recommendations as an expert in movie criticism and with excellent and creative writing skills.
However, when I finally read his article, I was taken by complete surprise and was shocked about such a fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what really happened! After an immediate phone call to Police Chief Sanders and bank director Chase it was clear to me that (almost) all the people in the area around the bank were aware of the fact that it wasn't a "real" bank robbery, but - instead - an arranged surprise for the soon-to-be retired Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan always bragged about his immense luck that he - in 45 years as a teller at our bank in town - never had to experience a single robbery in his life. So Mr. Morgan's friends and family took a huge effort and intentionally fabricated his first and hopefully last "real" bank robbery! Everybody at the scene except him was secretly involved in this real-life joke. Police Chief Sanders even told me that the 2 "alleged" robbers were actually Mr. Morgan's two grandsons Marshall & Ilsley, and that they came up with the idea of using toilet paper as guns to make it even more absurd and unrealistic! Which, apparently, worked quite well and added comical relief to all the people involved, because at first Mr. Morgan was convinced it was a real robbery despite seeing two guys attacking him with toilet paper; he didn't even recognize his two grandsons.
Alas, at this moment, it was too late to throw the article out of the paper, because it was already delivered to you and all our other subcribers. Unfortunately for us here at the local paper, and for reasons I still try to trace back, our new writer Mr. Bernie W. didn't grasp any of this and went on to write his completely wrong description of what really happened at that day at our bank. Instead of taking this staged bank robbery as what it was - a make-belief-scenario that mirrored real-life events to surprise Mr. Morgan and celebrate his retirement -, he mistook it for unambiguous reality without any doubts of his own. He even wrote in his article that he thought it was "a preposterous plan" to rob a bank with toilet paper, without realizing that he was most likely the only other person apart from Mr. Morgan who had no idea about the real plan and it's intention, and that the toilet paper was a part of the absurd surprise.
Why Mr. Bernie W. didn't ask anyone else, or, if he did ask anyone else, why he did refuse to think his story through, or why he didn't check the facts to let this story go entirely, or why he didn't write about it from another angle as an appreciation of the work Mr. Morgan did for our bank in the last 45 years - I have no idea! I tried to get in contact with him after the article was published, but he's sidestepping the discussion by creating witty letters with slightly limping comparisons. I finally understood that I misjugded Mr. Bernie W.'s ability of separating actual events from make-belief-situations, that he didn't listen or isn't capable of listening to other people around him, and that he obviously didn't make any effort to try to understand what might probably be wrong with his own perspective on the events!
I don't reply to you to make excuses for what happened in this case. I'm fully aware that we all messed up by printing this article and that we have an obligation to our readers to find the truth by looking into events from all sides possible. I just wanted to explain to you why, by an unfortunate series of events, this article was printed in our paper yesterday. And I can assure you that our new writer will be working within our movie department of our paper without publishing articles any time soon, until he learns what it means to reflect on what he sees with his own eyes as "reality" and until he's capable to listen to descriptions, arguments and opinions of other people and be able to understand their point of views. Then, and only then, we bring back Bernie W.
Best wishes,
Ms. Callie Opé
Chief Editor, Burghausen Chronicle
Letter to the editor by janar72
Dear Sirs:
I read with interest the news about 2 robbers who tried to rob the bank in our fair burg, using nothing but 4 rolls of toilet paper as weapons. You say they threw 2 rolls at the security guard and held the other 2 rolls menacingly at a teller. You say that was a preposterous plan. While they may have failed, I have to disagree that the plan was preposterous.
Those actions were exactly the PREMISE of their plan, so it is not possible for them to be preposterous.
Yours truly in inanity,
janar72
reply
share
bringbackberniew
8 years ago
Namely:
Phoenix isn't a "real" film, but - instead - a joke, a farce.
it wasn't a "real" bank robbery, but - instead - an arranged surprise for the soon-to-be retired Mr. Morgan
I think that is too harsh, but it is closer to reality than any accolades would be.
reply
share
bringbackberniew
8 years ago
Don't be so literal. It is an allegory.
That one I'll give you. With the allegory-defense, you are both implying the "premise" defense & also washing away any responsibility to have the story make sense. The premise-defense alone is just a childish hole in a swiss-cheese defense.
reply
share