Angelic Observations
Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke
I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative. However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, though better options may be on the horizon. (Note: Anything in bold blue [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)
Normally, I set a rule for myself regarding what I choose to review for this blog: The rule being I only write about something released or re-released domestically (U.S.-Canada) in the year in which I’m posting. However, I’m breaking my own rule for the first time in the 11½ years (roughly) this blog’s been in existence because: (1) Except for Barbie (Greta Gerwig) and Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan), which I’ve already seen and reviewed (posting of August 17, 2023) there’s really not much—with the possible exceptions of Golda (Guy Nattiv) and Fremont (Babak Jalali)—in theaters now I’m all that interested in and can easily wait for those two to come to streaming; (2) Speaking of streaming, I’m even less interested in what my current options might be, although there are things such as The Miracle Club (Thaddeus O’Sullivan) that might draw me in when available on some platform; yes, there are some superhero movies available, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (James Gunn) and The Flash (Andrés Muschietti), but honestly I’m a bit tired of such, though in a different vein The Blackening (Tim Story), a satire on horror movie tropes and racial stereotypes, does seem like it will soon find my attention here; (3) In recognition of the imminent demise of Netflix’s DVD service and in response to a recent documentary I saw about Peter Falk I made one of my last “red envelope” choices of Wings of Desire so it was easily available last weekend for me to watch making it ripe for a decision to break my thls-year-only-rule;* (4) In my posting of August 31, 2023 I chose to give a rare (for me) rating of 4½ stars to Past Lives (Celine Song), giving me 15 of those since this blog began; by reviewing Wings … this week I will have 15 in the 5-stars list also, a nice balance. So, enough of these justifications; forward to the review of one of the top films I’ve ever encountered.
*However, as fate would have it, the Netflix disc I got was from the Criterion Collection, a marvelous preserver of worthy films; but, even though they don’t provide subtitles for English-language-releases (a bummer for hearing-deteriorating-viewers like me) they had to use captions for Wings … as it’s mostly in German. However, after several tries I couldn’t get that function to work so monolingual-me had to stream it from Max to read all of those necessary translations. Irony continues to abound!
Here’s the trailer:
(Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size;
activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)
If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy). To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows:
⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.
What Happens: This is set in Berlin during the last years of the Cold War prior to the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union and its control over East Germany—which surrounded Berlin, a city divided by a tall wall that blocked off the West-run portions of the city from those dominated by East Germany. In it, we find so many forlorn humans being watched over by angels whom they cannot see or directly interact with, although the supernatural beings are there to keep a record of happenings in the area even as these particular angels were assigned to this region long before humans evolved.* While we have passing awareness of many angels in this huge city the ones we’re directly concerned with are Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otto Sander), often in each other’s company but also go their separate ways at times (all scenes based on an angel’s point of view shot in black & white while scenes from a human POV are in color). Angels can hear the silent thoughts of humans (which are also relayed to us as unspoken dialogue) and try to offer comfort as best they can by touch and whispering, although humans aren’t directly aware of these caring supernatural beings. Angels especially gather in a main library where there are plenty of mostly-despondent-people for them to attempt to interact with, as we see in an early scene which goes on for quite some time. (Film style here is very slow, often using long takes and extensive panning shots of the sad depicted environments). In their separate wanderings, Cassiel follows an old poet (purposely named Homer) who tries to find the (likely-demolished) Potsdamer Platz (occasionally we get newsreel footage of Berlin's rubble after WW II Allied bombings) but sees only the omnipresent Wall, covered with graffiti.
*Although God is never mentioned in this film, these angels are intended to be understood as from the Judeo-Christian tradition as elaborated at this site. Thus, they’re been around for an extremely long time, live on an ongoing basis without ever aging, yet they’re not literally eternal in that they were created by God at some unspecified time in the far distant past, then given those Earthly-tasks.
Damiel, on the other hand, observes Marion (Solveig Dommartin), a lonely trapeze artist with a local circus; he’s becoming enchanted by her, even as she's depressed as the circus is leaving town, her staying behind. Another angle comes with a focus on actor Peter Falk (playing himself) as he’s come to West Berlin to be in a WW II-era film, then surprises us by sensing Damiel’s presence, wishing he could see and talk to him. Damiel’s obsession, though, is to leave his angelhood, become human (apparently it’s possible) so he can fully experience life with all of its nuances rather than just passionlessly-observing it as he has for so many eons (with the understanding he'll die in a normal human lifetime). Damiel finally makes the decision to become human (Cassiel understands his friend’s choice but cannot do so himself), so he finds Falk at the movie site, learns this famous actor (everyone knows him from the ABC TV show Columbo [NBC/ABC 1971-’78, then 1989-2003]) is also a former-angel-turned-human. ⇒Cassiel is distraught when he’s unable to prevent a young man from committing suicide, Falk's aware of Cassiel’s presence and reaches out to him but the angel refuses to become interested or reveal any aspect of himself as Damiel had done, Damiel wanders into a concert by (actual) Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (Cave as sort of an Australian version of the front-man for The Doors, displaying Jim Morrison-like-intensity) where Marion’s also in attendance. Both of them separately leave the concert ballroom, meet up at the connected quiet bar, then she offers herself to him in a long-awaited-intense-relationship if he’s now ready to accept her complexity: he willingly does.⇐* There’s a final graphic before the end-credits: “To be continued.”
*I’m not ready for my review-wrap-up Musical Metaphors, but I can’t help but think of 2 useful aural enhancements to accompany the marvelous speech Marion offers to Damiel; it largely sums up with she saying to him, “At Last” (written by Mack Gordon and Harry Warren for Sun Valley Serenade [H. Bruce Humberstone, 1941]) with probably the most famous version by Etta James (on her 1960 album named for the song) and the other her direct quote, “It’s Now or Never” (based on the Italian “O Sole mio,” English lyrics by Aaron Schroeder and Wally Gold), a big 1960 hit by Elvis Presley.
So What? While Wenders is appropriately credited with the overall look/sensibility of the film, the dialogue and poetry used here largely come from Austrian novelist/poet/playwright/scriptwriter (and 2019 winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature) Peter Handke (with shared-writer-credit for the final product also attributed to Wenders and Richard Reitinger) including the marvelously-reflective poem "Song of Childhood" (presented in this link in original German with English translation), which is sprinkled throughout the film (this site notes all of its inclusions), has clear overtones of Chapter 13 of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (Christian New Testament Bible; what’s about to follow is only one of many translations over the centuries), which contains statements such as: “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. [… Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. […] When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully grown.” Hendke’s poem echoes this inspiration with lines such as these (which also evoke Marion’s eloquent [just above] speech to Damiel): “When the child was a child / It didn’t know it was a child […] It had no opinion about anything […] It was the time for these questions: / Why am I me, and why not you? / Why am I here, and why not there? / When did time begin, and where does space end? […] When the child was a child, […] It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees / with an elation it still has today, / has a shyness in front of strangers, / and has that even now. / It awaited the first snow, / And waits that way even now.” While the clip above lets you see how this poem’s worked into the film I hope it also encourages you to view the whole experience for yourself. Despite a good number of nominations and awards for this insightful experience—in various categories: Best Film/Foreign Film/Director/ Cinematography—in the U.S. it found no support from the Oscars but had some wins from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, and the National Society of Film Critics in 1988/1989; the most prominent win being in Europe, Best Director at the 1987 Cannes Film Festival.
In another direction, though, following up on that "To be continued." promise, Wenders in 1993 made a sequel, Faraway, So Close!, which—despite winning the Grand Prix du Jury at Cannes in 1993—was not so well-received in the U.S. (Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at 58%, Metacritic average score at a surprisingly-slightly-higher 61%), with the evaluations I read so dismissive I didn’t even choose to see it when released (still haven’t, not high on my priority list, afraid it could be as bad as the unnecessary sequel to Chinatown [Roman Polanski, 1974] called The Two Jakes [Jack Nicholson {stick to acting, please} 1990; RT 66% positive, MC 56%, but I found it to be notably worse than that even with a script by the renowned Robert Towne {won the Original Screenplay Oscar for Chinatown}]; however, I did take a chance with the American remake set in L.A., City of Angels [Brad Silbering, 1998] starring Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan, so wish I also had those near-2-hours of my life back [… Jakes more terrible at 138 min., though] for something more useful to have done [RT positive reviews another 58%, MC average score a more-expected-lower 54%]). Therefore, from my perspective I’d stay away from anything that tries to capitalize on Wings of Desire (or Chinatown), just stay focused on the original with its exquisite (although melancholy) visuals, mesmerizing dialogue, inspirations to think more deeply about the film’s somber considerations from generations of soul-blasted-Berliners, living in a time when they had no idea their liberation was so close at hand.
You don’t have to believe in angels (nor the theology they spring from) to fully appreciate this glorious film, well-worth returning to despite the lengthy span since its original release. (Before exiting this section, let me note one of the many small but useful decisions within this extraordinary film: Toward the beginning we see a shot of Damiel high upon a building with the only time any angel is shown with wings as if we’re supposed to know they’re there without having to see them all the time as these supernatural beings in their own b&w perspectives probably don’t even see wings on each other; later, when we first meet Marion she’s practicing her trapeze routine wearing costume wings which she finally rejects, a foreshadowing of Damiel consciously discarding his wings as well.)
Bottom Line Final Comments: Given how long ago this film was in its original release (domestically on April 29, 1988, the year when most of its venues were activated), I’m not entirely sure of its box-office numbers but supposedly back then the domestic take was $3.2 million with the global addition only about $2.5 thousand more; with some re-releases since then the domestic total now seems to be about $3.3 million, the worldwide about $3.5 million, which doesn’t really amount to much given the global totals for the top 5 of 1988 were $238 million for Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis), $172.8 for Rain Man (Barry Levinson), $128.2 million for Coming to America (John Landis), $115 million for Big (Penny Marshall), and $112 million for Twins (Ivan Reitman), all of which were considerably more mainstream/comedic than Wings … , which came in at #142 on that year’s global-income-chart. However, the CCAL was very supportive with RT positive reviews at a lofty 97%, while the (normally more-restrained) MC average score was a mirror-image 79% (a solid sense of endorsement from them). I find it to be a mesmerizing excursion into existence, imagery a joy to behold, and a good source of contemplation as to whether there may be some sort of angels (possibly the spirits of departed people, as with the Clarence [Henry Travers] character in It’s a Wonderful Life [Frank Capra, 1946], an angel-in-training trying to earn his wings by helping distraught-human George Bailey [James Stewart] resolve his traumas) in a dimension normally inaccessible to us (although in Wings … young children can see and interact with them), just as something compelled me to strike up a random conversation back in 1987 (maybe another reason I decided to see this film again and review it) in a crowd of scalper-ticket-interested-folks for the Paul Simon Graceland concert in Berkeley, CA with the marvelous woman, Nina Kindblad, I’ve been with ever since, married in 1990, even though I’d never done something like that in my previous 39 years.
I was amazed when I first saw Wings of Desire (most likely in 1988), used it consistently when teaching my Classic to Contemporary Cinema history class to show what grandeur a film could achieve, and it’s still fascinating for me now—an accomplishment like Past Lives more appropriate to be watched than to be written about (not that you can’t find plenty of lengthy explorations, but I prefer these amazing pictures more so than the thousands of words they might represent); consequently, I couldn’t recommend it any higher so if you’ve never seen it I strongly encourage you to do so (or watch it again as I did, if it’s been awhile since you’ve last indulged). Of course you’ll need to turn to DVD (good luck with the Criterion version) or streaming to watch it unless some theater in your area decides to schedule a Wim Wenders retrospective with Wings … as a foregone-conclusion-inclusion.
(Sorry for the photo quality here; I had minimal options to pick from.)
Well, as usual, enough blather from me, so I’ll close out with my usual tactic of a Musical Metaphor (even though you’ve had a couple of viable choices in the introductory segment of this review), with this one addressing the ongoing joy that Damiel finds in his human existence with Marion, “Cheek to Cheek” (written by Irving Berlin for the Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers romantic musical, Top Hat [Mark Sandrich, 1935]) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1u2G16fq_Y. Although we don’t see the newly-committed lovers in Wings … sharing any dance moves their connection is just as firm as what's in this clip with lyrics in the song that also seem a proper match to me: “Heaven, I’m in heaven / And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak / And I seem to find the happiness I seek / When we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek […] Dance with me / I want my arm about you / The charm about you / Will carry me through to Heaven.” (Get it?) Hopefully, Wenders (and you) will agree on this light-hearted choice, which further takes us from the ongoing gloom the angels are so constantly aware of in desolate, late-1980s-Berlin when this filmic concept was put onto celluloid.
SHORT TAKES
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
Options: (1) What's new on Netflix in September 2023; (2) What's new on Amazon Prime Video in September 2023; (3) What's new on Hulu in September 2023; (4) What's new on Disney+ in September 2023; (5) Barbie is officially global highest grosser of 2023; (6) Woody Allen is now considering retirement; (7) Sofia Coppola's Priscilla gets huge ovation at Venice Film Festival.
We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list). Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage. If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us! Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post. You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).
*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.
If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please
use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.
OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.
Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 26,816 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):
No comments:
Post a Comment