Das Fliegende Klassenzimmer (3 Stars)

The title of this German film means "The Flying Classroom". The poster shown above gives the wrong impression. There are no floating children in the school.

The film is based on a children's book with the same name written by Erich Kästner in 1933. Judging from a synopsis I've read of the novel, it deals with several semi-unrelated episodes of things that happen in the school. I say semi because it's the same children in each episode. The film concentrates on one of the episodes. Apart from that, the film has been set in the modern world. The children have mobile phones.

Martina is a 13-year-old girl in Berlin. She's been offered a free grant to go to an elite boarding school, the Johann-Sigismund-School, in Kirchberg in South Tyrol (the German speaking area in northern Italy). She has a two week trial before the summer holidays, and if she's accepted she'll be a full time school student after the summer holidays.

From the beginning she's caught up in the rivalry between the internals and the externals. Half of the children live in the school, the other half are the children of local residents and just visit the school for lessons. Martina's grades are poor, so she has to take extra lessons to catch up, but she still has time to put on a play about the classroom of the future.

Just as important as her school activities is the relationship between the strict head of the school, Justus Bökh, and a drop-out called Robert who lives in a railway waggon on top of the hill. They both went to the school as children and became friends, even though Justus was an internal and Robert was an external. For reasons that the film doesn't make clear the two men haven't spoken for ten years. Martina attempts to bring them back together.

There are a few things in the film that don't make sense. Why would a family in Berlin want to send their daughter to a boarding school in another country? A rich family might do this, but Martina's family isn't rich. Why is Martina given a grant? And the biggest problem I have is the time frame. How can Martina cram so much into such a short space of time? If they'd said six weeks or even four weeks I could have accepted it.

The film didn't really interest me. I couldn't relate to Martina's school problems. The story of the two old friends reuniting was more interesting, but it was spoilt by Robert being a chain smoker. It's supposed to be a joke, because Robert lives in a non-smoking waggon, but I didn't find it funny. Is that the sort of character that should be shown in a film for children?

The film didn't appeal to Oliver either. He was bored. After the first 20 minutes he kept bugging me, asking how long the film had to go.

It's curious that this is the fourth time the story has been filmed. The book was filmed in 1954, 1973 and 2003. That's a sign that it must be a good book. The previous three versions must have been better.

Baader Meinhof Komplex (4 Stars)

I clearly remember the first time I saw this film in 2008. It was shown at the Empire Cinema in Birmingham Broad Street, which has since become a Cineworld cinema. I was excited about it because German films were rarely shown in Birmingham's cinemas. That's still the case today. While I was waiting upstairs I overheard an elderly couple speaking German with one another. It was something special for them as well.

The film was overwhelming, from the first few minutes onwards. I still consider the scene with the demonstration against the Shah of Iran in 1967 to be one of the best filmed scenes ever. I sat in my seat open-mouthed, hardly able to take it all in. That continued to the end of the film, even though the last hour of the film had less action. That's a "problem" with true stories. The pacing can't be planned, it just happens.

When I walked out of the cinema my thoughts were, "Wow! That's the best film I've ever seen". I bought the film on DVD as soon as it was released. I also bought the extended version, even though it's only 15 minutes longer. I watched it frequently between 2009 and 2010. Slowly my opinion on the film changed. I no longer consider it the best film ever made, or even the best German film. Today I wouldn't even place it in the top 50 German films. So what happened?

There are problems with the end of the film that I noticed when I first saw the film, but I overlooked them as artistic license. After repeated viewing the last half hour annoys me. By now it's got so bad that I don't think I can watch the film again. I only watched it today because it stars Bruno Ganz as Horst Herold, the head of the German police. This is doubtlessly one of his best performances. He's such a quiet, unassuming figure, determined to stop the rise of terrorism, but not hot-headed enough to make rash decisions. I especially like the scene where he serves his top advisers lobster soup while discussing police matters. This makes me smile. He's calm and collected, making others think he's not taking the problems seriously, but if people can no longer enjoy lobster soup terrorism has won.

To sum up my problems with the film: it's the true story of the Red Army Faction, commonly called the Baader-Meinhof Gang, from 1967 to 1977. The film begins with the visit of the Shah to Berlin and ends with the assassination of the industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer. The film is told with almost photographic documentary precision for the first two hours. Then it falls apart in the last half hour. Instead of sticking to proven facts it shows wild theories for which there is no proof.

The fact is that on 18th October 1977 three terrorists, Andreas Baader, Jan-Carl Raspe and Gudrun Ensslin were found dead in their cells in Stammheim, Germany's highest security prison. Baader and Raspe died of gunshot wounds, Ensslin was hanged. On the same morning the terrorist Irmgard Möller was found with four stab wounds in her chest, but she survived.

A police inquest claimed that the three deaths were the result of suicide. Möller, who is still alive today, claims that she was stabbed by masked men who entered her cell at night, but this was never proved. It's impossible to verify what happened because the prison's security cameras were turned off and the security guard on the seventh floor was called away from his post for three hours.

The story that Andreas Baader and his three fellow terrorists were executed is called a conspiracy theory by those who believe the German state would never act unlawfully. I know what conspiracy theories are. They're theories that people decide to believe, even though the facts prove the opposite. In this case there are no facts that prove it was suicide, and all the clues point to an execution, so I consider the suicide story to be a conspiracy theory.

In the last half hour the film builds up an elaborate theory about how a lawyer smuggled guns into the cells of Baader and Raspe. At meetings Brigitte Mohnhaupt made lengthy speeches about Baader and Ensslin wanting to end their lives on their own terms. There is no proof for this. My opinion is that Stefan Aust, the journalist on whose book the film is based, had a personal agenda in promoting the suicide theory, and the director Uli Edel followed his thoughts blindly. The film would have been better if the deaths of Baader and his friends had been left open. It would have been more satisfying to see them dead in their cells, then see different people arguing about whether it was suicide or an execution. The viewer should be allowed to make up his own mind rather than being subjected to a conspiracy theory.

I'll end this post with a few snapshots of the magnificent Martina Gedeck playing the role of Ulrike Meinhof. She's one of my favourite actresses, and this is her best ever performance. She perfectly portrays a woman who starts out as a brilliant journalist, then becomes an author of fanatical pamphlets before finally being driven to madness by three years of solitary confinement.

These snapshots aren't just for my readers. They're also intended to remind me of her performance in this film, because I probably shan't watch it again.

I defend my four star rating. I'd give the first two hours five stars and the last half hour one star. That makes an average of four stars. Approximately.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Werk ohne Autor (5 Stars)

This is the German nomination for the Best Foreign Language film at the 2019 Academy Awards. The literal translation of this film's title is "Work without an author", but in English the film is called "Never look away". The film is based on the life of the German artist Gerhard Richter, although the main character in the film is called Kurt Barnert.

The film begins in 1937 with five-year-old Kurt being taken to an exhibition of "Entartete Kunst" in Dresden. That's a very difficult expression to translate. The usual translation is "Degenerate Art", but that doesn't adequately express the same feelings as the German words. "Violated Art" is closer, but it's not completely wrong to say "Distilled Art". The meaning of the expression is that everything that makes art art has been stripped away, and what's left is presented as non-art. In the Third Reich the expression was used to describe modern art. The exhibition in Dresden was used to describe how bad modern art is. Good German artists would paint trees and mountains and beautiful women; degenerate artists like Piet Mondrian would paint boxes.

After the war Kurt becomes an art student. East Germany's Communist system shares its views on art with the Nazis. The recommended art style is "Socialist Realism". Modern art is spurned. As I've mentioned elsewhere, despite its claims to be a different political system, East Germany copied the style of Nazi Germany and can be considered its spiritual successor.

In 1961 Kurt fled to West Germany and studied art again in Düsseldorf. Here he was encouraged to paint modern art, or even not to paint at all. It took him a few years to develop his own original style, and eventually he became famous.

In parallel, the film follows the story of Professor Carl Seeband. Under the Nazis he was a doctor who decided which mentally ill patients should be sterilised and which should be executed. There was no third option. He was responsible for sending Kurt's Aunt Elisabeth to the gas chambers. After the war he escaped punishment and was put in charge of Dresden's largest hospital. Kurt dated his daughter and eventually married her. Despite his claims to be a good socialist, Carl still believed that those with inferior genetic qualities shouldn't be allowed to breed. He too emigrates to West Germany, albeit legally, and the contact remains.

This is a powerful film. It shows how a talented painter managed to find his way despite the prejudices all around. He created a new art form which was initially rejected even by the advocates of modern art. It's a long film, running for 182 minutes from the beginning to the credits, but it was never for one moment boring. It's difficult to imagine that there will be a better film in its category at the Academy Awards.

Who am I (4 Stars)

"Who am I? I am Benjamin, and this is my story".

When Benjamin was growing up in Berlin he wanted to be a superhero. Why not? When I was a young boy I wanted to be a superhero as well. My imagination was based on the Marvel superheros created by Stan Lee. I'd still like to be a superhero today, but I've relegated this to my daydreams. When I close my eyes I fly through space at many times the speed of light. When I open my eyes my feet are firmly on the ground.

Benjamin was a failure in school and a failure in life. Nobody noticed that he existed, especially not the girls. After leaving school he embarked on the exciting career of a pizza delivery man. In his favour he does have one skill, though not a marketable one. He's a computer hacker.

By chance Benjamin meets a group of hackers, Max, Stephan and Paul. No last names. Last names are taboo in hacker circles. Even first names are closely guarded secrets, except to those you trust the most. Benjamin's online name is Whoami, written as one word. That's a cool name, but I think that my online name is better. I am Dancer.

Benjamin suggests that the four hackers give themselves a collective name so they can appear online as a team. They pick the name CLAY, an acronym for Clowns Laughing At You. Their hacks are on the level of practical jokes, such as displaying animated pictures mocking Hitler at the conference of a right extremist group.

More than anything else, CLAY wants to be taken seriously in the hacker community. There's a well known hacker called MRX whose respect they want to win. To do this they hack the server of the German secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst. Data is stolen and given to MRX as a present. This wins MRX's support, but it also draws the attention of European cybercrime experts, who think that CLAY is a threat to world security.

The film turns into a struggle between Benjamin and a Dutch special agent, Hanne Lindberg. She knows nothing about him, but he knows everything about her. After all, he's a hacker. If anything is stored anywhere on a computer he can find it.

This is an exciting thriller which ends with totally unexpected plot twists. In 2015 it was awarded the prize for Best German Film at the Bambi Film Awards. This has won the film international attention, and an American remake has already been announced. Please, please, don't let it be too bad.

	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Same Sky (4 Stars)

In its promotion for American audiences "The Same Sky" is called a mini-series. In Germany the original version, "Der Gleiche Himmel", is called a three-part television film. That's not just a matter of translation, because the German language contains the word "Miniserie". It's a matter of definition. In America and most other countries films made for television have a smaller budget and usually feature less famous actors than films made for the cinema. In Germany it's different. Films made for television have big budgets and the same actors appear that we see in the big German cinema films. If you watch a German film on Blu-ray it's not possible to tell whether it was made for television or for the cinema.

By calling "Der Gleiche Himmel" a television film the makers want to emphasise that it's a big budget blockbuster, not a small budget television series. I understand that. When the film is released on Blu-ray it's possible to edit the three 90-minute instalments into a four and a half film. However, it takes more than that to make a film. A film has a plot with character arcs leading from A to B. There might be subplots, but the subplots are just there to add background information and depth to the main story. That's not the case with "Der Gleiche Himmel". There are four stories taking place in parallel in Berlin in 1974, one of them in the West and the other three in the East. The only connection is that the characters in the four stories are either related or know one another. These four stories hardly intersect, apart from being mentioned to one another by the characters in conversation.

This principle of independent stories with shared characters is typical for television soap operas. Three of the four stories are left open-ended at the end of the television film, which is also a characteristic of soap operas: story-lines never come to an end, they are just left to simmer in the background. It would be more accurate to call it a mini-soap opera.

The first story is about Lars Weber, a 25-year-old East German Stasi (secret service) agent. He's sent to West Berlin to seduce a middle-aged divorcee who works for an American military station that spies on international phone calls.

The second story is about Klara Weber, Lars' cousin and next-door neighbour, who is chosen to represent East Germany as a 200 meter swimmer in the 1976 Olympic Games. The vitamins that she's given during her training cause her to grow hair on her chest and back.

The third story is about Axel Lang, a homosexual school teacher who falls in love with an English salesman and wants to join him in the West. Axel is a teacher in the same school as Klara's father Conrad.

The fourth story is about a group of people who are building a tunnel under the Berlin Wall. Axel's ex-lover Tobias is a member of this group.

As you can see, the links between the characters are tenuous, as far as the stories are concerned. Some of the characters appear in two of the stories, but nobody appears in three of them.

All four stories are about the relationship between the East and the West, especially the two halves of Berlin. This even applies to the second story, because Klara has to win a gold medal to prove that East Germany is superior to West Germany. There's a huge wall through the middle of the city -- or rather a double wall, as the photo above shows -- but everyone sees the same sky above their heads. So why is there such enmity? It's true, some of the people in the film, such as the tunnel builders, want to be with those on the other side, but the majority see the population on the opposite side of the wall as their enemies.

This enmity came to a head on the third day of the World Cup football competition, 22nd June 1974, when the East and West teams met each other. The West German team felt confident of an easy victory against the inferior players from the East, but what happened? In the 77th minute East Germany scored the first and only goal.

The reaction in East Berlin.

The reaction in West Berlin.

Fortunately the West Germans didn't have to stay sad for too long. Despite losing this game and finishing second in the opening round they went on to win the championship.

I enjoyed watching "Der Gleiche Himmel", and I'll probably watch it again. I find films about the years of the divided Berlin fascinating. This film might not tell a consistent story, but it accurately captures the atmosphere of these years.

Atomised (4 Stars)

This is a German film with the original title "Elementarteilchen", which means "Atomic particles". It's based on a novel with the same name written by the French author Michel Houellebecq. Since I had problems understanding the message the film wants to give I read a summary of the book. It seems to me that the novel is a deep philosophical work that talks about modern man caught in the battle between Christianity and science, frustrated because they both claim to give answers but neither succeeds. This element is completely missing from the film. The book's main characters and their lives are portrayed in a vacuum, without the book's underlying message. What remains is a family drama interlaced with black comedy.

Bruno was born in Berlin in the 1950's. His mother went to India to join a commune shortly after his birth, after which his father committed suicide, so he was adopted by his grandmother. His mother visited him once a year but showed no emotion towards him. When he was 18 his mother told him for the first time that she had another son, Michael, aged 17, who had lived with another grandmother in Berlin all this time. The two half-brothers met and became friends, united in their disdain for their mother.

20 years later Bruno and Michael have taken different paths, but they're still close friends. Bruno is married with a young child, but he's obsessed with sex, having a series of one-night stands outside of his marriage. He's chosen a career as a senior school literature teacher because he wants to be surrounded by teenage girls. Michael is still a virgin, and he is working in a research laboratory trying to find a way to reproduce human beings without sex.

Bruno suffers a mental breakdown after a 17-year-old girl in his class rejects him. His wife leaves him, he loses his job, and he spends the next few months in and out of mental institutions. Michael stands by him in his time of crisis. Then both brothers fall in love at the same time. Michael reunites with his childhood sweetheart, Annabelle, who is still single because she has always loved Michael. Bruno meets Christiane, a woman in an esoteric holiday camp who shares his obsession with sex, although they rarely have sex with one another; they prefer to watch one another having sex with other people.

Both relationships go badly. Christiane has advanced cell decay in her spinal cord, which leads to her becoming paralysed from the waist down. Annabelle becomes pregnant from her first sex with Michael, but she had previously been warned that she should never get pregnant. The baby is aborted, but there are further complications that mean her womb has to be removed, and even after this she's so weak that she could die at any time. The two brothers are both left with disabled lovers. It can't get any worse, can it? Actually it can. I've given away most of the plot, but the two brothers and their lovers sink deeper into the abyss.

The film's humour is very morbid. We're invited to laugh at sickness, death and even taboo subjects like incest. I don't mind morbid humour. I can laugh at anything. What disturbs me is that the film is inconsistent. After comedy scenes there are long portions of serious drama. Then, eventually, the jokes are packed into the film one after another. I would have enjoyed the film more if the humour had been spread more evenly.

Nevertheless, the film has its strong points. The film features some of Germany's biggest stars, and they don't let us down, making the madness and the suffering of their characters completely credible. This isn't a masterpiece, in my opinion, but it's worth watching as an example of powerful German cinema.

Verschwende deine Jugend (5 Stars)

The title of this film means "Throw your youth away". It's named after a song by the German new wave group DAF, whose music is featured heavily in the film.

When Harry Pritzel was 17 he went to Hamburg in his summer holidays. While there he went to a concert by DAF which changed his life. It was music like he had never heard before. It was nothing like the dull hit songs that older people listened to and the 1970's hippy songs that young Germans listened to. The music was fresh and exciting, and most of all it was in German. When Harry went back home to Munich he tried to become a musician himself, but he soon realised that he had no talent.

One year later it's 1981. Harry leaves school and starts an apprenticeship in a bank. But his passion is still for music. His friends have formed a group called Apollo Schwabing, and Harry is their manager. He wants to promote the group, so he arranges a big festival in a circus tent. DAF are the main act with Apollo Schwabing and a few other local bands as support. The trouble is that he arranges the festival without contacting DAF first. The posters are hanging all over the city and hundreds of tickets have been sold, but when he finally reaches DAF they don't want to perform.

This film, which has unfortunately never been released in English, is amazing in so many different ways. First of all the soundtrack is incredible. Apart from the songs by DAF there are songs by many groups of the early 1980's, such as XTC, Human League and the Cure. The atmosphere of the 1980's in Munich is reproduced perfectly. We see the clash between the dull residential city and the vibrant underground music scene. This was something new for Germany. The punk movement of the late 1970's passed Germany by. (Punk didn't reach Germany until later, and it's now more popular in Germany than in England). The early 1980's was the emergence of an exciting German music scene, heavily influenced by the underground electronic music of the 1970's. Then there's the acting by the young people in the lead roles.

This is yet another film that I would hold high as an example of the quality of German cinema. It's perfect in every way.

Oh Boy (4 Stars)

This is a story of alienation in the big city, in this case the city of Berlin. 25-year-old Niko stumbles around the city, meeting people, friends and strangers, as he tries to get a cup of coffee. The film is appropriately filmed in black and white to intensify the effect. We shouldn't blame it all on the city. It's also Niko's fault. He's unable to complete anything he starts, whether it's learning to play the trumpet, a law degree or a relationship.

Despite being the first film made by the director Jan Ole Gerster, the film made a big impression on film critics. At the 2013 German Film Awards it won six awards (Best Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Lead Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Music). Does the film have a message? If it does, I must have missed it. It's a film that encourages the viewer to ask questions, but it doesn't offer any answers.

Today we're used to seeing Berlin as the dazzling, multi-coloured biggest party city in the world. The Berlin shown us in "Oh Boy" is dark and dismal. That's probably the only Berlin that many of its residents see.

The film has been released in America as "A Coffee in Berlin". It's worth checking out, if you're adventurous enough to try out a different sort of film.

Suite Francaise (3¾ Stars)

The film takes place in a village called Bussy, 20 miles from Paris, in 1940. I didn't realise until the end of the film that it's a true story. It was written shortly after the events by a French Jewess who lived in the village after fleeing from Paris, but it wasn't published until 60 years later when her daughter finally discovered what was contained in her mother's notebook.

The main character is Lucille Angellier (Michelle Williams), who lives in a large mansion in Bussy with her mother-in-law, a wealthy land-owner referred to only as Madame Angellier. Her husband has left to fight against the Germans, but when Germany conquers Paris in June 1940 she begins to despair that he's still alive. At first the war seems far away, but Bussy is overrun by a stream of refugees from Paris, and shortly afterwards a German regiment is posted in the village. Each household has to put up a German soldier, and as the owner of the largest house Madame Angellier is assigned the highest ranking German office, Lieutenant Bruno von Falk (Matthias Schoenaerts).

The Germans are the enemies, and Lucille expects to have an inhuman monster living in her house. She's surprised when she meets a highly sensitive man who spends the evenings sitting at her piano composing a piece of music that he calls the "Suite Francaise". A romance develops between the two.

The film is a very honest portrayal of the situation during the German occupation of France. It's usual for the opposing sides in a war to demonise one another, but the fact is that the soldiers who fight for a country are just normal men who have more in common with the enemy soldiers than they do with their warmongering leaders. This is especially the case if the soldiers have been conscripted. While I lived in Germany I had a friend whose father had been part of the occupying army in France. His father was a religious man, and while in France he had visited French churches, sitting side by side with the enemy. War is something that divides people who would otherwise have been friends.

I enjoy films based on true stories, even if they lack the tidy resolution of purely fictional films. Real life never ties up loose ends, and there's rarely a happy ending. My only real criticism of the film is that the romance isn't as tender as the picture above suggests. When Lucille and Bruno are together they seem to be driven by lust rather than love. That clashes with the love of classical music that first draws them together. This must have been an interpretation of the film's screenwriters, because I doubt that the authoress knew the couple well enough to know that when in private they were tearing one another's clothes off to have a hasty fumble.

My praise goes out to Sam Riley, who is barely recognizable as the French farmer Benoit. His wife Alexandra Maria Lara plays a small role as a Jewish refugee, probably the authoress herself. Tom Schilling ably portrays the swaggering German lieutenant Kurt Bonnet. He's fast developing into one of Germany's top actors. Heino Ferch, probably my favourite German actor, plays a small role as the commander of the troops stationed in Bussy. Matthias Schoenaerts is a Belgian actor who is currently making a breakthrough into the American market, and he certainly has the talent to go all the way to the top. But all the other actors are eclipsed by Michelle Williams. After all these years I still associate her with the TV series "Dawson's Creek", which was her first big role at the age of 18. I never realised that she would develop into such a competent actress. She has a cool composure that makes her able to express emotions with the slightest change of facial expressions.

Baader Meinhof Komplex (4 Stars)

"What we need is a new morality".

When I first saw this film I was in awe. It was the best German film I had ever seen. Even after repeated viewing on DVD I praised it highly. It wasn't until watching it today that my opinion began to change. For 1 hour 55 minutes it's a work of genius. Then it begins to turn. The last half hour is disgusting propaganda for the official German bourgeoisie.

The film is based on a book by Stefan Aust, who was a friend of Andreas Baader in his early years, but then split away from him. The extended version of the film (not the version I watched today) contains a brief scene where Stefan himself appears. Evidently the break up from Andreas Baader was serious enough to cause Stefan to tell lies which have been repeated in the film.

For those who don't know the events of 1977, let me explain. In the night of October 18th, 1977 the four terrorists being held in separate cells in Germany's top security prison, Stammheim, committed suicide. Andreas Baader and Jan-Carl Raspe shot themselves. Gudrun Ensslin hanged herself. Irmgard Möller stabbed herself four times in the chest, but narrowly missed her heart and survived. To any sane thinking person it's inconceivable that prisoners could smuggle guns into their cells. Apart from this, after recovering Irmgard Möller claimed that masked men had entered her cell and stabbed her. Gudrun Ensslin's body was badly bruised as if she had been beaten. But what did the prison's security cameras show? There was a power failure that night, so the cameras weren't working. How convenient!

The film shows the lawyer smuggling guns to Andreas Baader during the trial, but there is no evidence that this ever happened. The intention of the film is to poison the minds of the viewers to accept the official story, rather than the truth. The last half hour of the film has Brigitte Mohnhaupt repeatedly stating that the imprisoned terrorists would end their lives at the time of their choice. This is pure propaganda, and the more it's repeated the more sickening it gets.

Before I finish, I'd like to point out that I don't agree that we need a new morality. It's just a quote from the film, in my eyes a very significant quote. The new morality of the Baader Meinhof group involved killing one's enemies, without paying heed to anyone else who died as collateral damage. The old morality is better.

Mein Kampf (4 Stars)

This is a film version of a play written by George Tabori, a Hungarian Jew. He was born in Hungary in 1914 and moved to Germany in 1932. In 1935 he emigrated to England and was given British citizenship. From 1947 to 1971 he lived in America. He then returned to Germany, where he remained until his death in 2007.

Why am I going into such detail about the writer's life? I think that knowing his background might avert any criticism that might be brought against the play and film for racist reasons. Germany has a long history of satire, and for many years German Jews were the ones responsible for most of satirical theatre productions in Germany. The Jews have proven themselves capable of laughing at themselves more than any other people.

The play tells the story of Adolf Hitler when he arrives in Vienna to study art. He moves into a men's hostel, where he is befriended by an old Jew called Schlomo. Overcome by his poverty and failure, Hitler attempts suicide, but Schlomo saves his life and cares for him as a father would for his son. Schlomo is one of the few who recognises Hitler's talent as an artist and does his best to support him. When this doesn't succeed he recommends that Hitler enters politics. Schlomo is an entertainer who speaks on the street. Hitler sits in fascination and learns to imitate his gestures for his own speeches. The title of the film comes from Schlomo's autobiography, which he has entitled "Mein Kampf", i.e. "My Struggle". Hitler likes the name so much that he decides to use it for his own book. At first Hitler accepts Schlomo, despite his prejudices against the Jews, but he begins to hate him when he sees that the girl he loves, Gretchen, prefers Schlomo over him. But however much Hitler turns against Schlomo, the old Jew forgives him and continues to help him.

The film isn't a comedy, but it is strongly satirical. Only a Jewish author could have the audacity to suggest that it was a Jew who inspired Hitler's future career.

Pornorama (4½ Stars)

The film takes place at the end of the 1960's in Munich. Germany is being shaken by terrorism, and students are protesting in all large cities. Bennie (Tom Schilling) is a 20-year-old boy who wants to become a film director. His only way to get started is to join the police force and work as a cameraman filming demonstrations. The film then tells two separate but interwoven stories.

In the first story, Bennie's older brother Freddie (Benno Fürmann) suggests an easy way to make millions. Bennie should direct a "sex education film" like the ones just becoming popular in Germany. (An example is the series of Schoolgirl Report films that I've frequently reviewed in this blog). A friend who owns a pizzeria will fund the film, as long as his friend Gina can have the main role. The film will show how women get sexually aroused by using the pedals of a sewing machine. It seems easy, until Bennie finds out that Gina doesn't speak a word of German. It gets worse when Gina refuses to get undressed for the sex scenes.

The second story is a love affair between Bennie and a student he meets while filming a demonstration, Luzie (Karoline Herfurth). It's a difficult relationship; he's a policeman, she's a Communist, he's a virgin, she's sexually experienced. Bennie persuades Luzie to star in the film, but he doesn't let her know it's a sex film. He presents it to her as a protest film against bourgeois morality.

The film is a comedy, but it still captures the essence of the soft porn films of the 1970's. The truth is sometimes funnier than fiction.

I realise that I've watched three films starring Karoline Herfurth in one day. It wasn't originally planned that way, but after watching two I thought I might as well add a third. Why not? She's a brilliant actress, and she's beautiful too!

Baader Meinhof Komplex (5 Stars)

This is the true story of the terror wave in Germany from 1967 to 1977 carried out by the Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Fraction), more commonly referred to as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. The film begins with the visit of the Shah of Persia to West Berlin, and it ends with the execution of German industrial boss Hanns Martin Schleyer. The film is made with documentary precision, and yet remains exciting throughout. All of the outdoor scenes were filmed in the same places that the original events occurred. Scenes well known from photos taken at the time are reproduced, including the exact positioning of cars and people in the scenes.

This 10-year period in German history is difficult for non-Germans to understand. The RAF were by their own admission terrorists, and yet they enjoyed great public support. At their peak opinion polls claimed that 25% of Germans under 30 were sympathetic of them. Why? The film attempts to answer that question, although it would have to be twice as long to go into the issues in full detail. After the Second World War Germany was divided into two parts, the democratic west and the Communist east. Germany, especially Berlin, was on the front line of the Cold War. Any east-west conflict would have begun in Germany. For this reason the West German government was anxious to suppress any elements in its own country that it saw as Communist. Mostly this suppression was aimed at university students. This is shown clearly in the example of the Shah's visit to West Berlin. When the Shah arrived German students chanted "Down with the Shah". A group of Iranian students (who were actually members of the Iranian secret police) attacked the German students. The German police reacted by brutally attacking the German students who attempted to flee. Although there were many injuries, the shooting of the innocent bystander Benno Ohnesorg by Karl-Heinz Kurras, a plain-clothes policeman, was the catalyst for future protests and the creation of the RAF. People expected justice, but when Kurras was brought to trial he was found innocent. It wasn't until January 2012 that it was revealed that evidence against him had been hidden from the prosecutors.

The film is divided into two parts. The first part shows the active years of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Ulrike Meinhof. The second part shows their time in prison and their trial. They were three very different people. Baader was the spontaneous hothead who thought terrorism was fun. Ensslin was the intellectual who gave the group its political direction. Meinhof was the voice of reason. In the second part of the film we see Meinhof's mental deterioration after three years in solitary confinement and her suicide in 1976.

A problem that non-Germans (and even younger Germans) might have with the film is to know who everyone is. So many characters come and go in the film. Some are introduced by their first name only, others aren't named at all. A commentary track that explains who people are would be a welcome addition to future DVD and Blu-ray releases. A featurette could explain the history and importance of the characters in more detail.

The final words in the film, spoken by Brigitte Mohnhaupt to the other terrorists gathered around her after the news was reported of Andreas Baader's death, can be interpreted as a mission statement for the film, directed at the viewers: "You never knew the people. Stop seeing them as they never were." This is a good motive. 30 years later Baader and his gang are still controversial figures in Germany. Some see him as an evil Communist who wanted to bring down the West German government, while others see him as an idealist standing up to a re-emergence of Fascism in Germany. Baader is either hated, or he's portrayed as a glamorous rock star freedom fighter. Based on the knowledge of people who knew him personally, the film shows his strengths as well as his weaknesses. For instance, the RAF is known as the first terrorist group in which women had leading roles, but the film shows Baader as a sexist who regarded women as inferior members of his gang. "You cunts and your emancipation! It's all about shouting at your husbands!"

On October 18th 1977 Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin committed suicide in Stammheim prison. In the same night Jan-Carl Raspe killed himself.

My only criticism of the film is that it follows the official line of events, rather than leaving them open for the viewer to judge. The suicide itself is very controversial, even today. Claims that the terrorists were executed in prison are dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but unlike other conspiracy theories a lot of facts speak for it.

Baader and Raspe killed themselves by shooting themselves. The idea that prisoners in Germany's highest security prison had guns in their cells is so ridiculous that it defies all credibility. The film shows Baader's lawyer giving him a gun during the trial, but there is no independent proof that this ever happened.

According to the autopsy Baader was shot in the back of the neck from a distance of 15 inches. This is an impossible feat. I attempted this myself, and the furthest I could hold a gun away would be 10 inches. Even if the autopsy is inaccurate, don't people who shoot themselves hold the gun against themselves, pointing it in their mouth or pressing it against their head? Holding the gun in an awkward position increases the chance of a non-fatal glancing wound, or even a wound that would lead to permanent crippling.

Gudrun Ensslin's body was bruised as if she had been beaten prior to her suicide.

Irmgard Möller also attempted suicide in the same night by stabbing herself four times in the chest, barely missing her heart. Is this possible? Four times? She survived, and ever since the incident she denies it was suicide. She claims that she was attacked by masked intruders in her cell.

In the night of the collective suicide there was a power failure in the prison, meaning that the prison was dark and the cameras didn't function.

One of the regular guards on the floor where the terrorists' cells were located was called away from his post for three hours and assured that he would be replaced. Nothing is known of who replaced him during this time.