Timeless (4 Stars)

The film opens with a Kafkaesque nightmare. A man has been arrested without being told what his crime is. He's refused a lawyer, and he has to sign a confession which he hasn't read. This scene has no relevance to the film's main story, because it's only something being broadcast on American television, but it sets the tone for the rest of the film.

In 1932 Arnold was listening to a record in his apartment in Stuttgart when he found himself kicked through time into the future, probably the early 2020's. The world around him has changed so much that the city is hardly recognisable. Luckily the first person he meets is Jane, who is quick to believe his story. Anyone else would have referred him to a psychiatrist. She brings him to her friend Konstantin, who takes Arnold under his wing and educates him in the ways of the world.

The viewer can relate to Arnold from the beginning. He's an innocent young man, almost childlike in his naivety, who stumbles open-mouthed through the new world, hardly able to take in the images around him. When he returns to his old apartment he finds it being used by right wing extremists. There's a police raid, so he takes refuge in another apartment that's being used by left wing extremists. There's another police raid, so he's on the run again. Poor Arnold isn't interested in politics. He just wants to return to his own time, even though he's warned that he would have terrible years ahead of him.

Outwardly the new Germany looks nothing like 1932, but the society shows great similarity. The late Weimar Republic was the breeding ground for dictatorship, and it's the same in the 2020's. Hans Schmidt – probably the most insignificant sounding German name possible – has just been elected as the German Chancellor. He speaks a message of love and peace, but peace is to be achieved by conforming to society's norms. It's no longer permissible to speak out against the government. That's the thing about would-be dictators: whatever they say sounds pleasant, because if they didn't sugarcoat their words nobody would elect them into power.

Konstantin is a difficult character to analyse. When we first meet him it seems like his main interest is in picking up women for one-night stands. He's a heartless rogue, but somehow likeable. As the film progresses he changes, or maybe it's just his true nature being revealed. Instead of picking up women he wants to overthrow the government, an armed revolution. "Fucking and shooting are the same thing".

Arnold goes along with the revolution. He picks up a gun because his friend tells him to. He's not sure whether it's right or wrong, but he'll do it anyway.

"Timeless" highlights problems that we have today. We can trust the government, or we can trust an anti-government ideology. It's practically impossible to find our own path in the middle of the two extremes. It's easy to believe what others tell us, but difficult to sift through the information thrown at us and make up our own minds. I've experienced this in my own life. In 1990 there was a demonstration on the Königstrasse, Stuttgart's main street, against the American attack on Iraq. A young woman stood up who said she was the leader of the League Against Fascism. She held a short speech, denouncing the American military intervention, and the crowd loved it. Everyone was cheering and applauding everything she said. When she stopped speaking I asked her why she was supporting Saddam Hussein, a Fascist dictator. I wanted to compare the American attack on Iraq with the war against Adolf Hitler, but I never got that far. Everyone was yelling at me and telling me to be quiet. I felt such aggression against me that I had to leave. I understand this situation better now than I did at the time. There was an anti-American ideology that prevented its followers from thinking clearly.

The film's Chancellor Hans Schmidt is definitely a bad person. Is it necessary to take up arms to assassinate him? That's a tough question to answer. The important thing is that everyone should answer the question for themselves. Don't shoot someone because your friends tell you it's your duty. But don't follow the laws blindly. My personal tendency is to follow the laws of the land, but there comes a point where I'd put my foot down and say enough is enough. There are lines I won't cross, and it's up to me to draw my own lines.

Maybe this looks like a cool revolution, crossing the road with guns in violin cases, but is it the only way? It's probably better to leave the guns at home and take violins to the concert. Art should influence society.