Best German-language Films of the Past 25 Years

[MichaelB]

And has anyone seen East Side Story? I have not yet, so I'm not sure if it's more focused on the German or Russian elements, but the subject seems full of potential. Plus the title makes me laugh whenever I think about it.

It's wonderful, but its German content is fairly minimal. Essentially, it's a film of two halves: Soviet and Eastern Europe, and so DDR musicals have to share screentime with with equivalents in Czechoslovakia and the like. And it's not a long film to begin with.

But I do thoroughly recommend it for all sorts of other reasons - here's my (ancient) DVD Times review.

István Szabó's Mephisto was based on a Klaus Mann novel, stars Austrian Klaus Maria Brandauer in one of the all-time great performances, was filmed in Berlin, and functions as a variation on the Faust theme. So stepped in German culture, though directed by a Hungarian. IIRC, the film is in German, though I assume the Hungarian actors are dubbed into German. The film contains one of my all-time favorite endings.

Definitely in German - dubbing Klaus Maria Brandauer's extraordinary performance into another language would be a major cultural crime (one that I'm sure has been committed somewhere, but I don't want to know about it!)

If you didn't know that it was a Hungarian production, you'd never guess it was anything other than German.

[rohmerin]

I liked Napola and Summer storm (a wonderful gay comedy).

Berlin is in Germany was pretty good too.[/b]

[denti alligator]

I liked Auf der anderen Seite quite a bit, and although I agree that Das Leben der Anderen is structured like a Hollywood film in almost every way, that's part of what makes it so interesting. Plus as that kind of film, it is superbly done.

Der letzte Mann and Der blaue Engel are out simply because I'm teaching them this semester in a modernism seminar. I will probably have many of the same students. These will be mostly advanced German majors or students who at least have some investment in and exposure to German culture. Though it's also meant to be an 'introduction,' so I think Kluge and Straub-Huillet would be a bit challenging. I can only do so much of the German New Cinema, so I might as well do the classic Fassbinder, Wenders, Herzog, although I may only be able to do two of these three.

Sometimes it's best to limit the number of films to assure the students have time to really dig into them. A colleague of mine is teaching a French cinema course this semster and had to leave out Renoir (!). What can you do? There are only 14 weeks or so.

[shirobamba]

Denti,

Perhaps you should consider to screen at least a little part of Edgar Reitz Heimat Trilogy (the longer director's cut versions). Of course a 52 hours epos is far too much material for an undergraduate seminar, but rewatching the whole of it lately I was deeply impressed by the (somewhat crazy and only partly successful) attempt to narrate a century of German history. Maybe it would be possible to select (a) specific part(s) of it to give an impression about the whole.

A lot of films of the Berlin school have already been mentioned. I'd like to add Angela Schanelec to the list. Mein langsames Leben (2001) and Nachmittag (2007) are good examples for her patient and precise observational style.

The 1950's are widely known as the period of the West-German "Heimatfilm" but there had been a couple of attempts before the new German Cinema appeared to make critical, contemporary films. A neglected masterpiece from this period is Ottmar Domnick's Jonas (1957). It's definitely not the typical 50's film - quite the contrary. You can find more material about Domnick and Jonas by googling.

[denti alligator]

You are right that Heimat is in many ways the missing element between the New Cinema and more recent film. I just don't know how I would teach it. I have actually only seen the first series. I could select two episodes, perhaps, but which two?

[Finch]

Re the incredulous reaction to me saying Downfall is overrated:

Only one scene in the film left a lasting impression on me, when Goering's wife poisons her children which, to me, subtly evoked the industrialised killing in Auschwitz-Birkenau and other death camps and single-handedly proved more terrifying than anything else in the film. Bruno Ganz gives a great performance but does he really make us understand Hitler more in any way? I also couldn't fathom Hirschbiegel's decision not to show Hitler's and Goering's death in the film. On both occasions, it either happens off-screen or the camera "tastefully" pans away. Why the restraint? Why don't we get to see the deaths of those who most deserved it? It's particularly troubling when you compare this to a graphic shot of a mortally wounded soldier blowing his brains out. I wondered whether not showing Hitler's and Goering's suicides doesn't actually (and unintentionally) contribute to the myth of the Fuehrer. Why is it okay to show a soldier killing himself but not to show up Hitler for the coward he was and give him a pathetic death scene? Such a scene would have made a powerful statement and would have been true to the filmmakers' stated intention that they wanted to get close to Hitler, the man, to expose the coward behind the myth. By giving him and Goering the "dignified" off-screen exit, they achieve the opposite.

You could argue that the film does show how he loses control over everything and becomes more delusional but I think the film is not thorough enough: I find the reticence in these key moments, especially in comparison to graphic deaths elsewhere in the film, misplaced and problematic. Apart from that issue, the film looked and felt for the most part like a banal television two-parter with one or two impressive outdoor setpieces, bathetic music and a cloying ending. I also remember thinking that it can't make up its mind over whether it's Traudl Junge's story or Hitler's story, and characters come and go, and nothing really lingers in the mind afterwards, except for the one scene I mentioned above.

Bruno Ganz' performance is impressive on a technical level but the effect wore off for me after the initial goosebumps. I'm sort of thinking the film got so many raves abroad because non-native German speakers finally got to see a German film not just about Hitler but with an actor whose first language is German (although Ganz is actually Swiss) and whose performance therefore tends to feel more authentic to anyone outside Germany when compared to Hitler portrayals by foreign actors (mostly Brits; can't recall off-hand if any American ever played the Fuehrer?).

So yeah, I stick to my guns: massively overrated film.

[shirobamba]

I could select two episodes, perhaps, but which two?

Depends on what you want to show. One possibility would be to contrast Reitz' approach with an original Heimatfilm of the 50's and highlight the differences. Episode 1.9 entitled Herrmännchen deals with the years 1955/56. That would be the one to show in this case.

There's a lot of literature about Heimat, but the best study in English I've read and can recommend is Palfreyman, Rachel. Edgar Reitz's Heimat : histories, traditions, fictions published by Lang Publishers, Oxford ; Bern ; Berlin ; Bruxelles ; Frankfurt/M. ; New York ; Wien, 2000. She covers the differences between the Heimatfilm-tradition and Reitz' approach.
I'm pretty sure you can get it very fast via ILL.

Here's a short abstract about the contents I found on the publisher's website:
"This study of Edgar Reitz's 1984 film saga Heimat explores the cultural contexts of the Heimat tradition and examines the political debate surrounding the film's reception. Responses were largely supportive but some critics were disturbed by an apparent tendency to induce a sense of uncritical nostalgia in viewers. Reitz, by contrast, had wanted to make a film which would help people confront their memories of the Third Reich. The author tests hostile critiques not only against the film's elliptical narrative but also against Reitz's filmic techniques. She examines the interplay of realism and authenticity, and shows how Reitz dramatizes the confrontation between modernity and rural communities, while consciously alluding to the problematic and much-derided Heimat genre."

[denti alligator]

One possibility would be to contrast Reitz' approach with an original Heimatfilm of the 50's and highlight the differences. Episode 1.9 entitled Herrmännchen deals with the years 1955/56. That would be the one to show in this case.

That's an excellent idea, thanks.

Mr Finch, I have no objection to calling Downfall overrated. It is similar to There Will Be Blood: fantastic lead performance stuck in a film that is poorly written and directed.

[Mr Sausage]

Since Downfall from the beginning positions itself from the perspective of the characters in the movie (mostly from Traudl Junge's, from whose book the movie was made), rather than an omnicient perspective, the choice to film Hitler's death from outside the room holds true to the history of the moment and the aesthetic of the film (which, if I remember correctly, refuses to give us Hitler on his own). The only people who knew exactly what went on in the room were Hitler and Braun, and we cannot exactly get their perspective on it. For the film to suddenly fabricate that moment (and merely to sate the audience's blood-lust for Hitler) would be indulgent and would violate the structure of the narrative.

It's fine to think the movie overrated (we cannot like everything equally), but the desire to see Hitler's effigy destroyed in detail is an extra-cinematical one.

[lubitsch]

I know these "let's do the whole film history in ten sessions" challenges at the university quite well. Since you have 14 sessions, here's a suggestion list:

1)Student of Prague and Dubarry are old and very creaky, Caligari is famous, but why not start with a similarly stylized film which is good fun? Lubitsch's DIE BERGKATZE is usually a big success with audiences and opens up discussions on film style, Jewish humor, military satire, famous actors of its day, influence of American film speed and so on. Surprise your students who think only of German gloom and doom.

2) NOSFERATU is a good idea, it feels very German and is a good example of the German neo-romanticism which is wrongly labeled expressionism.

3) DIE BÃœCHSE DER PANDORA is an excellent example of heavy German acting and mood (nicely contrasted with Louise Brooks' modern style, a clash comparable to DER BLAUE ENGEL), of revolutionary sexual role conceptions and of the troubles cinema had with intellectauls especially regarding literary adaptations.

4) M because it's arguably the best German feature ever and fits millions of themes from early sound to modernism.

5) OLYMPIA (first part or even better selected scenes) instead of Triumph des Willens which doesn't go well with students in my experience. You can discuss from here on the thousand ways Nazism did influence the film industry and th ethousand ways it did not (which are arguably even more interesting).

6) UNTER DEN BRÜCKEN because it is the best film of the Third Reich and represents the silent resistance by artists like Käutner, Forst, Hochbaum or Schünzel. Highly regarded by virtually every major German film historian and many of the current directors like Petzold.

7) DER UNTERTAN represents GDR's official anti-fascism policy in the wittiest way, a fireworks of satire. Seen by pretty much every pupil in school.

8) For a postwar West-german film, considering that you search representative film, HIMMEL OHNE STERNE would be an interesting choice, dealing with the German border. It's surely available at the Goethe-Institut with English subtitles.

9) SPUR DER STEINE is the definitive film to illustrate the clash between filmmakers and the GDR government which resulted in the ban of a part of the 1965 productions.

10) AGUIRRE is fine though it's again romantic Germany plunging in an abyss of madness. Oh well.

11) I'd rather pick ANGST ESSEN SEELE AUF or DIE EHE DER MARIA BRAUN, but Veronika Voss is just as fine.

12) DIE VERLORENE EHRE DER KATHARINA BLUM is a rousing and entertaining film dealing with RAF terrorism and very famous though it's a bit one sided to say the least. DIE BLECHTROMMEL is naturally a good alternative option depending on how much Third Reich you want to deal with. RAF terrorism is a huge topic in Germany, a new all star film at the level of DER UNTERGANG will be released shortly.


Going back to your question about the last 25 years which means German cinema since 1984 and the end of New German cinema, a few points:

a) the last years of the GDR cinema haven't had any major impact maybe with the exception of COMING OUT and DIE ARCHITEKTEN. But SOLO SUNNY from 1980 is the last film which is considered a classic.

b) West-German cinema from 1984 until 1996 had a very bad decade arguabkly the nadir of German film history on a par with the bad years from 1951-1954. There are few exceptions, KINDERSPIELE by Wolfgang Becker (known from Goodbye Lenin) is among them, SCHTONK, too.

c) since 1998 there has been an explosion of German cinema which is very hard to categorize because you have many different young talents. The much talked about Berliner Schule sounds nice but has absolutely zero impact on public consciousness and is a classical case of exaggerating its own importance by creating a school like Dogma for Danish films. Only Petzold has a decent exposure in press and public but even he is sometimes questioned when he's going to make a big film. The films by others like Schanalec or Arslan are known by their relatives and a few critics, that's it.

d) the top directors are Tykwer, Dresen, Akin and to a certain degree Petzold. They make regularily highly acclaimed films. If you pick one by every director you have a representative output.
Around these four you find an array of directors with only one success, long breaks and so on. I give you a list of the films which garnered most attention and good reviews from 1995 on excluding films of the big four above.

DER TOTMACHER (Karmakar)
JENSEITS DER STILLE (Link)
DAS LEBEN IST EINE BAUSTELLE (Becker)
23 (Schmid)
AIMEE UND JAGUAR (Färberböck)
DIE STILLE NACH DEM SCHUSS (Schlöndorff)
DIE UNBERÃœHRBARE (Roehler)
BELLA MARTHA (Nettelbeck)
NIRGENDWO IN AFRIKA (Link)
GOOY BYE LENIN (Becker)
LICHTER (Schmid)
SCHULTZE GETS THE BLUES (Schorr)
DIE FETTEN JAHRE SIND VORBEI (Weingartner)
DER UNTERGANG (Hirschbiegel)
ALLES AUF ZUCKER (Levy)
DER NEUNTE TAG (Schlöndorff)
SOPHIE SCHOLL (Rothemund)
DER FREIE WILLE (Glasner)
KNALLHART (Buck)
DAS LEBEN DER ANDEREN (Henckel von Donnersmarck)
REQUIEM (Schmid)
VIER MINUTEN (Kraus)
WER FRÜHER STIRBT IST LÄNGER TOT (Rosenmüller)
DIE FÄLSCHER (Ruzowitzky)
KIRSCHBLÜTEN - HANAMI (Dörrie)

I think these are films recognized by most Germans who are interested a bit in cinema and which got good reviews. If you've seen them and the films by the big four, you know more or less what's going on.

P.S. Haneke isn't THAT popular, in fact not popular at all with the public and seen with a bit of scepticism by the critics.
There's also a very lively documentary movement with dozens of interesting features. The films of Andres Veiel (BLACK BOX BRD) are a good starting point.

[denti alligator]

Thanks Lubitsch. Your post is a great help.

Your suggestions, however, skip over the experimental cinema of the '20s. I wouldn't want to do that.

Also, by dropping Madame Dubarry and Student von Prag there is no representative of pre-Weimar cinema. I would liek to screen something, even if only a short.

Popularity isn't my main conern. It's quality cinema that is rich, entertaining, historically resonant, and will inspire discussion. Haneke fits the bill. Your other suggestions are very appreciated. It's good to know that my ignorance of 84-96 cinema in Germany is not just due to, well, my ignorance, but also to a lack of interesting films.

[karmajuice]

So I just typed up the most thorough goddamn response to Mr Finch's post, only to lose it when the website logged me off of its own accord. It may be a blessing, because it was all about Downfall and would steer the thread off-course.

If anyone would like to see it, Mr Finch included, I could post an approximate copy in this thread or pm it to someone. It was a comprehensive defense of the film, arguing against the points Finch brought up. I just can't rewrite it this instant because writing it was exhausting, and losing it was just a pisser.


The other thing I said in the post regarded replacing Triumph of the Will with Olympia. I agree with lubitsch, Olympia is easier to watch (divided into scenes, rather than the three hour whole) and it often gets overlooked next to Triumph, while it deserves just as much recognition. I also think it could yield more interesting discussion: its propagandistic themes aren't too heavy or obvious, so the discussion wouldn't focus on that (like any discussion of Triumph so often does). This would allow for a clearer perspective on technique and cinematic importance; it might also provoke discussion of the Olympic games and the dynamics of global politics at the time (rather than the hermetically sealed Nazis in Triumph).

[Finch]

Since Downfall from the beginning positions itself from the perspective of the characters in the movie (mostly from Traudl Junge's, from whose book the movie was made), rather than an omnicient perspective, the choice to film Hitler's death from outside the room holds true to the history of the moment and the aesthetic of the film (which, if I remember correctly, refuses to give us Hitler on his own). The only people who knew exactly what went on in the room were Hitler and Braun, and we cannot exactly get their perspective on it. For the film to suddenly fabricate that moment (and merely to sate the audience's blood-lust for Hitler) would be indulgent and would violate the structure of the narrative.

From what I can recall, the film kept changing perspectives all the time so that an omniscient viewpoint wouldn't have made that much of a difference IMO, let alone to the film's detriment. I too seem to remember that it didn't give us Hitler's own perspective so I guess the film is at least consistent in that it's all over the place when it comes to deciding on one particular viewpoint. I guess my feeling is that it would have been worthwhile to break with the narrative structure at this point and go that extra step, to imagine what it may have been or almost certainly was like. For me, it's not so much about sate mine or anyone else's bloodlust for Hitler (wouldn't call myself a gorehound) than about the symbolic value of such a scene, making a clear statement: the man was above all else feeble and a charlatan and the fact that even now, many decades on, he still provokes heated discussions in the German feuilletons shows how embarrassed and ashamed people were to have fallen for him (one article in Der Spiegel interestingly argued that it might have done wonders for Germany's conscience if the Allies had actually punished the country in the wake of WII). A scene showing his and Eva Braun's demise may have been speculative as regards the details but it needn't have been graphic and I believe it would have gone a long way towards the stated aim of separating Hitler the banal/feeble/pathetic man from Hitler the uber-myth and shorthand for evil personified. I no longer remember precisely what happens after Hitler locks himself in his private study, if we hear a gunshot or if that is literally the last we see and hear of him in the film.

In any case I think that while it may be consistent to keep the limited perspective, it actually works against what I believe to be the film's intentions. Chaplin's The Great Dictator, in spite of its speechifying at the end (sentimental though it was, I appreciate the sincerity of it), is a far superior film in attempting to shatter the myth of the Third Reich and Hitler in particular. Downfall has Bruno Ganz' impressive impersonation and one good scene going for it and nothing else. There are better German war films out there than this indecisive and muddled film. I hear "Aus einem deutschen Leben" with Goetz George (1973) is very good, a biopic of sorts of Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess.

Speaking of George and good films, I've yet to see DER TOTMACHER
(Deathmaker) by Romuald Karmakar (1993) - one of the best-reviewed German films of the 90s and by all accounts, a chilling performance by George who, in public life, often came across as a complete douchebag.

[lubitsch]

Your suggestions, however, skip over the experimental cinema of the '20s. I wouldn't want to do that.

Well, there are a few abstract films with patterns in every shape and form. They look nice, but is it really something to compare to French films like CHIEN ANDALOU or MENILMONTANT? It seems a very limited idea of experimental cinema to me.

And I would like to point out that in your list you have zero West-German films from 1945-1971 at all which is a far more serious gap compared to a small excerpt of German 20's film history. Despite its limitations West Germany had a successful and popular film industry until 1962. The rubble films from 1945-1949 are still largely unexplored and unknown and I could easily put together an Eclipse Set which would garner as much attention as the rediscovery of Raymond Bernard did this year. And between 1955 and 1962 I could also present you a few dozen films which easily stand up to the quality output of somebody like e.g. Jacques Becker or Julien Duvivier.

Also, by dropping Madame Dubarry and Student von Prag there is no representative of pre-Weimar cinema. I would like to screen something, even if only a short.

I've seen over 100 features from the 10's, very, very few German ones among them. Germany had a small industry and was artistically simply backwards compared to Russia, Sweden, France, Denmark or the USA. DUBARRY is a good choice if you have too many people in your course and want to get rid of a part of them . It survives solely thanks to Pola Negri's powerful comedic presence - at least up to a certain point before it sinks in silly melodramatics. It is especially harmful because it confirms cliches about film acting students might have and German cinema performing style is especially problematic in this regard.
If you have a choice between the 10s and the 50s, choose the 50s.

It's good to know that my ignorance of 84-96 cinema in Germany is not just due to, well, my ignorance, but also to a lack of interesting films.

I'm only 27, but still remember the despair among critics when in the mid 90s the so called "Beziehungskomödien" (relationship comedies) hit a peak with films like DER BEWEGTE MANN whose star Katja Riemann was then queen of cinema for a few years. It was surely frightening to see a once powerful artistic and commercial national cinema sink to such a low level.

BTW, I forgot that not only are there many good documentaries, the TV films (not series) are often of a very high quality and have high budgets. There are very good directors working, people like Dominik Graf or the highly regarded Heinrich Breloer who mixes documentary passages, interviews and fictional scenes and whose first movie for the cinema, an adaptation of BUDDENBROOKS is likely to be one of the highpoints of this year.

[denti alligator]

Well, there are a few abstract films with patterns in every shape and form. They look nice, but is it really something to compare to French films like CHIEN ANDALOU or MENILMONTANT? It seems a very limited idea of experimental cinema to me.

There may be little to reach those heights, but the works Ruttmann and Fischinger in particular are masterpieces. No need to belittle them.

And I would like to point out that in your list you have zero West-German films from 1945-1971 at all which is a far more serious gap compared to a small excerpt of German 20's film history.

You're right to point this out (though Die Moerder sind unter uns from 1946). And I have the 60s represented only with works from the GDR. That list is far from final, though--that's why I wanted some input.

This discussion raises an interesting point about the relative lack of auteurs in the German tradition of late. I mean, besides Haneke and the leftovers from the New Cinema (Wenders, Herzog, Schloendorff), who would be counted as an up and coming artist of the caliber of, say, Dumont or the Dardennes, Hou or Yang, etc. etc. ?

[accatone]

Popularity isn't my main conern. It's quality cinema that is rich, entertaining, historically resonant, and will inspire discussion.

Second that! Its (always) the so called avant garde thats putting the worthy topics on the map - and influencing possible upcoming mainstream cinema. The most recent Wende films that gained great mass appeal (same goes for WWII films like Untergang) needed a forefront of discussion, different publications and avant garde to get to their final succsess. As a sidenote - to this day i think that Godards Allemagne 90 neuf zéro is one of the deepest and most serious Wende films made. As far as i am also doing (few) movie screenings with my students each year i can say that i made only good experiences even with more avant garde films - of course they need to fit in the overall concept and do need a "good & friendly" introduction so that they do not get pissed of/fell asleep right from the start....something that lots of teachers seam to forget with these not so easy topics...

The films by others like Schanalec or Arslan are known by their relatives and a few critics, that's it.

This is of course not true because if someone is only slightly interested in the international (at least french and italian) reception of german cinema one will easily cross these filmmakers ways (Karmaker and Petzolds as well).[/i] However i would prefer Petzold and Karmakar to the other two directors in terms of your "Germany Topic" - Petzolds Die innere Sicherheit and Yella and Karmakars Das Himmler Projekt do have far more relevance in terms of german history (imo). As opposed to these two directors i would be highly cautious with directors like Heinrich Breloer who are quite succsessfull with their "history TV productions" but lack the responsibility that comes with (hi)storytelling - but this should be elaborated on a different thread!

I mean, besides Haneke and the leftovers from the New Cinema (Wenders, Herzog, Schloendorff), who would be counted as an up and coming artist of the caliber of, say, Dumont or the Dardennes, Hou or Yang, etc. etc. ?

No doubt here its the so called Berliner Schule (actually its not a school of directors of the same age & background but this is the common label). It might be interesting to talk about Der Untergang et cetrea but these films are only the pike of something else - and not the movies that give the impulse. I am highly skeptical when it comes to blogs - but Christoph Hochhäuslers (director & revolver magazine) is quite interesting and had a quite good discussion on film founding over the last weeks. (i feel that this still belongs to Denti's original topic ... )

[MichaelB]

This discussion raises an interesting point about the relative lack of auteurs in the German tradition of late. I mean, besides Haneke and the leftovers from the New Cinema (Wenders, Herzog, Schloendorff), who would be counted as an up and coming artist of the caliber of, say, Dumont or the Dardennes, Hou or Yang, etc. etc. ?

On the evidence of what I've seen so far, Ulrich Seidl.

[accatone]

Seidl, yes - but he is from Austria and fits quite well in this countrys "provocative" tradition (if there really is one .

[Tommaso]

I've seen over 100 features from the 10's, very, very few German ones among them. Germany had a small industry and was artistically simply backwards compared to Russia, Sweden, France, Denmark or the USA.

That is probably true, but it seems that the general conception that the industry was extremely small and nothing much of note was produced before "Caligari" is slightly misleading. The problem is that most of the films by pioneers like Max Mack, Joe May, John Gottowt and others simply don't exist anymore.

DUBARRY is a good choice if you have too many people in your course and want to get rid of a part of them . It survives solely thanks to Pola Negri's powerful comedic presence - at least up to a certain point before it sinks in silly melodramatics.

Yes, I agree. Lubitsch has to be in that course, but why not take "Die Austernprinzessin" oder "Ich möchte kein Mann sein"? These comedies represent much better what it was that made Lubitsch famous, even if they are far less known internationally than "Dubarry". They're also much shorter, an additional advantage for the course.

There may be little to reach those heights, but the works Ruttmann and Fischinger in particular are masterpieces. No need to belittle them.

Absolutely! And don't forget Hans Richter or the highly surreal passages in feature films like Robison's "Schatten" or Pabst's "Geheimnisse einer Seele".

As to the current 'renaissance' of German cinema: I never fully understood what the craze is all about. Admittedly, there are more and better films produced these days than in the 80s, but many of them orient themselves at Hollywood models (Tykwer's awful "Perfume" is a prime example), and many others are more interested in discussing social problems or are at least completely narrative-based without offering any real filmic meat. Sure, Akin is a fine filmmaker, but as denti wrote: in general there are few real 'auteurs', and there is little I find actually 'new' and exciting. No comparison to the 70s, not to speak of the glories of Weimar cinema. But also nothing remotely similar to the Danish Dogma films in impact.

[shirobamba]

Denti,

In your initial post you asked for "German-language" films, including Austrian and Swiss films. The thread covers a lot of German filmhistory by now. So, to complicate your selection process even further, here's the Austrian and Swiss part of the story:

Edition: Der österreichische Film

In 2006/07 the Austrian Filmarchive selected 100 Austrian films and released them on DVD in collaboration with the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard". The series is a pretty representative overview of Austrian filmhistory from 1945 to the present including feature films, documentaries and even some experimental films. Some of these DVDs are English-friendly but by no means all of them. Problem is, that there seems to be no website to find reliable infos about subs, but I have access to all 100 titles. So if you decide to include any of these films shoot me an email and I'll look it up for you. The website of "Der Standard" has a short synopsis for every title. (As an aside: I still ask myself how the heck they cleared all the rights for this series.)

For Swiss films the best adress is artfilm.ch They cover pretty everything that's avaiable on DVD from Switzerland. The idividual pages for the titles give detailed informations about subs and extras etc. I'd recommend to check out 2 directors in particular: Alain Tanner and Markus Imhooff

[shirobamba]

Seidl, yes - but he is from Austria and fits quite well in this countrys "provocative" tradition (if there really is one .

And in addition to call him an "up and coming artist" is a bit misleading. He made his first feature in 1982 and to date has 13 films under his belt.

[lubitsch]

Why exactly do we need German auteurs?
In film acting the players are regarded highly if they can play different roles and dig deep into different characters, let's take Olivier, Guinness, Huppert, Ganz or De Niro and so on. Stars like Cooper or Wayne are naturally much loved, but there's always the point about them being limited.
In film directing there's strangely a 100% turnaround. Here the people with a personal vision are much in demand, the more recognizable traits the better. Somebody like Duvivier or Curtiz is admired - up to a certain point, but seen as ranking below the true auteurs (BTW, the word really goes on my nerves, the concept of directors expressing themselves in their films goes back to the 10s and isn't a French invention to put it mildly).
None of these positions is ever supported by a solid reason, let alone some reflection why what's good in acting is bad in directing and vice versa. If Cooper only plays Cooper, well so what, as long as he does a good job? And if Duvivier or Curtiz excel in different genres, isn't it all the better and arguably even more impressive than repeating itself ad nauseam like Ozu or Godard?
The reasons are quite simple I think. The highly romantic concept of the individual genius, the auteur to be loved and praised like the author of a book is one point. Obviously it's very hard to come to terms with art created by multiple persons and not one creative genius. But even more important: If you write about films you need repeating patterns and bigger ideas especially if you want to structure film history. Isn't it much easier to sit in a course at the uni and to show how this director modified his style here a bit and how a film movement developed, reached its peak and then died out?
That's great if you sit right in the middle of such a movement or are an extremely idiosyncratic genius. It's bad luck if you happen to be only a directos of excellent films. The same problem arises with the concept of certain filmmaking countries, just throw the name of a film country and you get certain cliches. Eastern Europe? Either social revolution (Eisenstein) or deep mysticism (Tarkovski, Kieslowski). Germany? Shadows, madness, seriousness.

To find my way back to the topic: Obviously Weimar was a creative period, obviously there are many dark German films from this era and something like NOSFERATU should be represented. On the other hand I think it's important to open up other territories and go against the usual ideas. Why not take a look at a realistic film from Weimar - MENSCHEN AM SONNTAG was a good idea - and there's a whole string of such films about little people which is completely ignored outside of Germany but would feature strongly in any film history written here. It goes from the films by Jutzi, Lamprecht, Junghans in Weimar down to Dresen's output now. And Dresen is really big and receives far more attention in the press than the Berliner Schule (at the moment WOLKE 9 is much discussed while somebody like Schanalec hasn't even one film out on DVD). There's also a small tradition of German comedy beginng with Lubitsch, continued by Reinhold Schünzel in the Third Reich and Kurt Hoffmann in West Germany. And there are single films which stand like milestones linked to nothing (or so it seems). Take a look at Wisbar's FÄHRMANN MARIA, a mystic movie from 1936 which seems to have dropped from Weimar in the Third Reich. Or WOZZECK (1947) a far superior film to Herzog's hack job, a 1947 expressionistic East German film which surely doesn't fit at all in any leftist concepts of what film is supposed to be. Or the already mentioned JONAS by Domnick an experimental film from 1957 which predates everything modernistic by Antonioni, Godard and allies.
I'm very much aware of the problem to give an overview of a whole national cinema in 14 sessions and can't really offer a solution except for fulfilling the cliches and breaking them at equal level.

I think it's a tragedy if the work of film scholars leads to a situation like the one with Italian neorealism. You have a concept, three or four directors, seven or eight films which are repeated again and again. The whole Italian cinema between 1942 and 1952 now consists of the films by De Sica, the Viscontis, the Rossellinis and - to add a popular film - BITTER RICE. If you're not Italian, just try to get your hand on the other films by Lattuada, Germi and others!!! It's a frightening dead-end.

[shirobamba]

... while somebody like Schanalec hasn't even one film out on DVD

That's plein wrong! Three out of six all of them with English and French subs isn't a bad score at all

[Tommaso]

Hmm, I didn't want to revive the old auteurism debate, and while I was agreeing with denti that there are few 'auteurs' in Germany at the moment, my emphasis was rather on the absence of many 'filmic' films (as opposed to films that are 'just' competently made). But in general I admit that I believe that many films that have a distinctive and innovative visual style possess this style because SOMEONE (and it might very well be the cinematographer rather than the director) exercises more control than the other valuable people needed to make a film.

And if Duvivier or Curtiz excel in different genres, isn't it all the better and arguably even more impressive than repeating itself ad nauseam like Ozu or Godard?

It depends on the product. What about Dreyer? The man made films in many different genres and excelled in every one of them, but there are few people who would argue that all these films are not immediately recognizable as Dreyer films. Pabst is a different affair and might perhaps rather be compared to Duvivier and Curtiz, but still: isn't he a much discussed director in spite of lacking that enormous sort of immediate idiosyncratic recognizability? I also remember the difficulties we once had here in trying to define the 'style' of John Ford. In other words: though Ford probably can't be described as an 'auteur' (and I also don't particularly like that term), his films more often than not are great films, and that's why he's discussed so often. But the same goes for Ozu.

Isn't it much easier to sit in a course at the uni and to show how this director modified his style here a bit and how a film movement developed, reached its peak and then died out?
That's great if you sit right in the middle of such a movement or are an extremely idiosyncratic genius. It's bad luck if you happen to be only a directos of excellent films. The same problem arises with the concept of certain filmmaking countries, just throw the name of a film country and you get certain cliches. Eastern Europe? Either social revolution (Eisenstein) or deep mysticism (Tarkovski, Kieslowski). Germany? Shadows, madness, seriousness.

Absolutely true, of course. But there's only so much you can do in 14 sessions, so you could actually ask denti to do six or eight different courses in order to provide a 'full' picture, or drop the idea of doing a course on German cinema alltogether. I must admit that the idea of doing a course encompassing the whole film history of a certain country wouldn't have occured to me, unlike, say, doing a course on 'expressionism through the ages' or on 'non-narrative film-making from the 20s to the 90s', or indeed on Weimar cinema with all the different aspects you mention. On the other hand, a university course can always only be a starting point. Those students who become really interested in one of the films or periods covered in the course will seek out the rest on their own. And denti can of course always direct them to this forum....

I think it's a tragedy if the work of film scholars leads to a situation like the one with Italian neorealism. You have a concept, three or four directors, seven or eight films which are repeated again and again. The whole Italian cinema between 1942 and 1952 now consists of the films by De Sica, the Viscontis, the Rossellinis and - to add a popular film - BITTER RICE. If you're not Italian, just try to get your hand on the other films by Lattuada, Germi and others!!! It's a frightening dead-end.

Yes, but having seen a few films outside the 'neorealist canon' I can't help but thinking that it is not by chance that Lattuada, Germi etc. are comparatively unknown, at least outside of Italy. They made competent films, probably films very typical and indicative for the period, worth studying if you're interested in the time and in the culture, but they simply don't reach the depth and artistic quality of those films universally known. And how many people outside Italy have ever seen another film by De Santis apart from "Riso amaro"? The canon can be deceptive, of course, but it hasn't come into being by chance. And the canon of course can change, though it took more than fourty years before "Vampyr" was recognized as the utter masterpiece it is. On the other hand, once much revered films might unjustly fall out of discussion due to these changes. Is anyone talking about Cocteau anymore, academically?

[shirobamba]

I share lubitsch's scepticism about labels like "school" and "auteur". More often than not they have degenerated into mere branding, marketing tools lately. Filmhstorically they have revealed as much as they have hidden a lot of films which didn't fit into the respective drawers, but would have deserved more attention. But the dialectics of avantgarde and establishment has always been a power play for public attention and my understanding of the function of forums like this is exactly to uncover the hidden gems which fell victim to this power play.