(Disclaimer: I know nothing about the Berlin School)
In Christian Petzold's film "The State I Am In", Tim Hardin's song "How Can We Hang on to a Dream?" is used to bookend the film. But if one poses the song's title as an actual question in relation to the film and its characters, and through the mention of the past and present in Jaimey Fisher (addressing "the past through memory") and Rachel Palfreyman's ("The film remains in Jeanne's present world") essays, one can conclude that a dream cannot be hung upon -- whether it's Jeanne's dream of living a normal life where she can listen to the latest CDs and wear the hippest clothing, or her parents' dream of also living a normal life, but one where their past (unmentioned in the film), terrorist activities don't prevent them from familial happiness and normality, because these "terrorist activities" were, in fact, the right thing to do -- due to the film's melancholic, almost "Easy Rider"-like ending.
With the viewpoint of the teenagers in the movie (Jeanne and Heinrich, and even Paulina) being so far removed from Jeanne's parents past life of crime, the film only alludes to groups like the RAF through "Moby Dick" and saying that Jeanne's parents are part of a "cult". Through this modern lens, the paranoia is still present (such as in stoplight scene), but the reasons why are not.
With no past information really being hashed out in the film, Jeanne's and her fellow cohorts' vague understanding of her parents' past, and the showcasing of the deteriorating dreams of the aging Third Generation (and a non-participating/interested "Fourth Generation"), "a generational contract has been broken", and, for Jeanne, "there is absolutely no sense of self to be found in opposition to a now defunct state", bringing up the question of whether or not her postmemory will be distinguished.
The "Border Crossings" section of Jamey Fisher's article discusses how The State I Am In crosses borders between France and Germany. National films can be "marked" in a variety of ways, most often visually through national flags or insignias, intertitles, national landmarks or locations, etc. Apart from the language, the film (at least to my lack of cultural knowledge) tries to obscure its national identity through the lack of such features, especially as the film shifts from the urban to the rural areas. This is what makes the Night and Fog film appear so significant as it involves a French director tackling a German problem, thus further blurring the lines of national identity. Night and Fog ends with the narrator asking: "who is to blame?" after showing Nazi officers denying their past crimes, similar to the film's "denial" of Clare and Hans' past and current crimes. Much like, as John said, the RAF is rarely mentioned, the film only shows the aftermath of the bank robbery.
One question the group touched on with their presentation today was whether the ending of Christian Petzold’s “The State I am In” could be interpreted as having a positive or negative outlook. With the death of her parents and her survival, in the final shot Jeanne is given a blank slate in a way. She is free from her parents life in the shadows, but she also has no relationship with any normal type of life not lived on the run. Jaimey Fisher concludes that the end of the film shows Jeanne “is now freed from her parents and their past, but if free, ambivalently so” (60).
Though Jeanne is not portrayed as an extension of her parents radical political ideology, she still has to live with the consequences of their past. In this way, she is being shaped by a history that she played no direct role in. Rachel Palfreyman notes, “What appears to be a film about an especially complex teenage rite of passage is shot through the postmemories of her parents’, grandparents’ and perhaps even great-grandparents’ traumatic past” (22). In this way, Petzold’s film can be looked at as a representation of the role history, especially in Germany, plays in each generation’s lives. Each generation is responding to the previous generation’s hidden and unexplained actions. Jeanne’s parents revolted against a state that they believed was not separating itself enough from its fascist, Nazi past. Alain Resnais’ “Night and Fog” was one of the first examinations of the Holocaust that made people look back at the atrocities of the past and ask the hard questions about those atrocities in the open. As the WWII generation was hesitant to talk about the role they played during the war, Jeanne’s parents are equally secretive, giving no explanation to Jeanne for why they live the way they do. There is no political discussion or attempt to explain the life their daughter has had to grow up in.
Looking at these three generations (the WWII generation, Jeanne’s parent’s generation, and her own generation) one can see a chain of events, with each generation responding to the previous ones’ actions. The inability or refusal for each generation to communicate and justify its actions to the following one leads to a conflict with the subsequent generation. Even if Jeanne has no real opinion, understanding, or memory of WWII or the RAF she has still be formed and influenced by them. She is responding and reacting to them even if she doesn’t know what they are, because the historical after effects of them are inescapable. Jeanne’s coming of age is completely shaped by her ancestors “traumatic past.” At the end of the film, though Jeanne may be free from the direct association with the past through her parent’s death, she is not free from the social, cultural, and psychological effects they have passed on to her. It seems she is “ambivalently” free not because nothing has influenced her, but because she has no understanding of the past she has come from. Therefore, I don’t know if the ending can be looked at as optimistic or pessimistic. It seems to state the question, “Where do we go from here? How will Jeanne’s generation respond to the events of the past laid out for them by their parents and previous generations?” I don’t think the film answers this question, but instead poses it to the audience, painting a picture of Jeanne’s generation’s isolation from the past and putting them at a crossroads where they become independent adults free to make their own decisions and respond to their upbringing in whatever way they see fit.
Through the analysis of The State I Am In (2000) my first take of it was enhanced and expanded through the reading and presentation, but remained centered on my viewing of Jeanne as a foil. As it has been argued already, in A Ghostly Archeology, “The State I Am In engages in questions of memory, the aftershocks of political commitment, and the impact of time on politics...how a political project has to function not only in the public sphere but also in people’s memories, hopes, and fantasies,” (42-43). Petzold’s extensive exploration of the role of memory and its relation with history--but more with this “aftershocks” of it--are a central and permeating angle of the ideology of the film.
As a filmmaker Petzold side steps the responsibility as a historian by concentrating the camera in the ripples that disturb the water after initial impact. His ability to touch on terrorism and political turmoil with the delicateness and sensibilities that come with dealing with human emotion make the film a true psychological viewing. His choice, for example, to have all violence off screen and detached from reality, show the human tendency to hand-pick what we remember, and how we remember it. When violence happens on screen, it is targeted to Jeanne. First, we see her getting hit in the back of the head and knocked unconscious. Then, we see her smacked after insulting Heinrich.
It could be argued that we only see the violence she sees, or is close to her, because the film is limited to her point of view, but there seems something more. It’s as if by seeing the effects of the “aftershocks” inflicted tangibly on her character, memory and history (or the lack of it) become a physical representation in the present world. The reading beautifully delineated Petzold’s inclination to dealing with a world in-between--the transition state--and (as Professor Abel mentioned today, too) it is not insignificant that Jeanne is undergoing that same transition.
The lack of plot, the exploration of humanness and the person behind the action, which Petzold admitted was part of the film’s inspiration (41), add to my believe that Jeanne is the foil of her parents’ generation. More specifically, she is a foil for a recurring phenomenon of history and memory, and that is the limited accessibility to history. Jeanne’s parents had limited accessibility to WWII, just like she had limited accessibility to the Hot Autumn. Like Petzold’s transitory worlds, the space when action becomes memory turned history creates a barrier between how much we can put on a screen, a textbook, or even a personal narrative, and how accurately that reflects the human reception to an actual event.
Furthermore, even when experienced first-hand, as when the mother absentmindedly says, “I shot a man,” or when Jeanne reminisces on her last visit to Heinrich, the action has become memory, and that has become corrupted by the time lapse, however short, and the inclinations of the subject to alter the memories before they become a personal history. For this, I think The State I Am In, stands as a door for the explorations of the RAF that followed on screen. By being the first, it had open choice, and yet, by choosing to look at memory and history rather than direct actions, it is the perfect introduction through which to examine the other films that look back.
More so than any other film we have watched this semester, with the possible exception of The Company You Keep, The State I’m In deals most directly with the “aftermath” bit of our course title: “The Revolutionary Moment of ‘1968’ and Its Aftermath.” While the events of ’68 and the agents that participated in them set the stage for the world presented in Petzold’s film, the near total omission of political references to the movement demonstrate that the film intends to depart from the violence of the past and deal with the aftermath, the now. As Jaimey Fisher posits in his examination of the film, it is precisely the film’s departure from the generic mainstays of terrorist films, mainstays such as sensational bank robberies and efforts to “valorize the mobile ontology of the terrorists”, that makes it particularly effective as an examination of Germany in the aftermath of 68 (58). Unlike films like The Baader Meinhof Complex that revel in the stylized violence employed by the terrorists, The State I’m In portrays what little violence there is in the same detached way as everything else that takes place. In this film’s bank robbery scene, the suspense is defused as Petzold decided to mute and shoot the scene through the unenergetic vantage point of a security camera. The cinematic downplaying of an action that was, in the age of the RAF, once so politically charged mirrors the diminishing relevancy of the fugitives who are on the run for committing crimes in the name of something people no longer care about. Instead of robbing the bank to raise funds to purchase bomb ingredients or firearms as their counterparts once did to continue the revolution some 20 years prior, Clara and Hans use the same violent means rather dully to raise funds to skip town with their daughter, a contrast that, Fisher suggests, creates “a sense of lateness, even obsolescence, to this putatively revolutionary violence” (59). They live in a thoroughly different, modern world that is dominated more by international economic factors than by the political systems that they once fought so fiercely against. Although they perceive danger at every corner, it is only after they raid the economic space of the bank that they once again become legitimate targets for the state.
In “The state I am In” by Chris Petzold the idea of dreams and the expression of dreams are prominently expressed throughout the film. By not engaging in critical thought or questioning of her surrounding circumstances Jeanne remains in a dream-like state where she is experiencing life only through the limited knowledge of surroundings that her parents are providing her. This lack of feeling necessary to ask questions is also a result of her condition which also adds to her state of dreaming. In the article “The state I am in: Memory Matters” Jaimey Fisher claims that this film, “…engages with the actualization of the past in the present…” I do agree with this statement, and I feel that the state of Jeanne’s constant dreaming is an effect of her parents providing stoicism as an example for dealing with your contemporary situation. I also Feel like the character of Jeanne is an envelopment of the past as most children are seen as representing the past and present simultaneously. The passiveness and stoicism provided by Jeanne’s parents also serves as a political statement, Fisher also proves this in his article when he claims, “…the state I am in contemplates the impact of time, history, and fantasy on politics”. The stoicism and passiveness that is portrayed here is hypocritical in that it could be assumed that it was stoicism surrounding politics that inspired these radicals, and is now how they are dealing with their disagreements.
One aspect I enjoyed about "The State I am In", is how it advocated being knowledgable about the world around you via a backwards unknowledge that Jeanne has about her world and the world her parents live in. I can't help but empathize with her as I, like most people I'd assume in the beginning of this class, didn't really know about these events around 1968. Knowing this give a lot of context to the story that would otherwise have been lost to an ignorant audience. Take for example the scenes of Jenne's parents, among others in the story. They're awfully paranoid of their surroundings, with no context given other than the common memory described in Jaimey Fisher's article on the film. I think that in a way, this type of film is much more pervasive regarding the education of the events of 1968 as opposed to straight adaptations of events like Baader-Meinhof Complex. The State I Live In challenges our viewpoint, and has proved effective in getting the public interested in the past, as evidenced by the Social Democrats' entrance into politics and their willingness to discuss the leftist events of 1968, as opposed to just brushing it aside and pretending it never happened.
We briefly mentioned it during our presentation yesterday, but in "The State I Am In" Christian Petzold chooses to deal with the events of the 70's in a much different way than Uli Edel's "Baader Meinhof Complex". Although the films deal with the revolution in different time periods, there is still a bit of revolutionary action that Petzold includes in "The State I Am In" with the bank robbery scene, which is reminiscent of Hans and Clara's, and therefore the Baader-Meinhof Gang's, revolutionary past.
However, Petzold de-romanticizes the scene by showing it in a flashback where the viewer sees the action take place from surveillance cameras which forms a direct opposition to the way "Baader Meinhof Complex" portrays the RAF. Jaimey Fisher discusses the nature of the scene, stating that Petzold "...shoots the entire robbery (money stolen, shots fired, people collapsing) through bank surveillance cameras with little audible sound, renouncing scored music to slow down and subvert these normally suspenseful events" (59). This choice that Petzold makes not only refuses to celebrate the terrorists, like Udel's film thrives off of, but also demonstrates, once again, the current situation in post-unification Germany that the former terrorists find themselves in. In other words, this scene effectively portrays, by directly referencing the violent actions of the past, how the wonder of the revolution is gone. If this was Hans and Clara in the past doing these things, it surely would have been viewed much differently, possibly in a more celebratory way, but now they are not romanticized at all. They are desperately trying to survive instead of fighting for their revolutionary ideas. The past has led them to where they presently find themselves and, much like the younger generations we discussed in the presentation, the outlook is bleak.
Petzold’s main focus is showing the instability of the family dynamic. It’s important to realize the audacity of Jeanne’s parents towards her behavior. They expect her to stay focused and disciplined when they themselves are irrational and have inconsistent behavior throughout the film. This depiction is in part due to Petzold’s opinion that Leftists lack a substantive connection to the world (Fisher, 46). Dreams are a major contribution to the overall statement of the film. Jeanne has her own ideal childhood that she would have liked to play out. The lie about going to a boarding school in England was her childhood fantasy. Unfortunately her parents were unable to give that to her because of their cult involvement. The cult has serious influences on their parenting skills shown in the scene about Jeanne wanting name brand clothing, and mainstream pop music. Jeanne’s parents have no interest in the pop culture in which she is interested. The lack of dramatization and emotion regarding the parents makes me as more sympathetic towards Jeanne and her dilemma over staying or leaving her parents. “Rojo Amanecer” has a very similar ending to Christian Petzold's film "The State I Am In". Both films end with shots of the youngest family member in a life-altering event surrounded by devastation. One point for leaving only the youngest survivor in each film is a testament that they are the new generation. The more I reflect on this trend in film making, I see it as an acknowledgment that the new generation is left with pieces of a revolution that they must decide to either put together, or shove aside.
When asking who The State I'm In is made for, it is easy to believe it is made for Jeanne's generation. However, I think the POV perspective given by her is misleading when assessing this question. The problem is that when looking at Jeanne's story, the film never seems to approach the nature of her ignorance with any sharp criticism. So if she truly is clueless to her parents' past, then how can she be at fault for her mistakes. It is up to the parents then to educate Jeanne about their past actions and their involvement in the RAF. And as Rachel Palfreyman points out "There is no attempt to explore (much less explain) the political background and convictions of Hans and Clara..." It is telling that Jeanne's parents do not give the slightest lesson on the history of their movement. Do her parents regret their actions under the RAF? Have they forgotten the tenants of their movement? Regardless, it creates, as Palfreyman points out "...a dreadful cycle, in which young people are compelled to suffer again and again through the generations for the sins of their fathers and mothers..." Without exploring the truth of history how can anything be learned. It renders the actions of her parent's purposeless, and when that happens all that remains is the violence (as indicated by the bank robbery and the final moments of the film). No coincidence is it that the film makes allusions to the imagery of the Holocaust, because just as the parents of Hans' and Clara remained silent when it came time to educate them on the truth of the Holocaust, Hans and Clara now remain silent when it is their duty to teach Jeanne of their own violent past. The tragic irony is lost on Jeanne's parents. As a result, Jeanne is left ill suited to live in the modern world. She is an in between child, that has not been educated in the fiery spirit of the RAF, nor has she been taught to properly socialize. So just as the state she is in, is literally nebulous, her socio-emotional state is similarly nebulous. The final shot of the film with Jeanne rising from the wreckage of her family's vehicle leaves us to wonder, can Jeanne ever hope to lead a normal life with scars (both literal and psychological) like these?
It's interesting that we looked at 'The State I Am In' as a German film. Not surprising, because obviously, it's a German-language film by a German director about German terrorists running back to Germany, but interesting, because in many ways, the film was about and concerned with translation and the relationship between languages and people in the wider context of the European Union. In its juxtaposition of, specifically, French and German culture, the film asks a lot of questions about national identity in an increasingly international world.
The film's first scene already contains much of this multilinguism: Heinrich and Jeanne are identified first and foremost by the national origins of their names, and both of them allude fairly early on to international culture [Jeanne claims to go to boarding school in England, and Heinrich uses Americanisms while discussing his surfer-boy life in Miami]. For Jeanne, the focus on languages is part of her everyday life. Part of her motivation to learn Spanish is, we later find, clearly connected to the family's impending move to South America. But, it's not her entire drive; she helps their attacker with his menu, not because she has to, but because she wants to, and though her impulse is probably less altruistic than narcissistic [she wants to be seen as smart], she does the work nonetheless.
Later, Heinrich in his real life begins to be identified even more strongly with American culture. He works at Pizza Hut and wears a uniform adorned w/both German and English. He listens to Brian Wilson, though we never hear him speaking English. And, when his friend follows him away on his bicycle after the confrontation with Jeanne, he gives Jeanne the finger, an American gesture.
How does this all relate to Jeanne? I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have something to do w/the shot just as they're entering Germany, when the French and German flags stand on left and right sides of the higher flag of the European Union. Like the EU, Jeanne's existence defies nationality, and her history has been all but stripped of national identity.
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about the Berlin School)
ReplyDeleteIn Christian Petzold's film "The State I Am In", Tim Hardin's song "How Can We Hang on to a Dream?" is used to bookend the film. But if one poses the song's title as an actual question in relation to the film and its characters, and through the mention of the past and present in Jaimey Fisher (addressing "the past through memory") and Rachel Palfreyman's ("The film remains in Jeanne's present world") essays, one can conclude that a dream cannot be hung upon -- whether it's Jeanne's dream of living a normal life where she can listen to the latest CDs and wear the hippest clothing, or her parents' dream of also living a normal life, but one where their past (unmentioned in the film), terrorist activities don't prevent them from familial happiness and normality, because these "terrorist activities" were, in fact, the right thing to do -- due to the film's melancholic, almost "Easy Rider"-like ending.
With the viewpoint of the teenagers in the movie (Jeanne and Heinrich, and even Paulina) being so far removed from Jeanne's parents past life of crime, the film only alludes to groups like the RAF through "Moby Dick" and saying that Jeanne's parents are part of a "cult". Through this modern lens, the paranoia is still present (such as in stoplight scene), but the reasons why are not.
With no past information really being hashed out in the film, Jeanne's and her fellow cohorts' vague understanding of her parents' past, and the showcasing of the deteriorating dreams of the aging Third Generation (and a non-participating/interested "Fourth Generation"), "a generational contract has been broken", and, for Jeanne, "there is absolutely no sense of self to be found in opposition to a now defunct state", bringing up the question of whether or not her postmemory will be distinguished.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "Border Crossings" section of Jamey Fisher's article discusses how The State I Am In crosses borders between France and Germany. National films can be "marked" in a variety of ways, most often visually through national flags or insignias, intertitles, national landmarks or locations, etc. Apart from the language, the film (at least to my lack of cultural knowledge) tries to obscure its national identity through the lack of such features, especially as the film shifts from the urban to the rural areas. This is what makes the Night and Fog film appear so significant as it involves a French director tackling a German problem, thus further blurring the lines of national identity. Night and Fog ends with the narrator asking: "who is to blame?" after showing Nazi officers denying their past crimes, similar to the film's "denial" of Clare and Hans' past and current crimes. Much like, as John said, the RAF is rarely mentioned, the film only shows the aftermath of the bank robbery.
ReplyDeleteOne question the group touched on with their presentation today was whether the ending of Christian Petzold’s “The State I am In” could be interpreted as having a positive or negative outlook. With the death of her parents and her survival, in the final shot Jeanne is given a blank slate in a way. She is free from her parents life in the shadows, but she also has no relationship with any normal type of life not lived on the run. Jaimey Fisher concludes that the end of the film shows Jeanne “is now freed from her parents and their past, but if free, ambivalently so” (60).
ReplyDeleteThough Jeanne is not portrayed as an extension of her parents radical political ideology, she still has to live with the consequences of their past. In this way, she is being shaped by a history that she played no direct role in. Rachel Palfreyman notes, “What appears to be a film about an especially complex teenage rite of passage is shot through the postmemories of her parents’, grandparents’ and perhaps even great-grandparents’ traumatic past” (22). In this way, Petzold’s film can be looked at as a representation of the role history, especially in Germany, plays in each generation’s lives. Each generation is responding to the previous generation’s hidden and unexplained actions. Jeanne’s parents revolted against a state that they believed was not separating itself enough from its fascist, Nazi past. Alain Resnais’ “Night and Fog” was one of the first examinations of the Holocaust that made people look back at the atrocities of the past and ask the hard questions about those atrocities in the open. As the WWII generation was hesitant to talk about the role they played during the war, Jeanne’s parents are equally secretive, giving no explanation to Jeanne for why they live the way they do. There is no political discussion or attempt to explain the life their daughter has had to grow up in.
Looking at these three generations (the WWII generation, Jeanne’s parent’s generation, and her own generation) one can see a chain of events, with each generation responding to the previous ones’ actions. The inability or refusal for each generation to communicate and justify its actions to the following one leads to a conflict with the subsequent generation. Even if Jeanne has no real opinion, understanding, or memory of WWII or the RAF she has still be formed and influenced by them. She is responding and reacting to them even if she doesn’t know what they are, because the historical after effects of them are inescapable. Jeanne’s coming of age is completely shaped by her ancestors “traumatic past.” At the end of the film, though Jeanne may be free from the direct association with the past through her parent’s death, she is not free from the social, cultural, and psychological effects they have passed on to her. It seems she is “ambivalently” free not because nothing has influenced her, but because she has no understanding of the past she has come from. Therefore, I don’t know if the ending can be looked at as optimistic or pessimistic. It seems to state the question, “Where do we go from here? How will Jeanne’s generation respond to the events of the past laid out for them by their parents and previous generations?” I don’t think the film answers this question, but instead poses it to the audience, painting a picture of Jeanne’s generation’s isolation from the past and putting them at a crossroads where they become independent adults free to make their own decisions and respond to their upbringing in whatever way they see fit.
Excellent!!
DeleteThrough the analysis of The State I Am In (2000) my first take of it was enhanced and expanded through the reading and presentation, but remained centered on my viewing of Jeanne as a foil. As it has been argued already, in A Ghostly Archeology, “The State I Am In engages in questions of memory, the aftershocks of political commitment, and the impact of time on politics...how a political project has to function not only in the public sphere but also in people’s memories, hopes, and fantasies,” (42-43). Petzold’s extensive exploration of the role of memory and its relation with history--but more with this “aftershocks” of it--are a central and permeating angle of the ideology of the film.
ReplyDeleteAs a filmmaker Petzold side steps the responsibility as a historian by concentrating the camera in the ripples that disturb the water after initial impact. His ability to touch on terrorism and political turmoil with the delicateness and sensibilities that come with dealing with human emotion make the film a true psychological viewing. His choice, for example, to have all violence off screen and detached from reality, show the human tendency to hand-pick what we remember, and how we remember it. When violence happens on screen, it is targeted to Jeanne. First, we see her getting hit in the back of the head and knocked unconscious. Then, we see her smacked after insulting Heinrich.
It could be argued that we only see the violence she sees, or is close to her, because the film is limited to her point of view, but there seems something more. It’s as if by seeing the effects of the “aftershocks” inflicted tangibly on her character, memory and history (or the lack of it) become a physical representation in the present world. The reading beautifully delineated Petzold’s inclination to dealing with a world in-between--the transition state--and (as Professor Abel mentioned today, too) it is not insignificant that Jeanne is undergoing that same transition.
The lack of plot, the exploration of humanness and the person behind the action, which Petzold admitted was part of the film’s inspiration (41), add to my believe that Jeanne is the foil of her parents’ generation. More specifically, she is a foil for a recurring phenomenon of history and memory, and that is the limited accessibility to history. Jeanne’s parents had limited accessibility to WWII, just like she had limited accessibility to the Hot Autumn. Like Petzold’s transitory worlds, the space when action becomes memory turned history creates a barrier between how much we can put on a screen, a textbook, or even a personal narrative, and how accurately that reflects the human reception to an actual event.
Furthermore, even when experienced first-hand, as when the mother absentmindedly says, “I shot a man,” or when Jeanne reminisces on her last visit to Heinrich, the action has become memory, and that has become corrupted by the time lapse, however short, and the inclinations of the subject to alter the memories before they become a personal history. For this, I think The State I Am In, stands as a door for the explorations of the RAF that followed on screen. By being the first, it had open choice, and yet, by choosing to look at memory and history rather than direct actions, it is the perfect introduction through which to examine the other films that look back.
Nicely done, indeed!
DeleteMore so than any other film we have watched this semester, with the possible exception of The Company You Keep, The State I’m In deals most directly with the “aftermath” bit of our course title: “The Revolutionary Moment of ‘1968’ and Its Aftermath.” While the events of ’68 and the agents that participated in them set the stage for the world presented in Petzold’s film, the near total omission of political references to the movement demonstrate that the film intends to depart from the violence of the past and deal with the aftermath, the now. As Jaimey Fisher posits in his examination of the film, it is precisely the film’s departure from the generic mainstays of terrorist films, mainstays such as sensational bank robberies and efforts to “valorize the mobile ontology of the terrorists”, that makes it particularly effective as an examination of Germany in the aftermath of 68 (58).
ReplyDeleteUnlike films like The Baader Meinhof Complex that revel in the stylized violence employed by the terrorists, The State I’m In portrays what little violence there is in the same detached way as everything else that takes place. In this film’s bank robbery scene, the suspense is defused as Petzold decided to mute and shoot the scene through the unenergetic vantage point of a security camera. The cinematic downplaying of an action that was, in the age of the RAF, once so politically charged mirrors the diminishing relevancy of the fugitives who are on the run for committing crimes in the name of something people no longer care about. Instead of robbing the bank to raise funds to purchase bomb ingredients or firearms as their counterparts once did to continue the revolution some 20 years prior, Clara and Hans use the same violent means rather dully to raise funds to skip town with their daughter, a contrast that, Fisher suggests, creates “a sense of lateness, even obsolescence, to this putatively revolutionary violence” (59). They live in a thoroughly different, modern world that is dominated more by international economic factors than by the political systems that they once fought so fiercely against. Although they perceive danger at every corner, it is only after they raid the economic space of the bank that they once again become legitimate targets for the state.
Very good!
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn “The state I am In” by Chris Petzold the idea of dreams and the expression of dreams are prominently expressed throughout the film. By not engaging in critical thought or questioning of her surrounding circumstances Jeanne remains in a dream-like state where she is experiencing life only through the limited knowledge of surroundings that her parents are providing her. This lack of feeling necessary to ask questions is also a result of her condition which also adds to her state of dreaming. In the article “The state I am in: Memory Matters” Jaimey Fisher claims that this film, “…engages with the actualization of the past in the present…” I do agree with this statement, and I feel that the state of Jeanne’s constant dreaming is an effect of her parents providing stoicism as an example for dealing with your contemporary situation. I also Feel like the character of Jeanne is an envelopment of the past as most children are seen as representing the past and present simultaneously. The passiveness and stoicism provided by Jeanne’s parents also serves as a political statement, Fisher also proves this in his article when he claims, “…the state I am in contemplates the impact of time, history, and fantasy on politics”. The stoicism and passiveness that is portrayed here is hypocritical in that it could be assumed that it was stoicism surrounding politics that inspired these radicals, and is now how they are dealing with their disagreements.
good
DeleteOne aspect I enjoyed about "The State I am In", is how it advocated being knowledgable about the world around you via a backwards unknowledge that Jeanne has about her world and the world her parents live in. I can't help but empathize with her as I, like most people I'd assume in the beginning of this class, didn't really know about these events around 1968. Knowing this give a lot of context to the story that would otherwise have been lost to an ignorant audience. Take for example the scenes of Jenne's parents, among others in the story. They're awfully paranoid of their surroundings, with no context given other than the common memory described in Jaimey Fisher's article on the film. I think that in a way, this type of film is much more pervasive regarding the education of the events of 1968 as opposed to straight adaptations of events like Baader-Meinhof Complex. The State I Live In challenges our viewpoint, and has proved effective in getting the public interested in the past, as evidenced by the Social Democrats' entrance into politics and their willingness to discuss the leftist events of 1968, as opposed to just brushing it aside and pretending it never happened.
ReplyDeletegood
DeleteWe briefly mentioned it during our presentation yesterday, but in "The State I Am In" Christian Petzold chooses to deal with the events of the 70's in a much different way than Uli Edel's "Baader Meinhof Complex". Although the films deal with the revolution in different time periods, there is still a bit of revolutionary action that Petzold includes in "The State I Am In" with the bank robbery scene, which is reminiscent of Hans and Clara's, and therefore the Baader-Meinhof Gang's, revolutionary past.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Petzold de-romanticizes the scene by showing it in a flashback where the viewer sees the action take place from surveillance cameras which forms a direct opposition to the way "Baader Meinhof Complex" portrays the RAF. Jaimey Fisher discusses the nature of the scene, stating that Petzold "...shoots the entire robbery (money stolen, shots fired, people collapsing) through bank surveillance cameras with little audible sound, renouncing scored music to slow down and subvert these normally suspenseful events" (59). This choice that Petzold makes not only refuses to celebrate the terrorists, like Udel's film thrives off of, but also demonstrates, once again, the current situation in post-unification Germany that the former terrorists find themselves in. In other words, this scene effectively portrays, by directly referencing the violent actions of the past, how the wonder of the revolution is gone. If this was Hans and Clara in the past doing these things, it surely would have been viewed much differently, possibly in a more celebratory way, but now they are not romanticized at all. They are desperately trying to survive instead of fighting for their revolutionary ideas. The past has led them to where they presently find themselves and, much like the younger generations we discussed in the presentation, the outlook is bleak.
Petzold’s main focus is showing the instability of the family dynamic. It’s important to realize the audacity of Jeanne’s parents towards her behavior. They expect her to stay focused and disciplined when they themselves are irrational and have inconsistent behavior throughout the film. This depiction is in part due to Petzold’s opinion that Leftists lack a substantive connection to the world (Fisher, 46). Dreams are a major contribution to the overall statement of the film. Jeanne has her own ideal childhood that she would have liked to play out. The lie about going to a boarding school in England was her childhood fantasy. Unfortunately her parents were unable to give that to her because of their cult involvement. The cult has serious influences on their parenting skills shown in the scene about Jeanne wanting name brand clothing, and mainstream pop music. Jeanne’s parents have no interest in the pop culture in which she is interested. The lack of dramatization and emotion regarding the parents makes me as more sympathetic towards Jeanne and her dilemma over staying or leaving her parents.
ReplyDelete“Rojo Amanecer” has a very similar ending to Christian Petzold's film "The State I Am In". Both films end with shots of the youngest family member in a life-altering event surrounded by devastation. One point for leaving only the youngest survivor in each film is a testament that they are the new generation. The more I reflect on this trend in film making, I see it as an acknowledgment that the new generation is left with pieces of a revolution that they must decide to either put together, or shove aside.
excellent observation regarding endings of the two films!
DeleteWhen asking who The State I'm In is made for, it is easy to believe it is made for Jeanne's generation. However, I think the POV perspective given by her is misleading when assessing this question. The problem is that when looking at Jeanne's story, the film never seems to approach the nature of her ignorance with any sharp criticism. So if she truly is clueless to her parents' past, then how can she be at fault for her mistakes. It is up to the parents then to educate Jeanne about their past actions and their involvement in the RAF. And as Rachel Palfreyman points out "There is no attempt to explore (much less explain) the political background and convictions of Hans and Clara..." It is telling that Jeanne's parents do not give the slightest lesson on the history of their movement. Do her parents regret their actions under the RAF? Have they forgotten the tenants of their movement? Regardless, it creates, as Palfreyman points out "...a dreadful cycle, in which young people are compelled to suffer again and again through the generations for the sins of their fathers and mothers..." Without exploring the truth of history how can anything be learned. It renders the actions of her parent's purposeless, and when that happens all that remains is the violence (as indicated by the bank robbery and the final moments of the film). No coincidence is it that the film makes allusions to the imagery of the Holocaust, because just as the parents of Hans' and Clara remained silent when it came time to educate them on the truth of the Holocaust, Hans and Clara now remain silent when it is their duty to teach Jeanne of their own violent past. The tragic irony is lost on Jeanne's parents. As a result, Jeanne is left ill suited to live in the modern world. She is an in between child, that has not been educated in the fiery spirit of the RAF, nor has she been taught to properly socialize. So just as the state she is in, is literally nebulous, her socio-emotional state is similarly nebulous. The final shot of the film with Jeanne rising from the wreckage of her family's vehicle leaves us to wonder, can Jeanne ever hope to lead a normal life with scars (both literal and psychological) like these?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that we looked at 'The State I Am In' as a German film. Not surprising, because obviously, it's a German-language film by a German director about German terrorists running back to Germany, but interesting, because in many ways, the film was about and concerned with translation and the relationship between languages and people in the wider context of the European Union. In its juxtaposition of, specifically, French and German culture, the film asks a lot of questions about national identity in an increasingly international world.
ReplyDeleteThe film's first scene already contains much of this multilinguism: Heinrich and Jeanne are identified first and foremost by the national origins of their names, and both of them allude fairly early on to international culture [Jeanne claims to go to boarding school in England, and Heinrich uses Americanisms while discussing his surfer-boy life in Miami]. For Jeanne, the focus on languages is part of her everyday life. Part of her motivation to learn Spanish is, we later find, clearly connected to the family's impending move to South America. But, it's not her entire drive; she helps their attacker with his menu, not because she has to, but because she wants to, and though her impulse is probably less altruistic than narcissistic [she wants to be seen as smart], she does the work nonetheless.
Later, Heinrich in his real life begins to be identified even more strongly with American culture. He works at Pizza Hut and wears a uniform adorned w/both German and English. He listens to Brian Wilson, though we never hear him speaking English. And, when his friend follows him away on his bicycle after the confrontation with Jeanne, he gives Jeanne the finger, an American gesture.
How does this all relate to Jeanne? I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have something to do w/the shot just as they're entering Germany, when the French and German flags stand on left and right sides of the higher flag of the European Union. Like the EU, Jeanne's existence defies nationality, and her history has been all but stripped of national identity.
very interesting!
Delete