In comparison to Grin Without a Cat, Children of the Revolution is a marvelously and skillfully edited film. True, while Grin Without a Cat is an essay film, whereas Children of the Revolution is a straight-up documentary, the ability to digest the information presented in the latter is way easier than doing it with the former. Shane O’Sullivan and his masterfully chosen team of editors make this documentary, at some points, feel like an actual fictional movie, especially during the early parts in the film about Fusako and Mei Shigenobu. The inclusion of the black and white wide angle shots of Japanese protesters, as well as the color shots of what can assumed to be a film from the discussed time period, make the cinematic experience of watching this documentary more wholesome and fulfilling. Next, concerning with how Ulrike Meinhof is portrayed in Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex respectively, in the former, she is viewed through the lens of her daughter. Her daughter, while ever distant from her mother, who wasn’t ever truly ready nor fit to be a mother, sort of develops an “appreciation” for her mother as she grew older and having her own kids, because she now realizes how hard it must have been for her mother. The latter, on the other hand, briefly touches upon Meinhof’s divorce and slow separation from her daughters. In fact, Meinhof isn’t really the “main” character in this film either, as she is just a part of a greater sum of the RFA depicted in the film. When her suicide happens, the film continues on for quite some time. But, what both Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex do well is weaving old, stock footage in with the new footage made exclusively for the respective film. The Baader Meinhof even goes a step further and recreates old, famous footage and pictures (the former using what I presume to be 16 MM film to give it that “old” feeling) using the actors from the film, such as Meinhof’s “wanted” picture. But they also use famous stock footage such as Thích Quảng Đức’s self immolation. Finally, in the beginning of Sight & Sound’s piece on The Baader Meinhof Complex, they ask if the film, being released nearly 30 years after the initial events, glamorizes the events, or shows the events as an important time and movement for the new generation to learn about. Obviously this film doesn’t glamorize the lifestyle of the RFA, as shown in the morbid ending sequence of the film. That being said, the question posed can only be answered by saying, from Andrea Dittgen herself, “The main achievement of The Baader Meinhof Complex is to have introduced a new generation,” the Prada-Meinhof generation, that is, “to the RAF and to have given Germany a chance to reflect on its legacy by telling the story from the terrorists' perspective without siding with them. That is something.”
John-There are a couple of points in your response with which I have some difficulty agreeing. First, as you noted, "Grin without a Cat" is much more difficult to digest than "Children of the Revolution." However, I think that their comparison is somewhat of an apples-oranges evaluation. "Grin without a Cat" documents and makes arguments that are as indigestible as the time period was. It was a confusing and revolutionary time period that is reflected by the film in a similar manner. I believe that "Children of the Revolution" has a far different motive that revolves around debunking some of the myths or skewed memories that surround two key figures of the time period. Clarity is not necessarily of relevance to "Grin without a Cat" because its topic is somewhat embedded in the lack of clarity of that moment. "Children of the Revolution," however, revolves around the need to bring clarity to what the revolutionaries' daughters see as years of misunderstandings.
I also was also interested in your interpretation of the relationship between Meinhoff and her daughter that was presented in "Children of the Revolution." You write that her daughter develops an "'appreciation' for her mother as she grew older and having her own kids, because she now realizes how hard it must have been for her mother." In my understanding of the film, Bettina actually expresses disdain for her mother and a complete lack of understanding for her abandonment and apathetic demeanor towards her children. At one point she explains how she as a journalist and a mother loves to have her daughter in her presence as she writes, but her mother would have to be isolated and constantly feeding on cigarettes and coffee in order to write. Additionally, towards the end of the documentary Bettina talks about the letters of appreciation women write to Bettina about her mother. She explains that these women are fascinated with the facade and myth of her mother, and that they are ignorant to the reality of the woman. Therefore, I don't think that Bettina reflects on her mother with understanding, but resentment and disdain.
Now, after having a few class periods in which we discussed these films and their meanings, I have to say that I now agree more with your points than my own. Hopefully I'll get better as I go along!
In Children of the Revolution, Astrid Proll makes the comment that 9/11 forever changed the understanding of terrorism; it’s connotations, and what it means to engage in violent political struggle. Having just watched The Baader Meinhof Complex, I can’t help but recall the recent events of ISIS in the Middle East, as well as Al Qaeda’s terrorism, and track the way that guerilla tactics have evolved and remained the same. From bombing department stores as a way to bring awareness to political apathy, to killing diplomats and heads of the state, to hijacking airplanes and flying them into the Trade Center. How should we view these people and their actions? Children of the Revolution follows the daughters of Ulrike Meinhof and Fusako Shigenobu and shows how they were affected by their mother’s involvement with revolutionary warfare. While we are given information about what they were fighting for, the real story is about the mother and daughter relationship. It provides a relatable concept, the familial bond, which gives a different perspective on Meinhof and Shigenobu’s characters. They are no longer revolutionaries, but parents. It’s hard to imagine any other terrorist organization today being romanticized as much as the Red Army Faction or the United Red Army; a film about Osama Bin Laden’s children will not, I suspect, generate sympathy or understanding of his actions. I guess another question to ask is, “Why make a documentary about the daughters of the revolutionaries?” May and Bettina’s reactions towards their mothers strike me as irrelevant as the differences seem to stem from the environments in which they were raised. Bettina grew up in Germany before Meinhof went underground and saw a rapid transformation of their mother, whereas May grew up with Palestinian refugees and saw what her mother was fighting for first hand. We are given a deeper understanding of the revolutionaries as people, real historical figures that existed in our world and have made an impact – just look at the legislation passed in order to subvert their “sympathizers.” For me, the idea of the documentary appears to be a process of removing the mythology behind Meinhof and Shigenobu.
Colin I am very glad you mentioned 9/11. Although 9/11 is not a theme of Children of the Revolution, making a movie about the daughters of RAF members living in a post-9/11 world makes a statement about the evolution of terrorism since the 1970s. On the subject, May Shinegobu says, "9/11 destroys the understanding of the freedom fighter, arab culture and Islamic culture." As seen in The Baader-Meinhof Complex, the RAF plots in 1977 were much more extreme, but also less political than their first plots. Baader even says at one point in Stammheim during the 'Hot Autumn', "Of course the second and third generations of RAF are going to be more extreme." In many ways RAF's early attacks on the United States Army Bases in Germany is the biggest political statement the German RAF could make. It says no we don't support our countries alliance with the U.S., and no we don't support U.S. aggression in Vietnam, the attack is direct. In any case this is entirely different than hijacking a plane of civilians.
The other point that was more clearly shown in the Children of the Revolution was how important June 2nd, 1967 was in the creation of the RAF. This really spurned people, namely Ulrike Meinhof, into action and it is interesting to think how much East Germany really had to do with the death of Benno Ohnesong. Meinhof said the moment showed, “West Germany to be a police state.” Political protests are something many First World ‘democratic’ countries struggle to control today. How does the law enforcements reaction to initially peaceful protests in Ferguson show something other than a police state?
I'd agree with you about the removal of mythology in 'Children of the Revolution.' However, I'm not sure if the documentary's method of doing so can be really said to 'remove' the myth of the RAF; instead, O'Sullivan is replacing one story or myth with another.
To say that the RAF is unambiguously a force of good is to mislead, and while 'Baader Meinhof Complex' flirts with that line with the degree of association w/the revolutionaries and the many pontifc speeches of Horst Herold, 'Children of the Revolution' is playing the same game. I wish I'd kept count of exactly how many times Bettina says 'terrorists' in that film, because in this zeitgeist, to ask, 'Were the terrorists justified?' is to beg the question. Americans are so well-conditioned to associate 'terrorism' w/attacks against the U.S., mainly 9/11, and to call the RAF terrorists and /then/ discuss whether they're justified seems counter to the spirit of the debate.
It might make more sense to ask, were the RAF 'terrorists' or 'revolutionaries'? You use both terms, meaning to me that you aren't fully on one side or the other; I just think it's an important question to ask before immediately drawing the line between the RAF and al Qaeda. The myth of terrorism as an unequivocal force of evil is almost certainly, in our day and age, stronger and more pervasive than the myth of Baader-Meinhof.
What I was looking for in Baader Meinhof Complex was the romanticism of Baader Meinhof (Prada Meinhof) and the Red Army Faction. Given the comments about the romanticism before watching the movie, I though that this would be an incredibly important factor in this film, and I was not disappointed. Early on in the film, it tricks you into thinking that it's a simple nostalgia trip to the 1960s and 1970s, filled with sex, drugs and rock and roll. The film also seems to glamourize even the most grim scenes in the beginning, with the chaos following the protest scenes against the Shah of Iran being scored with a score that can be described as "exciting", despite the serious tone of the scenes. There's another incredibly romanticized scene early on, when the RAF-to be are all cruising along in their stolen cars, passing along what I thought was a joint and firing guns in the open with impunity. I know that many people my age would see a rebellion against society to be something akin to this, just kind of arbitrarily sticking it to the man. However, when we get closer to the RAF's actual activities, the romanticism end and we see their activities for what they really were. Slowly, the RAF's actions became this cyclical movement of perpetrating terrorism and reacting to the police. They'd set up bombs in public, detonate them, and some bystanders would get hurt. The police would try to take them down, separate a member or two, and often one would be killed. This would of course set the whole cycle in motion again, ultimately until the whole RAF founding team is captured, but even then the 2nd and 3rd generations continue the cycle, and the imprisoned RAF founders are forced to deal with their actions. By this point they've lost absolute control of their group and ideals, and their movement ended not soon after. Overall, I think the film did a good job of dispelling the romance of "sticking it to the man" in the 1960's/1970's, unless you only stayed for the first half.
Andrew, I think you are spot on with the film’s initial preoccupation with romanticizing the violent activities of the Baader Meinhof group, namely with the use modern action filmmaking techniques. As Marco mentioned to us in class, it was the filmmaker’s intention to construct The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) in order to communicate an account of Baader Meinhof group to a younger generation with no personal ties to the events, so it stands to reason that he would use the cinematic language of quick cuts and, as you mention in your post, an exciting score to both hook and inform a younger audience. Take, for example, the sequence in which the group carries out multiple bombings on both capitalist and police targets. A mobile camera closely follows the perpetrators as they carry out their missions to the tune of a high-energy score, evoking the feeling of watching the protagonists of an action-thriller rather than seeing an objective history lesson. As we cut from one angle to another while bombs go off, actual footage from newsreels and images from newspapers are included stylistically to give further historical context to the fictionalized portrayal of real events. It is, as Robert Sklar mentions in his review of the film, “closer in form, say, to the Bourne trilogy, a kinetic and visceral thriller… its idea of interpreting the past is to try to match on screen the same number of bullets that were expended in an actual event” (42). In contrast to this, Share O’Sullivan’s documentary Children of the Revolution (2010) uses straight facts and the personal narratives of two children of revolutionary leaders to reflect on the period. Rather than intensifying the historical events, the film uses the original, unaltered images and recordings simply to inform the viewer and compliment the recollections of Mei Shigenobu and Bettina Röhl about their mothers. Although not filled with action packed recreations of the violent attacks committed by both the Red Army Faction and the Japanese Red Army, the impact of the attacks are still conveyed in the film through uncensored footage of moments like janitors mopping up the blood during the aftermath of the Lod Airport massacre and through photographs of the dead RAF prisoners hanging from homemade nooses. Befitting a more documentary style, Children lets the history stand for itself and uses the unique experience of two women brought up with a special viewpoint on 60’s and 70’s terrorism to open up a different perspective on the subject.
This echoes a lot of thoughts I had on the Baader Meinhoff Complex as well. The brutality that is shown during the initial protest scene shows just how serious and tense the situation is, but it really ramps up with the shooting of Benno Ohnesorg. From there, Andrew is right, it gives a highly romanticized version of the young rebel's struggles against "the man". It paints this resistance group as the good guys, who are fighting for the people, and makes it seem as if going against the government is what all the "cool" kids are doing. As the film carries on, however, their actions end up catching up with them, and the seriousness of their situation readily becomes apparent. I think it would be very easy to have made a movie that continued the tone of saying that everything the Red Army Faction did was entirely justified and necessary, but instead the line between rebellion and terrorism becomes blurred and even crossed. As the Baader-Meinhoff gang is in prison and facing trial, those still fighting the government take it upon themselves to ramp up the violence and increase the intensity of their actions against those who oppose them, and with each passing generation, the actions they take to oppose the government reach a point where they are even endangering the lives of civilians. The very end of the movie is where everyone's eyes are opened to what is really going on. At first there are a few who continue to deny that the suicides could be anything other than assassinations by someone on the inside, but finally, through some convincing, they are able to accept that the RAF has gone to far, and that their current actions have gone far beyond what the original members would have ever wanted. The final line of the film really hammers this message home, "You never knew them. Stop seeing them as they never were."
Although I do agree that the focus of this documentary is on the relationship of revolutionaries and their daughters, I feel that it emphasizes on how these daughters overcame the difficulties of these relationships rather than the idea of a mother and daughter relationship. With the relationship, or lack thereof, between Bettina and Ulrike Meinhof, through this documentary we learn very blatantly that Bettina rarely saw her mother and often felt that Ulrike may not have wanted to be parent. Although the relationship that May Shigenbobu had with her mother didn’t involve as much violence or abrupt abandonment as Bettina Meinhof’s with her mother, the relationship May had with her mother wasn’t necessarily a good one. Throughout the documentary May stressed the turbulence she experienced through having to adapt different identities frequently. She does seem significantly more at peace with her mother’s relationship than Bettina’s relationship with her mother. May also more eloquently accepts her mother’s actions than Bettina did with her mother, and understandably so, but the ways in which may was affected by her mother’s actions are present. This documentary also shows us that these two highly contrasted relationships had a common denominator which was the resilience of the daughters. This is revealed of course in the interviews, but towards the end of each story the scenes in which the daughters are talking about where they currently stand with mother hood and their mother’s decisions, the compositions are aesthetically pleasing and naturally lit outside giving the viewer a sense of hope and fulfilment. There are undoubtable differences in the relationships between the revolutionaries and their daughters here, but I still feel that the focus in on how they were affected, as well as how these daughters both made positive changes in their lives regardless of the severity of circumstances they endured while having revolutionaries as parents.
Shane O’Sullivan’s documentary Children of the Revolution (2010) and Uli Edel’s The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) offer highly contrasting interpretations of Red Army Faction (RAF) leader Ulrike Meinhof. In Edel’s film, Meinhof (played by Martina Gedeck) is, as Robert Sklar notes in his review of the film, “the hesitant and anguished bourgeois intellectual, with a dour expression and shapeless black hair.” In the film Meinhof is less a leader of the revolution, than a semi-engaged observer who tags along for the ride. She is never as adamant about the actions the group takes, but is more reserved and secondary. In one scene even criticizing the methods Baader and Ensslin as poorly planned before submitting to their immediate condemnation. Compare this to the woman Meinhof’s daughter, Bettina Röhl describes as uninterested in her children and who in hindsight sees her mother as utterly focused and obsessed with the cause of the revolution. Röhl and several other interviewees say Meinhof was like a completely different person after her divorce and brain surgery, which Edel’s film never mentions, saying her moods became darker and more extreme as her involvement in the RAF increased. Röhl expresses her disappointment in recreations of her mother in popular culture, possibly alluding to Edel’s film, for portraying her as sensitive and feminine. The documentary footage and photographs of Meinhof seem to portray her as a much stronger and more determined character. Though Meinhof’s depiction is limited to photographs and short video clips of her speaking and smoking, her intent gaze and straightforward way of speaking have little in common with the Meinhof at the beginning of Edel’s film who is reluctantly pushed to read her latest article on the Shah of Iran aloud by her husband at a social gathering. Meinhof shyly giggles, seemingly nervous and embarrassed before reading her critical article. One would assume from O’Sullivan’s film that Meinhof would be a much more engaged, determined, and rousing speaker in relation to a topic she is so passionate about such as this, in contrast to the introverted and almost detached figure she is portrayed as in Edel’s film. However, as Sklar argues, all three leaders of the RAF are depicted rather thinly in Edel’s film. Baader is the spontaneous bad boy and Ensslin his strong and sexually liberated counterpart. There is little explication of the RAFs actions besides the obvious theme of resistance. Scenes like the one where Baader inaugurates new member Peter-Jürgen Boock (Vinzenz Kiefer) by speeding down the highway in a fancy car listening to music and shooting guns depict the RAF’s coolness more than their political intentions. The film strives to be more entertaining and engaging than particularly political. Sklar and Chris Homewood liken it to Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass’ Bourne Trilogy (2002-2007). It isn’t focused on portraying the ideology or complex representations of the figures it represents like O’Sullivan’s film is. It is more concerned with portraying them in a way audiences can relate to and understand.
I totally agree with John’s comment that Shane O’sullivan does a great job of making the documentary “Children of the Revolution” feel like an actual movie, rather than a documentary. Like most documentaries, they interviewed a few people (May Shigenobu and Bettina Meinhof in this case) and put the audio of their firsthand accounts of the events over footage and photos from the time period. But what I believe sets this film apart from the typical “documentary” feel is the incredible job they did with editing that footage. The opening scene of the movie shows grainy footage of 4 people walking with their hands on their head, followed by a woman, presumably Ulrike Meinhof, wearing a black ski mask pointing a gun at them, and escorting them to a bus. The second scene is footage of a plane exploding. These scenes really give the feeling as if this is a fictional film right from the beginning. On another note, I really like the first line of the movie: “the morality of the oppressed people is not they fight because they live. They fight to live, and fighting is living”, because it really embodies, or speaks to the mindset of the revolutionaries that we have been learning about during this class. I believe the purpose of this documentary is to “humanize” these two women who are largely considered terrorists by examining them not as revolutionaries, or terrorists, but by viewing them as mothers and how their lifestyle choices affected their relationships with their daughters. In doing so, we are also exposed to another angle of the stories behind these women: how their decisions affected their lives in general, as well as the lives of the people close to them, in particular their daughters. In Bettina Meinhof’s case, she was never connected to her mother much, she even said that she often felt her mother did not want to be a parent. We see that throughout Bettina’s life, she resents her mother for her actions, however once she has children of her own, she develops some sympathy for her mother, realizing how hard it must have been. In May’s case, she grew up with her mother already involved In this lifestyle, whereas Bettina saw the transformation her mother made. As Collin mentioned, May grew up with Palestinian refugees, so she saw first-hand what her mother was fighting for. As a result, it seems that May has an easier time coming to terms with her mother’s actions.
John, I wanted to make the same point you have here in regards to the way Children of the Revolution was shot and edited. O’Sullivan and his team seamlessly integrated newly recorded interviews along with original footage of the protests to create a smooth, smart documentary that effortlessly navigates the complexities of 1968 and its aftermath. As John already stated, the inclusion of the Japanese protests shot in black and white cinemascope truly is very visually poetic element to the film.
Children of the Revolution makes use of interviews and eyewitness testimony that lend the film a sense of authenticity not found in Edel’s Baader Meinhof Complex. Where Edel has had to assert that Baader Meinhof Complex is accurate in its dramatization, O’Sullivan doesn’t need to make such claims about Children of the Revolution. O’Sullivan uses lengthy interviews from the daughters of women leaders in the revolution, as well as many other people who were involved in the events, to explain what happened and why. Bettina Röhl is unafraid to admit that her mother was a terrorist whose actions have been romanticized by many, where May Shigenobu explains how her mother was seen as a hero in the Middle East but demonized in Japanese media.
Children of the Revolution does a wonderful job of refusing to remain Eurocentric; rather than focusing on narratives based only in the West, O’Sullivan carefully and intentionally included narratives from the East and Middle East. In utilizing May Shigenobu and her story, the film helps paint a much broader picture of what happened globally during 1968 and its aftermath. Because it was a global revolution, this is a necessary component to our full understanding of the events.
Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex are two very different films that deal with the same subject matter. However, even though they are different from one another, I still believe that each film is successful in accomplishing what it sets out to do. As other students have mentioned already, O’Sullivan’s Children of the Revolution explores an interesting perspective of the RAF’s and Japanese Red Army’s actions, as well as their consequences, through the eyes of Meinhof’s and Shigonebu’s daughters. The choice to view the events of the 60’s and 70’s from the daughters’ perspectives provides a new way of understanding both women (Ulrike and Fusako) and, therefore, a new way of viewing the consequences of their actions, not only in terms of their own lives and the revolution, but also their families. As many have mentioned, O’Sullivan very effectively cuts together real footage in juxtaposition with the interviews of the daughters, ultimately showing not just the historical events, but how those events shaped the childhoods of the daughters and how they are still dealing with it, learning from it, and trying to make sense of it to this day. Regarding The Baader Meinhof Complex, I agree with Andrew and Dan about how it romanticizes the RAF and their use of violence so that it becomes more of an action movie. However, as Marco pointed out in class, the film was made for twenty-somethings who knew very little about the subject matter and, even though the film does romanticize the group, as well as portraying Ulrike Meinhof much differently than Children of the Revolution or any of the readings, it still provides an account of the events that took place. Perhaps the film romanticizes the group and their violence so much because that is one of the only ways to get through to the twenty-somethings these days and capture their attention (this is a different issue altogether). On top of the scene where they are driving cars through the streets, appearing to have the best time ever, a different, smaller example of this is the sex scene towards the end between Brigitte and Peter. Perhaps something like that did happen, but is it really necessary to the film? No, but, it is a sexy way of keeping young adults entertained with the film. Katja Nicodemus discusses the nature of the film, stating:
…after it's done with all the key events, attacks, planning sessions, and assassinations, there's no time left for background or the ideas behind the political catchphrases. The Baader Meinhof Complex doesn't develop a position on the terrorists and their deeds- although, of course, "no position" is itself a position. All that remains is a collection of ruthless, murderous action-movie stereotypes woodenly reciting political slogans. (58)
As Nicodemus points out, the film is basically a romanticization of the key events, and violence, of that time period and never bothers to delve deeper into explanation and reasoning like Children of the Revolution does. However, The Baader Meinhof Complex is still a fictionalized version aimed towards entertaining young adults while also giving them an idea of what the RAF did. Both filmmakers intended to do different things with their films and that is why I think they were both, in a sense, successful.
Children of the Revolution (Shane O’Sullivan, 2012) serves as a sort of rebuttal to the dramatized narrative of The Baader Meinhof Complex (Uli Edel, 2008). As noted by Daniel in reference to Sklar’s review and by John in his post, The Baader Meinhof Complex is definitively a film first and a documentation of history second. The heavy use of montages, quick cuts, voice-over narration and news broadcasts, and the frequent inclusion of actual news footage from around the world draw attention to this fact, as does the very cinematic – for lack of a better word – construction of the plot. Where the film breaks the mold is in its realization of the murky morality surrounding the events. Although the violent revolutionaries and the fascist government are seen equally at fault for the majority of the movie, it is ironically in the second half when Baader, Ensslin, Meinhof, and the others are imprisoned and undergoing emotional distress and doubt that there is a visual representation of the black-and-white ideals of the RAF. At the point of the most questioning of what the cause has become (as the second and third generation resort to more and more violent methods of attempting to get their heroes released from Stammheim without a thought to what the leaders were hoping to accomplish) and in preparation for the trial, Baader, Meinhof, and company are wearing dark clothes to starkly contrast the clinical white walls of the prison; it’s an expression of their increasing paranoia and isolation. They are mere representatives of a cause that has basically been forgotten in the youths’ revolutionary fervor.
On the other hand, Children of the Revolution focuses on the personal, human complexities of history. By featuring the daughters of Ulrike Meinhof and Shigenobu Fusako, attention is placed on the ways in which the families of the revolutionaries were affected. O’Sullivan works to humanize women who were, as Shigenobu Mei mentions in one of her interviews, seen as violent criminals and deviants – not human beings – in their home countries. Relationships are the focus: the strained, distant one between Bettina Röhl and Meinhof (more about this in a moment); and the more emotionally close yet physically separated one between Shigenobu Mei and her mother. Even the news footage is personalized, due to the fact that it is connected to the women through either a preceding interview with someone who knew/knows the revolutionary or in a voice-over detailing the incident or image. An interesting aspect of this documentary is the intricacy of Röhl’s connection to her mother. It is fairly rarely that she refers to Meinhof as her mother, with the most memorable instances being Röhl’s memories of the happier times before moving to Berlin, her perception of the deleterious effects of Meinhof’s affiliation with Baader and Ensslin, her interactions with her mother in Stammheim, and in her consideration of her own relationship with her daughter as compared to that of her and her mother. The cumulative effect of the centrality of family leads to a subtler, more nuanced vision of the ways the revolutions in Germany in particular and around the world in the 1970s.
One of the main questions that I muddled with after watching The Baader-Meinhoff Complex revolved around the background information and lack thereof that was attached to some characters. Specifically, I was interested in why Meinhoff was given a history and who Baader, who shares the title of the film, really wasn't. After watching Children of the Revolution, I feel a bit more clarity on the topic, but primarily I have even more questions.
We see Meinhoff wronged and damaged by the actions of her husband, and we see her as a busy mother before we ever see her as a revolutionary woman. On the beach in the first scene, the film makes it clear that the interaction between her husband and his mistress is a relevant and probably damaging one with great effect on Meinhoff. After she walks in on her husband and his mistress, she drives away with her children and we see her spiral downward into near madness until her eventual suicide at the end of the film. She wasn't the mastermind or the leader of the RAF, and her decision to participate actively was a last minute one that the film gives much relevance. So why is it that she is a central figure in the film, and why is it that she is given the most depth? Is it because it undermines the notion that she was fighting for change in the world and instead implies that she was killing from anger and for vengeance? That seems awfully strange.
I also find it really fascinating that there is lots of information that Children of the Revolution presents that the film chooses to leave out. For instance, the fact that Meinhoff had a tumor seems to be an unfortunate fact of Meinhoff's life that would align well with the tragedy of her husband's affair. Yet, the film chooses to omit that part of her life. I think that this says something about what each of the films are trying to say. (Though I don't really know what that something is) If Meinhoff was revealed to have been mentally ill in the film, that would have really changed the way the viewers saw her and possibly the way they saw movement. She would have been seen as "mad" not because of her passion for the injustice that was happening at the time or because of her unfortunate personal life, but because she was mentally ill. Perhaps by leaving the tumor issue out it gives more credit to their passion for the movement and their acts of terrorism. Conversely, perhaps the reason it's duly noted so thoroughly in Children of the Revolution is because the film is trying to emphasize an over-appreciation for what the terrorists did, while The Baader-Meinhoff Complex wants to emphasize the positive aspects of terrorists' actions. This is of course just one small speculation.
I realize this post is a lot more question than comment, but that is still where my mind is with the two films.
My favorite scene from the "Baader-Meinhof Complex" is when Baader is stuck with his comrade in a storage garage, blocked in by the police. For most of this scene, we see it from the viewpoint of a young girl, who presumably knows nothing of the context of the situation. She only sees what is right there in front of her: one man, smoking a cigarette, fighting against an army. She is fascinated and can't keep her camera off of him. But then, Baader is shot in the leg by an older civilian who shoots from a few stories above. Here, we see a little parable of the three German generations. Baader is the postwar rebel, the old man stands in for the war generation, who eventually bring Baader down, and finally, the child, the third generation, who is enamored by the mythic figure of the revel, albeit with a lack of context. The film itself seems to be missing lots of context. It goes through history depicting famous violent events with exuberant intensity, but does not seem as interested in the scenes which are not part of the RAF myth. Nearly ever scene in the film is also mentioned or shown in the documentary "Children of the Revolution. It is a bare bones version of history, which focuses primarily on famous events, rather than focusing on the reasons for the events. In Homewood's essay "From Baader to Prada," he quotes Kurbjuweit who says "All of these films look at their protagonists with an assured sympathy. For Schlondorff and Petzold they are not so much perpetrators as sufferers. Roth's Baader is a coold hound, chick. These films, by all means successes in themselves as works of art, have supported the leftist discourse: they create tolerable images for unbearable events. It is a discourse which willingly cuts out monstrosity of the deeds and grumbles about the motives of the perpetrators." The victims in this film are mostly faceless and supernumerary. This is not a movie for the victims. Neither is this a movie for radical leftists. This is a film, which uses mainstream actors and cinematic techniques, for the 4th generation, for those who know very little about this history, and yet, are mostly interested in being entertained by history than informed by it.
The haunting question within The Baader-Meinhoff Complex, Children of the Revolution, and even Something in the Air is: what is the threat? What is the evil, and who do we sympathize with (if we are meant to sympathize with anyone for that matter)? Although it seems we should be able to relate more towards the young revolutionaries - the radical, headstrong youths fighting to take command from the older, and seemingly more socially distant, politicians in power. Often the viewpoints are from these rebels; we see their struggles, their ideologies and their goals, but we are then exposed to their methods of revolution. Their outbursts with law enforcement, the savagely executed acts of violence, which sometimes involve innocent bystanders, all resonate with a horrific viciousness. It isn't until Children of the Revolution and The Baader-Meinhoff Complex that we are introduced to the term terrorist, seemingly synonymous with revolutionary. Although they may generalize to mean the same thing, it is obvious that there is a massive difference in their connotation. And how does that affect us? Do we find ourselves rooting for the terrorists on their conquest of social change? Or do we find ourselves viewing them as what they are and empathize with the oppressive powers in control? The more films we view the more this question seems to play a larger part in, and whether or not it will become a clear distinction in the future has yet to be determined. It is possible that this is a subject that never has a distinct right or wrong answer, that we as viewers are never supposed to be sure who is the good force and who is the bad.
Children of the Revolution (2010), is a film about the radical adventures of Ulrike Meinhof, leader of the Red Army Fraction in Germany. The documentary portrays Meinhof’s life in the army through the voice of her living daughter Bettina; a journalist who spent much of her childhood with her mother but not much else. Bettina is an interesting character herself because she in a way serves as the people of Germany relationships to Meinhof. Most of the population knows little about the Red Army leader, but through her writing serves as a inspiration to her daughter and the people of Germany she fought for.
Children of the Relvolution (2010) makes the clear fact to the viewer that Meinhof was a primary member of the Red Army Fraction and only namedrops Baader and Andreas as members of the group. The film does not sugarcoat the critical decisions Meinhof’s had to make during her reign over the Army. The Baader Meinhof Complez (2008), a dramatization of Red Army Fraction’s actions during ’68 Germany, treats Meinhof as more of a supporting character of the cause compared to the others. While Baader and Andreas are busy making and throwing detonating bombs, she instead documented her thoughts about the cause, an act that she is ridiculed of throughout the film. The film also suggests that she was not an original member of the cause and only joined when she participates in the recuse of Baader and followed them out of the window.
On the screen, Meinhof may seem like a supporting character, but director Uli Edel gives the character an interesting angle to be examined. Meinhof is stilled the journalist in the film, expressing her thoughts about the state of German politics. No one else in this film has that type the power as she does and that is what is expressed easily throughout the population. Sure, the others are making bombs and shooting guns but she is using the power of words to express her dissasifcation towards the government, a weapon that carried to more individuals.
In The Baader Meinhof Complex, we see the personal effects on Ulrike Meinhof, from a well-known activist to an extremist who committed suicide in a high security prison. Throughout the movie, you can clearly see the distance between Ulrike and the rest of the RAF, either physically and/or ideologically.
In one of the scenes, when the main characters are getting training in Jordan, and they decide to take a break and strip and lay out on the top of one of the buildings. While everyone seems comfortable with being exposed, Ulrike still has her arms across her chest. While that could be due to some insecurities, which everyone has when it comes to how they feel with their bodies, but it also feels like she is doing the bare minimum to get approval from the rest of the group. Ulrike is very passionate about the cause and wants results, just like the rest of the RAF, but it seems that throughout the movie, there is tension with how she wants to deal with the strategy and the attainment of the robberies and the attacks and the leadership of Baader.
Even towards the end of the movie, when Baader, Ulrike, and Gudrun, are in the prison, you can still see the uneasiness between Baader and Gudrun and Ulrike. Everything that Ulrike was writing, Gudrun was rewriting. Even when they were ultimately on there way to life in prison and/or execution, they still would have petty fights about something that didn't really have any important value.
Throughout the entire film, you get a feeling of chaos. From the attacks that the RAF commit, to the interior of the RAF itself. The masses are in panic, with a twist of rebellion that is encouraging to the RAF. At the beginning of the of the attacks, everything seems pretty structured, but the RAF become more distraught and impulsive. And at the end, it was a poorly thought out attack that failed that helped make the decision to have a mass suicide inside the prison cells.
During 'The Baader Meinhof Complex,' I was struck multiple times by the film's use of music to create tension and manipulate emotion. At times, the film seemed as though it was attempting to be an accurate representation of the events surrounding the RAF [it was tagged as A TRUE STORY, after all], but during certain scenes, the film looks and feels less like a documentary and more like a thriller.
[aside: I know that 'The Baader Meinhof Complex' is NOT a documentary and that it should not be accepted as truth. However, Dr Abel's comments w/r/t the film's director, that he was trying to 'teach' our generation what '68 in Germany was really like, and I believe that making this kind of didactic claim necessitates a certain standard of accountability. If someone says, 'This is a true story,' and then exaggerates their description of events so much that the truth becomes distorted, your reaction isn't, 'Wow, what a great story,' it's, 'Stop lying to me.']
The first time I noticed music specifically in the film was during the shooting of Rudi Dutschke. As the shooter approached Dutschke, the background music picked up, and it was neither 'of the times' music nor traditional orchestral arrangements. The track was one of those thudding-bass, electronically-influenced numbers that one hears in, not even a Bond film, but maybe a Bourne movie. My first thought, honestly, was 'video game music.'
Something all those have in common, though [i.e. Bourne and video games]: they're unambiguous. There is a good guy and a bad guy, and the viewer/participant is either implicitly or explicitly told to align themself w/ the hunted. In this case, that's Dutschke. And that's not a small statement to make; Dutschke was obviously a controversial figure [a left-wing radical protesting the Vietnam War, though not as violently as the RAF], and to build this sort of foreboding music as he's stalked through the streets of the city is to put the viewer completely on his side.
Music influences other scenes as well [the courtroom and Baader's escape feel relevant as well], but that was the clearest example I could find. It makes clear the film's allegiances and therefore its agenda: it's very pro-Communist.
I'm just now reading the Homewood article, and he ALSO thought that the music sounded like the Bourne trilogy. And he's a real film critic. -sunglasses emoji-
The Baader–Meinhof Complex (2008) and Children of the Revolution (2010) are both slightly propagandistic through their attempt to “humanize” the psychopathic Red Army Faction members. The Baader–Meinhof Complex, as Robert Skiar suggests, acts as a historical melodrama, so for entertainment purposes, the film must at some level make the characters appear likable. The film often does this through humor and sex, but also through the group’s appearance and sense of energy. For example, the RAF members appear clean–cut and youthful appearance in comparison to the side of “the law,” who are mostly bald, old men, whether they are judges or the police. Also, the use of music, quick cuts, and tracking shots during violent shootouts work to compliment the faction’s actions as engaging at the very least, or dare I say “heroic,” like one would see in an action blockbuster or a heist film. Children of the Revolution, on the other hand, builds a sympathy case for Ulrike Meinhof and Fusako Shigenobu by having their children, who are now middle–aged adults, speak on their behalf as nurturing parents (ex: [Meinhof] “loved her children very much”) and, with some critical distance, attempt to justify their actions. The film begins stating, “The morality of oppressed people is not that they fight because they live; they fight to live” yet it fails to elaborate on how these militant groups were oppressed, only in that they were dissatisfied with the current world events. The documentary does, however, suggest Meinhof’s psychopathy through examining her brain abnormalities, resulted from a “botched” brain operation that occurred before her radical political involvements. Her daughter concludes by describing her mother’s myth that perceives Ulrike as a “good person” making irresponsible choices, which possibly more aligns with The Baader–Meinhof Complex since narrative fictional films often tend to exaggerate myths for the sake of entertainment.
In a specific scene within the Baader-Meinhof Complex, Meinhof, Ensslin, Baader, and others are gathered around a television set as a quote from Mao comes over almost as an omnipresent narrator where he declares, “we must draw a clear line between ourselves and the enemy” a quote that from this point on rings clear not only in the struggles between Meinhof and an ideal RAF, but also as an internal struggle within each of the trio. After little time, Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu) becomes angry, upset at the losing war, and kicks a chair, raises his voice, and makes a clear divide between himself and Meinhof’s (Martina Gedeck) revolution. This invisible divide is eventually the downfall of the group, and a focus of finding the difference between enemy and revolution seemed to mix more often than other revolution-sympathetic films. While I am not in any way an expert on Maoism, I was interested in how this quote tied into the trio’s lives not only in the film but in factual historical context as well. We see, towards the end of the Baader-Menhof Complex the decomposition of Meinhof’s spirit, and in this way she was obviously divided between what is right, and what will cause change, for better or worse. Yet, before this imprisonment, Meinhof is divided once more when she is deciding where her daughters lie in her revolutionary lifestyle. Here, and from the documentary Children of the Revolution, we see that the revolutionary fire that burned within her Meinhof, scorched her, and was the enemy, as she was without a way to divide that rebellious spirit and the mother she had once wanted to be. Her daughter, Bettina, looks back on her mother with an almost divided disdain; there is a sense of mother-daughter loyalty (for example, when she speaks of finding out about her mother’s death by radio, she becomes tense and unable to speak on the matter) yet most every thing she speaks of in memory is negative, and shows the reckless life Ulrike drove her and her sister into, despite a mother’s role. With this strong divide the Baader-Meinhof Complex becomes more authentic just as discussed in the Homewood paper. The authenticity that Edel promised is able to take divided characters and cause a divided audience. Seeing a less sympathetic, and more factual portrayal of these historic figures leaves me as a viewer believing that Mao’s quote was not only important to the revolution, but as a warning to the characters as well.
A lot of people have mentioned how the documentary Children of the Revolution shows another side of these revolutionaries. Although May’s story is truly interesting, it is easier to compare the differences in representation between Ulrike Meinhof and her children through The Baader Meinhof Complex and Children of the Revolution. The story of Meinhof is more or less the same between the films, however the view from where the story is told has changed. It is very interesting comparing these two films because in Children of the Revolution, O’Sullivan is creating his narrative of Ulrike through one of Ulrike’s daughters and mixing in other media regarding the matter. This creation of the narrative is very different from what we saw in The Baader Meinhof Complex. In The Baader Meinhof Complex, Edel tells the story through the lens of those directly involved in some way with the RAF, be it through membership, victim, or a member of the state tasked with dealing with them. These two very different approaches to telling a story and each one is leaving something out. In The Baader Meinhof Complex we have a story told where it would be very easy to believe that the entire thing was fictionalized. As an audience we may feel sympathy for the victims, the people trying to catch the RAF, or may even be sympathetic towards the causes of the RAF. The way that the story is told, however, allows the viewers to see it as a fictionalization of events because of the surrealness of some of the moments, like Meinhof seemingly out of the blue deciding to become very extreme in her beliefs, leaving behind her children and old life like they were nothing. Children of the Revolution on the other hand, creates an environment of empathy through the narrative. The audience is shown real people who were directly impacted by these extreme leftist movements. We can see the real emotions that they have when asked about their lives and their mothers or comrades lives. Once again, while the same story is being told, how the audience relates and views it are drastically different in these two films, most noticeably in terms of the difference between sympathy and empathy felt for the figures or people.
Something that I found interesting about the film was the characterization of the Baader-Meinhof group, primarily the attitude of Baader. Throughout the film it feels as though Baader finds himself invincible and in that he takes nothing seriously, not even his own resistance group.
To name a few instances from the film there's the scene where Baader is seen speeding on the roadway and driving recklessly (not the first time we see him do this) even though is is on the lam so to speak. This of course leads to his arrest and his subsequent break out, one which wouldn't have even happened if he were to have just been a little careful upon his return.
While training with the Palestinian resistance force he spends the entire time pretty much jerking off so to speak, from the moment he arrives he makes it a point to show them disrespect, later he wastes an entire clips worth of ammo claiming that "it should be fun"
He can't even take his own trial seriously, the first time we see him in court he's seen smoking a cigar and practically making a mockery of the court, this is echoed later on in the trial following his imprisonment where he calls the judge an asshole.
Speaking of his imprisonment, there's a scene where the guards tell him to keep it down to which he replies that he wouldn't even be there the next day. He legitimately thought that he and his terrorist group could be broken out of a maximum security prison, and it's in this hubris that one might find his character to be unsympathetic.
Another thing I found interesting about the characterization of the Baader-Meinhof group was how self important and paranoid they all were. I feel that the perfect example of this was the scene after the woman in their group opened fire on police officers and was shot down, in this scene they all push the blame onto the police saying that they executed her and even going as far as to say that it was without cause. This can later be seen through Meinhof's death and how everyone thought it was an execution rather than the apparent suicide that it was.
Another thing about the suicide that I would like to point out is how everyone in the prison seemed extremely angry over her death, when over the course of their imprisonment they had taken to antagonizing her and at one point they even called her a traitor and that she was the knife in the RAF's back. It was this hypocrisy that made their cause all that much more unsympathetic.
Having watched The Baader Meinhof Complex (Uli Edel, 2008), before watching the documentary Children of the Revolution (Shane O’Sullivan, 2010) created the opportunity to approach Edel’s film in a relatively untainted, unbiased manner. Going into The Baader Meinhof Complex only knowing it was a film seeking to educate a younger generation who didn’t know much about the events surrounding 1968, the film created a rough sketch of the events dealing with the RAF, its members, and the situation in Germany. The manner the film was represented, despite the initial inscription claiming “true story,” played in screen more like a construction of a glamorized, selective collage rather than a true account of the events.
One visual representation of this is after the group’s return from Jordanien to West Germany in 1970. The progression of ensuing images is quick in both editing and narrative compression. The usage of tracking shots, wide shots alternated with close-ups, use of real news clips, voice-over narrative from news reporters, color segments intertwined with color, and on-screen violence create a blur of confusion and desperation. Whether to represent the feelings of the time, or to confuse the viewer, the following scene of Horst Herold serving lobster soup shows a juxtaposition of interests. Going from real footage into a fictionalized portrayal of the BKA.
Due to its narration in retrospective with the purpose to educate, the voice of Horst Herold comes as the voice of common consent--an objective look into the events from a politically knowledgeable, privileged position which observes and notices strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Here, however, the film shows a detour from telling the reality of the events. It shows a certain amount of libertinage in its representation. Another example, comes in the form of Ulrike Meinhof. The cinematographic choice to begin the film in a nudist film where we are introduced to her as a woman, mother, and wife before anything else, tints the manner we see her. It could have easily started with her reading the article at the party and fading into the revolt, but it is small choices like that which ultimately reinforce the vulnerability and untrustworthiness of history, and anyone narrating it. While the film doesn’t fail to show the brutality of the events, it does so without escaping bias input.
Most significantly, the biggest benefit of watching Children of the Revolution afterwards, came from picking up in the differences depicted more acutely. One film is a parent looking back trying to cleanly narrate a soiled story. In contrast, Children of the Revolution struggles with the children looking back, for it is a double-edged sword, as it shows a distorted image, perhaps dramatized, or confused, due to the children’s reception of the then. Both movies try to use real footage, actual interviews from the era, and sources, but both are tainted by what they are trying to find. Children of the Revolution’s characterizations are just as tricky to take as truthful as Edel’s characters. The constant search for factual, tangible motives for Ulrike Meinhof’s actions show the struggle of a daughter and family friend trying to accept the “terrorist” nature of a beloved, rather than an actual portrayal of the person.
Leaving out the brain injury, results of Meinhof’s autopsy, the fact that she wasn’t buried with her brain, the visits of her daughters during her time in prison, and the briefly mentioned never found last pieces of her writings show the unreliability of learning history from only one source. The Baader Meinhof Complex fails to give us all of this aspects of one of its main characters, while Children of the Revolution overplays their importance while try to understand the motivations of such radical actions. However, together the films accomplish to create a balance where the viewer can piece together their own collage, and try to create truth out of a cloud of confusing, half-forgotten, and past events.
I’m very intrigued by the depictions in our at home documentary film, “Children of the Revolution”. Family is a basic institution in human society and one major reoccurring theme in both, “Grin without a Cat” and “Children of the Revolution” is the influx of terrorism and the displacement of family. I agree with Dom Lincoln, that Children of the Revolution can be viewed as a consequence of action film. As each film has its own unique style of showing this, a common link of being on the run in both the film and documentary. I personally favor the documentary. Archived footage of protestors gives the impression of an advancing movement within society, but also tells a great story through the eyes of May. Jump cuts are a key component in this film is repeatedly used for the obvious time restraints but also show great progression. Some of the very same things were happening inside the United States, with students demonstrating against the U.S presence in Vietnam. Students in Germany, and France were demonstrating all demonstrating against the monopoly of Capitalism. News in France focuses on American student involvement and its adding fuel to a much greater problem. A grin Without a Cat could very well be and left winged extremist video, which isn’t surprising. The main action included a lot more Violence than Children of the Revolution. The documentary has to be a little bit more carful of this so they aim to establishing background in its aftermath decades later. This was especially critical for the film to incorporate Bettina and her shameless story of her parents Japanese Red Army agenda. However, the main focus on this film is how one societies terror can be another societies obsession. I really admire the director for having such a direct focus on the evolving relationships throughout the story of May and Bettina.
In comparison to Grin Without a Cat, Children of the Revolution is a marvelously and skillfully edited film. True, while Grin Without a Cat is an essay film, whereas Children of the Revolution is a straight-up documentary, the ability to digest the information presented in the latter is way easier than doing it with the former.
ReplyDeleteShane O’Sullivan and his masterfully chosen team of editors make this documentary, at some points, feel like an actual fictional movie, especially during the early parts in the film about Fusako and Mei Shigenobu. The inclusion of the black and white wide angle shots of Japanese protesters, as well as the color shots of what can assumed to be a film from the discussed time period, make the cinematic experience of watching this documentary more wholesome and fulfilling.
Next, concerning with how Ulrike Meinhof is portrayed in Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex respectively, in the former, she is viewed through the lens of her daughter. Her daughter, while ever distant from her mother, who wasn’t ever truly ready nor fit to be a mother, sort of develops an “appreciation” for her mother as she grew older and having her own kids, because she now realizes how hard it must have been for her mother. The latter, on the other hand, briefly touches upon Meinhof’s divorce and slow separation from her daughters. In fact, Meinhof isn’t really the “main” character in this film either, as she is just a part of a greater sum of the RFA depicted in the film. When her suicide happens, the film continues on for quite some time.
But, what both Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex do well is weaving old, stock footage in with the new footage made exclusively for the respective film. The Baader Meinhof even goes a step further and recreates old, famous footage and pictures (the former using what I presume to be 16 MM film to give it that “old” feeling) using the actors from the film, such as Meinhof’s “wanted” picture. But they also use famous stock footage such as Thích Quảng Đức’s self immolation.
Finally, in the beginning of Sight & Sound’s piece on The Baader Meinhof Complex, they ask if the film, being released nearly 30 years after the initial events, glamorizes the events, or shows the events as an important time and movement for the new generation to learn about. Obviously this film doesn’t glamorize the lifestyle of the RFA, as shown in the morbid ending sequence of the film. That being said, the question posed can only be answered by saying, from Andrea Dittgen herself, “The main achievement of The Baader Meinhof Complex is to have introduced a new generation,” the Prada-Meinhof generation, that is, “to the RAF and to have given Germany a chance to reflect on its legacy by telling the story from the terrorists' perspective without siding with them. That is something.”
John-There are a couple of points in your response with which I have some difficulty agreeing. First, as you noted, "Grin without a Cat" is much more difficult to digest than "Children of the Revolution." However, I think that their comparison is somewhat of an apples-oranges evaluation. "Grin without a Cat" documents and makes arguments that are as indigestible as the time period was. It was a confusing and revolutionary time period that is reflected by the film in a similar manner. I believe that "Children of the Revolution" has a far different motive that revolves around debunking some of the myths or skewed memories that surround two key figures of the time period. Clarity is not necessarily of relevance to "Grin without a Cat" because its topic is somewhat embedded in the lack of clarity of that moment. "Children of the Revolution," however, revolves around the need to bring clarity to what the revolutionaries' daughters see as years of misunderstandings.
DeleteI also was also interested in your interpretation of the relationship between Meinhoff and her daughter that was presented in "Children of the Revolution." You write that her daughter develops an "'appreciation' for her mother as she grew older and having her own kids, because she now realizes how hard it must have been for her mother." In my understanding of the film, Bettina actually expresses disdain for her mother and a complete lack of understanding for her abandonment and apathetic demeanor towards her children. At one point she explains how she as a journalist and a mother loves to have her daughter in her presence as she writes, but her mother would have to be isolated and constantly feeding on cigarettes and coffee in order to write. Additionally, towards the end of the documentary Bettina talks about the letters of appreciation women write to Bettina about her mother. She explains that these women are fascinated with the facade and myth of her mother, and that they are ignorant to the reality of the woman. Therefore, I don't think that Bettina reflects on her mother with understanding, but resentment and disdain.
Now, after having a few class periods in which we discussed these films and their meanings, I have to say that I now agree more with your points than my own. Hopefully I'll get better as I go along!
DeleteIn Children of the Revolution, Astrid Proll makes the comment that 9/11 forever changed the understanding of terrorism; it’s connotations, and what it means to engage in violent political struggle. Having just watched The Baader Meinhof Complex, I can’t help but recall the recent events of ISIS in the Middle East, as well as Al Qaeda’s terrorism, and track the way that guerilla tactics have evolved and remained the same. From bombing department stores as a way to bring awareness to political apathy, to killing diplomats and heads of the state, to hijacking airplanes and flying them into the Trade Center. How should we view these people and their actions?
ReplyDeleteChildren of the Revolution follows the daughters of Ulrike Meinhof and Fusako Shigenobu and shows how they were affected by their mother’s involvement with revolutionary warfare. While we are given information about what they were fighting for, the real story is about the mother and daughter relationship. It provides a relatable concept, the familial bond, which gives a different perspective on Meinhof and Shigenobu’s characters. They are no longer revolutionaries, but parents. It’s hard to imagine any other terrorist organization today being romanticized as much as the Red Army Faction or the United Red Army; a film about Osama Bin Laden’s children will not, I suspect, generate sympathy or understanding of his actions.
I guess another question to ask is, “Why make a documentary about the daughters of the revolutionaries?” May and Bettina’s reactions towards their mothers strike me as irrelevant as the differences seem to stem from the environments in which they were raised. Bettina grew up in Germany before Meinhof went underground and saw a rapid transformation of their mother, whereas May grew up with Palestinian refugees and saw what her mother was fighting for first hand. We are given a deeper understanding of the revolutionaries as people, real historical figures that existed in our world and have made an impact – just look at the legislation passed in order to subvert their “sympathizers.” For me, the idea of the documentary appears to be a process of removing the mythology behind Meinhof and Shigenobu.
Colin I am very glad you mentioned 9/11. Although 9/11 is not a theme of Children of the Revolution, making a movie about the daughters of RAF members living in a post-9/11 world makes a statement about the evolution of terrorism since the 1970s. On the subject, May Shinegobu says, "9/11 destroys the understanding of the freedom fighter, arab culture and Islamic culture." As seen in The Baader-Meinhof Complex, the RAF plots in 1977 were much more extreme, but also less political than their first plots. Baader even says at one point in Stammheim during the 'Hot Autumn', "Of course the second and third generations of RAF are going to be more extreme." In many ways RAF's early attacks on the United States Army Bases in Germany is the biggest political statement the German RAF could make. It says no we don't support our countries alliance with the U.S., and no we don't support U.S. aggression in Vietnam, the attack is direct. In any case this is entirely different than hijacking a plane of civilians.
DeleteThe other point that was more clearly shown in the Children of the Revolution was how important June 2nd, 1967 was in the creation of the RAF. This really spurned people, namely Ulrike Meinhof, into action and it is interesting to think how much East Germany really had to do with the death of Benno Ohnesong. Meinhof said the moment showed, “West Germany to be a police state.” Political protests are something many First World ‘democratic’ countries struggle to control today. How does the law enforcements reaction to initially peaceful protests in Ferguson show something other than a police state?
Collin,
DeleteI'd agree with you about the removal of mythology in 'Children of the Revolution.' However, I'm not sure if the documentary's method of doing so can be really said to 'remove' the myth of the RAF; instead, O'Sullivan is replacing one story or myth with another.
To say that the RAF is unambiguously a force of good is to mislead, and while 'Baader Meinhof Complex' flirts with that line with the degree of association w/the revolutionaries and the many pontifc speeches of Horst Herold, 'Children of the Revolution' is playing the same game. I wish I'd kept count of exactly how many times Bettina says 'terrorists' in that film, because in this zeitgeist, to ask, 'Were the terrorists justified?' is to beg the question. Americans are so well-conditioned to associate 'terrorism' w/attacks against the U.S., mainly 9/11, and to call the RAF terrorists and /then/ discuss whether they're justified seems counter to the spirit of the debate.
It might make more sense to ask, were the RAF 'terrorists' or 'revolutionaries'? You use both terms, meaning to me that you aren't fully on one side or the other; I just think it's an important question to ask before immediately drawing the line between the RAF and al Qaeda. The myth of terrorism as an unequivocal force of evil is almost certainly, in our day and age, stronger and more pervasive than the myth of Baader-Meinhof.
What I was looking for in Baader Meinhof Complex was the romanticism of Baader Meinhof (Prada Meinhof) and the Red Army Faction. Given the comments about the romanticism before watching the movie, I though that this would be an incredibly important factor in this film, and I was not disappointed.
ReplyDeleteEarly on in the film, it tricks you into thinking that it's a simple nostalgia trip to the 1960s and 1970s, filled with sex, drugs and rock and roll. The film also seems to glamourize even the most grim scenes in the beginning, with the chaos following the protest scenes against the Shah of Iran being scored with a score that can be described as "exciting", despite the serious tone of the scenes.
There's another incredibly romanticized scene early on, when the RAF-to be are all cruising along in their stolen cars, passing along what I thought was a joint and firing guns in the open with impunity. I know that many people my age would see a rebellion against society to be something akin to this, just kind of arbitrarily sticking it to the man. However, when we get closer to the RAF's actual activities, the romanticism end and we see their activities for what they really were.
Slowly, the RAF's actions became this cyclical movement of perpetrating terrorism and reacting to the police. They'd set up bombs in public, detonate them, and some bystanders would get hurt. The police would try to take them down, separate a member or two, and often one would be killed. This would of course set the whole cycle in motion again, ultimately until the whole RAF founding team is captured, but even then the 2nd and 3rd generations continue the cycle, and the imprisoned RAF founders are forced to deal with their actions. By this point they've lost absolute control of their group and ideals, and their movement ended not soon after.
Overall, I think the film did a good job of dispelling the romance of "sticking it to the man" in the 1960's/1970's, unless you only stayed for the first half.
Andrew, I think you are spot on with the film’s initial preoccupation with romanticizing the violent activities of the Baader Meinhof group, namely with the use modern action filmmaking techniques. As Marco mentioned to us in class, it was the filmmaker’s intention to construct The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) in order to communicate an account of Baader Meinhof group to a younger generation with no personal ties to the events, so it stands to reason that he would use the cinematic language of quick cuts and, as you mention in your post, an exciting score to both hook and inform a younger audience.
DeleteTake, for example, the sequence in which the group carries out multiple bombings on both capitalist and police targets. A mobile camera closely follows the perpetrators as they carry out their missions to the tune of a high-energy score, evoking the feeling of watching the protagonists of an action-thriller rather than seeing an objective history lesson. As we cut from one angle to another while bombs go off, actual footage from newsreels and images from newspapers are included stylistically to give further historical context to the fictionalized portrayal of real events. It is, as Robert Sklar mentions in his review of the film, “closer in form, say, to the Bourne trilogy, a kinetic and visceral thriller… its idea of interpreting the past is to try to match on screen the same number of bullets that were expended in an actual event” (42).
In contrast to this, Share O’Sullivan’s documentary Children of the Revolution (2010) uses straight facts and the personal narratives of two children of revolutionary leaders to reflect on the period. Rather than intensifying the historical events, the film uses the original, unaltered images and recordings simply to inform the viewer and compliment the recollections of Mei Shigenobu and Bettina Röhl about their mothers. Although not filled with action packed recreations of the violent attacks committed by both the Red Army Faction and the Japanese Red Army, the impact of the attacks are still conveyed in the film through uncensored footage of moments like janitors mopping up the blood during the aftermath of the Lod Airport massacre and through photographs of the dead RAF prisoners hanging from homemade nooses. Befitting a more documentary style, Children lets the history stand for itself and uses the unique experience of two women brought up with a special viewpoint on 60’s and 70’s terrorism to open up a different perspective on the subject.
This echoes a lot of thoughts I had on the Baader Meinhoff Complex as well. The brutality that is shown during the initial protest scene shows just how serious and tense the situation is, but it really ramps up with the shooting of Benno Ohnesorg. From there, Andrew is right, it gives a highly romanticized version of the young rebel's struggles against "the man". It paints this resistance group as the good guys, who are fighting for the people, and makes it seem as if going against the government is what all the "cool" kids are doing. As the film carries on, however, their actions end up catching up with them, and the seriousness of their situation readily becomes apparent. I think it would be very easy to have made a movie that continued the tone of saying that everything the Red Army Faction did was entirely justified and necessary, but instead the line between rebellion and terrorism becomes blurred and even crossed.
DeleteAs the Baader-Meinhoff gang is in prison and facing trial, those still fighting the government take it upon themselves to ramp up the violence and increase the intensity of their actions against those who oppose them, and with each passing generation, the actions they take to oppose the government reach a point where they are even endangering the lives of civilians.
The very end of the movie is where everyone's eyes are opened to what is really going on. At first there are a few who continue to deny that the suicides could be anything other than assassinations by someone on the inside, but finally, through some convincing, they are able to accept that the RAF has gone to far, and that their current actions have gone far beyond what the original members would have ever wanted. The final line of the film really hammers this message home, "You never knew them. Stop seeing them as they never were."
Although I do agree that the focus of this documentary is on the relationship of revolutionaries and their daughters, I feel that it emphasizes on how these daughters overcame the difficulties of these relationships rather than the idea of a mother and daughter relationship. With the relationship, or lack thereof, between Bettina and Ulrike Meinhof, through this documentary we learn very blatantly that Bettina rarely saw her mother and often felt that Ulrike may not have wanted to be parent.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the relationship that May Shigenbobu had with her mother didn’t involve as much violence or abrupt abandonment as Bettina Meinhof’s with her mother, the relationship May had with her mother wasn’t necessarily a good one. Throughout the documentary May stressed the turbulence she experienced through having to adapt different identities frequently. She does seem significantly more at peace with her mother’s relationship than Bettina’s relationship with her mother. May also more eloquently accepts her mother’s actions than Bettina did with her mother, and understandably so, but the ways in which may was affected by her mother’s actions are present.
This documentary also shows us that these two highly contrasted relationships had a common denominator which was the resilience of the daughters. This is revealed of course in the interviews, but towards the end of each story the scenes in which the daughters are talking about where they currently stand with mother hood and their mother’s decisions, the compositions are aesthetically pleasing and naturally lit outside giving the viewer a sense of hope and fulfilment.
There are undoubtable differences in the relationships between the revolutionaries and their daughters here, but I still feel that the focus in on how they were affected, as well as how these daughters both made positive changes in their lives regardless of the severity of circumstances they endured while having revolutionaries as parents.
Shane O’Sullivan’s documentary Children of the Revolution (2010) and Uli Edel’s The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) offer highly contrasting interpretations of Red Army Faction (RAF) leader Ulrike Meinhof. In Edel’s film, Meinhof (played by Martina Gedeck) is, as Robert Sklar notes in his review of the film, “the hesitant and anguished bourgeois intellectual, with a dour expression and shapeless black hair.” In the film Meinhof is less a leader of the revolution, than a semi-engaged observer who tags along for the ride. She is never as adamant about the actions the group takes, but is more reserved and secondary. In one scene even criticizing the methods Baader and Ensslin as poorly planned before submitting to their immediate condemnation. Compare this to the woman Meinhof’s daughter, Bettina Röhl describes as uninterested in her children and who in hindsight sees her mother as utterly focused and obsessed with the cause of the revolution. Röhl and several other interviewees say Meinhof was like a completely different person after her divorce and brain surgery, which Edel’s film never mentions, saying her moods became darker and more extreme as her involvement in the RAF increased. Röhl expresses her disappointment in recreations of her mother in popular culture, possibly alluding to Edel’s film, for portraying her as sensitive and feminine. The documentary footage and photographs of Meinhof seem to portray her as a much stronger and more determined character. Though Meinhof’s depiction is limited to photographs and short video clips of her speaking and smoking, her intent gaze and straightforward way of speaking have little in common with the Meinhof at the beginning of Edel’s film who is reluctantly pushed to read her latest article on the Shah of Iran aloud by her husband at a social gathering. Meinhof shyly giggles, seemingly nervous and embarrassed before reading her critical article. One would assume from O’Sullivan’s film that Meinhof would be a much more engaged, determined, and rousing speaker in relation to a topic she is so passionate about such as this, in contrast to the introverted and almost detached figure she is portrayed as in Edel’s film. However, as Sklar argues, all three leaders of the RAF are depicted rather thinly in Edel’s film. Baader is the spontaneous bad boy and Ensslin his strong and sexually liberated counterpart. There is little explication of the RAFs actions besides the obvious theme of resistance. Scenes like the one where Baader inaugurates new member Peter-Jürgen Boock (Vinzenz Kiefer) by speeding down the highway in a fancy car listening to music and shooting guns depict the RAF’s coolness more than their political intentions. The film strives to be more entertaining and engaging than particularly political. Sklar and Chris Homewood liken it to Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass’ Bourne Trilogy (2002-2007). It isn’t focused on portraying the ideology or complex representations of the figures it represents like O’Sullivan’s film is. It is more concerned with portraying them in a way audiences can relate to and understand.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with John’s comment that Shane O’sullivan does a great job of making the documentary “Children of the Revolution” feel like an actual movie, rather than a documentary. Like most documentaries, they interviewed a few people (May Shigenobu and Bettina Meinhof in this case) and put the audio of their firsthand accounts of the events over footage and photos from the time period. But what I believe sets this film apart from the typical “documentary” feel is the incredible job they did with editing that footage. The opening scene of the movie shows grainy footage of 4 people walking with their hands on their head, followed by a woman, presumably Ulrike Meinhof, wearing a black ski mask pointing a gun at them, and escorting them to a bus. The second scene is footage of a plane exploding. These scenes really give the feeling as if this is a fictional film right from the beginning. On another note, I really like the first line of the movie: “the morality of the oppressed people is not they fight because they live. They fight to live, and fighting is living”, because it really embodies, or speaks to the mindset of the revolutionaries that we have been learning about during this class. I believe the purpose of this documentary is to “humanize” these two women who are largely considered terrorists by examining them not as revolutionaries, or terrorists, but by viewing them as mothers and how their lifestyle choices affected their relationships with their daughters. In doing so, we are also exposed to another angle of the stories behind these women: how their decisions affected their lives in general, as well as the lives of the people close to them, in particular their daughters. In Bettina Meinhof’s case, she was never connected to her mother much, she even said that she often felt her mother did not want to be a parent. We see that throughout Bettina’s life, she resents her mother for her actions, however once she has children of her own, she develops some sympathy for her mother, realizing how hard it must have been. In May’s case, she grew up with her mother already involved In this lifestyle, whereas Bettina saw the transformation her mother made. As Collin mentioned, May grew up with Palestinian refugees, so she saw first-hand what her mother was fighting for. As a result, it seems that May has an easier time coming to terms with her mother’s actions.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I wanted to make the same point you have here in regards to the way Children of the Revolution was shot and edited. O’Sullivan and his team seamlessly integrated newly recorded interviews along with original footage of the protests to create a smooth, smart documentary that effortlessly navigates the complexities of 1968 and its aftermath. As John already stated, the inclusion of the Japanese protests shot in black and white cinemascope truly is very visually poetic element to the film.
ReplyDeleteChildren of the Revolution makes use of interviews and eyewitness testimony that lend the film a sense of authenticity not found in Edel’s Baader Meinhof Complex. Where Edel has had to assert that Baader Meinhof Complex is accurate in its dramatization, O’Sullivan doesn’t need to make such claims about Children of the Revolution. O’Sullivan uses lengthy interviews from the daughters of women leaders in the revolution, as well as many other people who were involved in the events, to explain what happened and why. Bettina Röhl is unafraid to admit that her mother was a terrorist whose actions have been romanticized by many, where May Shigenobu explains how her mother was seen as a hero in the Middle East but demonized in Japanese media.
Children of the Revolution does a wonderful job of refusing to remain Eurocentric; rather than focusing on narratives based only in the West, O’Sullivan carefully and intentionally included narratives from the East and Middle East. In utilizing May Shigenobu and her story, the film helps paint a much broader picture of what happened globally during 1968 and its aftermath. Because it was a global revolution, this is a necessary component to our full understanding of the events.
Children of the Revolution and The Baader Meinhof Complex are two very different films that deal with the same subject matter. However, even though they are different from one another, I still believe that each film is successful in accomplishing what it sets out to do. As other students have mentioned already, O’Sullivan’s Children of the Revolution explores an interesting perspective of the RAF’s and Japanese Red Army’s actions, as well as their consequences, through the eyes of Meinhof’s and Shigonebu’s daughters. The choice to view the events of the 60’s and 70’s from the daughters’ perspectives provides a new way of understanding both women (Ulrike and Fusako) and, therefore, a new way of viewing the consequences of their actions, not only in terms of their own lives and the revolution, but also their families. As many have mentioned, O’Sullivan very effectively cuts together real footage in juxtaposition with the interviews of the daughters, ultimately showing not just the historical events, but how those events shaped the childhoods of the daughters and how they are still dealing with it, learning from it, and trying to make sense of it to this day.
ReplyDeleteRegarding The Baader Meinhof Complex, I agree with Andrew and Dan about how it romanticizes the RAF and their use of violence so that it becomes more of an action movie. However, as Marco pointed out in class, the film was made for twenty-somethings who knew very little about the subject matter and, even though the film does romanticize the group, as well as portraying Ulrike Meinhof much differently than Children of the Revolution or any of the readings, it still provides an account of the events that took place. Perhaps the film romanticizes the group and their violence so much because that is one of the only ways to get through to the twenty-somethings these days and capture their attention (this is a different issue altogether). On top of the scene where they are driving cars through the streets, appearing to have the best time ever, a different, smaller example of this is the sex scene towards the end between Brigitte and Peter. Perhaps something like that did happen, but is it really necessary to the film? No, but, it is a sexy way of keeping young adults entertained with the film. Katja Nicodemus discusses the nature of the film, stating:
…after it's done with all the key events, attacks, planning sessions, and assassinations, there's no time left for background or the ideas behind the political catchphrases. The Baader Meinhof Complex doesn't develop a position on the terrorists and their deeds- although, of course, "no position" is itself a position. All that remains is a collection of ruthless, murderous action-movie stereotypes woodenly reciting political slogans. (58)
As Nicodemus points out, the film is basically a romanticization of the key events, and violence, of that time period and never bothers to delve deeper into explanation and reasoning like Children of the Revolution does. However, The Baader Meinhof Complex is still a fictionalized version aimed towards entertaining young adults while also giving them an idea of what the RAF did. Both filmmakers intended to do different things with their films and that is why I think they were both, in a sense, successful.
Children of the Revolution (Shane O’Sullivan, 2012) serves as a sort of rebuttal to the dramatized narrative of The Baader Meinhof Complex (Uli Edel, 2008). As noted by Daniel in reference to Sklar’s review and by John in his post, The Baader Meinhof Complex is definitively a film first and a documentation of history second. The heavy use of montages, quick cuts, voice-over narration and news broadcasts, and the frequent inclusion of actual news footage from around the world draw attention to this fact, as does the very cinematic – for lack of a better word – construction of the plot. Where the film breaks the mold is in its realization of the murky morality surrounding the events. Although the violent revolutionaries and the fascist government are seen equally at fault for the majority of the movie, it is ironically in the second half when Baader, Ensslin, Meinhof, and the others are imprisoned and undergoing emotional distress and doubt that there is a visual representation of the black-and-white ideals of the RAF. At the point of the most questioning of what the cause has become (as the second and third generation resort to more and more violent methods of attempting to get their heroes released from Stammheim without a thought to what the leaders were hoping to accomplish) and in preparation for the trial, Baader, Meinhof, and company are wearing dark clothes to starkly contrast the clinical white walls of the prison; it’s an expression of their increasing paranoia and isolation. They are mere representatives of a cause that has basically been forgotten in the youths’ revolutionary fervor.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Children of the Revolution focuses on the personal, human complexities of history. By featuring the daughters of Ulrike Meinhof and Shigenobu Fusako, attention is placed on the ways in which the families of the revolutionaries were affected. O’Sullivan works to humanize women who were, as Shigenobu Mei mentions in one of her interviews, seen as violent criminals and deviants – not human beings – in their home countries. Relationships are the focus: the strained, distant one between Bettina Röhl and Meinhof (more about this in a moment); and the more emotionally close yet physically separated one between Shigenobu Mei and her mother. Even the news footage is personalized, due to the fact that it is connected to the women through either a preceding interview with someone who knew/knows the revolutionary or in a voice-over detailing the incident or image. An interesting aspect of this documentary is the intricacy of Röhl’s connection to her mother. It is fairly rarely that she refers to Meinhof as her mother, with the most memorable instances being Röhl’s memories of the happier times before moving to Berlin, her perception of the deleterious effects of Meinhof’s affiliation with Baader and Ensslin, her interactions with her mother in Stammheim, and in her consideration of her own relationship with her daughter as compared to that of her and her mother. The cumulative effect of the centrality of family leads to a subtler, more nuanced vision of the ways the revolutions in Germany in particular and around the world in the 1970s.
One of the main questions that I muddled with after watching The Baader-Meinhoff Complex revolved around the background information and lack thereof that was attached to some characters. Specifically, I was interested in why Meinhoff was given a history and who Baader, who shares the title of the film, really wasn't. After watching Children of the Revolution, I feel a bit more clarity on the topic, but primarily I have even more questions.
ReplyDeleteWe see Meinhoff wronged and damaged by the actions of her husband, and we see her as a busy mother before we ever see her as a revolutionary woman. On the beach in the first scene, the film makes it clear that the interaction between her husband and his mistress is a relevant and probably damaging one with great effect on Meinhoff. After she walks in on her husband and his mistress, she drives away with her children and we see her spiral downward into near madness until her eventual suicide at the end of the film. She wasn't the mastermind or the leader of the RAF, and her decision to participate actively was a last minute one that the film gives much relevance. So why is it that she is a central figure in the film, and why is it that she is given the most depth? Is it because it undermines the notion that she was fighting for change in the world and instead implies that she was killing from anger and for vengeance? That seems awfully strange.
I also find it really fascinating that there is lots of information that Children of the Revolution presents that the film chooses to leave out. For instance, the fact that Meinhoff had a tumor seems to be an unfortunate fact of Meinhoff's life that would align well with the tragedy of her husband's affair. Yet, the film chooses to omit that part of her life. I think that this says something about what each of the films are trying to say. (Though I don't really know what that something is) If Meinhoff was revealed to have been mentally ill in the film, that would have really changed the way the viewers saw her and possibly the way they saw movement. She would have been seen as "mad" not because of her passion for the injustice that was happening at the time or because of her unfortunate personal life, but because she was mentally ill. Perhaps by leaving the tumor issue out it gives more credit to their passion for the movement and their acts of terrorism. Conversely, perhaps the reason it's duly noted so thoroughly in Children of the Revolution is because the film is trying to emphasize an over-appreciation for what the terrorists did, while The Baader-Meinhoff Complex wants to emphasize the positive aspects of terrorists' actions. This is of course just one small speculation.
I realize this post is a lot more question than comment, but that is still where my mind is with the two films.
My favorite scene from the "Baader-Meinhof Complex" is when Baader is stuck with his comrade in a storage garage, blocked in by the police. For most of this scene, we see it from the viewpoint of a young girl, who presumably knows nothing of the context of the situation. She only sees what is right there in front of her: one man, smoking a cigarette, fighting against an army. She is fascinated and can't keep her camera off of him. But then, Baader is shot in the leg by an older civilian who shoots from a few stories above. Here, we see a little parable of the three German generations. Baader is the postwar rebel, the old man stands in for the war generation, who eventually bring Baader down, and finally, the child, the third generation, who is enamored by the mythic figure of the revel, albeit with a lack of context.
ReplyDeleteThe film itself seems to be missing lots of context. It goes through history depicting famous violent events with exuberant intensity, but does not seem as interested in the scenes which are not part of the RAF myth. Nearly ever scene in the film is also mentioned or shown in the documentary "Children of the Revolution. It is a bare bones version of history, which focuses primarily on famous events, rather than focusing on the reasons for the events. In Homewood's essay "From Baader to Prada," he quotes Kurbjuweit who says "All of these films look at their protagonists with an assured sympathy. For Schlondorff and Petzold they are not so much perpetrators as sufferers. Roth's Baader is a coold hound, chick. These films, by all means successes in themselves as works of art, have supported the leftist discourse: they create tolerable images for unbearable events. It is a discourse which willingly cuts out monstrosity of the deeds and grumbles about the motives of the perpetrators." The victims in this film are mostly faceless and supernumerary. This is not a movie for the victims. Neither is this a movie for radical leftists. This is a film, which uses mainstream actors and cinematic techniques, for the 4th generation, for those who know very little about this history, and yet, are mostly interested in being entertained by history than informed by it.
The haunting question within The Baader-Meinhoff Complex, Children of the Revolution, and even Something in the Air is: what is the threat? What is the evil, and who do we sympathize with (if we are meant to sympathize with anyone for that matter)? Although it seems we should be able to relate more towards the young revolutionaries - the radical, headstrong youths fighting to take command from the older, and seemingly more socially distant, politicians in power. Often the viewpoints are from these rebels; we see their struggles, their ideologies and their goals, but we are then exposed to their methods of revolution. Their outbursts with law enforcement, the savagely executed acts of violence, which sometimes involve innocent bystanders, all resonate with a horrific viciousness. It isn't until Children of the Revolution and The Baader-Meinhoff Complex that we are introduced to the term terrorist, seemingly synonymous with revolutionary. Although they may generalize to mean the same thing, it is obvious that there is a massive difference in their connotation. And how does that affect us? Do we find ourselves rooting for the terrorists on their conquest of social change? Or do we find ourselves viewing them as what they are and empathize with the oppressive powers in control? The more films we view the more this question seems to play a larger part in, and whether or not it will become a clear distinction in the future has yet to be determined. It is possible that this is a subject that never has a distinct right or wrong answer, that we as viewers are never supposed to be sure who is the good force and who is the bad.
ReplyDeleteChildren of the Revolution (2010), is a film about the radical adventures of Ulrike Meinhof, leader of the Red Army Fraction in Germany. The documentary portrays Meinhof’s life in the army through the voice of her living daughter Bettina; a journalist who spent much of her childhood with her mother but not much else. Bettina is an interesting character herself because she in a way serves as the people of Germany relationships to Meinhof. Most of the population knows little about the Red Army leader, but through her writing serves as a inspiration to her daughter and the people of Germany she fought for.
ReplyDeleteChildren of the Relvolution (2010) makes the clear fact to the viewer that Meinhof was a primary member of the Red Army Fraction and only namedrops Baader and Andreas as members of the group. The film does not sugarcoat the critical decisions Meinhof’s had to make during her reign over the Army.
The Baader Meinhof Complez (2008), a dramatization of Red Army Fraction’s actions during ’68 Germany, treats Meinhof as more of a supporting character of the cause compared to the others. While Baader and Andreas are busy making and throwing detonating bombs, she instead documented her thoughts about the cause, an act that she is ridiculed of throughout the film. The film also suggests that she was not an original member of the cause and only joined when she participates in the recuse of Baader and followed them out of the window.
On the screen, Meinhof may seem like a supporting character, but director Uli Edel gives the character an interesting angle to be examined. Meinhof is stilled the journalist in the film, expressing her thoughts about the state of German politics. No one else in this film has that type the power as she does and that is what is expressed easily throughout the population. Sure, the others are making bombs and shooting guns but she is using the power of words to express her dissasifcation towards the government, a weapon that carried to more individuals.
In The Baader Meinhof Complex, we see the personal effects on Ulrike Meinhof, from a well-known activist to an extremist who committed suicide in a high security prison. Throughout the movie, you can clearly see the distance between Ulrike and the rest of the RAF, either physically and/or ideologically.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the scenes, when the main characters are getting training in Jordan, and they decide to take a break and strip and lay out on the top of one of the buildings. While everyone seems comfortable with being exposed, Ulrike still has her arms across her chest. While that could be due to some insecurities, which everyone has when it comes to how they feel with their bodies, but it also feels like she is doing the bare minimum to get approval from the rest of the group. Ulrike is very passionate about the cause and wants results, just like the rest of the RAF, but it seems that throughout the movie, there is tension with how she wants to deal with the strategy and the attainment of the robberies and the attacks and the leadership of Baader.
Even towards the end of the movie, when Baader, Ulrike, and Gudrun, are in the prison, you can still see the uneasiness between Baader and Gudrun and Ulrike. Everything that Ulrike was writing, Gudrun was rewriting. Even when they were ultimately on there way to life in prison and/or execution, they still would have petty fights about something that didn't really have any important value.
Throughout the entire film, you get a feeling of chaos. From the attacks that the RAF commit, to the interior of the RAF itself. The masses are in panic, with a twist of rebellion that is encouraging to the RAF. At the beginning of the of the attacks, everything seems pretty structured, but the RAF become more distraught and impulsive. And at the end, it was a poorly thought out attack that failed that helped make the decision to have a mass suicide inside the prison cells.
During 'The Baader Meinhof Complex,' I was struck multiple times by the film's use of music to create tension and manipulate emotion. At times, the film seemed as though it was attempting to be an accurate representation of the events surrounding the RAF [it was tagged as A TRUE STORY, after all], but during certain scenes, the film looks and feels less like a documentary and more like a thriller.
ReplyDelete[aside: I know that 'The Baader Meinhof Complex' is NOT a documentary and that it should not be accepted as truth. However, Dr Abel's comments w/r/t the film's director, that he was trying to 'teach' our generation what '68 in Germany was really like, and I believe that making this kind of didactic claim necessitates a certain standard of accountability. If someone says, 'This is a true story,' and then exaggerates their description of events so much that the truth becomes distorted, your reaction isn't, 'Wow, what a great story,' it's, 'Stop lying to me.']
The first time I noticed music specifically in the film was during the shooting of Rudi Dutschke. As the shooter approached Dutschke, the background music picked up, and it was neither 'of the times' music nor traditional orchestral arrangements. The track was one of those thudding-bass, electronically-influenced numbers that one hears in, not even a Bond film, but maybe a Bourne movie. My first thought, honestly, was 'video game music.'
Something all those have in common, though [i.e. Bourne and video games]: they're unambiguous. There is a good guy and a bad guy, and the viewer/participant is either implicitly or explicitly told to align themself w/ the hunted. In this case, that's Dutschke. And that's not a small statement to make; Dutschke was obviously a controversial figure [a left-wing radical protesting the Vietnam War, though not as violently as the RAF], and to build this sort of foreboding music as he's stalked through the streets of the city is to put the viewer completely on his side.
Music influences other scenes as well [the courtroom and Baader's escape feel relevant as well], but that was the clearest example I could find. It makes clear the film's allegiances and therefore its agenda: it's very pro-Communist.
I'm just now reading the Homewood article, and he ALSO thought that the music sounded like the Bourne trilogy. And he's a real film critic. -sunglasses emoji-
DeleteThe Baader–Meinhof Complex (2008) and Children of the Revolution (2010)
ReplyDeleteare both slightly propagandistic through their attempt to “humanize” the psychopathic Red Army Faction members. The Baader–Meinhof Complex, as Robert Skiar suggests, acts as a historical melodrama, so for entertainment purposes, the film must at some level make the characters appear likable. The film often does this through humor and sex, but also through the group’s appearance and sense of energy. For example, the RAF members appear clean–cut and youthful appearance in comparison to the side of “the law,” who are mostly bald, old men, whether they are judges or the police. Also, the use of music, quick cuts, and tracking shots during violent shootouts work to compliment the faction’s actions as engaging at the very least, or dare I say “heroic,” like one would see in an action blockbuster or a heist film.
Children of the Revolution, on the other hand, builds a sympathy case for Ulrike Meinhof and Fusako Shigenobu by having their children, who are now middle–aged adults, speak on their behalf as nurturing parents (ex: [Meinhof] “loved her children very much”) and, with some critical distance, attempt to justify their actions. The film begins stating, “The morality of oppressed people is not that they fight because they live; they fight to live” yet it fails to elaborate on how these militant groups were oppressed, only in that they were dissatisfied with the current world events. The documentary does, however, suggest Meinhof’s psychopathy through examining her brain abnormalities, resulted from a “botched” brain operation that occurred before her radical political involvements. Her daughter concludes by describing her mother’s myth that perceives Ulrike as a “good person” making irresponsible choices, which possibly more aligns with The Baader–Meinhof Complex since narrative fictional films often tend to exaggerate myths for the sake of entertainment.
In a specific scene within the Baader-Meinhof Complex, Meinhof, Ensslin, Baader, and others are gathered around a television set as a quote from Mao comes over almost as an omnipresent narrator where he declares, “we must draw a clear line between ourselves and the enemy” a quote that from this point on rings clear not only in the struggles between Meinhof and an ideal RAF, but also as an internal struggle within each of the trio. After little time, Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu) becomes angry, upset at the losing war, and kicks a chair, raises his voice, and makes a clear divide between himself and Meinhof’s (Martina Gedeck) revolution. This invisible divide is eventually the downfall of the group, and a focus of finding the difference between enemy and revolution seemed to mix more often than other revolution-sympathetic films. While I am not in any way an expert on Maoism, I was interested in how this quote tied into the trio’s lives not only in the film but in factual historical context as well.
ReplyDeleteWe see, towards the end of the Baader-Menhof Complex the decomposition of Meinhof’s spirit, and in this way she was obviously divided between what is right, and what will cause change, for better or worse. Yet, before this imprisonment, Meinhof is divided once more when she is deciding where her daughters lie in her revolutionary lifestyle. Here, and from the documentary Children of the Revolution, we see that the revolutionary fire that burned within her Meinhof, scorched her, and was the enemy, as she was without a way to divide that rebellious spirit and the mother she had once wanted to be. Her daughter, Bettina, looks back on her mother with an almost divided disdain; there is a sense of mother-daughter loyalty (for example, when she speaks of finding out about her mother’s death by radio, she becomes tense and unable to speak on the matter) yet most every thing she speaks of in memory is negative, and shows the reckless life Ulrike drove her and her sister into, despite a mother’s role.
With this strong divide the Baader-Meinhof Complex becomes more authentic just as discussed in the Homewood paper. The authenticity that Edel promised is able to take divided characters and cause a divided audience. Seeing a less sympathetic, and more factual portrayal of these historic figures leaves me as a viewer believing that Mao’s quote was not only important to the revolution, but as a warning to the characters as well.
A lot of people have mentioned how the documentary Children of the Revolution shows another side of these revolutionaries. Although May’s story is truly interesting, it is easier to compare the differences in representation between Ulrike Meinhof and her children through The Baader Meinhof Complex and Children of the Revolution. The story of Meinhof is more or less the same between the films, however the view from where the story is told has changed. It is very interesting comparing these two films because in Children of the Revolution, O’Sullivan is creating his narrative of Ulrike through one of Ulrike’s daughters and mixing in other media regarding the matter. This creation of the narrative is very different from what we saw in The Baader Meinhof Complex. In The Baader Meinhof Complex, Edel tells the story through the lens of those directly involved in some way with the RAF, be it through membership, victim, or a member of the state tasked with dealing with them.
ReplyDeleteThese two very different approaches to telling a story and each one is leaving something out. In The Baader Meinhof Complex we have a story told where it would be very easy to believe that the entire thing was fictionalized. As an audience we may feel sympathy for the victims, the people trying to catch the RAF, or may even be sympathetic towards the causes of the RAF. The way that the story is told, however, allows the viewers to see it as a fictionalization of events because of the surrealness of some of the moments, like Meinhof seemingly out of the blue deciding to become very extreme in her beliefs, leaving behind her children and old life like they were nothing.
Children of the Revolution on the other hand, creates an environment of empathy through the narrative. The audience is shown real people who were directly impacted by these extreme leftist movements. We can see the real emotions that they have when asked about their lives and their mothers or comrades lives. Once again, while the same story is being told, how the audience relates and views it are drastically different in these two films, most noticeably in terms of the difference between sympathy and empathy felt for the figures or people.
Something that I found interesting about the film was the characterization of the Baader-Meinhof group, primarily the attitude of Baader. Throughout the film it feels as though Baader finds himself invincible and in that he takes nothing seriously, not even his own resistance group.
ReplyDeleteTo name a few instances from the film there's the scene where Baader is seen speeding on the roadway and driving recklessly (not the first time we see him do this) even though is is on the lam so to speak. This of course leads to his arrest and his subsequent break out, one which wouldn't have even happened if he were to have just been a little careful upon his return.
While training with the Palestinian resistance force he spends the entire time pretty much jerking off so to speak, from the moment he arrives he makes it a point to show them disrespect, later he wastes an entire clips worth of ammo claiming that "it should be fun"
He can't even take his own trial seriously, the first time we see him in court he's seen smoking a cigar and practically making a mockery of the court, this is echoed later on in the trial following his imprisonment where he calls the judge an asshole.
Speaking of his imprisonment, there's a scene where the guards tell him to keep it down to which he replies that he wouldn't even be there the next day. He legitimately thought that he and his terrorist group could be broken out of a maximum security prison, and it's in this hubris that one might find his character to be unsympathetic.
Another thing I found interesting about the characterization of the Baader-Meinhof group was how self important and paranoid they all were. I feel that the perfect example of this was the scene after the woman in their group opened fire on police officers and was shot down, in this scene they all push the blame onto the police saying that they executed her and even going as far as to say that it was without cause. This can later be seen through Meinhof's death and how everyone thought it was an execution rather than the apparent suicide that it was.
Another thing about the suicide that I would like to point out is how everyone in the prison seemed extremely angry over her death, when over the course of their imprisonment they had taken to antagonizing her and at one point they even called her a traitor and that she was the knife in the RAF's back. It was this hypocrisy that made their cause all that much more unsympathetic.
Having watched The Baader Meinhof Complex (Uli Edel, 2008), before watching the documentary Children of the Revolution (Shane O’Sullivan, 2010) created the opportunity to approach Edel’s film in a relatively untainted, unbiased manner. Going into The Baader Meinhof Complex only knowing it was a film seeking to educate a younger generation who didn’t know much about the events surrounding 1968, the film created a rough sketch of the events dealing with the RAF, its members, and the situation in Germany. The manner the film was represented, despite the initial inscription claiming “true story,” played in screen more like a construction of a glamorized, selective collage rather than a true account of the events.
ReplyDeleteOne visual representation of this is after the group’s return from Jordanien to West Germany in 1970. The progression of ensuing images is quick in both editing and narrative compression. The usage of tracking shots, wide shots alternated with close-ups, use of real news clips, voice-over narrative from news reporters, color segments intertwined with color, and on-screen violence create a blur of confusion and desperation. Whether to represent the feelings of the time, or to confuse the viewer, the following scene of Horst Herold serving lobster soup shows a juxtaposition of interests. Going from real footage into a fictionalized portrayal of the BKA.
Due to its narration in retrospective with the purpose to educate, the voice of Horst Herold comes as the voice of common consent--an objective look into the events from a politically knowledgeable, privileged position which observes and notices strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Here, however, the film shows a detour from telling the reality of the events. It shows a certain amount of libertinage in its representation. Another example, comes in the form of Ulrike Meinhof. The cinematographic choice to begin the film in a nudist film where we are introduced to her as a woman, mother, and wife before anything else, tints the manner we see her. It could have easily started with her reading the article at the party and fading into the revolt, but it is small choices like that which ultimately reinforce the vulnerability and untrustworthiness of history, and anyone narrating it. While the film doesn’t fail to show the brutality of the events, it does so without escaping bias input.
Most significantly, the biggest benefit of watching Children of the Revolution afterwards, came from picking up in the differences depicted more acutely. One film is a parent looking back trying to cleanly narrate a soiled story. In contrast, Children of the Revolution struggles with the children looking back, for it is a double-edged sword, as it shows a distorted image, perhaps dramatized, or confused, due to the children’s reception of the then. Both movies try to use real footage, actual interviews from the era, and sources, but both are tainted by what they are trying to find. Children of the Revolution’s characterizations are just as tricky to take as truthful as Edel’s characters. The constant search for factual, tangible motives for Ulrike Meinhof’s actions show the struggle of a daughter and family friend trying to accept the “terrorist” nature of a beloved, rather than an actual portrayal of the person.
Leaving out the brain injury, results of Meinhof’s autopsy, the fact that she wasn’t buried with her brain, the visits of her daughters during her time in prison, and the briefly mentioned never found last pieces of her writings show the unreliability of learning history from only one source. The Baader Meinhof Complex fails to give us all of this aspects of one of its main characters, while Children of the Revolution overplays their importance while try to understand the motivations of such radical actions. However, together the films accomplish to create a balance where the viewer can piece together their own collage, and try to create truth out of a cloud of confusing, half-forgotten, and past events.
I’m very intrigued by the depictions in our at home documentary film, “Children of the Revolution”. Family is a basic institution in human society and one major reoccurring theme in both, “Grin without a Cat” and “Children of the Revolution” is the influx of terrorism and the displacement of family. I agree with Dom Lincoln, that Children of the Revolution can be viewed as a consequence of action film. As each film has its own unique style of showing this, a common link of being on the run in both the film and documentary. I personally favor the documentary. Archived footage of protestors gives the impression of an advancing movement within society, but also tells a great story through the eyes of May. Jump cuts are a key component in this film is repeatedly used for the obvious time restraints but also show great progression. Some of the very same things were happening inside the United States, with students demonstrating against the U.S presence in Vietnam. Students in Germany, and France were demonstrating all demonstrating against the monopoly of Capitalism. News in France focuses on American student involvement and its adding fuel to a much greater problem. A grin Without a Cat could very well be and left winged extremist video, which isn’t surprising. The main action included a lot more Violence than Children of the Revolution. The documentary has to be a little bit more carful of this so they aim to establishing background in its aftermath decades later. This was especially critical for the film to incorporate Bettina and her shameless story of her parents Japanese Red Army agenda. However, the main focus on this film is how one societies terror can be another societies obsession. I really admire the director for having such a direct focus on the evolving relationships throughout the story of May and Bettina.
ReplyDelete