Last weeks

Goodbye, Lenin! was a perfect film to finish off the quarter. I felt like it drew together both our courses and allowed us to discuss – with our newly acquired contextual knowledge – the ramifications of the fall of Eastern Germany. Considering the past hundred years, the end of the GDR struck me first as simply another change in a long, complicated string of alterations, changing the face of Berlin and of Germany. It dawned on me, however, that the period from the fall in 1989 to the present is in fact the longest stretch of peaceful history is maybe 130 years, or at least since World War One. Germany is moving forward, and as the distance between past and present grows, German reunification remains the last and, arguably, the most important change yet.

Allan’s article addressed, among other things, the complex relationship between fiction, history, and memory. He discusses Goodbye, Lenin! in the context of other post-GDR films. Like others, Goodbye Lenin! is a comedy gently poking fun at GDR stereotypes. However, the film definitely breaks down some of these stereotypes. Allan argues that it is “through the characterization of Alex’s mother, Christiane, that the film succeeds in providing a corrective to stereotypical notions of the GDR generally, and of socialist activism in particular.” Christiane isn’t some brainless party proponent, but rather an activist intent on improving the system. She sees through the pomp of the party leaders, and is clearly aware of some of the stifling and backward elements of GDR ideology. “The film marks her out as a figure whose qualities transcend the boundaries of East and West,” something the film does in other respects as well. Positioning the story around a family drama works to elicit sympathy from both Easterners and Westerners. The decision of Christiane to stay in the GDR is left puzzling for all viewers, and helps the viewer understand better the complicated and conflicting loyalties felt by many Easterners.

I enjoyed the movie much more than when I first saw it. I’m not sure whether it’s because I know more history now, or whether I was able to better view the film after a quarter of film analysis. I feel like I could see more into Alex and his struggle with both the fall of both is mother, and of the GDR. The alternate ending he produces for his mother seems like a commentary on our changing relationship with history. All of history is production, to an extent, and he allowed (or attempted to allow) his mother a version of history that many probably still wish for.

The past two weeks have been a whirlwind of sorts. Beginning Monday of last week, I don’t think I spent less than five hours each day on the project. But last Monday night we struck gold, as far as our project is concerned. We finally went out to a ping pong bar, played ping pong, and met people. Nice people. It was thrilling, to say the least. We played for probably two hours with this couple that later agreed to an interview. They provided great perspective on the game and Berlin, but as it turns out they weren’t actually from Berlin, so we weren’t entirely sure how to place their statements in the context of our film.

In the end, it worked out just fine. We panicked for probably the first three days of intense editing, then the pieces started to fit together into a manageable whole, and the process got a lot easier. Nate took on the bulk of editing at first, manning the computer while we all tried to provide input. I got on the computer probably Thursday, and finally put together a sequence on my own. It was kind of exciting. I’m not used to producing something like that. I felt kind of immensely proud of myself. By the end of the project, I was having such a hard time maintaining interest while watching that I took over for most the last three days. My baby in the project was the training sequence, which I did entirely on my own. I also did most of the micro-editing, trimming down clips, color correcting, and sound balancing of the film.

By the end of the whole thing, I was surprised to find myself really enjoying our group. We spent hours and hours together, for days at a time, and we came out alive, and with a final project. Everybody contributed, all four of us, and while we got grouchy at times (or I got grouchy) it worked really very well. We had some artistic differences, but everyone was pretty good about giving in when overruled. I was skeptical, and honestly pretty nervous about showing the film to the class. I thought it wouldn’t go over well. I felt it was artistically deficient, especially compared to the other projects. But I think people enjoyed it for what it was. It felt really good, especially when I realized we couldn’t hear the movie because everybody was laughing too loud.

This program was amazing, Eric, and I hope the rest of the class appreciates it. I’ve been on three study abroad programs. Of course they're all amazing, but the caliber and quality of both students and staff on this trip were just totally unbelievable. I couldn’t believe how impressive all the projects were last night. Nobody slacked off, nobody half-assed anything. It was all sincere, and it was all well done. I can't believe how lucky I am to have finished off college with this kind of experience.

Weeks 7-9

WEEK SEVEN

Last week we finished our acoustic film. It seemed to go over pretty well in class. The group had to work together, for real, for the first time on the project. I think it went well, and will go well in the next few weeks as long as no body gets too hardheaded. Nathan did a lot of the editing for the acoustic, which was so great of him. He did most of the grunt work of importing and clipping, and then we all got together to paste things into a real project. We probably spent about 15 hours in three days. It was intense.

I’m heading to Bavaria this weekend, but the moment I return it’s going to be freak-out time. We need to get our shit together, and start forcing this film to take shape.

The process of shooting has been increasingly problematic. We have been multiple places and met a few people, but the language barrier proves consistent. We’ve gotten some great footage, but as far as substantial interviews, we’re really struggling. One of the biggest problems for me in that regard is that I hate forcing the camera on people. I can’t shove myself in anywhere. I’m shy around large groups, at least initially. I had hoped from the beginning that I could stay in the background, and make up for it in editing hours. Not so. We are desperate for footage, and we’re spending almost literally every evening going out to ping pong. It’s exhausting, and extremely detrimental to group morale. To be honest, we’re to the point where I may need to simply utilize the simple fact that I’m a girl.

On to more cinematographical issues, this week we watched Lola Rennt. I loved the article by Sinka. I had no idea how much cultural depth lay at the heart of the film, a fact that gets completely overlooked, I think especially, by American audiences. I have to admit that I had initially agreed with some of the international criticism Sinka sites in her article (lack of character development), but her description of Lola as an “agent of change” makes so much more sense to me now. Berlin and Lola overlap in that regard, both lying at the heart of so many daunting outcomes. You hold your breath for Lola, much as Germany, Europe, and the western world waits in anticipation to see what next comes of a city that has transformed the lives of millions. The center of so many regime changes, you can’t help but compare Berlin to Lola, a city trying hard to get it right, having failed so devastatingly in the past.

A discussion of movement is also central to the film, where tension, movement, and music wrap the viewer in a constant hold. In Sinka’s article, she addresses the political ramifications of this theme, and how even the film itself was used directly in political campaigns. Recovering from sixty years of uninterrupted political tension and turmoil, the Berlin emerging from the Cold War was forced to reshape itself entirely. Movement forward, towards a unified and modern German republic, has been a vital change in the last fifteen years. As Sinka points out, “no city is so synthetic and yet so alive as Berlin, claims Tykwer, and Lola rennt shows the exciting synthetic Berlin currently wedged between modernity and demolition.”

In our course, over the past nine weeks, we’ve watched Berlin transform into what it is today, through film. I believe Tykwer and Sinka’s description of Berlin as ‘synthetic’ yet ‘alive’ is totally on point. So much has been demolished, rebuilt, preserved, or newly created that the city itself buzzes with life, tension, transformation, and renovation. Movement forward has become undeniably important, and everyone is waiting to see what comes next.

WEEK EIGHT

We didn’t have class this week, which is not to say we didn’t do work on our film, but there was no readings or movie for me to discuss here.

Specifically, the work we did do was on Thursday, when Jesse and I went to one of our ping pong bars that was supposed to be having a tournament. It was, but the whole thing was very laid back. We tried to talk with one guy, and he couldn’t speak English. So we shot about two minutes of footage and then left. It was a frustrating evening. The only person nice to us has usually been the bartender.

WEEK NINE

I found this week’s material some of the most interesting yet. Judging by the level of discussion participation, I believe the rest of the class felt similarly. Me Boss, You Sneaker addresses, more directly, the contemporary world, and I don’t know about the rest of the class, but I found it an invigorating change. All of my personal loyalties to history aside, I sometimes need the intellectual stimulation of examining modern times.

So now follows a more deliberately focused and analytical discussion of the film, the readings, and our discussion (as requested by our beloved professor.)

Gokturk, in Identity Politics, introduced some intriguing points for discussion. In her discussion of anarchic comedy, she defines Kutlucan’s film as “a refreshingly mocking take on the discourse of mutliculturalist differentiation.” His film marks a departure, she argues, from some of the more problematic elements in social problem films. Through the use of anarchy, irony, and comedy, the filmmaker is allowed to steer away from the image of immigrant as victim. Instead, films like Me Boss, You Sneaker move towards a less patronizing approach to the problematic issues of immigration, nationality, and identity. I think Gokturk makes an excellent point. When you’re dealing with an issue as complex, as sensitive, and as baggage-laden as that of ethnic, national, or cultural identities, sometimes it’s important to take a step back. As Gokturk puts it, “Immigrant comedies at their best can train spectators in not taking themselves too seriously…they have the power to destabilize discourses and iconographies of power.” She brings up the climate of “ethnic tribalism” and “fetishization of cultural difference” surrounding approaches to identity these days, and I think she’s right. The modern world is faced with more complex issues of “race,” “ethnicity” and “identity” than every before, and everyone is running around terrified of offending. Attempts at political correctedness are almost nauseating when backed up by ignorance, and these attempts often only serve to mute and hamper racially and socially charged dialog. By providing humorous, often ironically critical approaches to modern identity, filmmakers (and artists of all kinds) such as Kutlucan allow for a broadening of cultural discourse. By lightening the mood, Kutlucan is forcing the viewer to take a step back from themselves and their initial assumptions, reactions, and opinions. This is essential to any discussion of culture, nationality, identity, and ethnicity. “We need to infiltrate cultural studies and policy with an ironic, irreverent spirit to counteract essentialist notions of territorially rooted identies,” argues Gokturk. I agree completely.

Now for the keeping-account-of-what-we-did part:

This week was nuts. Monday, after returned from travel, we decided we needed to be out filming every day, taking advantage of all daylight hours. Especially sunny hours. So the moment it got sunny, I grabbed the camera and went out alone for a few hours filming for our introduction. The clips turned out well, and by Thursday we had put together a pretty great introduction to our film. That is, once Nathan and Frodo spent hours figuring out how to import or export and render things for quicker handling in Adobe Premier.

Wednesday (I think it was Wednesday) we went out as a group. It was the first day that I remember having a really great time filming, so it was a nice change. We spent about four or five hours capturing footage for the second part of our introduction, as well as our “training” sequence. Hopefully we got enough, because this next week I doubt we will have much time to grab filler shots.

Every day this week our group spent time together, staring at clips and piecing them together. I’d say at least 2-3 hours a day. Monday night three of us went to Dr. Pong and got maybe our only significantly substantial interview yet. The rest of the week we spent editing. Nathan and Frodo deserve a lot more credit than I do this week. I couldn’t invest myself very fully in the project because I was extremely distracted with family matters at home (my grandma had relatively major surgery on Thursday, it went well) so I’m hoping to make up for that this weekend. Tomorrow I interview a tisch tennis player on my own, and I plan to also spend the entire day doing as much rendering and clipping as I can, in an effort to save us as much time as possible in this coming week.

One last note: we finally come up with some really encouraging ideas for how to structure and extend the film (personal interviews, third-person perspective.) I think it’s going to be great, as long as we keep things funny. Hopefully it wont be trying too hard…