Christian Petzold makes the conflict between love and capitalism clear in the first few minutes of Jerichow (2008), during which Leon (André Hennicke) tells Thomas (Benno Fürmann), “If a friend asks to borrow a thousand, give him a hundred. Otherwise he’ll cross the street when he sees you. You’ll feel guilty for wanting his money back.” Leon and Thomas are evidently close with each other, as evidenced by the fact that they were both present at Thomas’ mom’s funeral, even riding back to Thomas’ family home. This fact is important because any warmth and closeness their relationship once had is soon crushed by financial conflict. Leon’s sympathy for Thomas’ loss – a brief acknowledgement in the house – is immediately followed by him yelling at Thomas about the money he borrowed and didn’t pay back. This money problem has been at the forefront of these characters’ relationship since the first moment they were on screen, as shown when Thomas stops in his tracks outside the cemetery when Leon arrives, making tense eye contact with him. Setting aside their financial conflict to focus on the death of a parent – an emotional, human experience – is entirely out of the question. Finally, tensions culminate in Leon’s physical assault on Thomas. The relationship between these two – and any mention of Thomas’ mother – are soon after swept aside. Money has pushed away the capacity for love in the form of friendship between Thomas and Leon, or in Thomas’ mourning the death of his mother. According to Zygmunt Bauman (2007), the foregrounding of financial concerns over relational ones is one shift characterizing our world today. Feelings of community and authentic relationships have been degraded by an increased focus on commodification and competition (2-3). This shift damages not only Thomas and Leon’s relationship, but also Laura (Nina Hoss) and Ali’s (Hilmi Sözer) marriage. As revealed later in the film, the couple’s prenuptial agreement states that, should Laura divorce her rich and abusive husband, she will once more take on the immense debt that she carried as a single woman. To her, Ali is not a romantic partner, but a solution to a six-digit money problem that she can’t solve on her own. Their marriage is founded on financial security rather than love – in other words, as Bauman would understand it, Laura commodifies Ali. Moreover, the tradeoff for that financial security is an absence of bodily security. Ali is unafraid to raise a hand to Laura or throw her against a wall. But the already difficult task of leaving an abusive partner is made all the more difficult by the prenuptial agreement – Laura must choose which type of security she wants, and really, neither one is guaranteed. Jaimey Fisher (2013) describes Laura’s conundrum well when he writes, “Petzold’s films explore individuals’ tendency, consciously or not, to remake themselves for the socioeconomic context, not only by adjusting their overtly economic activities but also by adapting their desires, dreams, and fantasies” (5). Laura has indeed “remade” her desires so that they further her economic wellbeing. If marriage is an institution built on desire, then Laura’s desire in her marriage is more a proxy of her desire for financial stability. In a world where money wasn’t part of the picture, Laura likely wouldn’t be with Ali, but Petzold’s world is one in which economic concerns trump relational ones, and thus, the economic becomes what is most desired.
Zygmut Bauman titles the introduction to his book, Liquid Times, “Bravely into the Hotbed of Uncertainties,” which is where audiences see Thomas, of Christian Petzold’s Jerichow, venture – although not necessarily “bravely.” The “liquid” phase of modernity that Bauman outlines is ever-present, even in the vacillating perspective achieved through the cinematography.
One way in which Petzold emphasizes the liquidity of modern society is through the settings of the film. Rarely do audiences spend time inside of a household. One of the key household scenes occurs when Laura and Thomas submit to their lust, but even this takes place in a transitory space: a hallway. Not even Thomas’ bed gives signs of solidity or stability: he sleeps on a twin mattress on the floor of what appears to be a study. In retrospect, a surprising amount of the film occurs in either the delivery van or the Land Rover. Fisher uses the term “transit spaces” in his book, Christian Petzold, which aptly describes most of the setting.
Along with the setting, the relationship between Laura and Thomas begs questions about this new “liquid” form of being in modern society. King writes about how the foundation of the relationship between the two is flimsy at best, although it ultimately leads to a murder plot (8). The relationship between Thomas and Laura seems to be a product more of desperation than care, concern, shared interest, shared sense of humor, etc. – all of the things that (most) real love is based off of. Thomas and Laura are (seemingly) isolated from society, so when happenstance (and Ali’s alcoholism) brings them together, they cling to each other in an attempt to escape the increasingly fragile world they occupy.
Death bookends the film – the death of Thomas’s mother and the death of Ali – but the moments between contain moments much less “solid.” Rather, a bulk of the film manages to confuse audiences over who possesses the potential title of “good guy.” Yeah, I get it: good film/literature/whatever doesn’t usually really have a good or a bad guy. I just spent a month teaching high school juniors that heroes and villains do not clearly exist in The Great Gatsby. However, in the beginning, Petzold allies us with Thomas and seemingly against Ali – especially once his propensity for spousal abuse and drunken buffoonery surfaces. By the end, we see that Thomas’ seemingly groundless “love” for Laura kills an immigrant who entered a seemingly unwelcoming space in order to use capitalism to build a financially stable life.
Addressing more specifically the question of whether love is possible without money, I could not help but notice the overabundance of the color green throughout the film – something very obvious to anyone, but something worth noting. What was less noticeable, however, was the use of the color red alongside green. We get it. Green represents money and it represents envy, themes (obviously) notable throughout the film. What struck me most about the color, however, was Petzold’s use of the red flowers among the green bushes in the end of the film. Red, which represents love/lust, was present in a much larger field of green; the red was unable to flourish without all the greenery supporting it. It was a lovely way of emphasizing the need of a comfortable fiscal situation in order to support a healthy, beautiful love.
Other things worth discussing that I don’t have quite enough time to write about tonight: Laura wearing the same red, floral dress in the first and the last beach scene (which coordinates with the flowers I mentioned above), the voyeuristic nature of much of the cinematography, the effect of the use of different perspectives, Ali’s role as an immigrant, how Petzold subverts the femme fatale role (which King mentions, but it’s awesome that he chooses not to make her the mostly naked one for once)
Since Kaitlin alluded to the importance of Ali being an immigrant, I'll go ahead and offer some thoughts. Ali's immigrant status struck me as important, too, especially in the first and last scenes at the beach. In the first, Ali dances to Turkish music in a shot showing only him and the sea. Cut in between these dancing shots are shots of Thomas and Laura sitting together on the picnic blanket, as if in solidarity. They are the two native Germans, whereas Ali is forever considered a foreigner, despite the fact that he left Turkey for Germany when he was two years old. Ali asks that they dance with him to his native-language music, but the two stay silent and still, as if in protest of embracing anything foreign. It is only when Ali forces them up that they participate, and even then, neither one seems to enjoy it. Essentially, they are polite liberals pretending to be tolerant while desperately wish Ali the immigrant would leave. This scene reproduces, on the personal level, what happens with immigrants on the international level every day.
Ali is very much aware of his immigrant status, as we find out in the final beach scene. Confessing to his illness (and social malaise more generally), he tells Laura, "I live in a country that doesn't want me with a woman I bought." While Ali has been hard to sympathize with throughout the film, this moment is one of the few in which his emotional world - raw and gutted, but buried deep down - is revealed. His unburdening to Laura is hardly just about his failing body - it's also about the harsh realities of globalization, capitalism, and cultural conflict, which are inextricably linked to the body's proper functioning. One cannot live an entirely healthy life in a society that doesn't want them.
Nice discussion by both of you. In general it's always good to weave in a moment or two of close cinematic analysis. One thing to caution against, however, is the direct ascription of symbolic meaning to a color etc: red might "represent" love/lust and so on, but it does not so inherently. Indeed, does a color first and foremost represent--signify, mean--something? Or does it DO something? One question to ask is whether "what does X mean" is not always already a secondary question to "what does X DO"?
Conflicting two opposing forces between the rich and poor Christian Petzold illustrates how love for a women is powerful in the triangle of Thomas (Benno Furmann), Laura (Nina Hoss), Ali (Himi Sozer) in Jerichow (2008). Petzold camera cinematography creates an atmosphere of key specific elements. The elements of sound can be categorized into two different objectives. The first is regular sound tracking with the music elevating the emotions of the characters and making the rhythm of the film pattern exploit controversy of interactions between characters. The complexity of the camera work is excellent and the transitioning is times to key points. The use of POV (point of view) shots is created while Thomas is driving in the night. Noticing the still shots used before most transitions to next scene, it usually points out the character in the ¾ frame. The Second is the outstanding use of background noises. Almost every motion, object, and placement was illustrated by sound. For example when characters stepped on steps, open and close doors, messing with keys to get into the house. All the small fragments were in use. If you have ever toggled with a film creating all those sounds would take a long time to complete. The sounds are far more complex then most films in the modern era. The use of natural light attracts most the film to be shot outside. What really is quite fascinating is how some of the film is shot during the day in contrast to filming it all in the morning or evening when natural light is best. It sets new boundaries for use of natural lighting. The beach scene next to the sea really makes the film dull but at the same time the music makes the tempo of the film slow down quite a bit. The film’s motion of rhythm is relatively slow and allows the City of Jerichow to be looked at as a countryside environment. Comparing the darkness to lust is illustrated through Laura and Thomas because of the affair they are having behind Ali’s back. The scene behind the house in the middle of the dark, Thomas is in the shadows of the tree in the night grabbing Laura in seductive ways. Throughout the film a viewer will notice the different patterns of color hues being in place. Modern equipment color contrasting with old equipment is displayed with the scenery. Laura is quite the change, when she feels a certain way the colors of her clothing match her emotional state. At first she would wear a nice dress and colorful but when around her husband and she is depressed it is regular attire with a darker presence. Although I question if her clothing symbolizes her character because the males in the film don’t really change there hues within color. Thomas and Ali usually had plan bold colored apparel and it didn’t really change throughout the film. At the same time, I feel Laura grows the most in the film connecting her feelings towards Ali at the end of the film crying over his death. It the question did she really love him?
Christian Petzold's Jerichow (2008) is a comprehensive examination of how money, surely a necessity to navigating life, affects the human experience and our ability (or perhaps inability) to forge real human relationships without ultimately involving money. Right in the beginning of the film money proves itself to be a destabilizing component in relationships: Leon, who as Eric has already pointed out is inherently somewhat close to Thomas by virtue of attending his mother's funeral, berating and later physically beating Thomas for his money. Leon eventually retrieves his money from Thomas's childhood treehouse, an interesting thematic decision that evokes ideas of money being separated from familial ties or childhood innocence. We as an audience are rather immediately made to consider how money can not only complicate or sour familial ties, but how money in some instances becomes a higher priority than the death of a loved one, familial ties, or the childlike innocence instilled by the treehouse.
The rest of the film's discussion of the money-love dichotomy is obviously found in the three main characters' own personal struggles and their interactions with each other. Thomas and Laura both personify the aftermath of what Bauman describes to be "the collapse of long-term thinking, planning, and acting" that in turn leads to a "fragmented" (3) life without much consistency. Each of them describe multiple failed careers, which is very reflective of Bauman's assertion that our society and economic conditions increasingly require constant adaptation and is doing away with more linear trajectories. Later, both characters are forced to accept the help of Ali and essentially fall into a form of servitude to him. The very foundation of both Thomas and Laura's respective relationships with Ali are completely dependent on his ability to provide each of them with money; Laura must pay of her debts in what is essentially an exchange for marriage, and Thomas has few other alternatives for income. The products of what Fisher refers to as the "ghostly afterness" of "socioeconomic death" (118), the ghostliness that infects their demeanors never feels more evident than the first beach scene. In the scene, Ali mesmerizingly (and drunkenly) dances around Laura and Thomas in a way that feels both inviting and taunting. Laura and Thomas, meanwhile, gaze on with stoic expressions. It's as if Ali is both cherishing their company and simultaneously recognizing his control over them, and a powerful moment in the film that once again calls to mind the relationship between money and love.
When thinking about this film and certain scenes you can elude that money does have a huge influence on love and the human emotion. First we have our supposed “hero” in the film Thomas, who from the beginning is shown having his only money stolen from debt collectors resulting in him visiting a jobs center looking for any work to redo his mothers home, which is Thomas only valuable to him. Laura the wife of a wealthy business man, is a lot like Thomas in the fact that have both at one point had no money and was desperate to make a change in there lives. Laura is in large debt and when the opportunity to have this debt paid for and a change in her life comes from the rich business owner Ali, who agrees to take on her debt as long as she marries him. Laura does this in hopes for a better life but it is evident that she is unhappy in her relationship, as she is beaten and stalked by her husband. Ali loves Laura so much that he agrees to solve her money troubles, thinking he can buy her love, but that is not the case as that his love has manifested into fear, paranoia and at some points desperation. Bauman gives an example from David L. Altheide, who says it is not fear of danger that is most crucial, but rather what this fear can expand into, what it can become. Ali’s fear and paranoia result in him stalking and beating his wife and he also believes that she is cheating on him. She in fact falls in love with Thomas but will not be with him unless she is out of debt and has money. Laura is influenced by money the most, as Thomas would like to have money but that is not his end goal, his goal is to be with Laura and fix his house. Ali already has money but is looking for love and unfortunately found it in his “bought wife” as he refers to his marriage in the movie. Laura loves Thomas but loves that her money troubles are solved more than being with him, and her problems are solved with Ali. This forces Laura to device a plan to murder Ali and get his money. Laura thinks that the money will solve all her problems with her life but it is in fact why she is not happy with the way her life has turned out.
In the movie Jerichow, director Christian Petzold showcases how “love and economy intersect”, particularly through capitalism (Fisher 4). As an individual gains money or as statuses change, their feelings and goals are also modified with or without the individuals’ conscious thought. As Bauman puts it, we are living in “liquid times” where social forms are always changing, meaning planning and thinking are done on a short-term basis and maximum adaptability and mobility is desired. Therefore, changes in our economic status are always changing our state of mind and shows how we want the top prize. Petzold displays this concept through each of the three main characters. Each character’s storyline can be equated to the movie’s title, Jerichow, meaning that even after “appearing to have wilted and died” an individual can still start anew (King). However, with this new beginning, also come new desires. In Thomas’s case, we see his before self, where he showed and received little love due to the little money he has. Thomas did not have a lover nor did he seem to mourn his mother’s death for very long. His lack of money may have also contributed to how loan sharks conversed with Thomas in the beginning of the movie. These loan sharks gave little grievance to Thomas’s mother’s death, but spent most of the conversation worried about his money. This shows how love came head to head with the economy, and that Thomas’s lack of wealth lead to little love from a seemingly old friend. Until he received a job from Ali, Thomas wanted to have a new beginning going along with the title, which is shown through his want to renovate his house, which holds his childhood memories. Once he starts to earn more money to change his house, he also has a change in his desires. With more money, you start to see that Thomas can love, and he wants something that he didn’t think he could. Just as Bauman foretold, his thinking turns short-term as he conspires to murder Ali. For Laura on the other hand, she wants to start a whole new life where she can escape her husband and love freely. However, her financial state stops her from doing this. Through her most memorable quote, “You cannot love if you don't have money” perfectly describes this love and economic intersection. The debt she has accumulated has led her to be bought, stopping her from finding love. She cannot get out of the relationship without losing her comfy life even with an abusive and suspicious husband. Therefore, she must adapt to this current life and love within the shadows, as she does with Thomas at night. To help her to reduce this debt and perhaps get love in the future, she also starts sleeping with another man because she wholeheartedly believes that more money can help her to get love. Lastly, for Ali’s character, he is hoping to gain love from a women and Germany, even with his foreign status. To accomplish this, he works to gain money through his successful snack business. With his financial success, it increases his need for love and he does everything he can to get it. In one scene, he expresses, “I live in a country that doesn't want me with a woman that I bought.” With so much money, his desires have changed and now he dreams of being loved. However, even with this desire, his workers try to cheat him and his wife has an affair. These shifts in socioeconomic statuses show how all of these characters are affected in how they interact socially with others. Money changes the desires and the dreams each character wants and how they will adapt to get what they want. Individuals will remake themselves in these circumstances and Jerichow illustrates this in how they do this in regards to love and economics.
As I was watching Jerichow I noticed that the direction that Chritian Petzold chose to take was one of a more somber and realistic tone. The way that I felt while watching this movie, was that the director was trying to convey a real perspective from Thomas, and not dilute the movie with excess cinematics. What I mean by this is that I felt the movie was more grounded and felt more like a memory than a movie. This was established through the use of longer shots with less edits and with minimal score. In fact I noticed there was only one score chosen throughout the movie, and it only played 4 or 5 times. I believe these were all done intentionally to make the story feel more real. On the whole, this is a love story, and the director wanted it to feel like such. If the movie was bogged down with flashy scenes, loud scores, and lots of edits then it would just feel like a movie and not like a memory. So now the question comes up of "Can we love without money?" and this movie answers it in a peculiar way. While at first it may seem like the movie is saying that love CAN exist without money because Laura decides to stay with Thomas, it is actually saying the opposite. Remember that Laura will never leave Ali unless her debt can be taken care of. This is when they decide to murder Ali to clear her debt and run away together. It all comes down to the debt tho. The money. Thomas and Laura "love" each other, but are doomed to never be together without money. This to me is saying that the director believes that love can not exist without money.
Christian Petzold makes the conflict between love and capitalism clear in the first few minutes of Jerichow (2008), during which Leon (André Hennicke) tells Thomas (Benno Fürmann), “If a friend asks to borrow a thousand, give him a hundred. Otherwise he’ll cross the street when he sees you. You’ll feel guilty for wanting his money back.” Leon and Thomas are evidently close with each other, as evidenced by the fact that they were both present at Thomas’ mom’s funeral, even riding back to Thomas’ family home. This fact is important because any warmth and closeness their relationship once had is soon crushed by financial conflict. Leon’s sympathy for Thomas’ loss – a brief acknowledgement in the house – is immediately followed by him yelling at Thomas about the money he borrowed and didn’t pay back. This money problem has been at the forefront of these characters’ relationship since the first moment they were on screen, as shown when Thomas stops in his tracks outside the cemetery when Leon arrives, making tense eye contact with him. Setting aside their financial conflict to focus on the death of a parent – an emotional, human experience – is entirely out of the question. Finally, tensions culminate in Leon’s physical assault on Thomas. The relationship between these two – and any mention of Thomas’ mother – are soon after swept aside. Money has pushed away the capacity for love in the form of friendship between Thomas and Leon, or in Thomas’ mourning the death of his mother.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Zygmunt Bauman (2007), the foregrounding of financial concerns over relational ones is one shift characterizing our world today. Feelings of community and authentic relationships have been degraded by an increased focus on commodification and competition (2-3). This shift damages not only Thomas and Leon’s relationship, but also Laura (Nina Hoss) and Ali’s (Hilmi Sözer) marriage. As revealed later in the film, the couple’s prenuptial agreement states that, should Laura divorce her rich and abusive husband, she will once more take on the immense debt that she carried as a single woman. To her, Ali is not a romantic partner, but a solution to a six-digit money problem that she can’t solve on her own. Their marriage is founded on financial security rather than love – in other words, as Bauman would understand it, Laura commodifies Ali. Moreover, the tradeoff for that financial security is an absence of bodily security. Ali is unafraid to raise a hand to Laura or throw her against a wall. But the already difficult task of leaving an abusive partner is made all the more difficult by the prenuptial agreement – Laura must choose which type of security she wants, and really, neither one is guaranteed.
Jaimey Fisher (2013) describes Laura’s conundrum well when he writes, “Petzold’s films explore individuals’ tendency, consciously or not, to remake themselves for the socioeconomic context, not only by adjusting their overtly economic activities but also by adapting their desires, dreams, and fantasies” (5). Laura has indeed “remade” her desires so that they further her economic wellbeing. If marriage is an institution built on desire, then Laura’s desire in her marriage is more a proxy of her desire for financial stability. In a world where money wasn’t part of the picture, Laura likely wouldn’t be with Ali, but Petzold’s world is one in which economic concerns trump relational ones, and thus, the economic becomes what is most desired.
Zygmut Bauman titles the introduction to his book, Liquid Times, “Bravely into the Hotbed of Uncertainties,” which is where audiences see Thomas, of Christian Petzold’s Jerichow, venture – although not necessarily “bravely.” The “liquid” phase of modernity that Bauman outlines is ever-present, even in the vacillating perspective achieved through the cinematography.
ReplyDeleteOne way in which Petzold emphasizes the liquidity of modern society is through the settings of the film. Rarely do audiences spend time inside of a household. One of the key household scenes occurs when Laura and Thomas submit to their lust, but even this takes place in a transitory space: a hallway. Not even Thomas’ bed gives signs of solidity or stability: he sleeps on a twin mattress on the floor of what appears to be a study. In retrospect, a surprising amount of the film occurs in either the delivery van or the Land Rover. Fisher uses the term “transit spaces” in his book, Christian Petzold, which aptly describes most of the setting.
Along with the setting, the relationship between Laura and Thomas begs questions about this new “liquid” form of being in modern society. King writes about how the foundation of the relationship between the two is flimsy at best, although it ultimately leads to a murder plot (8). The relationship between Thomas and Laura seems to be a product more of desperation than care, concern, shared interest, shared sense of humor, etc. – all of the things that (most) real love is based off of. Thomas and Laura are (seemingly) isolated from society, so when happenstance (and Ali’s alcoholism) brings them together, they cling to each other in an attempt to escape the increasingly fragile world they occupy.
Death bookends the film – the death of Thomas’s mother and the death of Ali – but the moments between contain moments much less “solid.” Rather, a bulk of the film manages to confuse audiences over who possesses the potential title of “good guy.” Yeah, I get it: good film/literature/whatever doesn’t usually really have a good or a bad guy. I just spent a month teaching high school juniors that heroes and villains do not clearly exist in The Great Gatsby. However, in the beginning, Petzold allies us with Thomas and seemingly against Ali – especially once his propensity for spousal abuse and drunken buffoonery surfaces. By the end, we see that Thomas’ seemingly groundless “love” for Laura kills an immigrant who entered a seemingly unwelcoming space in order to use capitalism to build a financially stable life.
Addressing more specifically the question of whether love is possible without money, I could not help but notice the overabundance of the color green throughout the film – something very obvious to anyone, but something worth noting. What was less noticeable, however, was the use of the color red alongside green. We get it. Green represents money and it represents envy, themes (obviously) notable throughout the film. What struck me most about the color, however, was Petzold’s use of the red flowers among the green bushes in the end of the film. Red, which represents love/lust, was present in a much larger field of green; the red was unable to flourish without all the greenery supporting it. It was a lovely way of emphasizing the need of a comfortable fiscal situation in order to support a healthy, beautiful love.
Other things worth discussing that I don’t have quite enough time to write about tonight: Laura wearing the same red, floral dress in the first and the last beach scene (which coordinates with the flowers I mentioned above), the voyeuristic nature of much of the cinematography, the effect of the use of different perspectives, Ali’s role as an immigrant, how Petzold subverts the femme fatale role (which King mentions, but it’s awesome that he chooses not to make her the mostly naked one for once)
Since Kaitlin alluded to the importance of Ali being an immigrant, I'll go ahead and offer some thoughts. Ali's immigrant status struck me as important, too, especially in the first and last scenes at the beach. In the first, Ali dances to Turkish music in a shot showing only him and the sea. Cut in between these dancing shots are shots of Thomas and Laura sitting together on the picnic blanket, as if in solidarity. They are the two native Germans, whereas Ali is forever considered a foreigner, despite the fact that he left Turkey for Germany when he was two years old. Ali asks that they dance with him to his native-language music, but the two stay silent and still, as if in protest of embracing anything foreign. It is only when Ali forces them up that they participate, and even then, neither one seems to enjoy it. Essentially, they are polite liberals pretending to be tolerant while desperately wish Ali the immigrant would leave. This scene reproduces, on the personal level, what happens with immigrants on the international level every day.
DeleteAli is very much aware of his immigrant status, as we find out in the final beach scene. Confessing to his illness (and social malaise more generally), he tells Laura, "I live in a country that doesn't want me with a woman I bought." While Ali has been hard to sympathize with throughout the film, this moment is one of the few in which his emotional world - raw and gutted, but buried deep down - is revealed. His unburdening to Laura is hardly just about his failing body - it's also about the harsh realities of globalization, capitalism, and cultural conflict, which are inextricably linked to the body's proper functioning. One cannot live an entirely healthy life in a society that doesn't want them.
Nice discussion by both of you. In general it's always good to weave in a moment or two of close cinematic analysis. One thing to caution against, however, is the direct ascription of symbolic meaning to a color etc: red might "represent" love/lust and so on, but it does not so inherently. Indeed, does a color first and foremost represent--signify, mean--something? Or does it DO something? One question to ask is whether "what does X mean" is not always already a secondary question to "what does X DO"?
DeleteConflicting two opposing forces between the rich and poor Christian Petzold illustrates how love for a women is powerful in the triangle of Thomas (Benno Furmann), Laura (Nina Hoss), Ali (Himi Sozer) in Jerichow (2008). Petzold camera cinematography creates an atmosphere of key specific elements. The elements of sound can be categorized into two different objectives.
ReplyDeleteThe first is regular sound tracking with the music elevating the emotions of the characters and making the rhythm of the film pattern exploit controversy of interactions between characters. The complexity of the camera work is excellent and the transitioning is times to key points. The use of POV (point of view) shots is created while Thomas is driving in the night. Noticing the still shots used before most transitions to next scene, it usually points out the character in the ¾ frame. The Second is the outstanding use of background noises. Almost every motion, object, and placement was illustrated by sound. For example when characters stepped on steps, open and close doors, messing with keys to get into the house. All the small fragments were in use. If you have ever toggled with a film creating all those sounds would take a long time to complete. The sounds are far more complex then most films in the modern era.
The use of natural light attracts most the film to be shot outside. What really is quite fascinating is how some of the film is shot during the day in contrast to filming it all in the morning or evening when natural light is best. It sets new boundaries for use of natural lighting. The beach scene next to the sea really makes the film dull but at the same time the music makes the tempo of the film slow down quite a bit. The film’s motion of rhythm is relatively slow and allows the City of Jerichow to be looked at as a countryside environment. Comparing the darkness to lust is illustrated through Laura and Thomas because of the affair they are having behind Ali’s back. The scene behind the house in the middle of the dark, Thomas is in the shadows of the tree in the night grabbing Laura in seductive ways.
Throughout the film a viewer will notice the different patterns of color hues being in place. Modern equipment color contrasting with old equipment is displayed with the scenery. Laura is quite the change, when she feels a certain way the colors of her clothing match her emotional state. At first she would wear a nice dress and colorful but when around her husband and she is depressed it is regular attire with a darker presence. Although I question if her clothing symbolizes her character because the males in the film don’t really change there hues within color. Thomas and Ali usually had plan bold colored apparel and it didn’t really change throughout the film. At the same time, I feel Laura grows the most in the film connecting her feelings towards Ali at the end of the film crying over his death. It the question did she really love him?
Christian Petzold's Jerichow (2008) is a comprehensive examination of how money, surely a necessity to navigating life, affects the human experience and our ability (or perhaps inability) to forge real human relationships without ultimately involving money. Right in the beginning of the film money proves itself to be a destabilizing component in relationships: Leon, who as Eric has already pointed out is inherently somewhat close to Thomas by virtue of attending his mother's funeral, berating and later physically beating Thomas for his money. Leon eventually retrieves his money from Thomas's childhood treehouse, an interesting thematic decision that evokes ideas of money being separated from familial ties or childhood innocence. We as an audience are rather immediately made to consider how money can not only complicate or sour familial ties, but how money in some instances becomes a higher priority than the death of a loved one, familial ties, or the childlike innocence instilled by the treehouse.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the film's discussion of the money-love dichotomy is obviously found in the three main characters' own personal struggles and their interactions with each other. Thomas and Laura both personify the aftermath of what Bauman describes to be "the collapse of long-term thinking, planning, and acting" that in turn leads to a "fragmented" (3) life without much consistency. Each of them describe multiple failed careers, which is very reflective of Bauman's assertion that our society and economic conditions increasingly require constant adaptation and is doing away with more linear trajectories. Later, both characters are forced to accept the help of Ali and essentially fall into a form of servitude to him. The very foundation of both Thomas and Laura's respective relationships with Ali are completely dependent on his ability to provide each of them with money; Laura must pay of her debts in what is essentially an exchange for marriage, and Thomas has few other alternatives for income. The products of what Fisher refers to as the "ghostly afterness" of "socioeconomic death" (118), the ghostliness that infects their demeanors never feels more evident than the first beach scene. In the scene, Ali mesmerizingly (and drunkenly) dances around Laura and Thomas in a way that feels both inviting and taunting. Laura and Thomas, meanwhile, gaze on with stoic expressions. It's as if Ali is both cherishing their company and simultaneously recognizing his control over them, and a powerful moment in the film that once again calls to mind the relationship between money and love.
Ok, this is good. I appreciate your two references to the readings and the moment of close reading (of the beach scene). The post coheres well.
DeleteWhen thinking about this film and certain scenes you can elude that money does have a huge influence on love and the human emotion. First we have our supposed “hero” in the film Thomas, who from the beginning is shown having his only money stolen from debt collectors resulting in him visiting a jobs center looking for any work to redo his mothers home, which is Thomas only valuable to him.
ReplyDeleteLaura the wife of a wealthy business man, is a lot like Thomas in the fact that have both at one point had no money and was desperate to make a change in there lives. Laura is in large debt and when the opportunity to have this debt paid for and a change in her life comes from the rich business owner Ali, who agrees to take on her debt as long as she marries him. Laura does this in hopes for a better life but it is evident that she is unhappy in her relationship, as she is beaten and stalked by her husband. Ali loves Laura so much that he agrees to solve her money troubles, thinking he can buy her love, but that is not the case as that his love has manifested into fear, paranoia and at some points desperation. Bauman gives an example from David L. Altheide, who says it is not fear of danger that is most crucial, but rather what this fear can expand into, what it can become. Ali’s fear and paranoia result in him stalking and beating his wife and he also believes that she is cheating on him. She in fact falls in love with Thomas but will not be with him unless she is out of debt and has money.
Laura is influenced by money the most, as Thomas would like to have money but that is not his end goal, his goal is to be with Laura and fix his house. Ali already has money but is looking for love and unfortunately found it in his “bought wife” as he refers to his marriage in the movie. Laura loves Thomas but loves that her money troubles are solved more than being with him, and her problems are solved with Ali. This forces Laura to device a plan to murder Ali and get his money. Laura thinks that the money will solve all her problems with her life but it is in fact why she is not happy with the way her life has turned out.
In the movie Jerichow, director Christian Petzold showcases how “love and economy intersect”, particularly through capitalism (Fisher 4). As an individual gains money or as statuses change, their feelings and goals are also modified with or without the individuals’ conscious thought. As Bauman puts it, we are living in “liquid times” where social forms are always changing, meaning planning and thinking are done on a short-term basis and maximum adaptability and mobility is desired. Therefore, changes in our economic status are always changing our state of mind and shows how we want the top prize. Petzold displays this concept through each of the three main characters. Each character’s storyline can be equated to the movie’s title, Jerichow, meaning that even after “appearing to have wilted and died” an individual can still start anew (King). However, with this new beginning, also come new desires.
ReplyDeleteIn Thomas’s case, we see his before self, where he showed and received little love due to the little money he has. Thomas did not have a lover nor did he seem to mourn his mother’s death for very long. His lack of money may have also contributed to how loan sharks conversed with Thomas in the beginning of the movie. These loan sharks gave little grievance to Thomas’s mother’s death, but spent most of the conversation worried about his money. This shows how love came head to head with the economy, and that Thomas’s lack of wealth lead to little love from a seemingly old friend. Until he received a job from Ali, Thomas wanted to have a new beginning going along with the title, which is shown through his want to renovate his house, which holds his childhood memories. Once he starts to earn more money to change his house, he also has a change in his desires. With more money, you start to see that Thomas can love, and he wants something that he didn’t think he could. Just as Bauman foretold, his thinking turns short-term as he conspires to murder Ali.
For Laura on the other hand, she wants to start a whole new life where she can escape her husband and love freely. However, her financial state stops her from doing this. Through her most memorable quote, “You cannot love if you don't have money” perfectly describes this love and economic intersection. The debt she has accumulated has led her to be bought, stopping her from finding love. She cannot get out of the relationship without losing her comfy life even with an abusive and suspicious husband. Therefore, she must adapt to this current life and love within the shadows, as she does with Thomas at night. To help her to reduce this debt and perhaps get love in the future, she also starts sleeping with another man because she wholeheartedly believes that more money can help her to get love.
Lastly, for Ali’s character, he is hoping to gain love from a women and Germany, even with his foreign status. To accomplish this, he works to gain money through his successful snack business. With his financial success, it increases his need for love and he does everything he can to get it. In one scene, he expresses, “I live in a country that doesn't want me with a woman that I bought.” With so much money, his desires have changed and now he dreams of being loved. However, even with this desire, his workers try to cheat him and his wife has an affair.
These shifts in socioeconomic statuses show how all of these characters are affected in how they interact socially with others. Money changes the desires and the dreams each character wants and how they will adapt to get what they want. Individuals will remake themselves in these circumstances and Jerichow illustrates this in how they do this in regards to love and economics.
Test
ReplyDeleteAs I was watching Jerichow I noticed that the direction that Chritian Petzold chose to take was one of a more somber and realistic tone. The way that I felt while watching this movie, was that the director was trying to convey a real perspective from Thomas, and not dilute the movie with excess cinematics. What I mean by this is that I felt the movie was more grounded and felt more like a memory than a movie. This was established through the use of longer shots with less edits and with minimal score. In fact I noticed there was only one score chosen throughout the movie, and it only played 4 or 5 times. I believe these were all done intentionally to make the story feel more real. On the whole, this is a love story, and the director wanted it to feel like such. If the movie was bogged down with flashy scenes, loud scores, and lots of edits then it would just feel like a movie and not like a memory. So now the question comes up of "Can we love without money?" and this movie answers it in a peculiar way. While at first it may seem like the movie is saying that love CAN exist without money because Laura decides to stay with Thomas, it is actually saying the opposite. Remember that Laura will never leave Ali unless her debt can be taken care of. This is when they decide to murder Ali to clear her debt and run away together. It all comes down to the debt tho. The money. Thomas and Laura "love" each other, but are doomed to never be together without money. This to me is saying that the director believes that love can not exist without money.
ReplyDelete