Among the European films that I have watched for this course, Wolfgang Becker’s film entitled, Goodbye, Lenin! is the one that I appreciated watching the most. It was a tragicomedy film, I will explain it later what makes a combination of the two. Though, I found the plot of the movie relatable because there were scenes in the movie that were similar to what I have already experienced.

It was a film that had a historical context, which was the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany. Though, it did not focus that much on that event itself, however, it was the basis of how the Kerner family’s life was affected because of division caused by the wall and the eventual fall of it. The father ended up having an affair with another woman in West Germany, which left Christiane, his wife to remain behind and take of their children named Ariane and Alex all by herself. Aside from family, she devoted her life to Socialism perhaps to express her vengeance for her husband’s betrayal and abandonment.  At this point, I could somehow resemble how difficult it was to be a single mother since my mom had to go through the same thing.

As the film progressed, Christiane ends up having a heart attack after witnessing his son, Alex attending a march that was for an anti-Berlin Wall demonstration. Since medics were not able to do assist her and do CPR immediately, Christiane ended up in a coma. That is why, whatever transpired during her coma such as the revolution she absolutely had no idea of. I could relate to Alex how he had to take care of his mom while she was bedridden and make it to the point to pass by her to update her about his day. This was the tragic part of the movie but eventually became a hopeful segment since the mom woke up from the coma.  I had a similar experience with my mother when she had several operations within the past two years but she was only bedridden for some days. I understood the stress of trying to make sure that whatever food she requests that she wants to eat, I bought it as soon as possible. It shows how the two siblings managed to go on with their lives despite the unfortunate circumstances.

Apart from this, I admire Alex’ perseverance in trying to make his mom believe that they remained in the Socialist period. He went through extreme measures just to hide it from his mom such as creating their our tv news reports, which actually makes these scenes comedic since none of it were true. Another example is how he kept transferring products of other brands to the containers that his Mom knows that were socialist products. All of his actions just shows how much he really wanted to his mom to get better despite him constantly lying about the truth of their current situation.

Generally, I found authenticity in the film since it shows how life can be so unpredictable and somewhat unfair. There was a scene when the mom remembered where she hid her money. However, when Alex and Ariane wanted to get it exchanged, the bank informed them that they were already two days late and they just simply missed their chance. This specific scene got me to reflect on having expectations about people and life. There will be times when they can disappoint us and even hurt us, however, in the end of it all life goes on.

Before watching the film, we were told by our professor that we will be watching a movie made from 2003. Part of me got excited for a bit since I expected that the film would be more relatable compared to the past movies that we’ve watched in class. Although,  the Five Obstructions by Lars von Trier turns out to be a documentary type of film, which honestly just made me lose interest as it began to play out. It felt dragging and some scenes were boring for me.

Essentially, the documentary film did not really catch my attention. That is why, it was difficult to me to follow what was happening in them movie. Although, it mainly focused on two filmmakers, Jorgen Leth and Lars von Trier who were trying to work and help each other in experimenting on art and cinema. I researched more about it, apparently it this film was already some sort of five-time remake of a film produced by Leth before. It was quite evident that the filmmakers had a mentor-mentee kind of relationship. Leth was initially challenged by von Trier to remake it but in each attempt Leth imposed a different variation to be done in the film. Each obstruction that was created by Trier were basically ways on testing his skills and creativity to make a better or at least a more recent version of The Perfect Human. I do not understand why they had to create five different versions of the same film, I personally think one big revision could have been enough. Although, I think that each change done helps Leth become a better director since he gained a lot of experience by doing the challenges. Furthermore, their relationship showcased camaraderie instead of competition. It seemed that von Trier was really trying to help Leth improve on his directing skills.

Among the five obstructions, what I found entertaining the most is the fourth one because it was animated remake of the entire film. It had a lot more details added into it and color, which helped me be engaged again with the documentary. Though, it was mentioned that both film directors were not a fond of cartoons, they accepted the idea that by doing this it was beneficial to Leth’s film since it offers a new way of portraying the visuals from his old movie. Apart from this,  I found the second obstruction strange since it shows a bitter reality about what is still happening around the world. The film depicted the great division between the poor and the rich. It was emphasized through the translucent screen in this particular obstruction wherein the poor remained in the background, which then could symbolize how they are usually disregarded by rich society. Most of the time, they are left to stay behind and watch the affluent spend their wealth as they continue to suffer. As for the man, this person resembles how the rich often have the good and comfortable life that they take for granted. Out of the five obstructions, these two were the only ones that left an impression to me.

In Michelangelo’s Antonioni’s film, L’Avventura or in English the Adventure seems to have a misleading title because I expected that the film would involve some sort of journey with the main characters in a rocky area. It actually did not venture on what I thought it would be of a typical island adventure. In fact, the island that they ended up staying in or getting stuck in, as previously mentioned was just surrounded with rocks. Instead of “the island adventure”, it was unexpectedly focused on some sort of “love” story. Although, the film mainly talks about a certain truth about the reality of relationships. More often than not, blockbuster films depict love and relationships in an ideal way or would present it in such a way that it achieves its purpose that is to entertain.

            The focus of the narrative was to portray love as an adventure how its very uncertain that a person cannot simply determine what comes next. All relationships will always be tested and goes through difficult times. The challenging circumstance that this couple experienced is that they had a long distance relationship for quite some time. Evidently, this affected the dynamic of their relationship and this reached to the point that Anna even told him that she wants to be left alone. She suddenly disappeared during their trip, which I found a bit odd since the area seemed like a place that she could not have gone anywhere else without anyone noticing. Although, the boyfriend made an effort to search and look for her along with her friend.

 Perhaps, with the amount of time they were spending with each other, it could be implied they eventually developed feelings. Though, I personally do not consider that as an excuse him for pursuing her. It seemed off for me since Claudia was a close friend of Anna. As for Claudia, how could she betray her own friend by doing such a thing. I was not surprised that Sandro was caught cheating by Claudia in the latter part of the film. I found the initial reaction of the Sandro very odd since he tried to hide from the girl. Since it was quite obvious what he was doing already and I hate how he ended up following her and cried in front of her. On the other hand, it was frustrating that the last scene showed how Claudia also comforted him despite what she had witnessed.

            I certainly found one of the scenes disturbing, the men on the street were casually gazing then eventually staring at Claudia. The way they were looking really made me think that “parang ‘di ba sila nakakakita ng babae dati”, it really made me feel uncomfortable. Apart from this, there were a number of sexual scenes that made it seem like most of the male leads had a static characteristic. They were depicted as men who gets away with whatever they do or usually even sexually engaged. Overall, I found the plot interesting but it seemed to lack some details.

Upon watching the first few minutes of the film, one can already establish that this is not your ordinary historical movie. It does not simply talk about the fall of the Berlin Wall and its effects on society as a whole, but does so in a charming tragicomedy that is Goodbye, Lenin!. It follows the story of a young man, Alex Kerner, and his undertaking with regards to trying to preserve the German Democratic Republic that his mother once knew and loved in order to keep her from having a fatal heart attack.

What I found the most appealing throughout the whole film was that it was able to cover a multitude of genres into one. It blends together historical events, drama, comedy, and even romance to the equation. At first glance, it might not seem to be a good idea to mix together all these in order to make a film, but Becker does an exceptional job in balancing the different kinds of emotions while trying to tell an odd, yet compelling story. One funny scene that stood out to me was when siblings Ariane and Alex were explaining to their mother what happened when she collapsed and fell into a coma. Alex conjured up a fake story saying, “It was in October, in the supermarket. There was this enormous queue and it was really hot and you just passed out.” After being asked by his mom, “In October?” he replied, “It was an unusually hot October day,” as the audience snickered. These scenes show us how the characters are all quirky in their own way, but likeable nonetheless.

Even though there were plenty of light-hearted scenes to get the ball rolling, a lot of the heavier ones still pulled at the audience’s heart strings. The overarching theme, which revolved around the juxtaposition of the old regime and what conspired after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was able to be told in a way that was still relevant to our times today. We are still experiencing many forms of discrimination, different mentalities in politics, and fights about values within the family. Politics, culture and morals are actually inevitable to be mixed together whether people realize it or not, and Goodbye, Lenin! does a good job putting this into light. Alex’s once miniscule idea of preserving the GDR within his mother’s room turned out to become one whole production including using the old condiment containers, placing old European furniture, and paying little kids to sing the anthem his mother wrote. It shows us that Alex’s world was conflicted and a part of him wanted to relive the nostalgia, he even said that the GDR he created might’ve become the one he wished for.

Throughout the whole movie, it was a ride of emotions and unexpected twists and turns. The audience went along with Alex’s masquerade and even rooted for him as he thought on his feet whenever he faced a roadblock. But in the end, it taught us to see the good in humanity, however flawed we might be. The film’s ending couldn’t have been any more appropriate, as Alex and his aspiring filmmaker friend Denis made one last fake news broadcast to explain the fall of the GDR to his mother. With a Sigmund Jähn lookalike as the “new leader” of East Germany, he goes on to explain that “Socialism means reaching out to others and living with other. Not just to dream about a better world, but to make the world a better place,” and that the GDR has “opened borders”. His mother died three days after hearing this, and her ashes were scattered in the wind through an old toy rocket. Alex’s narration after that is both sentimental, insightful, and uniquely his. Never did I think I would enjoy a movie so much about the reunification of Germany and the struggles of a son with his overly socialist mother, but Goodbye, Lenin! makes you do just that.

First hearing about this film, I was extremely excited to watch it. My sister who is a huge movie buff highly recommended the film prior to me taking this class and spoke very highly of both directors. She had mentioned about the disturbing factor the movie had. And so, with previous biases from my sister I was expecting the movie and Von Trier to be vaguely eccentric. To my surprise it was a refreshing take at remaking the short film “The Perfect Human” by the director Jørgen Leth. Lars Von Trier who was mentored by Leth had asked his former colleague to help him with his new concept film. The point of the film from my understanding was to recreate the original short film Leth had previously directed and do it in different variations with obstacles or obstructions if you will. The five different obstructions acted as challenges for Leth to see if he could turn his previous short film into a role-playing film.

The film “The Five Obstructions” is not for everyone. It relied on the how the audience/viewers reacted to the persona of Lars Von Trier. Von Trier was notorious for the stunt he pulled in a previous Cannes Festival after the jury did not rule his film the best.

What I loved most about the film was that it was not simply one remake of “The Perfect Human”, it was broken down into five different pieces variations with each obstruction containing a specific limitation.

If there was one thing that The Five Obstructions taught me, it was that art is ever-changing. It is not a still life portrait that will forever be the same, even if it was recreated multitudes of times and by the same artist. Jorgen Leth challenges himself in this documentary by trying to recreate his short film The Perfect Human five times, but each time with a twist given by Lars von Trier. What seemed to be a fun game at first turned out to be a very gruesome and tiring experience for the director, as von Trier’s requests become more and more absurd throughout the documentary.

His first obstruction, which was that it must be set in Cuba without a studio and only twelve frames per shot. A regular viewer such as I found this very challenging, but Leth came out successful with an interesting remake, although quite dizzying to watch. It was fun to see the process behind the filmmaking, such as the film crew’s travel to Cuba, their process of picking the actors, and watching Leth direct. Once von Trier sees it though, he is unsatisfied and wants to test the director even further. The second obstruction was to film in the worst place in the world but not show it onscreen, and, additionally, Leth must play the main character.

Hearing “the worst place in the world” would already appear to be daunting for some, but the director quickly attributed the prompt to his experience in the red light district of Mumbai, where he encountered the slum area. Before they even reached their destination, it was disheartening to see a mother carrying her child asking for alms and food outside of Leth’s vehicle. Out of all of the obstructions, this was the most disturbing to watch since you could see the faces of the children as they saw Leth eat a fancy meal with a straight face right in front of them.

Upon seeing the second remake, von Trier says that Leth failed the task and wants him to go back to redo it as he wished. This is where the tension between the two starts to rise, since the latter says that it is too inhumane and he wouldn’t do it again. With his morals compromised, he decides to go with the other equally difficult option: to recreate his film in any way he chooses. As someone who also does art, it was frightening to have complete freedom over your art. Maybe it’s the external expectation, or the internal one that it should be better than the last, that affected Leth the most. Yet he was able to recreate it beautifully once again through a split-screen effect. Leth almost even breezed through the fourth obstruction, which was to make his film into a cartoon—a genre that both he and von Trier hate. He exceeded the audience’s expectations by creating one of the more beautiful masterpieces throughout the whole documentary, with the help of a professional animator.

The fifth and final obstruction was ironically the one that needed the least effort from Leth’s: that it would be made by von Trier but will be credited as the former’s work. It was unsettling to think that was possible to give so much power to someone over a film, but the output was interesting nonetheless. Overall, the documentary makes viewers think what it means to be a filmmaker and what is needed to make a good film. It relies on many things such as cinematography, editing, directing, acting, and the like, but also does not. What we learn from both von Trier and Leth is that films evoke emotions and thoughts from its audience, no matter the time, place and age, but one should still have fun in the process.