If there is one thing that I was edukated on from this movie, it is that I would not want to be one of the edukators. Though it can be said that they were fighting for an ideology that I also believe in, which is anti-capitalism, I do not believe they were able to carry out this revolt in an appropriate manner. In my opinion, an appropriate way for revolting would be presenting a solution to the problem. For me, messing up rich people’s houses, turning their furniture upside down, and leaving threating notes such as “Your days of plenty are numbered” does not quite hit the mark. Yes, it may scare the capitalists for a while, but eventually, they could just hire cleaners to clean their house or security personnel to protect them, and automatically undo the damage that has been done. After all, they are powerful like that. Because of this, the edukators’ form of “revolt” comes off as childish and immature, somewhat an empty gesture. It is melodramatic in a way that they find so much success and fulfillment in every house that they trash, as if it actually abolishes the capitalist system in the world. I know that other people might say, “at least they’re doing something.” But for me, what is the point of doing something if it does not reinforce your motive for doing it, anyway? The only effect that I can think of about their “revolts” is that they feel good about themselves afterward. It is ridiculous and selfish for me, a waste of time, and a waste of energy. Had they chosen to not make use of violence to propel their idealism, maybe their “revolt” would actually make more sense and make an impact on something.

Another reason which makes their “revolts” all the more nonsensical, is the fact that they even became indebted to someone they brought torment to. After kidnapping Hardenberg, they realized they really have no plan whatsoever, and the best thing to do is beg Hardenberg to not press charges against them for what they have done. Thankfully, he chose to stay quiet when he had all the right to sue them. Ironic, is it not? Not just ironic, but also hypocritical how the edukators preach about the common good, yet find themselves in a love triangle caused by a disrespect for someone’s dignity and trust. Jan and Peter were best friends, for crying out loud! If Jan and Jule could think of hurting Peter, someone who loved and cared so much for them for so long, how different are they from the heartless people they are so against?

When I thought about writing this review, I really did not want it to have such a pessimist tone to it. To be honest, I want to see the positive side of the edukators’ propaganda. I want to understand their motive in a more optimistic way. But sadly, I cannot find myself doing so. All I can say is, maybe the edukators are the ones who need to be edukated.

The Edukators was a film of ideologies and frustrated individuals who want to change the capitalistic system and despises those who thrive in it. I believe that the explores the idea of naïveté, where young adolescents act upon the dream of living in an ideal world thinking that it benefits everyone however they come to a realization that the ideal world they dream of is a dominantly just a selfish and impossible desire that may never become a reality. 

In the film, the behavior of the main characters in Jan, Peter, and eventually Julie manifested this wherein they would break-in big villas and disarrange the furniture while leaving a threatening note. For me, I believe the behavior was one that may not translate into actions such as theft however it does express a form of disrupting a sense of peace. Because of this, as an individual who is about to embark on this kind of world, it made me question whether our motives to transform the world is really for the betterment of the people in the country or whether it was just for myself. As the film progresses, the main characters come into this realization when Julie admits that kidnapping Hardenberg, who Julie owes a debt to after she collided with his Mercedes Benz. It was a realization that showed how actions may seem to fight for justice, however it was motivated to benefit oneself over other people. 

I liked the idea of how Hardenberg also developed a relationship with the main characters. It showed a glimpse of Hardenberg’s past, as he could easily relate with the main characters who had respectable idealisms. It shows how Hardenberg’s character is quite dynamic as he reverts back to the old ways, where he detaches himself from his city and material possessions. 

Aside from the thrill of seeing how the main characters would get away with the kidnapping of Hardenberg, I also liked how the film factored in the love triangle between Jan, Julie, and Peter into the plot. For me, it added some more flavor and tension to the film as it dealt with the “free-flowing love” that everyone experiences as Hardenberg mentioned. It goes to show how reality can change us in ways we could never imagine. For instance, Jan has always been very grounded on his morals. However when he gets close to Julie, he would give in despite knowing that it would become a messy situation as his friendship with Peter could result into danger. 

Overall, it was a movie that showed a lot of idealisms for the young adolescents. Furthermore, it also shows how actions can result into consequences, which is why it is imperative to know the real underlying motives of our actions as idealisms can blind us into thinking it is right. In relation to this, the characters in the film despised people like  Hardenberg, however, people will eventually buy into the system, as reality will come toward you where it can possibly transform you into the person you were very much against. 

It’s easy for me to decide that The Edukators was my favorite film we dealt with in this class. The way it melded its elements together—the musical direction led by artists like Franz Ferdinand and Jeff Buckley, the landscape provided by the view of the Alps, its dialogue between socialist and capitalist messages, and their light insertions of romance and humor, all these played wonderfully in the film. More than anything, this film manages to remain relevant through its portrayal of economic activism and revolution as a silent war between the poor and the rich—a war that is still continuing to this day.

From a surface level, Weinggartner’s film focuses on three friends, the Edukators, who break into rich people’s houses and take one of the owners hostage to prevent him from revealing their truths. It would seem like The Edukators would be a violent film, but it actually tackled the discourse between youthful idealism and older pragmaticism very peacefully. Jan and Peter’s method doesn’t involve theft nor violence, but rather to move furniture around—a creative manifesto that forces isolated rich people, detached from reality, to see how their greed has hurt other people. But I can’t help but call into question their modus operandi. Is this technique the best one to push for their cause, or is it just a superfluous method? Though their movement managed to disturb the rich, did it, as implied by their alias, educate them?

The director, Weinggartner, also used his own experience during his time as a former activist to convey his message. We can see snippets of this in his use of storytelling for Hardenberg to really show a genuine experience. For instance, Hardenberg’s life is a great example of how someone, even a rebellious student, can subtly fall into the practices and lifestyles he is against. For Hardenberg, and many other people, he started to see the changes as a necessity (for his safety, for his family), until all of a sudden, he became the person he was, at some point, so infuriated by.

Despite its heavy implications on political and socialist movements, The Edukators still managed to be a comedic film that places value on relationships, both romantic and platonic. The love story between Jan and Jule provides a sort of side story, of a man who falls in love with his best friend’s girlfriend. This love triangle is similar to the one portrayed in A Woman is a Woman, though played a lot more realistically than the French musical. But it becomes a sore point for the trio, especially when it gets in the way of how they go about their mission to get themselves out of the mess they created. Obviously, the film holds many similar political semblance as Daniel Bruhl’s other film he starred in, Good Bye, Lenin!, but it varies in that it places importance on this friendship and their measures of action, contrary to Good Bye, Lenin!

The film also shows scenes of the Alps and the landscape surrounding it. This homage to culture is also seen in Trollhunter’s portrayal of the Norwegian landscape and L’Avventura’s scenes shot all around Italy. More importantly, these three films’ use of landscape indicates an element of isolation, a choice to be away from reality and civilization. Overall, The Edukators’ acts on a socialist message designed not just for Germans, but all people, through its use of storytelling, art, and love.

The Edukators was not discreet in discussing the issues on capitalism, which are of course, still relevant to this day. The idealism seen in the young characters are pretty much what we see online, especially on Twitter which is the common medium that people of my generation are using. I believe most of us share the sentiments of the characters Jule, Peter, and Jan; we all have been victims of an unforgiving system, with the rich being more powerful than ever. And with the oppression of the poor, especially those who are educated yet are continuously being punished by an unfair system, brings forth ideas that incite anger and frustration. Such emotions therefore reveal ideals among the young who are motivated to begin movements, whether violent or not, much like the characters in the movie. Radical ideas such as anti-capitalism may sound too violent for some, but The Edukators were able to show us a different way to advocate for change.

The German film seems to be coming from a view of a person who was once part of the old Germany which was once divided by opposing ideals. Capitalism was not present in East Germany whose people predominantly believed in Socialist ideals. Coming from this background, a lot of Germans may be longing for the life that Socialist Germany brought, much like what was shown in Good Bye, Lenin! However, because of the changing society, growing unrest from the imperfect system, and inspiration of a peaceful revolution, people demanded for an open country. Yet the new ideals that came with such change also failed them in the future. Its greatly exemplified through the everyday struggles of the characters in The Edukators. I think that it is through this that we see Europe’s struggle in finding justice in its struggle to find the perfect balance between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The masses rising above the injustices of their country’s system is not uncommon in European history, that is why even to this day, we see that protests are prevalent in such countries.

I believe that European political movies such as The Edukators are very much in touch with their history. Although unlike before, the themes we see are far less radical than we think. Violence is always out of the picture, as seen in Jule, Peter, and Jan’s choice to let their prisoner go. We see that despite their constant struggle against a violent system, the film rather propagates ideas that poetic resistance.

In all honesty, after watching The Edukators, I had no idea how to feel. I thought that the film was far too long for its own good, and in comparison to another film, also German at that, that I’ve seen in class, I felt the way Good Bye Lenin approached its political statements about capitalism and government was much more subtle and effective than The Edukators, which seems to just outright give the viewer a lecture in the middle of the film.

And this is puzzling because the basic premise of the movie really does not feel like it had to be almost two full hours. It’s simply about a trio of anti-capitalist activists, two of which are a couple, and them committing a kidnapping-by-circumstance, and the relationships of these three and their captor. Along the way, the captor learns to bond with them, the third wheel of the activists falls in love with the girl, and more issues are discussed.

I think what the movie also fails at from the start is introducing these characters. Obviously it is always a tricky thing to have a crime film with likable characters, considering how the very nature of the genre represents a fantasized view in the acts one shouldn’t normally do, but the main characters all start off very bland and unlikable, particularly Jule (Julia Jentsch). I never truly bought the romance between the characters as well, and the more kissing scenes there were, the more the romance subplot felt forced in as well as uncomfortable to watch. While the characters all eventually learn to grow, and they become more likable and understandable, it happens far too close to the end of the film for it to truly have any impact. In fact, the film’s ending even attempts to try a twist ending where it initially appears that the activists would not get away with their crimes only to reveal that they in fact did, but at the very end of the film I was just more annoyed they just didn’t get caught.

And another thing I felt the movie was lacking was a consistent theme. The film begins with a strong opening scene of the leads protesting a store’s sweatshop practices, and then builds up to them breaking into the home of Hardenberg, a man who would eventually be their hostage. Once they appear to get caught and commit the kidnapping, the film takes a more panic-induced tone, and the actual kidnapping is intense. But when the dust settles, the film transitions from a crime drama to an almost slice-of-life drama with the four characters. It feels almost like an entirely different film, and the sudden shift is truly jarring, with its bloated runtime also adding to the pain.

The one thing I did like about the film though was the performances. As much as the characters felt unlikable or flat, I never felt that they were poorly acted. Everyone in the film’s 4-person ensemble is doing their best, and the emotions of each character as well as the tone in their dialogue is felt. The actors all did a very good job, and their performances are easily the best part of the film.

In the end, after much thought, I honestly didn’t expect to dislike a movie any more than The Five Obstructions out of all the films I’ve watched in this class, but The Edukators successfully managed to dethrone it. It’s a well-acted film that, like its characters, sadly feels like it doesn’t know what it’s doing or where it’s going.