Full Version: Wings of Desire VS Faraway, So Close
The sequel is actually a much more commercial sort of picture. Cassiel takes the plunge and lands in a liberated Berlin, which is rushing headlong into the pros and cons of freedom. Of course, pornography and gun-running are big deals, and Cassiel is drawn into a criminal operation until he has to face where the path is taking him. There are a lot of cameos and some kinda lousy gangster-movie-genre cliches thrown in, but it's a fun way to revisit the world of the first film, and it's got a spectacular soundtrack. Lou Reed fills the Nick Cave shoes this time around.
My own vague memory of the sequel revolves around the phrase "more plot-driven than the first film". Plus, of course, Cassiel's transition from angel to human comes a LOT earlier in the story than Damiel's did, which makes it an entirely different sort of film.
And hey, the sequel is the film that enables us to play the 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' game with Mikhail Gorbachev! Gorbachev and Peter Falk are both in this film; Peter Falk and Christopher Guest are both in The Princess Bride; and Christopher Guest and Kevin Bacon are both in A Few Good Men! See how much fun that is!
And hey, the sequel is the film that enables us to play the 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' game with Mikhail Gorbachev! Gorbachev and Peter Falk are both in this film; Peter Falk and Christopher Guest are both in The Princess Bride; and Christopher Guest and Kevin Bacon are both in A Few Good Men! See how much fun that is!
[quote]The sequel is actually a much more commercial sort of picture. ....[/quote]
There's the rub. So much of what appealed in WINGS was the space and the silence, the room the film maker left us not only to figure out what was going on but also to enter into the world of the film: the images, textures, composition and movement, the pacing caused us to contemplate the people, be enticed by the world, mull the ideas in a way very similar to the "angels" in the movie. The form matched the substance: a movie about these things itself embodied them. It wasn't a "plot-driven" North American film - indeed, it wasn't "driven" at all, but rather measured, poetic, evocative.
I was transported by WINGS: its sequel did nothing for me at all. I have wondered if I would feel differently if I'd seen FAR AWAY first: so much of the pleasure for me was in puzzling out who these over-coated people were, what were they doing, how must that feel? Viewing the second film, that premise had been thoroughly absorbed, and a good deal of the Mystery wasn't available to me.
I wonder if these two films might not serve as an interestng case study in connection with Paul Schrader's book Transcendental Style In Film. I've only a passing familiarity with its ideas - not knowing the films of Ozu, Bresson and Dreyer obviously limits how much I can really get hold of what he's saying - but I wonder if WINGS OF DESIRE might not embody some of the attributes he calls "transcendental" much more than does the sequel - which might go some way toward explaining why the former film is more successful (at least for me) in evoking the sacred.
Or maybe I just like black and white.
Ron
There's the rub. So much of what appealed in WINGS was the space and the silence, the room the film maker left us not only to figure out what was going on but also to enter into the world of the film: the images, textures, composition and movement, the pacing caused us to contemplate the people, be enticed by the world, mull the ideas in a way very similar to the "angels" in the movie. The form matched the substance: a movie about these things itself embodied them. It wasn't a "plot-driven" North American film - indeed, it wasn't "driven" at all, but rather measured, poetic, evocative.
I was transported by WINGS: its sequel did nothing for me at all. I have wondered if I would feel differently if I'd seen FAR AWAY first: so much of the pleasure for me was in puzzling out who these over-coated people were, what were they doing, how must that feel? Viewing the second film, that premise had been thoroughly absorbed, and a good deal of the Mystery wasn't available to me.
I wonder if these two films might not serve as an interestng case study in connection with Paul Schrader's book Transcendental Style In Film. I've only a passing familiarity with its ideas - not knowing the films of Ozu, Bresson and Dreyer obviously limits how much I can really get hold of what he's saying - but I wonder if WINGS OF DESIRE might not embody some of the attributes he calls "transcendental" much more than does the sequel - which might go some way toward explaining why the former film is more successful (at least for me) in evoking the sacred.
Or maybe I just like black and white.
Ron
I saw the main difference in the two films as: WoD focuses on the romantic story, whereas FSC focuses on the spiritual and theological story. This is reflected in the English-release titles of the two films. (Although WoD was originally titled "The Skies Over Berlin," I believe.) FSC addresses the nature of good and evil, free will, grace, death, innocence/experience, self-sacrifice, time (emit), and innumerable themes not even hinted at in WoD. FSC is a delicous buffet, whereas WoD feels to me like a healthy meal that tastes like cardboard.
If you haven't seen WoD, FSC can stand on its own. It's not dependent upon its predecessor. I saw it before WoD, which may have something to do with why I prefer it over WoD.
BTW, Wenders has said that he liked the American City of Angels, but then again he was getting paid.
If you haven't seen WoD, FSC can stand on its own. It's not dependent upon its predecessor. I saw it before WoD, which may have something to do with why I prefer it over WoD.
BTW, Wenders has said that he liked the American City of Angels, but then again he was getting paid.
[quote]...FSC is a delicous buffet, whereas WoD feels to me like a healthy meal that tastes like cardboard.[/quote]
Well, one man's meat, and all that. To my taste buds, WoD was a gourmet meal prepared by a master chef, while FSC was above-average drive-through.
[quote]
I saw it before WoD, which may have something to do with why I prefer it over WoD.[/quote]
Interesting. The order was reversed for me. I bet that's a factor.
[quote]
BTW, Wenders has said that he liked the American City of Angels...[/quote]
Now THAT'S fast food.
Ron
Well, one man's meat, and all that. To my taste buds, WoD was a gourmet meal prepared by a master chef, while FSC was above-average drive-through.
[quote]
I saw it before WoD, which may have something to do with why I prefer it over WoD.[/quote]
Interesting. The order was reversed for me. I bet that's a factor.
[quote]
BTW, Wenders has said that he liked the American City of Angels...[/quote]
Now THAT'S fast food.
Ron
I can't say I really liked one movie over the other, but I did get the impression that WINGS was a more pure attempt at what the fimmaker was trying to say, although I found it incredibly annoying.
I love black and white movies, and I don't mind slow paced movies, as long as there's a reason for it, and I love Peter Falk (and Willem Dafoe). And you're right, whoever it is who said that the 'air' in the film lets you get pulled into the world of te film, but I found that the world of the film wasn't one I wanted to be in (although probably still am in).
It's a world where divine beings don't want to be devine. Nearly all of the angels who are actually characters 'fall', turning their back on God. To be spiritual is to be fundametally bored. There is no reason to be holy, because holiness means you don't have any feelings of your own. I do think (and I haven't seen any interviews, or know anything about the filmmaker) that the angels are a representation of the church, or the people in the church of europe who find themselves in a religion without any drive or spirit which they leave to pursue more carnal desires. As with all good art, I found it totally unfair, biased, and concieted.
Yeah, the movie was great, I make no bones about it. But just because it was well made, technically, does not, in my book, make it 'good' morally.
I love black and white movies, and I don't mind slow paced movies, as long as there's a reason for it, and I love Peter Falk (and Willem Dafoe). And you're right, whoever it is who said that the 'air' in the film lets you get pulled into the world of te film, but I found that the world of the film wasn't one I wanted to be in (although probably still am in).
It's a world where divine beings don't want to be devine. Nearly all of the angels who are actually characters 'fall', turning their back on God. To be spiritual is to be fundametally bored. There is no reason to be holy, because holiness means you don't have any feelings of your own. I do think (and I haven't seen any interviews, or know anything about the filmmaker) that the angels are a representation of the church, or the people in the church of europe who find themselves in a religion without any drive or spirit which they leave to pursue more carnal desires. As with all good art, I found it totally unfair, biased, and concieted.
Yeah, the movie was great, I make no bones about it. But just because it was well made, technically, does not, in my book, make it 'good' morally.
[quote][quote]
...It's a world where divine beings don't want to be devine. Nearly all of the angels who are actually characters 'fall', turning their back on God. ...[/quote]
Or is it, perhaps, a world where incorporeal beings yearn to become incarnate? Do they turn their back on God, or do they follow God into flesh?
Ron[/quote]
That's certainly not the case with Faraway, So Close, where Cassiel laments the materialism of the human race and longs to enter into a mortal existence to be of greater service and so better to shine the Light.
The whole irony of the film is found in the fact that this noble goal is impossible for humans. It is only by giving up and admitting his own complete inability that he learns the meaning of grace, perhaps something he had always taken for granted. By grace, service and redemption is only accomplished by giving up that very life.
There are very few movies that illustrate this important idea so well.
By contrast, the first angel is more just bored and becomes fascinated with a particular human woman. Big deal.
...It's a world where divine beings don't want to be devine. Nearly all of the angels who are actually characters 'fall', turning their back on God. ...[/quote]
Or is it, perhaps, a world where incorporeal beings yearn to become incarnate? Do they turn their back on God, or do they follow God into flesh?
Ron[/quote]
That's certainly not the case with Faraway, So Close, where Cassiel laments the materialism of the human race and longs to enter into a mortal existence to be of greater service and so better to shine the Light.
The whole irony of the film is found in the fact that this noble goal is impossible for humans. It is only by giving up and admitting his own complete inability that he learns the meaning of grace, perhaps something he had always taken for granted. By grace, service and redemption is only accomplished by giving up that very life.
There are very few movies that illustrate this important idea so well.
By contrast, the first angel is more just bored and becomes fascinated with a particular human woman. Big deal.
[quote]By contrast, the first angel is more just bored and becomes fascinated with a particular human woman. Big deal.[/quote]
Ooooh... them's fightin' words.
The woman is just the beginning for him. Throughout the film Damiel is filled with curiosity at every moment of awe, every sensual detail of God's creation. He is drawn to the woman not only because she is fascinating, but because she mirrors him... she's on the other side, wanting to know what is heavenly. She speaks in a surreal monologue fashion that tells us we are not to take her completely literally either. She longs for the inifinite. When they meet, he understands her language, and listens knowingly, while she... (notice her earrings in that scene)... finally "takes flight" in a relationship.
Many will poo-poo the fact that it is implied they dash off to the sack. It is true that there is no wedding there. But both of these characters have ceased to be literal at this point, at least for me. They are representational, and their union (which, fortunately, is not shown, and would have trivialized the matter if it had been) becomes the film's "climactic" metaphor of the union we can look forward to between humankind and God. We do not see the sex, which would have been a foolish and distracting choice. Instead we hear Damiel testify to a new level of awe, the joy of union, the fruit of having stepped out in faith into the unknown and been blessed.
Faraway, So Close, with its conventional spy-game elements, becomes more of a genre piece, burdened with movie cliches, and thus seems lesser to me. I am never carried away by the poetry in Faraway as I am in Wings.
Ooooh... them's fightin' words.
The woman is just the beginning for him. Throughout the film Damiel is filled with curiosity at every moment of awe, every sensual detail of God's creation. He is drawn to the woman not only because she is fascinating, but because she mirrors him... she's on the other side, wanting to know what is heavenly. She speaks in a surreal monologue fashion that tells us we are not to take her completely literally either. She longs for the inifinite. When they meet, he understands her language, and listens knowingly, while she... (notice her earrings in that scene)... finally "takes flight" in a relationship.
Many will poo-poo the fact that it is implied they dash off to the sack. It is true that there is no wedding there. But both of these characters have ceased to be literal at this point, at least for me. They are representational, and their union (which, fortunately, is not shown, and would have trivialized the matter if it had been) becomes the film's "climactic" metaphor of the union we can look forward to between humankind and God. We do not see the sex, which would have been a foolish and distracting choice. Instead we hear Damiel testify to a new level of awe, the joy of union, the fruit of having stepped out in faith into the unknown and been blessed.
Faraway, So Close, with its conventional spy-game elements, becomes more of a genre piece, burdened with movie cliches, and thus seems lesser to me. I am never carried away by the poetry in Faraway as I am in Wings.
[quote][quote]By contrast, the first angel is more just bored and becomes fascinated with a particular human woman. Big deal.[/quote]
Ooooh... them's fightin' words.
Faraway, So Close, with its conventional spy-game elements, becomes more of a genre piece, burdened with movie cliches, and thus seems lesser to me. I am never carried away by the poetry in Faraway as I am in Wings.[/quote]
Well, I agree that "carried away" is the operative term here. :crazy3:
However, I can also agree that the gangster-theme in FSC is silly at times, but I think that's OK. In fact, I think that silliness serves the purpose of the film by making the gangsters pathetic, not scary. It's almost a comic theme in the movie, not a major plot or thematic element. The plot revolves around Cassiel's attempts to "be good," to "act like a man," not the gangster elements. That's just backdrop. The human story behind the gangster's family, and Cassiel's choices are front and center--don't get distracted. If I had to fault the film, however, it would be for its distractions, more the Gorby cameo and frequent use of Lou Reed than anything else. :spoilers:
How can you not be moved by Cassiel's transformation from a glorious, serene, yet empathetic angel to an apathetic and pathetic drunk? How can you not be impacted by the poetry of the angelic experience of a Nazi art gallery? The other angels watching Cassiel's slow self-destruction? The other humans witnessing his sacrificial death? The story of the old man and the girl he protected, especially when Raphaela is reminding him of the good life he has lived (and how that contrasts with Cassiel's attempt to do the same)?
Ooooh... them's fightin' words.
Faraway, So Close, with its conventional spy-game elements, becomes more of a genre piece, burdened with movie cliches, and thus seems lesser to me. I am never carried away by the poetry in Faraway as I am in Wings.[/quote]
Well, I agree that "carried away" is the operative term here. :crazy3:
However, I can also agree that the gangster-theme in FSC is silly at times, but I think that's OK. In fact, I think that silliness serves the purpose of the film by making the gangsters pathetic, not scary. It's almost a comic theme in the movie, not a major plot or thematic element. The plot revolves around Cassiel's attempts to "be good," to "act like a man," not the gangster elements. That's just backdrop. The human story behind the gangster's family, and Cassiel's choices are front and center--don't get distracted. If I had to fault the film, however, it would be for its distractions, more the Gorby cameo and frequent use of Lou Reed than anything else. :spoilers:
How can you not be moved by Cassiel's transformation from a glorious, serene, yet empathetic angel to an apathetic and pathetic drunk? How can you not be impacted by the poetry of the angelic experience of a Nazi art gallery? The other angels watching Cassiel's slow self-destruction? The other humans witnessing his sacrificial death? The story of the old man and the girl he protected, especially when Raphaela is reminding him of the good life he has lived (and how that contrasts with Cassiel's attempt to do the same)?
I recently found the IMAGE Journal interview with Wim Wenders which touches on many things, including the two movies under discussion. Is that material old hat for people here, or should I post some of it?
Ron
Ron
Just a note to say that this thread was split-off from this other thread on Wings of Desire:
http://promontoryarts.com/viewtopic.php?t=224
http://promontoryarts.com/viewtopic.php?t=224
[quote]How can you not be moved by Cassiel's transformation from a glorious, serene, yet empathetic angel to an apathetic and pathetic drunk? [/quote]
I didn't say I'm not moved by it. I like Faraway, So Close quite a bit. But I'm moved by the story only somewhat, because it is such an awkward mix of genres. I don't believe in the characters as fully as I do in Wings of Desire.
Part of this probably stems from the fact that I am more moved by great poetry than by a good spy yarn. One film is driven by poetry, the other by plot. Cassiel's fall, sacrifice, and redemption are a bit too predictable and contrived in that film to really make me want to go back over and over again, whereas every time I watch Wings I find myself exploring different back alleys of the language and imagery.
And, while we're at it, I much prefer the fantastic choral/cello score of Wings over the primarily rock-and-roll-variety-show soundtrack of Faraway... One was original and supportive, the other borrowed and occasionally distracting.
This is true of several of Wenders' works. Until the End of the World is a GREAT soundtrack album, but in the film it feels like "Let me interrupt this feature to bring you a mix tape of my favorite artists."
Same with "The End of Violence", in which the plot was literally put on hold so the camera could zip into a nearby building where Sam Phillips was putting on a show. I'm sure there are thematic parallels between the songs and the plot, but considering the fact that the plot was a bit shaky to begin with, I found it distracting.
NEVERTHELESS, I will cheer ANYONE who puts ANY movie on hold to stop for a few moments of Sam Phillips!
=D>
Can anyone tell me why my APPLAUDING EMOTICON is not working here?
I didn't say I'm not moved by it. I like Faraway, So Close quite a bit. But I'm moved by the story only somewhat, because it is such an awkward mix of genres. I don't believe in the characters as fully as I do in Wings of Desire.
Part of this probably stems from the fact that I am more moved by great poetry than by a good spy yarn. One film is driven by poetry, the other by plot. Cassiel's fall, sacrifice, and redemption are a bit too predictable and contrived in that film to really make me want to go back over and over again, whereas every time I watch Wings I find myself exploring different back alleys of the language and imagery.
And, while we're at it, I much prefer the fantastic choral/cello score of Wings over the primarily rock-and-roll-variety-show soundtrack of Faraway... One was original and supportive, the other borrowed and occasionally distracting.
This is true of several of Wenders' works. Until the End of the World is a GREAT soundtrack album, but in the film it feels like "Let me interrupt this feature to bring you a mix tape of my favorite artists."
Same with "The End of Violence", in which the plot was literally put on hold so the camera could zip into a nearby building where Sam Phillips was putting on a show. I'm sure there are thematic parallels between the songs and the plot, but considering the fact that the plot was a bit shaky to begin with, I found it distracting.
NEVERTHELESS, I will cheer ANYONE who puts ANY movie on hold to stop for a few moments of Sam Phillips!
=D>
Can anyone tell me why my APPLAUDING EMOTICON is not working here?
[quote]I will cheer ANYONE who puts ANY movie on hold to stop for a few moments of Sam Phillips![/quote]
Except for that Die Hard sequel, I hope.
Except for that Die Hard sequel, I hope.
I love Faraway, So Close! I saw it on IFC and just fell in love. It was one of the first films I bought on DVD when I got my first player. I have only seen Wings of Desire once, also on IFC and I was in the middle of doing something else, so I wasn't paying full attention -- I don't remember liking it as much, but I really have to see it again. Now that it's been released on DVD I think I'll have to pick it up.
Jeffrey:
[quote]Same with "The End of Violence", in which the plot was literally put on hold so the camera could zip into a nearby building where Sam Phillips was putting on a show.[/quote]
Hold the phone! I missed this?! Oh man, I mustn't have been paying close enough attention to that one...
Jeffrey:
[quote]Same with "The End of Violence", in which the plot was literally put on hold so the camera could zip into a nearby building where Sam Phillips was putting on a show.[/quote]
Hold the phone! I missed this?! Oh man, I mustn't have been paying close enough attention to that one...
AlanW wrote:
: Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: : I will cheer ANYONE who puts ANY movie on hold to stop for a few
: : moments of Sam Phillips!
:
: Except for that Die Hard sequel, I hope.
Did they actually put that movie "on hold" for Sam Phillips? At any rate, I have always gotten a kick out of the fact that her two big movie appearances were in films bearing the titles Die Hard with a Vengeance and The End of Violence.
FWIW, if I may quote a few things I posted to the Sam Phillips listserv after getting the two-disc DVD of the Die Hard film:
: Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: : I will cheer ANYONE who puts ANY movie on hold to stop for a few
: : moments of Sam Phillips!
:
: Except for that Die Hard sequel, I hope.
Did they actually put that movie "on hold" for Sam Phillips? At any rate, I have always gotten a kick out of the fact that her two big movie appearances were in films bearing the titles Die Hard with a Vengeance and The End of Violence.
FWIW, if I may quote a few things I posted to the Sam Phillips listserv after getting the two-disc DVD of the Die Hard film:
Most of the commentary on Die Hard with a Vengeance comes from director John McTiernan and screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh, and they had just a wee bit to say about Sam Phillips, during the guard-slashing scene:Make of all that what you will.JM: Now that's Sam Phillips, who's a singer, and I solved the problem that she didn't have a Marlene Dietrich accent by -- 'cause she's an American -- by making her mute.And that's about all they have to say about THAT scene. (Although, for what it's worth, earlier on, McTiernan says the film incorporated 'When Johnny Comes Marching Home' into its score as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, just as the original Die Hard incorporated Beethoven's 9th Symphony and 'Singin' in the Rain' as a tribute to Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Does Sam have any Kubrick connections?)
JH: She hasn't done any more acting since then, I don't believe, but she should. I think she was good.
JM: I tried desperately to get her to sing 'Johnny Come Marching Home'. I wanted her to sing it in the end credits. I also gave her several Kurt Weill songs, who is [a] German 1930s composer. Really political. Very hard-nosed.
JH: This is a nice little pirouette of violence here.
JM: I had that dagger made. It's supposed to look like an Assyrian -- like some sort of sacrificial knife.
Sam fans might also be interested to know that there is an "alternate ending" to the film on the bonus disc, in which Irons gets away with his heist, and Bruce Willis catches up with him some time later. In the dialogue, it is suggested that Irons has dumped Sam (because the conversation was a trifle limited, or so he says). This is, of course, very different from the ending that we saw in the final film, in which Sam and Irons are about to make love, when suddenly Willis shows up in a helicopter, and Sam and Irons get into a helicopter of their own, and then they crash and burn, literally. On the audio commentary track, the screenwriter says the studio objected to the "alternate ending" because it made Willis look "cruel". So it would seem that the filmmakers beefed up Sam's role in the film after they'd already started shooting it.
And yup, in this scene, when Sam first gives Jeremy Irons the come-hither look, McTiernan confirms that, since they were changing the ending anyway, he figured he may as well try to throw some sex into the movie.
She was good ?!?!?!? :eek7:
Well, for what they gave her to do, she was certainly sufficient, and knowing who she is and what her personality and history is like... it just makes the performance that much more amusing. I cheered when she brandished a knife and went to work.
Speaking of Sam, I just picked up a copy of The Turning today for $7 at the local Christian bookstore. I have a copy on cassette somewhere around here, but I haven't had a tape player hooked up for years now so it's been awhile since I've heard it. Wow! What a great album... 
It's still the only album that rivals Joshua Tree for my personal favorite rock record of all time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.