I was at an advantage and disadvantage in watching BAADER. My advantage was that I know relatively little about the Baader-Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction (RAF). I believe this allowed me to view the film more objectively. As a fictionalized representation of the RAF, I figured I could see how well BAADER worked as a film. My disadvantage was that, well, I know relatively little about the RAF, so would be unable to figure out just how much liberty the filmmakers took with the real events. Ultimately, I'm not sure it mattered that much as BAADER falls rather flat as an accurate representation or inaccurate representation.
I found it hard to feel any real connection to the characters. And, by connection, I mean I didn't feel any great animosity towards the RAF or any sympathy. To feel so dispassionate about a group of revolutionaries/terrorists, is a failing in both the writing and directing.
Andreas Baader, as portrayed in BAADER, is supposed to bring an understanding to what brought these people together under his leadership to commit the acts they committed. However, I don't get any sense of why the other members of the RAF were drawn to him or even to the cause. Unlike some other reviewers, I didn't have a problem with Frank Giering being cast in the role. Giering seems capable and competent, it's the script that lacks dimension.
For most of the film, the characterization of Baader is nothing more then political rants and raves. It's possible that Baader was similar to this in real life, however, in the film it got old quickly. I wanted more insight into who this man was, and if not him, then more insight into the RAF as an organization. We don't get either in BAADER. The film doesn't give us enough insight into Andreas Baader and it never gives us much information about Ulrike Meinhof or the other members.
My impression is that the filmmakers wanted to romanticize the Baader Meinhof gang as a group of sincere idealists. It's brought out that the RAF didn't, at first, want to harm anyone. At least, that is what we hear through one of Andreas Baader's rants. Also, there is an attempt to draw almost a father and son type connection between Kurt Krone who is the federal policeman in charge of capturing Baader and destroying the gang, and Andreas Baader. There is a meeting between the two towards the end of the film and, inexplicably the film shows Krone's sympathy for Baader. Krone, at one point, says that the RAF almost managed to change society. My question is, change it to what, exactly? From watching BAADER, I have no idea, so therefore, one way or the other; I see no sense of urgency to the group and the film, in general. This is unfortunate, since the RAF was a big part of German consciousness during their reign of terror. And I certainly could have done without the fictionalized ending. Andreas Baader dies in a highly romantic way reminiscent of the American film BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. I have since found out that, Andreas died in a much less dramatic and romantic fashion.
If the film had been centered on Kurt Krone, the more interesting character in my opinion, BAADER would have worked much better. Krone's orchestration of the federal police and his ability to second-guess Baader, was fascinating. Again, I'm unclear how much of his character was fictionalized, but I much preferred the film when it focused on his character.
In the end, BAADER is neither a real life account of the RAF in the 70s nor an engaging fictionalized vision of how Andreas Baader and the group might have operated. If you have any interest in radical groups of this time period, it might be worth a look, keeping in mind the historical inaccuracies, otherwise there's not much to recommend.
