Tão Longe, Tão Perto

"Faraway, So Close!" is a very confusing movie if one has either not seen its predecessor, "Wings of Desire," or knows something about that movie. I was in that state when I first viewed "Faraway, So Close!" and could only think that I was watching an artsy movie. Fortunately, the movie is now available on DVD in a widescreen anamorphic version with the director's commentary of Wim Wenders. The movie began in black and white and seemed to morph every now and then into color that had me wondering whether or not I had a defective DVD. Eventually, I figured out, as the movie was running, that this was intentional with the black and white sequences depicting the angel(s) observing humans. In the meantime, I managed to miss much of the subtlties of the movie that were only revealed from the lips of Wim Wenders in his running audio commentary. With a backdrop of Berlin, the movie was filmed in German. Fortunately, there are English subtitles and it is sometimes odd when the dialog actually breaks into English. As Wenders points out, this was his third movie with Nastassja Kinski that began with her very first movie in 1975, "The Wrong Movement," and was followed by the 1984 "Paris, Texas." Spaced approximately 10 years apart and with "Faraway, So Close" in 1993, Wenders mentioned that it is now time to do a fourth picture with Nastassja. One can only hope that it materializes.

The basic story has to do with the protagonist as Cassiel, the actor Otto Sander, taking human form from his previous angelic state in which he can only observe and sympathize. An event propels his wishful transformation into the human dilemma. Wim Wenders said that this film was a continuation of "Wings of Desire" and not a sequel. It is probably splitting hairs because I do not readily understand the difference, if any. Nastassja Kinski has the major supporting role of Raphaela and is always shown in black and white. Raphaela becomes Cassiel's, always present, angel. It is a very difficult role to pull off because Nastassja only has her voice (in German), her facial expressions, her hands, and her body movements to bring her character to life. Her on screen presence appears natural and effortless. It is nothing less than a superb performance of a first rate actress. But it is up to Otto Sander to carry the movie. The supporting cast is first rate.

My third viewing of the film was an experience. 146 minutes passes relatively quickly. The film is dripping with intensity and is larger than life. Wim Wenders' vision and its execution is astonishing and will reverberate through time because it captures the essence of life and death. It is a movie director's awesome tour de force.

Although it has received mixed reviews by critics, this follow-up to "Der Himmel über Berlin" (1987) is a deeply moving and beautiful film. Wenders explores the polarities which exist in a newly unified Berlin and in so doing examines some of the polarities which exist in life itself. As "Cassiel," Otto Sander has given us another endearing Wenders protagonist who learns all too quickly about what life (and time) can present upon an individual. Laurent Petitgand's stunning musical score enhances the sublime images photographed by Jürgen Jürges. Although "Der Himmel über Berlin" (1987), is an almost mandatory pre-requisite, "In weiter Ferne, so nah!" (1993) is a vastly different film which proves itself in its own right.

Cinema has produced many wonderful films over the past century or so, but when looking at the various elements of film combined here, there is no other movie which touches me quite so positively, quite as deeply as this one.

Wim Wenders may not be taken seriously by Hollywood (or critics) anymore, but he seems able to pull in actors and musicians at will. Great soundtrack.

Great cast as well. Check out Horst Bucholz (sp?) here and in the 1962 comedy "One, Two, Three" with James Cagney. All the "mortals", especially Bruno Ganz, seem almost gleeful. Only Willem Dafoe appears to be in a "serious German movie".

I may not be qualified to comment on the real value of this movie because "Wings of Desire" is in my permanent top 5. It probably benefits from the glow of it's precursor more than any other sequel, because I really wanted to catch up with these characters. I smiled every time I saw a familiar face.

That said, it takes about an hour to settle in but finally gets sort of serious. Watching this and "Until the End of The World" (also ripped by critics) I get the feeling Wenders was either being lazy or just freestyling to avoid boredom. Looks like fun from here.

It's difficult to make a sequel as good as the original. If it's done in the same style, it becomes a poor shadow. Here, Wim Wenders has made something different than in "Wings of Desire:" what I consider a comedy of a misfit ex-angel, to counter the desire of an angel to become human in the other film.

Near the end of the other movie, we saw one of the angels, Damiel, become human for the love of a beautiful trapeze artist. In this film, we see the other angel, Cassiel, become human by accident as he wanted to help people. As much as he wanted to fit in with our world, the more he tried to do good, the worse trouble actually made of things. He often quotes the Lou Reed song he heard: "Why can't I be good, make something of this life?"

There is a cameo appearance of a world leader, when Mikhail Gorbachev (filmed the summer after resigning as Soviet president) ponders the age-old question about the meaning and purpose of life; or two leaders if counting that the guard dog's name is Khadafy. There are jokes about getting lost between East and West, since the Wall no longer was there as a landmark. But there is the serious side at the beginning, of the war and the Nazi past, which is a little hard to follow. I almost forgot about it as I got caught up in the humor of the fallen angel, but even that had the darker side of an evil angel who was leading him astray. Yet the ending tied everything together nicely.

Like "Wings of Desire," there are nice transitions between black and white, which is how the angels see the world, and color, for how humans see things. There is also a poem started at the beginning, about humans being everything to the angels, when Cassiel looks down from the statue to "you whom we love." The angels are just the "messengers who bring light to those in darkness." The poem is repeated at the ending, adding that the message is love.

The angels lament that humans can only believe what they can see and touch. The Wall fell, the tangible symbol of the division between East and West, yet still one driver whose thoughts we heard couldn't see what the difference was between the two areas; freedom can't be seen or touched. Love, the angels message, can be neither seen nor touched, yet that, and not "blood and steel" (as said the Russian poet and diplomat that Gorbachev quotes), is what is needed for there to be peace.

To enjoy this movie, view it as a poem. It relies on the language of the heart and asks its viewers to see it as it truly is, through the same myopic eyes to try and understand a dream. There is the duality of existence we all face, mirrored through the experience of an angel who falls to earth, who falls precisely because he can no longer contain himself within the restrictions of his identity. The central metaphor of this movie is about the passion, truth and love we are all promised, should we choose to live life as we were meant. There are the difficulties of trying to live out our singular purpose, the disappointments of relation, the trials of being part of something greater than self. In all these, there is also the beauty inherent, and ultimate understanding. The triumph of beautiful release, when we realise that all that has gone before is both behind us and a part of what we are, and the relief of becoming an individual, and understanding and embracing aspirations gained and lost.