The American Friend

A couple of months ago, I bought and watched Paris Texas, directed by Wim Wenders. I searched his filmography to find some other potentially good movies. One of the movies that seemed interesting (to me at least) was this little gem with Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper. So finally I decided to watch it and I wasn't disappointed. The performances in English German and French are a bit « sketchy » and don't stand out too much, but other than that, this movie is good. The story is interesting and original. It's not just a standard crime drama like you would expect. The action and crime stuff is good and entertaining. The movie is slow, but it doesn't drag. But the best part about this movie, by far, is the cinematography, including the lighting and the colours.

I've seen many crime movies from the seventies and they all had one thing in common: the "dirty" look. The "dirty" look is hard to explain, but mostly it's abandoned, broken down buildings and streets, brown, grey, elephant pants, polluted streets, guns and big-ass cars. Those things give 70s crime movies that "dirty" look. I really like it, it fits well with crime stories. Der amerikanische Freund has that awesome "dirty" look, but it also has many many colours mixed in. The brightly coloured lights (neons, street lights, car headlights, etc.) reflect heavily on everything and the natural sunlight makes beautiful skies. It looks wonderful and it ads something interesting to the "dirty" look. There are also many great shots and colour choices that I liked throughout the movie.

This cinematography made this crime movie a whole new experience. I can't say this is a better movie than Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon, but at it looks way better. So if you're looking for something different that looks good, I would definitely recommend this german classic.

The AMERICAN FRIEND

The fine German director Wim Wenders is responsible for this film. (If you dont know Wenders, you should). The setting of the film is handled well: the seaminess of the port of Hamburg Germany, comes across as one of the great film noir-type cities. It looks like an environment that is constantly wet and misty.

The movie ostensibly stars Dennis Hopper, but although he is given top billing in the movie he plays nearly a minor, background figure throughout. Clearly the most interesting performance, it is frustratingly parceled out to us in a way that makes you crave a really long scene with just him in it. But instead, his characterization happens in brief, truncated insights.

Hopper is well-cast once again in one of those teetering-on-the-edge roles he excels in. He is a loose cannon in this film--you clearly see his character is unbalanced --and you just dont know what he is going to do at any given moment and that lends the film its tense aspect. But the film doesnt really focus on him. Thats the main problem with this film.

Bruno Ganz (a fine Swiss actor) is the figure that the camera spends the most time on. He and Hopper and several other figures are all part of the world of art forgery and art smuggling. But Ganz's character--a painting restoration expert--is suffering secretly from a terminal blood disease. (His performance is soooo subdued it can make you antsy and annoyed, especially when you know Hopper is around somewhere).

Anyway, when the other shady characters in the movie learn of Ganz's condition they play upon his weakness to manipulate him into taking risks with the gangsters they deal with. His goal is simply to provide more money for his family after he is gone. (There is a nice moral dilemma in this film: if you knew you were dying, would your moral code alter?)

My emotional response to the plot: basically it evoked a sense of dread; a queasiness at the entanglements the main character is drawn into and the things he has to do--which are clearly against his better judgement. He is pushed to the limits of his moral and physical endurance. Its a tightly-focused story.

That being said, one immediately notices that the film's storyline is delivered in tiny, tattered snippets. These 'fragments' are in themselves intriguing. They are well photographed; they are sometimes laden with tension and atmosphere; and they often have taut, fused moments of acting.

There is also a poetic sweetness that occurs when two seemingly unrelated elements finally merge and make sense. Therefore, you know that the director isnt just fluffing it; because tiny motifs that are broken off in the beginning of the film reappear later and complete their meaning. Its great.

But overall, these slowly-delivered fragments can make one restless at times. There is too much that is unexplained; too much that we have to infer or dismiss because it simply isnt made clear. None of the characters, nor their subtle relationships to each other, are 'handed to us' outright. They are revealed in the same tiny flashes that forms the constructive style used throughout the whole movie.

Bottom line: a lot of the dialogue is frustratingly cryptic. I think you *could* figure out the weight behind each exchange if you went back carefully over the movie, but after a point--when the action takes over--youre left feeling that it just doesnt matter. Its as if Wenders shot long, fully drawn-out and rich scenes of dialogue but then went back and sliced it all up into little bits and pieces.

Its a movie that gives one mixed reactions. Kind of hard to characterize what the sum total of this film really is. Its basically a thriller, but done in such a low, deliberately dead-pan manner; that youre left with no sense of tension. Or climax. The Hopper character's weird relationship to the main protagonist, is what really leaves an aftertaste in your mouth. Perhaps that was the intent all along.

There is a sense of calm and satisfaction at the close of the movie, but more because the chaos is over and things have settled into a peaceful arrangement. Still, I enjoyed the movie and recommend it as worth seeing.

One reason that any film fan should really watch this film is the wonderful cameos by two of America's classic Hollywood directors from the 1950s: Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller. This is really a treat! Fuller plays a gangster and Ray plays a forger. Its the main reason I wanted to see this movie, and I am glad I did.

A wonderful film whose plot elements are not nearly as important as the characters' development. Hopper is endearing, and the suspense created in a few paramount scenes is very effective. The music, and the surreal cameos and nature of the story create a very involving film full of clever twists, scenes, and dialogue. The use of different characters might be interpreted as symbols for different national characteristics; but the film is best seen for what it is. A really good story that plays on many of the cliches that were established ten or twenty years before it. Wenders knows his American films.

Wim Wenders' tribute to American film noir, with cameos for two great American directors, Sam Fuller and Nicholas Ray, and boasting the most imaginative cinematography ever and the most beautifully ominous music, is finally available in widescreen enhanced DVD. What is it about about Patricia Highsmith which inspires so many directors? From Alfred Hitchcock (Strangers on a Train) to Anthony Minghella (The Talented Mr. Ripley), via Jean-Pierre Melville (Cry of the Owl) and Rene Clement (Plein soleil aka Purple Noon), her novels have translated to the screen with astonishing effect. Purple Noon and The Talented Mr. Ripley adapt the same book in such different yet equally gripping ways that curiosity forced me to seek out the novel, and then the other four Tom Ripley novels. Ripley's Game, the source for The American Friend, is arguably the best of the five, and perhaps of all her novels. Jonathan (Bruno Ganz), not Ripley himself (Dennis Hopper) is the real protagonist. The Hamburg-to-Munich train sequence is probably the centerpiece, but the Paris subway scene is just as incredible (ending in La Defense before the Grande Arche was built). Dialogue flows easily between German, English, and French. Just one example of sensitive detail - when Jonathan (Ganz)is reading his hopeless medical report in a steel/glass/concrete modernist Paris apartment, the camera zeroes in on the miniature Statue of Liberty replica on a concrete island under a bridge across the Seine. A symbolic representation of the title?

This 1977 Wim Wenders film is an adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel Ripley's Game. It stars Dennis Hopper as Tom Ripley, the amoral and lonely antihero Highsmith based five novels upon. Bruno Ganz plays a dying picture framer who is cajoled into murdering a man. Through various circumstances these two men come together, and briefly become friends. This is a thriller, but it's mostly the story of these two men who come to depend on one another for a brief time. Hopper is very touching in this film, conveying Ripley's loneliness in very subtle ways. And Bruno Ganz is even better as the man caught up in something he doesn't understand. And as always with a Wenders film, this is visually beautiful. For fans of Wim Wenders or The Talented Mr. Ripley, this is well worth seeing.