MovieChat Forums > Germania anno zero (1949) Discussion > Is it powerful or emotionless?

Is it powerful or emotionless?

posted 14 years ago by jungetorless
4 replies | jump to latest

http://dasfilmblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/germany-year-zero.html Recently wrote this for my blog. Afterwards, I read two reviews for it from the New York Times, one of which said that the movie may be a "social document beyond reproach" but also noted that it is "unrelieved by any purge of emotions." According to him, all Rossellini set out to do was show suffering. The reviewer admired it, but he didn't really seem to like it.

I agree with this in some way, but I prefer what Dave Kehr has to say in his review of the War Film trilogy:

"As difficult as it must have been at the time the film was shot, Rossellini strains to observe the German people with fairness and compassion. His protagonist, a 12-year-old boy (Edmund Meschke, a nonprofessional Rossellini recruited from a family of circus performers), is both a symbol of the Reich (he would have been born in 1934, the year Hitler assumed his title as Führer) and a victim of it [...]Rossellini dedicated “Germany Year Zero” to his young son Romano, who had died of a ruptured appendix before the shooting began. The act of identifying his own innocent son with the adolescent killer of “Germany Year Zero” suggests extraordinary moral courage on Rossellini’s part, an ability to see a common humanity in the most disparate figures, to find sorrow where so many others had only, and understandably, found horror and disgust.

This says much more eloquently what I was trying to get at in my review. Edmund is a symbol, but neorealism isn't just about allegory. It may not be obvious, but there is a good deal of emotion in Germany: Year Zero.

What do you think? Is the film beautiful and sad or emotionless? And what do you think of my review?

[–] sonofindiandelta 14 years ago

This film is incredibly sad, but IMHO should be one of the must watch film about WWII instead of something like schindlers list because it communicates the despair that war brings with it, through it's brilliant use of lighting and location, and is unrelenting. I think it's unrelenting nature is important because it doesn't give the audience an "out", instead forcing the audience try to come to terms with the tragedy of the War.

[–] chrissso 9 years ago

In the eyes of current movie viewers ... time has left this film in the dust! Consider the soundtrack ... it is that bad. Consider the camera technology ... it is that dated. This film may have been special in 1948 but in 2010 Schindler's List makes a much bolder statement ... and had plenty of desperation. Also SL ends on an upbeat note while this film ends in suicide. I would argue that the upbeat ending is more memorable because it is less sensational.

[–] fsvr54 (43) 4 years ago

Since when does a movie need to end on a uplifting note?

If you as me Schindlers List is trash and this is great, and much more interesting as a historical document.

[–] henrimaine 12 years ago

It's powerful AND emotionless. Well, not really devoid of any emotions but, rather, so full of despair and misery that people seem to be numb and keeping themselves from getting caught up in any strong emotions. And that has a very powerful effect on the viewer.