The Ending
-
haukivouri — 21 years ago(December 19, 2004 02:21 PM)
I agree. The shot of Hardenberg alone in his villa at first seemed to implicate that he was reflecting on his life and on what was missing in it , but as the police entered, it became clear that he was really thinking about what to do about his kidnappers.
He might have told them on the hut about his boat and its location .
It doesn't really make sense that Hardenberg would support their plan with the satellite island and then call the police (mutual consent) after they had cleared out of it, does it? Why make their identities known to the authorities? -
muellmerl — 21 years ago(December 20, 2004 05:36 AM)
Remember they chose the Houses for their "Edukators" Project by checking the List from the Yacht-Club. so they knew the exact location of the boat and probably had access to the keys. I also think that the relationship between Hardenberg and the Edukators ends, when they finally bring him back. His expression and outfit in the house and in the patrolvehicle are a symbol that he has enjoyed his trip "back in in time", but he is way too deep in "capitalism" to become some kind of affiliate or member of the revolutionists.
-
dominik-traenklein — 21 years ago(December 20, 2004 03:30 PM)
well, i think the ending is really interesting. since it is not obviously told or shown, what really went on, you have to think about the whole movie again to decide for yourself what really happenend. (this is one reason why i think this movie is really great all good movies have to make you think, otherwise it's just entertainment and not art.)
i thought about the two possibilities mentioned above. on the one hand hardenberg could have changed, secretly making an agreement with the edukators to help them promote their ideas. therefore he informed the police who would find an empty house with a message that would spread around really far and fast. at the same time he could have given them the key and license to the boat to help them continue their plan and blow up or sabotage the tv-transmitters. his whole life would have changed and so on so on.
on the other hand he could have started to realized what it was like in his past during 68 and when he came back to his house to his yuppie life he again realized that in this world living like the edukators was not possible with all the responsibility he has built for himself. That would show that change was a process and that it cannot take place within a couple of days and that you cannot be aware of it, if it really happens. Assuming that, the message the GSG-9 or let's just say cops find in the empty appartment can be seen as a implication of that. Both parts of the kidnap were about to realize that they almost changed their opinions, hardenberg in the mountains and jan at the gas station when he almost through away his burglary equipment. Since the edukators understood that, they went of to countinue their mission with the license or passport the stole hardenberg.
both versions seem pretty reasonable to me. and it came to my mind that maybe that was intended by the director. he wanted to show in the end that sometimes life takes over control and that prediction of how life (or in this case the movie) continues cannot be made. although i would hope that hardenberg change and would help to make the world a better place ;), this is not neccessarily what has to happen. weingartner tries to make the audience understand both sides, they seem to have understood each other and grown a better person. but then when they are back in real life (and, like a movie, a kidnap with four people in the mountains cannot be seen as a complex model of whole life) the charakters change again, or go back to their old state.
but who or what is there to be blamed for that? who is reasposible for the misery in the world? is it life itself?
these are questions that everyone has to answer for themself. the film just brings them up, and again this is why i think the movie is so great. -
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 09:36 AM)
What would you have done?
I think Hardenberger was not a bad guy, and that he did
enjoy and like his captors over time, BUT, you have to
remember, there were times when he must have known that
the only thing these kids can do with him is to kill
him. There was no other solution.
They did not have the stomach for it, thank god, for
them all, but what about next time, and next time.
Eventually, those kids are going to get themselves
into a situation where through their mistakes, and
imperfections they do have to kill someone, or one
of them gets killed.
If that is their choice, then they are a danger to
themselves and society and have to be turned in.
We the viewers saw how their silly youthful humanity
overcame their alturism, when Peter steals the watch,
when Jan decides to make a play for Jule, and when Jule
gets in the house and goes crazy, not respecting what
Jan is trying to do because she is so happy to be
doing something bad to Hardenberger remember from
not destroying anything, Jule takes Jan to throwing
the couch in the pool.
I don't think it is necessarily Capitalism either.
You would have had terrorists in Communist countries,
but the communist countries would shoot them and deal
with them much harsher, from the outside. Here we
just let Jule take on the burden of her auto accident
mistake. And why shouldn't she? That is the way the
world works.
Personally, an answer to that might be no-fault insurance
that some states have in the US where everyone contributes
to a pot that pays for uninsured accidents, but there is
nothing that is free, and you need to force some people to
be responsible for their actions.
Peter was responsible, and Jan was responsible. In a way
you could say this was an anti-female movie, because Jule
was the only one who could not manage the responsibilities
of her life, and she was a female character so we would
all feel more sympathetic to her.
Very good movie though. -
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 09:24 AM)
I think the movie has these points kind of blurry.
I mean, he would have to release their identities.
He had to fix and pay for all the damages to his
house. How was he going to honor the paper he
gave to Jule, after all typically at least in the
US these things are done through insurance companies.
It was not Hardenberger personally that "ruined"
Jule's life and what about Jule, she was a
screw up. Huge auto accident, irresponsible,
violent, out of control.
The reality is that these kids did not really
understand the world, and Hardenberger had
Munich Syndrome, where he realized at any time
he could be killed if he made a mistake, no
kidding, no room for error.
Hardenberger had to come to be liked by his
captors, and you could see why this man was
a so-called alpha-male, as I think Jule said,
he was in control of the situation at a certain
point. They kids gravtiated to seeing him as a
kind of father figure and liked him. You cannot
kill someone you like easily.
But you could see at a certain point that Hardenberger
was almost smug about his position. Working to
cause dissention, he mentioned what was going on
with Jule and Jan to Peter. He was a very crafty,
wily and smart guy. He also did genuinely agree
that they kids had some points in criticism about
the world, who doesn't.
Still, it is kind of open. If I had this guy's
money, I would have moved away, and I also would
have turned in the kids. The most leniency they
would have gotten from me would have been to say
that they were basically good kids at their trial,
and ask that the sentence be reduced, or dismissed.
Those stupid kids almost got themselves into a place
where they had to murder someone it was that or
ruin their own lives, which they chose instead.
That is credit to them that they did not become
cold blooded whacked out terrorists, they were
basically good kids, but they were capable of getting
themselves into a really bad place, and not headed
in a direction that would prevent them from doing
it again.
Blowing out a sataellite hub is not a sensible thing
to do, all it does is tell the media company where they
need more security, and cost the consumers more.
It is pretty damn near impossible to figure out how
to change the world, and meanwhile the lawyers and
accountants are busy tighenting the noose. All we
can hope for in my opinion is that people can see
what is going on and their general humanity will let
them change things for the better over time.
that is no consolation to people living today like
Jule, Jan, or Peter, or any of the millions of kids
used for child labor all over the world.
Humans are just not that smart. -
tinkcoleman — 20 years ago(December 02, 2005 09:00 AM)
I very much liked (agee with) your comments on a movie that I watched twice and am still thinking about. I may rent it again because I think my German is still good enough to follow it without the sub-titles which will add to the experience. However, there was no boat scene in the DVD I watched and I didn't understand exactly what it was that was blown up in the end.
-
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 09:11 AM)
What about the release of Jule from her debt.
Was that a legal document, or was he charming his way
all the way to the end for the kids to relate to
him and release him.
Would Jule be able to use that document? Not really,
only in a court after she is sued by the Insurance
company. Not only would Hardenberger have to write
that note, but really, he would have to spend the
money to pay off the debt himself, right? Otherwise
the insurance company would say, what right do you,
Hardenberger, have to release this girl who owes us
money from a debt she reasonably incurred?
After all, in a mess like that, the only real way to
save one's self would be to destroy the evidence.
Since I was watching the movie in English subtitles
I was wondering how closely the translation was?
I was not sure but I got the impression that Hardenberger
and his wife were not on good terms, in fact it went
through my mind that they were splitting up.
Can anyone tell me if this was true?
After all, even after he got back you never see him
reunite with his wife. That may be convoluted or
irrelevant logic.
The some people never change comment? I don't know.
In order for it to make sense given what we know about
both sides in this case it would have to refer to
Hardenberger's youthful ideals, no?
Because if he changed from being in the SDS to being
a business man, we would have, CHANGED, right?
So, if he never changed, he would still believe in the
altruistic mission of these kids. If he made such a
big change so as to believe in the kids, and fund them,
or help them, I think it would warrent more attention,
maybe at least a scene in the movie, but I did not see
it.
So, I ended up taking this at face value, he turned them
in because he changed his mind, which would have been the
responsible thing to do. After all, even until the end
of the movie Hardenberger never knew the gun was fake
did he. They never really explained what happened,
that Jan had let Jule get out of hand during the run
on Hardenberger's house. Hardenberger would feel he
was doing the right thing by turning the kids in.
Also, he could not release the girl from her debt while
under duress, so that note would be useless. -
monooulin — 20 years ago(December 24, 2005 09:28 PM)
I read all these post here and I agree with your point, although it's interesting the other point of view from some posters.
I have seen the movie in Buenos Aires, Argentina and either (as many of other posters) saw the boat scene, so, I think that I missed a big part of this discussion.
But mainly, I am agree with your point above.
I was beginning to feel the price to be paid by a citizen exercising a position of dissent -S.Penn -
RDMantega — 21 years ago(December 28, 2004 05:31 PM)
Thank you mntblue.
I didn't see any boat either! I was thinking I've lost some part of the movie, but I'm sure I didn't. I saw the same thing as you..
Great movie, anyway.
I left the theatre thinking Hardenberg didn't change, and was still the same yuppie, and told about'em to the cops. And they didn't change either, and kept doing the same old things. BUT The hypothesis that someone (sorry, I can't remember) told here is very very acceptable That they made a deal, or something like that.
Now I'm confused. Gotta watch it again and look for a boat, lol. -
kenseyx — 20 years ago(April 27, 2005 06:40 AM)
I watched to movie once in German cinema and once on an
Singapore Airlines flight.
The airlines version did not have the boat.
With the boat the film ends pretty different.
It says that the 3 continue on their struggle to
fight against what they see are the "inhuman excesses
of capitalism" and less by annoying people with
rearranging their furniture but rather by
destroying the means of the system to
"opiate the minds people." Note: I am using the terminology
that the 3 charackters would have used. -
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 11:13 AM)
Thanks for explaining the differences in the movie.
They showed this on an airline flight? That's interesting.
That is funny though that the "kids" which is what I call
them thought they are doing something useful by knocking
out the transmitters.
Obviously that would be temporary, and just point out to
the system where it is vulnerable and needs to spend money
to protect itself. The system we have is pretty good at
that.
I think the real problem is not the system, or the people
like Hardenberger who know right from wrong but are too
busy or have no way to change anything, it is certain entities
at the top that have the power to fix or change things and
eliminate some options because subconsciously they know it
will remove some of their power, or add other options because
they know it will increase their power.
The drive of human nature is always to have more, as was
mentioned in the movie, so when a certain or coordinated number
of people gets power, then the society shifts into getting
that elite more and more power.
Hardenberger was rich, yes, but he was hardly an elite, I think.
Just because someone owns a yacht they are ruling the world?
Hardly.
The real people who have to influenced are the society's real
leaders, maybe in some cases not even the political leaders, but
the people with the economic or military power. No one even knows
who they are. This is why terrorism is used and seems to work.
Once there is enough pressure on the people below it brings
pressure onto the leaders of the society because it threatens
their means of control and stability.
Knocking out TV, what would it do? People would go rent videos
or listen to the radio, or use their cable, or the Internet.
So, they are just trying to nudge people by annoying them.
A gay group "act up" here in california USA tries this by tying
up the golden gate bridge, and all it did was to turn people
against them, at least that is what the media said? Who knows? -
rodrigodl — 21 years ago(December 28, 2004 09:45 PM)
Oh, thanks for bringing that up. I also watched a version with no boat. In this version it is quite clear that it was Hardenberg who called the cops, and the message on the wall was a sad conclusion by the edukators that they could not turn him into a better man.
Hey people, please post where and when did you watch the movie so we can find out when it got cut.
-I watched it yesterday (12/28/2004) in Rio, Brazil.
