Two questions:
-
ko5tik — 21 years ago(December 11, 2004 03:33 AM)
Who did call the cops?
The old guy of course. Or they came by itself. And those were no cops, it was GSG-9, and they are technically border guards.
What about the message "Some people never change"? Hardenberg did change once, he >turned to a yuppie!
It's kind of "fathers and sons" message, he became a yuppie, but he still in a year 68 somehow.
Did they steal the boat? Or the old guy give it to them?
Yes, they steal the boot. And you could see his old boot license . -
fabian.seitz — 21 years ago(February 03, 2005 04:33 AM)
The old guy of course. Or they came by itself. And those were no cops, it was
GSG-9, and they are technically border guards.
That's not correct. The policemen are wearing Berlin badges, so they are a part of a special unit, most probably a SEK of Berlin state police. -
joseph-114 — 21 years ago(December 11, 2004 02:57 PM)
I understood the end differently.
I think after they decided to carry on with their actions (and agreed to attack the satellite station) they went back to the businessman and talked to him about their plan.
He gave them his key to his boat (why whould they know the exact place where to find it?) and he called the cops and led them to the completely empty flat. Why? To generate a myth, or to promote them how others would say. That's also why there was the sheet of paper nailed to the wall - they "predicted" his decision -
edzardo — 21 years ago(December 14, 2004 04:27 AM)
Thanx for your opinion. I guess you have a point there, it would make sense to lead the cops to the empty flat.
And the sheet on the wall would also make sense
So, they- emptied the flat and atached the paper
- went back to Hardenberg, talked him into giving them the keys to the boat
- he called the cops (and told them what? about their identies?)
- they took off to blow that satellite station
Yet, Im still not so sure about the shots showing Hardenberg alone in his home again, and Im not quite sure that its possible nobody noticed his disappereance (wife, boss, etc). I guess I`ll go and watch the movie again.
-
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 08:58 AM)
This is interesting I have always wondered if in certain
cases moviemakers do this deliberately to sell more tickets.
That is, to make the ending or some point in the movie
ambiguous enough to require anyone who really wants to be
sure about the movie, anyone who cares to buy another ticket
and see it again. Then of course the only way to be sure
is to have someone else see it and compare notes.
Sorry to be so cynical but that is surely capitalist. -
darksidelingua — 20 years ago(April 26, 2005 01:52 PM)
- think after they decided to carry on with their actions (and agreed to attack the satellite station) they went back to the businessman and talked to him about their plan.
He gave them his key to his boat (why whould they know the exact place where to find it?) and he called the cops and led them to the completely empty flat. Why? To generate a myth, or to promote them how others would say. That's also why there was the sheet of paper nailed to the wall - they "predicted" his decision
This sounds to me to be the most likely scenario something I hadnt thought of! I think the man gave them a stash of cash too which would explain their ability to pay for the hotel room.
- think after they decided to carry on with their actions (and agreed to attack the satellite station) they went back to the businessman and talked to him about their plan.
-
foreign_affairs — 21 years ago(December 19, 2004 07:02 AM)
No, I understood it differently.
- I think Hardenberg called the cops. That's why you could see him sitting in the car and struggling with himself, because he still felt sympathy for the three.
- "Some people never change": I think this is referred to Hardenberg. But not the change to a business man/yuppie. It's about that he will never change NOT being that capitalist anymore. When the four were in the mountains, he started to get like in the late 60s, and he understood, what the three were believing in and their ideals. That's also why he released Jule (the girl) from her debt to him. But when he was back at home in his old life, he was again the same old stupid capitalist, that couldn't get out of his skin really.
So he started to change back, but didn't really. So that's the change that didn't take place. - They stole the boat. They knew Hardenberg had it and wouldn't use it anyway. So
-
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.
