Two questions:
-
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. -
efexor — 21 years ago(January 02, 2005 04:17 PM)
I also watched the Brazilian version and there's no boat at all.
After the edukators left him in his house there are a few scenes. The "Alleluya" song keeps playing - they show the man on his house, looking through a window (thinking). Then there's a shot of the edukators in a bad. And them there's the sequence with the police, knocking in the door of the empty apartment (while a maid knocks the room of the edukators, in a hotel). And it ends with the cops reading the paper in the wall (but yeah, we see in the sequence the man in the car, outside of teh building invaded by the police). -
raf-31 — 21 years ago(January 04, 2005 04:40 AM)
watched it yesterday in Germany and it definitely had the yacht an all in it. Theres first someone knockin on their door and one then sees they are in some hotel somewhere non-german speaking. Then one can see them very nicely dressed walkin through a yacht harbor and takin a yacht where they know where the key is. Then they start of to seemingly disprupt Europe's TV-Broadcasts.And while going there one can also see that the boat belongs to Hardenberg.
-
pbarreira_rj — 21 years ago(January 04, 2005 06:06 AM)
Hey, Im also a Rio de Janeiro, Brazil inhabitant and I also saw NO BOAT AT ALL. Whats that ? Could you please explain me what is that all about ? Ive seen it on 4/Jan/2004. Please let me know the deal about this boat stuff: how it happens, what goes on after the rich guy is left home by the edukators. Thanks in advance.
Eu assisti a esse filme no Estao Botafogo. Por que ser que o filme est editado ? -
abanhara — 21 years ago(January 04, 2005 04:32 PM)
I'm also in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, and watched the film on the same theatre Estao Botafogo). I too saw no boat at all. I've even watched the movie twice to make sure I was not mistaken.
That's really weird. And a pity that we didn't see the whole stuff. I wonder if there is anything we have seen here and they haven't. Maybe they could have changed parts, who knows? -
fonctionnaire — 21 years ago(January 06, 2005 03:03 AM)
Perhaps they made several versions of the film. I saw it in Luxembourg yesterday and there were no boats. They were sleeping in a hotel in Spain when their flat was stormed. There is no clue how they got there and what they were doing. We are led to believe that the old guy simply changed his mind and called the police.
