NATIVe Storytelling

Storytelling 1 Storytelling 2 Storytelling 3

Thursday night at 10 pm at the Audi Lounge. While the remains of the some movie premiere scattered from in front of the Berlinale Palast, I reached the location just in time for the Native Storytelling slam.

I wouldn’t have known about it if a friend hadn’t asked me if I wanted to come. Thankfully, she also reserved me a seat and then it began without me having much of a clue of what to expect.

Lesson of the evening: Bad English wrecks every story.

(…For me, at least. really, I have a habit of correcting people mentally and during events like this, it’s just annoying)

An American of native American decent (first picture) began by telling a few short stories from his ancestors that were mostly amusing and also helped smother the noise the rest of the people in the Audi Lounge were making (since god forbid they’d be silent).

Karim, half Egyptian, half Austrian (second picture), expanded on a question he once asked a poet – “When is a clown a real clown?” And after months of waiting for a reply, this is what the poet said: “A clown is a real clown when he is trying to be sad.”

The most adorable story, however, told a young woman from Korea who is working at the Berlin airport during the Berlinale. A few days ago she helped a man orchestrate the perfect welcome gesture for his girlfriend after the couple had been apart for two weeks.

Two weeks. Well, the storyteller was a tad disappointed and in turn told us about a couple that has to suffer through absence of the other one far longer than a meagre two weeks. The princess of the King Father, a skilled seamstress, and a honest, hard-working shepherd met, fell in love and married just like the King Father in Heaven had wanted. However, in love’s passionate grasp, the two lovers neglected their duties, so that the King Father created the Milky Way to separate them.

Woe was big, though, and the shepherd and the princess didn’t return to their work. Instead, they mourned the loss of the other until all the birds came together and build a bridge over the Milky Way, enabling the couple to meet again (on July 7th). The King Father saw it and decided to allow them to see each other once a year if they promised to work hard the other days.

So now, when you are in Korea and see a bird with ruffled feathers during July, be kind to the bird since it helped build the bridge so the two lovers could meet.


Berlinale Talents: Neil Jordan and Martha De Laurentiis

Neil Jordan Martha de Laurentiis

Berlinale Talents boasts a lot of starts this year, two of which were Neil Jordan and Martha De Laurentiis. Jordan is an Oscar-winning script-writer and the creator of the TV show “The Borgias” with Jeremy Irons, Martha De Laurentiis is the Executive Producer responsible for “Hannibal” with Mads Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy.

The title of the event on Tuesday was “Expanding stories: Successfully creating television series”. I expected it to be a bit more practical, providing some tips and more stories from the guests’ experiences.

Don’t get me wrong, there were stories but mostly during the part of the event the audience was allowed to ask questions so the Laurentiis and Jordan had to be prompted to tell them. Meanwhile the host seemed to have misunderstood the goal of the event (or I did, also possible) and turned it more into a promotional campaign for the guests’ works.

Which worked, admittedly. They showed the promo for Hannibal season 2 and I’ve been tempted to watch season 1 before (damn you, tumblr!)  and last night after the event I succumbed and started binge watching “Hannibal” 🙂 I’m only two episodes in and I already love it… have to continue asap!

71 – The brutality of war

(relatively spoiler free!)

There have been a lot of films showcasing the brutality of war and Yann Demange’s “71” is an exemplary one of them. Set in 1971 during the North Ireland conflict at a time when the war has become more of a civil war between Protestants and Catholics in Belfast, the young recruit Gary is sent to the city.

Thrilling Plot

He leaves behind his younger brother, who (presumably, it is never stated explicitly) lives at an orphanage. Apparently Gary, too, is parentless. The audience has to read between the lines in this situation (and in others), rely on the actors’ portrayal of their characters which is beautiful in my opinion since so often filmmakers talk down to their spectators instead of showing them and allowing them to draw their own conclusions.

Gary enters a city dominated by opposing and highly violent groups. Not even his superiors can adequately handle the situation and a standard search escalates. (Also because the Ltd. in charge vetoed the protective masks and shields, opting instead for normal gear for his soldiers. “We’re here to assure them,” the Ltd. said, “not scare them.” (not verbatim))

The mission ends abruptly when one soldier is killed and Gary is chased off by protesters. The troops return while Gary seeks shelter and steals clothes to hide his soldier status. He finds help in a young boy – who is more of a BAMF than any other character in this movie, really; the kid took the audience’s hearts by storm – and his journey back to his troop begins, thwarted by intrigue, power struggles and well, the civil war.

Thrilling Cinematography

Yann Demange, his cinematographer Tat Radcliffe and editor Chris Wyatt have done a brilliant job in “71”, using the camera to enhance the mood of every scene.

However, this movie should come with a warning – there are a lot of sequences where the camera is handheld and I know at least one person who has problems with this technique.

And “71” takes it to new extremes; sometimes the picture was so unsteady that it was hard to discern what was happening but at that moment it just fit. I’m talking about the scene in which Gary runs away from Irish civilians that give him chase after the house search has escalated. Gary runs through narrow alleyways, jumps over walls (impressive) and the camera is with him, follows him, sometimes is ahead of, other times focuses on his pursuers and when it was all over, I remembered to breathe.


I’d resigned myself to having to suffer through German subtitles yet when “71” began, there were TWO subtitle tracks. One German, one English. What?

Well, I soon realised why exactly the Berlinale had chosen to put it there. A few characters were English but most were Irish and some had really mean dialects… even I didn’t understand everything and I pride myself with my listening comprehension skills. So yeah, English subtitles were nice, but mostly it clarified things not necessarily needed to keep up with the plot, so no worries if you hate subtitles; it’s okay to watch it without.

Besides, I love English dialects and Irish especially. It sounds great and I like that they were showcasing this range of speech patterns in this movie.


Before watching “71”, it might be advisable to brush up on your knowledge about the Nord Ireland conflict around 1970… because I regret not having done so before. An attentive viewer picks most of the info up during the movie, but still.

“71” is a great anti-war film that leaves you unsettled and appalled, wondering why the hell people still go to war, why anyone would fight and kill like that. Caution to those who don’t handle unsteady camera work well!

Last but not least, there are a lot of nice men in uniforms. And who doesn’t love that?



D: Yann Demange

Cast: Jack O’Connell, Sean Harris, Richard Dormer, Paul Anderson

Jack – herzzerreiĂźendes Kinderdrama

(Since this is a German production, the review is also written in German. A translation will follow.)

Jack ist gerade einmal 10, 11 Jahre alt. Sein kleiner Bruder Manuel vielleicht 5 oder 6. Die Mutter? Da habe ich mich älter gefühlt mit meinen 22 Jahren. Die junge Frau ist voller Energie, dynamisch und sozial aktiv; außerdem arbeitet sie viel um ihren Kindern und sich selbst das Leben in Berlin zu finanzieren.

Auf Manuel aufzupassen bleibt natĂĽrlich meist an Jack hängen, der nebenbei zur Schule geht und sonst darauf achtet, dass es seinem Bruder gut geht. So auch an dem Tag, an dem sich alles verändert – die BrĂĽder waren am See, Manuels kleines Motorboot ist kaputt gegangen, beide waren im Wasser, um es rauszuholen. Zuhause lässt Jack Wasser in die Badewanne ein, hilft seinem Bruder beim Ausziehen und schickt in ins Bad woraufhin er in die KĂĽche geht, um Nudeln zu kochen.

Plötzlich ein ohrenbetäubender Schrei, der das ganze Kino zusammenzucken lässt.

Jack ist sofort im Bad, zieht Manuel raus – und sieht die hochroten Beines des Jungen. Manuel hat das Wasser nicht getestet, ist wohl einfach reingesprungen (so schrecklich die Szene war, so muss ich zugeben, dass das Kind selbst Schuld ist. NatĂĽrliche Auslese… in Zukunft ist er schlauer).

Jack kommt daraufhin ins Heim, versteht sich halbwegs mit seinem Zimmernachbarn, wird aber von den älteren Kids gemobbt. Als endlich Sommerferien sind hat Jack alles gepackt und wartet fröhlich auf seine Mutter, die in abholen soll.

Nur die muss arbeiten und sagt in letzter Minute ab.

Was folgt ist eine herzzerreißende emotionale Achterbahnfahrt, in der Jack nach Hause läuft, seinen Bruder bei einer Freundin der Mutter findet und die Kinder schließlich Berlin nach ihrer Mutter absuchen, in Hinterhöfen, Nachtclubs, Lagerhallen und dem eigenen Wohnhaus.

“Jack” ist kein leichter Film. Er mag auch kein Film sein, der die Kritiker seine Ă„sthetik hoch preisen lassen wird, oder die Schnitttechnik. Aber es ist ein Film, der einen im Herzen trifft und tief berĂĽhrt.

Und zeigt, das manche Kinder um einiges weiser und erfahrener sind, als so manch Erwachsener.



R: Edward Berger

D: Ivo Pietzcker, Georg Arms, Luise Heyer, Vincent Redetzki, Jakob Matschenz, Nele Mueller-Stöfen

Beat the queue

Ever since I read three months ago that “A Long Way Down” by Nick Hornby was going to be released as a movie in 2014, I knew I needed to see it.

I read the book in school, we played a scene from it with the theatre group and above all, this book really moved me. So yeah, I’ve been salivating ever since I heard about it’s release. (Though I still don’t know what the casting director thought when s/he cast Pierce Brosnan…. wtf?)

There are three – THREE – screenings during the Berlinale. Tonight, tomorrow and on Sunday. So I have three chances to get in. Since I don’t want to be in line at 5am at the ticket counter, I’ll try my luck at the box office. The show starts at 9pm, the office opens at 8pm, I’ll be in front of it at 7.30. With a lot of other people, but well. Let’s hope Lady Luck is with me!

PS: Reviews for “Jack”, “71”, “Kreuzweg” and the “Queer Shorts” will follow soon!

Berlinale rant #1

This is the third day at the Berlinale 2014 and I’m already pissed and thinking about blowing off most of the things I had planned.

Partly, because I have no other choice.

With a student accreditation I can get tickets like everyone else – the day before at the ticket counter. It already pisses me off that I’d have to be there at 5 am to gain access to screenings like Nymphomaniac or A Long Way Down (the latter of which I desperately want to see since I adored the book) but today everything’s taken a turn for worse.

Berlinale Talents consists mostly of speeches. This year the focus is storytelling and as an aspiring screenwriter I’ve been salivating for the past week over a few of the panel topics. On Thursday I was told that I, as a student, could only get tickets for those events ON THE DAY of the event and only at the HAU, where the panels will be held.

Alright. So this morning, I reached HAU 1 at 9.30 only to be told that the student tickets are being distributed only at HAU 2. Which is about 5 minutes on foot around the corner. There, a very helpful member of the staff told me that there are NO TICKETS left for anything that was happening today. But I got one for a screening tomorrow morning for a movie I did want to see (Kreuzwege). So yay.

On my way downstairs, I tried my luck at the ticket counter (for the normal people who have better chances than me, apparently) and wonders oh wonders – I was able to buy a ticket for today’s “Kill Your Darlings”. Finally.

Now, however, I have to completely re-think my entire schedule and at this point (three days into the Berlinale, mind you) I’m not sure how long I can do this anymore.

The plot thickens – a soup metaphor (Grand Budapest Hotel review)

OR: The Grand Budapest Hotel promises laughter, a bit of suspense and lots and lots of pretty pictures

(This review is relatively spoiler free, no worries. Also, I have a lot to say about this film. Scroll down for a short resume!)

So when I scored tickets for The Grand Budapest Hotel, all I knew about the movie was that there are a lot of posters all around Berlin advertising it and that it was the opening movie of the Berlinale.

I read the summary at Friedrichstadt Palast (and is it just me or these chairs uncomfortable as hell?), so I was aware that it centres on Monsier Gustave, a concierge at the Grand Budapest, who inherits a painting from a deceased customer, Madame D. The lady’s resentful son Dimitri accuses Gustave of murder and turbulent events take their course. Early on, Zero Mustafa, a young lobby boy, becomes Gustave’s confidante and co-conspirator.

I thought, all right, this is straight forward. Criminal comedy.

Oh boy, was I wrong.

Not about the comedy part, yet the movie defies conventional categorization; at least for me. It is amusing, mostly by use of situational comedy and repetition, and never bores the audience. The characters use quite a lot of swear words, initially surprising the viewers which is just as well. Grand Budapest generally breaks with expectations during scenes.

Yeah, I can safely say that I would watch it a second time; besides I’m sure I missed several symbols, references and hidden jokes the first time around. It won’t be my new favourite movie of all times but then again, Fight Club is hard to beat.

Anyway, just let me stress a few (well…) points that turn The Grand Budapest into a work of art worth your time.


Oh yes. What a cast! I think Wes Anderson tried to throw as many big names into this movie as he could manage.

Ralph Fiennes is an adorable and multi-facetted Monsier Gustave, Jude Law is dashing as always (unfortunately he didn’t have that much screen time) and I did not, I repeat, did not recognise Tilda Swinton as Madame D. Most fun, I believe, had Aidrien Brody and Willem Dafoe as Dimitri and the brutal killer Jopling. Both were thrilling to watch (also quite scary, on Dafoe’s part). And Jeff Goldblum as Kovacs as well as Mathieu Almaric as Serge X deeply impressed me.

(Was anyone else preoccupied with trying to remember why the name Kovacs is so familiar? Just me? Okay. I figured it out on the way home that it reminds me of Walter Kovacs, the real life name of Watchman Rorschach from the graphic novel and 2009 movie. Coincidence or was that on purpose?)

Oh, and Edward Norton – brilliant as always – in a ZZ uniform? Very nice!

There were several brief appearances by other highly skilled actors that only added to the great overall performance that is The Grand Budapest Hotel.


As far as I know, every place in GB, whether city or country, has been invented for this strange Alternate Universe writer and director Wes Anderson has created. However, the parallels to Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and later on, to the second World War are hard to miss. Keep that in mind – there is a lot of parody in The Grand Budapest, although I didn’t catch all of it. Surely, more sophisticated viewers and those more educated in film and cultural history than me will make the connections!


It isn’t unusual for narrators to address the audience in the cinema anymore, which is exactly what this movie does from time to time. At first, it is an author who recounts his story form a desk in his study (while fending off the playful attempts of his son (or grandson?) to distract him), and throughout the rest of the film, characters often look directly at the camera, even in POV shots. At first I found this a bit strange, yet after a while I grew used to it.

The composition of most shots is very symmetrical – indeed, mostly the centre of the shot is taken up by a rectangular or square object, may it be a picture or a window. Even when this pattern is broken, there are clear lines connecting points of interest, which renders the whole experience aesthetically pleasing. Really, delightful to watch!

This symmetry carries over to the different sequences. The plot is structured symmetrically, starting with a young woman approaching a sort of mural with keys, carrying a book bearing the movie title. On the back there is a picture of the author, which serves as seamless transition to the next scene, the already mentioned author-addressing-the-spectator sequence. We then enter the Grand Budapest Hotel itself, where the Young Author (Jude Law) encounters Zero Mustafa, the hotel’s proprietor and engages him in conversation. Zero recounts how he came into the possession of the Grand Budapest. The tale is structured in five episodes (including lovely scene cards) bearing the episode’s title. If I’m not mistaken, they briefly returned to the Young Author and Mr Mustafa when half the story was finished, adding to the symmetry. Once the story is concluded, we return completely to the Young Author, circle back to his older pendant and finally see the girl with the book again. (At this time, the mural actually makes sense.)

Noteworthy is also the use of steady cam – from time to time, the camera remains while the characters walk off screen only to appear further back behind a window or else. Other than that, the movie has taken a liking to pans, that is the camera moves with the action instead of cutting from point A to point B. After a while, though, I felt as if they were overusing the technique, but perhaps that’s just me.

One other sequence struck me as quite silly. At one point, Gustave and Zero are running after Jopling who has killed an important informant. Jopling uses skies to descend the slope while Gustave and Zero steal a sledge from under a Holy Mary statue. What I found impressive where the POV shots where the camera seemed to be on the sledge pointing forward. However, the entire thing was turned into ridicule and made me cringe in my seat rather than laugh.

Art Direction / Photography

What can I say. It’s a tad too colourful for my taste but since this theme permeated the movie, it fit. The Hotel itself is a beacon of colour coordination (not, however, when we visit it with Jude Law but even the ruin it has become hints at the beauty it once possessed). The character’s costumes increase this in every sequence, one time the suits of hotel managers are all a different bright colour without clashing. Madame D.’s family is clad exclusively in black safe for red slippers both Dimitri and his mother wear (in the coffin and at breakfast, respectively). The ZZ, this universe’s equivalent of Hitler’s SS, wears black as well, yet their logo has pink in it. Very strange for the “bad guys” but a nice change nonetheless.

Anyway, I’m no colour expert but I’m sure there are a lot of cross-references, symbols and hidden meanings waiting to be found – also in the beautifully detailed set decoration. I didn’t discover much beyond the red slipper parallel between Dimitri and his mother Madame D. but I leave this analysis to the academics whose job it is to uncover the brilliance behind Art Direction. (One last note: I think one of the many chase scenes was an homage to the staircase scene in “The Shining” but I might be mistaken.

PS: I didn’t really get the black-and-white sequence near the end. I have a few theories as to why the director chose to change light so radically, but no definite answer for myself.



As positive as my review has been so far, the GB poses quite a few issues in my opinion. A few grave ones, even and a few that are only half issues.


I didn’t expect this movie to be this brutal. There were a few moments, including one involving a cat that made me cringe. I’m a cat lover so I can’t for the love of anything, laugh at a dead cat. Sorry, Mr Anderson, but that’s just… No.

Representation of POC

There is exactly one person of colour and that is young Zero (Tony Revolori). Yay, great, at least there is one! But wait, isn’t there an older version of him in this movie as well? Should he be a POC, too?

Well… They cast F. Murray Abraham in that role and while he performed very well, I couldn’t get over the fact that he is basically white while his younger pendant is darker.

Perhaps I’m making too much out of this, or perhaps I’ve missed the truth of life that some people’s skin colour changes during life (not through cosmetic surgery, I’m not thinking of Michael Jackson). But it bothered me a lot during the show and it still hasn’t left me alone.

There’s something positive in the movie as well. Zero is constantly portrayed as an immigrant until Gustave bites his head off for forgetting his beloved perfume, “L’air de panache”. When Zero explains that he came to this country because of a war in which he lost his entire family, Gustave backtracks immediately and apologises profusely since he didn’t realise Zero is, in fact, a refugee. They share a heart-warming if awkward hug.

Representation of Gender and its Deconstruction

The Grand Budapest is a lot of things, one of which is clearly “male dominated”. There are few female characters and they are hardly what one would call three-dimensional. Dimitri’s sisters are all dressed in black, passive throughout the movie and presented as rather dumb.

Even Madama D. can only be happy because of a man, namely Gustave who brings her great sexual pleasure and becomes a friend and more. Yet the entire movie hinges on the fact that she can’t find happiness without him and that’s just sad.

The only halfway respectable woman is more of a girl: Zero’s love interest and wife Agatha (Saoirse Ronan). She is the baker’s apprentice and pretty independent and brave. However, even she would have remained passive if not for Zero’s insistence that she help him.

Deconstruction of traditional masculinity

While women in The Grand Budapest aren’t exactly cast in the best light, I found the way the movie played with traditional conceptions of masculinity extremely delightful.

First of all there’s Monsier Gustave who is a great example for the blurring of gender lines (which don’t exists; they’re a social construct but I don’t want to dwell on gender theory here). He has an impeccable sense of style, admonishes Madame D. for her poor choice in nail polish and insists on high personal grooming standards. Which everyone else conceives as effeminate and for a few minutes I thought perhaps he is gay (I know, sorry for the quick conclusions my mind drew during the show).

However, it is soon revealed that part of his job, self-chosen, mind you, is to pleasure the old ladies in the hotel. They had to be vain, rich and blonde. And needy. He also takes his role as concierge extremely seriously, has a love of poetry and is a smart protagonist who schemes quite a bit.

Gustave isn’t a paragon of masculinity; neither is he the poster boy for the effeminate male. This character shows how silly our binary designations of “male” and “female” are since he just escapes categorisation. And that’s wonderful.

The movie also plays on other characters’ misconception. At one point, Dimitri calls Gustave a “fucking faggot”, then later threatens him with violence if he ever lays or laid a finger on his mother. “But you said I’m a faggot?” Gustave replies. Dimitri, flustered: “You are. But you’re bisexual!”

Hehe, indeed!

This deconstruction of gender finds its way into the core of the problem. A painting called “Boy with Apple” depicting a fair youngling with an apple. Now my mind immediately made the connection to Eve and the apple and man’s fall from Paradise, which I thought makes a very neat connection.

Also, when Gustave takes the painting down since he inherited it, Zero replaces it – with a very explicit drawing of two women pleasuring each other. Nice one, Mr Anderson!



The Grand Budapest Hotel is a very entertaining movie even if the plot is a tad lacking now and then and sometimes everything is a bit ridiculous. However, the great set decoration, cinematography and art direction plus the brilliant performances of all the actors make more than up for possible shortcomings. Really, it’s Cinematography Porn!

The movie is set in its own Alternate Universe, which allows for puns, jokes, symbols and much more to find its way onto the screen. And even if it is male dominated (while portraying women that do appear as passive participants), it deconstructs traditional notions of masculinity, thus balancing this out a little.

So please, watch it! You won’t regret it.


The Grand Budapest Hotel

D: Wes Anderson

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Owen Willson, Jude Law