The Good German (Steven Soderbergh, 2006)

[franco]

The Good German was projected at 1.33:1 at our local theatres. It is definitely the preferred aspect ratio.

[BrightEyes23]

i was really interested in seeing this film but it didnt showup in theaters around me...with the comments in this thread and the current price i suppose i'll either netflix it or hope that it has an eventual price drop to under $10.

[dadaistnun]

I've read Soderbergh's comments to the effect of the aspect ratio theatrically being 1.66 because theaters couldn't accommodate 1.33. If that's the case then perhaps Soderbergh wanted 1.33 for the DVD.

According to Film-Tech (I can't direct link to the appropriate page; click "forums" then "Feature Info & Trailer Attachments" then search for "good german"), the film was printed as 1.66 within a 1.85 frame. So while it is certainly true that many theaters can't accommodate true Academy ratio prints (and most multiplexes can't do 1.66 either), Soderbergh could have had a 1.37 image pillarboxed within the 1.85 if he wanted. (The late-90s reissue of The Wizard of Oz was printed this way, much to my chagrin since the theater I worked for at the time was/is capable of correct Academy ratio projection.)

[Via_Chicago]

Perhaps I'm horribly mistaken, but I had thought that he used 1.66 to more seamlessly accomodate the stock WWII-era footage of Berlin. Also, the effect of watching this film theatrically, with its unusual empty spaces to the right of the frame, was really bizarre, but nevertheless a sad reminder of the inability of most modern cinematheques to accomodate a format other than Scope or 1:85.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

According to one interview, Soderbergh actually did windowbox it to 1.33:1 at one point, but decided it was "too much" and went with 1.66:1 as a compromise. Frustratingly there's no explanation for that "too much" is supposed to mean (maybe a reference to the black bars on the sides, which, as Via_Chicago noted, were visible at many theaters and would've been even more enroaching at Academy ratio).

[John Cope]

Beaver review.

FWIW, what he's describing as possibly intended effects (the grain and the white balance) are what I remember seeing in the theater.

[Matt]

I can find no reason to recommend this un-entertaining film or incompetent, bare-bones DVD.

Awwww... Cate Blanchett's Dietrich impersonation alone is reason enough to rent the disc, even if every other part of the movie stinks.

[tavernier]

I can find no reason to recommend this un-entertaining film or incompetent, bare-bones DVD.

Awwww... Cate Blanchett's Dietrich impersonation alone is reason enough to rent the disc, even if every other part of the movie stinks.

Yes, she is pretty funny.

[domino harvey]

the location of the fixed subs for the film appears to confirm my suspicions that the film was theatrically presented in a matted 1.66 from the given fullframe, meaning the DVD is ideal.

I don't quite understand the overwhelming negative reaction to this film. It's almost like when all these supposed film lovers heard Soderbergh was going to use antiquated aesthetics in the movie, their response was a challenge of "Oh Yeah?!!?"

[DrewReiber]

I think it's because Soderbergh didn't take the time to fully realize his approach or focus on a consistent direction. I saw this film at a special screening with many people I know, and I was the only one who didn't have an unbelievably negative reaction. I thought it was an interesting attempt, but I couldn't disagree with the majority of complaints that everyone else had.

Almost everyone present was very film literate, but I think they just weren't able to get past the inconsistent aesthetics. This was made further problematic by a cast who couldn't decide what kind of movie they were in. Even more frustrating was the lack of authenticity in Soderbergh's approach to production elements, like the sound. Instead of attempting an emulation of the recorded quality of those films, he instead chose to be minimalist and ended up with something that sounds unfinished rather than of it's era.

I was very invested in the material, especially considering my ethnic background and problems with revisionist American military history. However, far too many times I felt the story suffered in order for the director to get what he wanted regardless of what was necessary. The final denoument of the film felt extremely tacked on, just to bring in one last "real life isn't like the movies" visual reminder. I later discovered that the forced revelation in that plot resulted from an combination of two distinct characters from the book who did not belong in the same thread. Perhaps if they hadn't tried to shoehorn every twist and idea into an already limited production, there might have been a healthier balance of both the story and the aesthetic experiment.

I still enjoy many aspects of the movie and have even considered purchasing it, but I still feel a project this ambitious should have been better planned and executed. I just hope it's failure does not discourage every filmmaker who has considered a similiar feat.

[colinr0380]

Finally caught up with the film on DVD (in academy ratio!) and can understand both Matt's and John Cope's comments. I'm in the middle - there's a lot that doesn't work and some points where the whole rationale behind making the film comes through brilliantly.

The stuff that doesn't work for me would be the style - I don't know if it was too talked up as being 'in the style of a 40s Warner Bros. movie' because as a modern take on a classic style, using modern filmmaking techniques to comment on previous ones the film works, but as a 'recreation' it does not. I agree with Matt about the feel of the film seeming of a later period, if it was trying to comment on any period at all, despite a couple of the early process shots that felt interestingly reminiscent of A Foreign Affair or Judgement At Nuremberg.

The aspects that threw me out of the film though were the gratuitious swearing and the music score. The swearing just seemed like a shorthand for making things seem more 'realistic' but apart from a few occasions (I think Maguire's Tully was fine in this respect) it felt like it was just used to modern things up - I found the Scottish bartender quite humorous as I get the impression that he was there only to allow the film to use the 'c' word!

And that bombastic musical sting that occurs at every single important plot point and shocking development! It seemed less musically appropriate to the era than the kind of thing you'd hear in a Mel Brooks parody!

On the sound aspect - did anyone else think it strange that The Good German had a full 5.1 sound mix with surround sound effects? Surely it would be more appropriate to have the film mixed in mono? It seems even stranger when most of Soderbergh's other films have dialogue and sound effects mixed in mono and just have the score in 5.1.

On the stuff I liked, I really liked the tripartite structure of the film starting with one of the three main character's voiceover and then telling the next section of the story from their perspective, with Clooney's middle investigative section taking up the bulk of the film and Maguire and Blanchett's sections seeming more like prologue and epilogue (despite having more of a plot significance than most bookending sections!)

I like John Cope's comment about "kids playing dress up", especially with regard to Maguire's character who proves to be playing out of his league in a dangerous game. But there is also the way that Blanchett's character is playing at normality, the way the wider German society is trying to retain some dignity after being irredeemably sullied (and I like the way the film shows this is another crime of Nazism - that it pushed the general pereception of an entire population from being mostly good with a few 'bad apples' to being seen as mostly bad with good acts being tainted by the expediency of just having to survive in the society), and the way that all the leaders are playing at civility while each sizing each other, and Berlin, up.

I also like the way that Jake is not exactly a 'dumb' patsy in the sense of being stupid - but is 'dumb' in the sense of keeping quiet about certain aspects of his investigation and almost in a sense wanting to keep Emil's notebooks as abstract figures listed on the page rather than understanding what they relate to - as if he is trying to keep things on the 'classic Hollywood' level of knowing that these particular documents are important because other groups are after them but not really wanting to go into the darker details of what they are exactly until people explicitly tell him. Similarly it is upsetting that Emil is still alive as not only does that keep Jake from Lena but it also creates a closer link to Nazi war atrocities from someone who participated more than Lena did in just being married to him, as well as on a personal level raising the spectre of Jake and Lena's previous affair. The question comes up of what Jake knew of Emil while having the affair with Lena, and whether he is just as guilty through accidental or conscious ignorance of what was occuring beyond himself and Lena in this past relationship.

Jake is almost forcing his presence and his help on Lena in awareness of there being some sort of murky past but is able to keep from questioning her on it until the very last moment (until it is too late to do something, whatever that might be, or renege on his promise of help) for fear of what new horror he might uncover or (more likely?) that he would reveal his understanding of Lena's situation to her and have to face her knowledge of his knowledge.

I think that plotting is what ultimately redeems the film from its strange stylistics (though incidentally the way that the darkest sections of the film relate to oblique discussions of atrocities only make the "fuckity-fuck" swearing for swearing sake moments feel more hilariously out of place!)

I would also say that I quite liked the way the violence in the film was handled - happening fast and brutally with people really looking like they get hurt (or are at least winded!) by only a couple of well placed blows, rather than there having to be a huge boxing match between characters with meat-punching sound effects. The surprise of the violence came across very well I thought.

So while I would agree with many of Matt's points (I did think Tobey Maguire seemed a little out of place, but I personally found that worked for his role in the story) I did end up enjoying The Good German a great deal. And I agree about Leland Orser, he was surprisingly good!

[Antoine Doinel]

Great discussion on the film here, and I finally had a chance to catch up with it tonight and I fall into the disappointed camp. For me, the film looked immaculate, was cast/acted great (I for one enjoyed Tobey Maguire, and like colin, thought it made his role more effective) but was saddled with a script was unbelievably dull. It's a mystery that offers no satisfaction as it unravels, and this is hampered by Jake and Tully's inexplicable need to cling to Lena. For some odd reason, each reveal is handled so perfunctorily, it's like Soderbergh is just hitting plot points and too busy dealing with his self imposed aesthetic rules, that he forgot about trying to engage the viewer. I also don't think Soderbergh did himself any favors by so markedly referencing Casablanca -- it really took away from last scene which needed to be as dark and bitter as possible, not curtained in a reference to one of the most famous scenes of all time.

The things I liked about the film, including the above, was the magnificent score by Thomas Newman, and like others mentioned here, the absolutely dark and darker tone of the film. It's fairly easy to see why this didn't catch on with critics and audiences. It is an extremely harsh judgment of the U.S. military and as mentioned, everyone is the cast is a different shade of asshole. An interesting experiment, but a failure as anything else.

[kaujot]

No one fails like Steven Soderbergh.

[Grand Illusion]

No one fails like Steven Soderbergh.

That's a pull quote if I've ever seen one.

[domino harvey]

No one fails like Steven Soderbergh.

That's like the weirdest compliment ever

[therewillbeblus]

Here's another film that has grown in my esteem upon repeat viewings because it demands to be met on its own terms rather than appeasing audience expectations. It's funny because going into this one should expect an ode to 40s war films and film noirs, but exuviating the discrepancies between familiar modern actors and historical milieu, as well as specific technique and modernist content clashing with memories of those films' Code-friendly and formalist style, is difficult to wrestle with the first time. But this aligns with Soderbergh's interest in playing with contextualization in fresh yet grounded ways. He actually does stick to a regimented form in structure, and casting choices like Maguire make a lot more sense when examining him in the framework of all those weird perpetually-young looking B-actors who might seem just as out of place today. The audacity to show sex, swearing, and violence, as well as the mixture of current and historical editing and camera technique, services the post-modern rendition of old ideas. This is Soderbergh borrowing most openly, and not apologizing for inserting his own methodology into that which has inspired him. Soderbergh isn't stomping on these designs, but adding to them, and in some ways he's showing us how impossible it is to make the movies this is generated from in today's day and age, partly due to the audiences' own comprehension of modern cinema's evolvement regardless of their fondness for "old movies."

So instead of simply re-editing Casablanca or The Third Man for fun, he gives us this: A film that is not so much a love letter but a concoction of ideas that won't work without a lot of rope given and jarring perspective-shifting back and forth between how we view films from different eras with unique attributes and icons from said times. The length of that rope dictates the space of film history, the evolution of the form, and building of significance of the images and concepts escalating to a place that is uneven on the surface and also perfect when eyed through a prism of contrasts and personalized context that cannot be eliminated. By acknowledging this fearlessly, we get a film that can either be dismissed or challenge us to analyze it and our varied approaches to cinema via past and present lenses. It's far more complicated than the surface reading of a seemingly B-movie rendition of A-list masterpieces, but that alone should compel the question of why that is how this seems? In that admission of the futility to ignore the copious space of our analytical influence, lies the possibilities to notice the brilliance of this film.

We have George Clooney, who may recall the suave 40s stars but has a familiar signification that cannot be removed, as well as a sensitivity that sheds the stoicism he has when compared to his peers in our time. Placed in this milieu, his vulnerable emotions overwhelm and bleed artifice into the frame revealing Clooney- and by extension any actor- to be a product of our times not these. Blanchett fits in more, though the 'Hollywood-actor-doing-accent-rather-than-finding-actually-accented-actor' is felt in the best possible way. The lack of a Code is intelligently exploited too, especially the ending admission from Blanchett, which exerts a bitter realism before she boards a plane to freedom, marking the antithesis of a Code fate that is bold but not snarky, containing itself to a restrained finish that is powerful yet not distracting in its alterations, a mildness that Soderbergh issues as a humble staple throughout his work.

Outside of specifics, the script, camerawork, music, and editing are excellent as reflections of the old and the new coexisting in as much harmony as we'll allow through inevitable confusing that can only be remedied with a humble embrace. Rewatching this again it still took me time to struggle internally and get on the film's level, as it always has done and might always do - I hope so, because that's part of the fun. By the last act I loved what I was watching as much as any movie that follows these thrilling climactic beats to fall into place, whether old or new, and in this case precisely because it employed both and amplified them expertly as the narrative hit its crescendos. The layered process of engagement might not be why others love or hate it, but it's what makes this one of Soderbergh's most interesting films for me. If watched on a two-dimensional plane though without digging into the contextual pool of connotations, I can see how it may not be much fun.

[nitin]

I rewatched this last year for the first time since its DVD release and this is now actually one of my more favorite Soderberghs. His Curtiz impersonation is pretty spot on and although some aspects still jar like the violence and swearing and acting personas, they do fit well thematically and in terms of Soderberg's overall aim and attempt to re-contextualize the classic noirs.

Would love to see a blu if only to see if the grading will be less exposed. My one criticism from a visual standpoint is that (at least on the DVD) the lighting frequently looks overexposed and flat.

[therewillbeblus]

It’s funny you mention that nitin because I was also irritated by the blown out lighting at the beginning of this rewatch, per usual, but it seems like another (perhaps the clearest) reminder that this is not a 40s film. I know Soderbergh tried to use as much technical equipment as he could from that era to match the feel, so it’s very possible that this is just a personal reading but I can’t think of an expressive tool more blinding (literally, with light) to sober us to a process of engagement outside of complacency in watching this like any old movie. My desire for the lighting to subscribe to the comfort of that era is a part worth exploring in post-modern cinematic engagement, and that awareness only increases the power of Soderbergh’s creation.