(Kate) Doesn't take much to feed a big ego. He has nothing inside; no real history even. Makes you really feel sorry for him. (Kate) Did anyone else notice the hospital-style screen in her room?...Do the caretakers who know everything provide each individual with the props they need to maintain their activities/beliefs? Good observation. It would certainly reinforce Bianca's belief that she is in a hospital rather than convince her of her death. Caribou, great listing of artistic details and activities. (Gah! These dead people are more active than I am.) At my next viewing, I'm going to have a copy of your lists in hand. The Dali images contribute to the film's surrealistic dreamlike feel. Since you've reminded me about my Trigorin teaser, here it is: Brian's choice of the penname Norman Eliot Trigorin is interesting. Trigorin comes from the 'famous' writer in Chekhov's play, "The Seagull." While Trigorin is described as a 'successful' writer, he has turned into a hack. His lack of aim as a writer is a reflection of his lack of aim as a person. Trigorin as a writer is so busy observing life that he cannot experience life directly. He searches for something that he can believe in and can feel strongly about. He looks for some strength of purpose in his writing. He knows what he is lacking....I see that life and science fly farther and farther ahead of me, and I fall farther and farther. behind, like the countryman running after the train; and in the end I feel that the only thing I can write of is the landscape, and in everything else I am untrue to life, false to the very marrow of my bones.Trigorin is the lover of Arkadina, an actress. Her son, Constantine, is the protagonist, another writer but a rebellious one. A rivalry deve ops between Constantine and Trigorin over the mother's affections and Trigorin's fame. But it deepens when the girl that Konstantine loves (Nina) falls for the false romanticism of Trigorin's works. Nina, an innocent type, does not see the man but the celebrated artist. She is carried away by his fame and stirred by his presence; an infatuation with him quickly replaces her affection for Constantine. To her Trigorin embodies her dream of a brilliant and interesting life. Arkadina is an interesting character, one with some parallels to Valentin. She has been described as "an artist who lacks all conception of the relation between art and life. Barren of vision and empty of heart, her only criterion is public approval and material success. Needless to say, she cannot understand her son. She considers him decadent, a foolish rebel who wants to undermine the settled canons of dramatic art." One of the main themes presented in "The Seagull" is the desire to be appreciated and loved. It also explores the concepts of love and death within the context of theatre and literature. Makes you wonder what WoF's writer thought of Norman Mailer or T.S. Eliot, doesn't it? One hit wonders perhaps? ;-)

Karen, that is so helpful. I think those are clearly the connections the WOF writer is making by using the name Trigorin as Brian's pen name. Does anyone know who wrote WOF and if they have written other things? (Karen) re: Chekov's "The Seagull" Trigorin as a writer is so busy observing life that he cannot experience life directly. This is exactly the feel Brian Smith gives me during his "afterlife". Especially, when he responds to Dr. Frische as if he is reading back what has just been written. He was very involved while it was life but after death he seems so detached, very much only an observer. He seems aimless and doesn't seem to care about hardly anything. While this is Brian's story, in all regards, he is still mostly an observer. (Karen) Makes you wonder what WoF's writer thought of Norman Mailer or T.S. Eliot, doesn't it? One hit wonders perhaps? ;-) I've tried to see the connection between the writers Norman and Eliot and Chekov, but have been unsuccessful. They seem to have written during different eras and in different ways. Could that be the connection? Brian wanting to show how eclectic his writing? Could anyone possibly see them as one hit wonders? I only know T. S. Eliot's "Cats" but I'm sure there is much more. Isn't Norman Mailer still writing now?

(Caribou) Could anyone possibly see them as one hit wonders? Not necessarily one-hit wonders but perhaps writers who made a big splash and then were never able to equal their early successes. I know Mailer made a huge splash with his first novel "The Naked and the Dead" and has even won a Pulitzer. But his name seems synonymous with hack journo-fiction and he's more a celebrity than his writing merits. It's funny that you mention the Cats thing for T.S. Eliot because that represents his post-important works such as The Waste Land or Prufrock, when he succumbed to the mundane. I'm going to run this past someone I know in the biz to see if she can make sense of it.

Caribou, as an ex-English lit major, I must tell you that T. S. Eliot wrote a lot more than children's verses about cats. I can never think of Eliot without thinking of "The Wasteland" ('April is the cruellest month') and "J. Alfred Prufrock". Take a look at this little excerpt from the former--the girl reminds me a little of Bridget Jones (if BJD wasn't a comedy): He, the young man carbuncular, arrives, A small house agent's clerk, with one bold stare, One of the low on whom assurance sits As a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire. The time is now propitious, as he guesses, The meal is ended, she is bored and tired, Endeavors to engage her in caresses Which still are unreproved, if undesired. Flushed and decided, he assaults at once; Exploring hands encounter no defense; His vanity requires no response, And makes a welcome of indifference. . . . Bestows one final patronizing kiss, And gropes his way, finding the stairs unlit... She turns and looks a moment in the glass, Hardly aware of her departed lover; Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass: "Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over." When lovely woman stoops to folly and Paces about her room again, alone, She smoothes her hair with automatic hand, And puts a record on the gramophone. Or is that a CD and a bottle of wine? Eliot could paint a word picture complete with characterization in just a few lines. If you're interested in knowing a little more about him, take a look at this link: http://people.a2000.nl/avanarum/ which contains some info on the man and also some of his poetry. He also wrote "Murder in the Cathedral", which you may have heard of if you've ever seen "Becket". There was an interesting movie about him called "Tom and Viv" starring Willem Dafoe and Miranda Richardson. It was about his first marriage and how he stayed with his wife while she got crazier and crazier. He ended up committing her to a mental institution. In it, Eliot was almost like Mr. Rochester in "Jane Eyre". I think it's on the Independent Film Channel this month sometime. Sorry to go on at such length, but I like to throw in stuff like this just to show I didn't totally waste my tuition.

Karen, I think you've explained why the screenwriters choose those names. Brian tells Dr. Frisch that he had sold some stuff but they bought the latest not the good stuff. Within the context of the story, Brian chose that pen name in the 60's and he could have been aspiring to Norman Mailer's Pulitzer-Prize-winning level of writing. However, the film was made in the 80's so, the screenwriters would have known what had become of Mailer by that time - being more famous but not maintaining a high standard. Louise, thanks for the sample and link for T. S. Eliot. I'll take advantage of that when I have time. One interviewer said CF reminded them of a rather intense graduate student who could sit for hours in a pub discusssing T. S. Eliot. I'll never meet him but I was rather panicked after reading that because what IF I did and I couldn't even think of one thing about T. S. Eliot. I had Cats to fall back on but knew I wouldn't even remember Rum Tum Teaser's name under stress. :-) (Yes, there's a bit of Bridget in all of us. Salmoooon! Salllmon! ;-)) Has anyone noticed what is going on with the Valentin film clip shown in the movie? It is Caesar Valentin playing Mark Anthony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I never can catch all the words at once so, I looked it up and was really touched by what the film makers did with that. We hear lines 190-199 of Act III,ii. Even at the base of Pompey's statue, Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell, O, what a fall was there, my countrymen. Then I, and you, and all of us fell down, Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us. O, now you weep, and I perceive you feel The dint of pity: these are gracious drops. Kind souls, what weep you when you but behold Our Caesar's vesture wounded? Look you here, Here is himself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors. The next scene we see of Valentin, he is still in his seat, dejected, crushing the unnecessary sunglasses (vesture wounded). Isn't that great movie making? Valentin telling us what has happened to Julius Caesar but, also to himself, Caesar Valentin. BTW, it is the painter that uses the term "traitors" during his temper tantrum when he is being moved to the attic. I think they are saying fickle fans are traitors who can wound and cause the great to fall. Love that "look you here" part. That's exactly what moviemakers want us to do and this one even says so outright.

(Caribou) Does anyone know who wrote WOF and if they have written other things? It was written by Otakar Votocek (also the director) with Herman Koch. According to the IMDb, Votocek hasn't done too much and Koch has no other credits listed but I think he may be writing books. (If Tineke has some time, maybe she can translate some webpages for updates as my Dutch isn't too hot! ;-) ) (Caribou) Isn't that great movie making? Valentin telling us what has happened to Julius Caesar but, also to himself, Caesar Valentin. And let me applaud you wildly for that Caesar Valentin/Julius Caesar connection. It was brilliant. I had previously only taken that for an example of Valentin's heavy-duty emoting. Julius went way over my head. OK, I think I've got the writer references all sorted out with some background help from a friend. The context is fame at different periods of time. What fame did these "real" writers have when this movie was set? One's fame is subject to the ever-changing preferences of future generations and whims of fashion. Trigorin's fame, however, is set in type, he being a literary character. Also, Trigorin is one of Chekhov's most famous characters. In 1966, when the movie begins, Brian had chosen the names of three writers he admired. Eliot had just died (1965) and Mailer was at the top of his game and frequently compared to Ernest Hemingway. However, by the end of the movie, Eliot is more well-known for having written the poems that were turned into ALW's Cats in 1988. Few people knew how important he was other than for that. The whims of current fashion overshadowed his huge significance to literature, poetry, drama and literary criticism. Mailer went through a period where he ran for mayor of NY with Jimmy Breslin and championed all sorts of headline-generating causes. He became someone whose celebrity status overshadowed his writing. The general public would probably know him more from his appearances on talk shows than for having won a Pulitzer or his incisive journalistic essays. (Caribou) fickle fans are traitors who can wound and cause the great to fall. Precisely. ;-) And Louise, your tuition money was well-spent. This is for Lora, who wants to know *who* everybody is. According to an official synopsis there is a hint: "This hotel is exclusively inhabited by dead celebrities whose fame on earth has lived on. Terrorists continue their attacks in this exclusive hereafter, two mistresses of famous men won't give each other the time of day, a victim of the wreck of the Titanic wistfully reminisces about that fatal night, a composer tries to ward off oblivion by composing new works." I'm afraid if Mistresses of Famous Men were a Jeopardy category, I wouldn't do very well. ;-)

I'm afraid if Mistresses of Famous Men were a Jeopardy category, I wouldn't do very well. ;-) LOL! How would you do with Lovers of Famous Women? ;-) My sincere compliments to everyone on this heady discussion. The official synopsis seems very ordinary in comparison. Wings of Desire was shown last week on Bravo. It's worth checking to see if they have it on rotation again.

(Moon) The official synopsis seems very ordinary in comparison Well, that's only a small part of it. WOF was on Bravo? Hmmm, bet there was a bit taken out and it wasn't the archery scene. ;-)

(Karen)The context is fame at different periods of time. What fame did these "real" writers have when this movie was set? Maybe this is why by the end of the movie, a definite different period of time than the beginning of the movie, Valentin has now come to recognize the "real" writer of the book and asked Brian to autograph his *real* name in the book rather than the name that represents fleeting fame or ever-changing preferences of who one thinks is famous. Valentin, having gone to the retrospective, has been changed with a new perspective on fame (great find Caribou!)and he finally recognizes Brian for who he is and acknowledges his ability. Brian is pleased and satisfied with this and can forgive Valentin for stealing his manuscript. And this is all he needs in terms of fame and really all he sought from Valentin in the first place*(even though he seemed somewhat enthralled with fame on Earth). *Remember that scene in the Hotel Imperial lobby with Valentin's agent? The agent (and we) mistake Brian for a lunatic fan, when all Brian, I think, wants to do is talk to Valentin about using his writing. He even says that this has nothing to do with fan mail. I also love the way Brian says the word please, complete with pleading hands, reminds me of a favorite scene from FP ;-). ----------------- So maybe in terms of *who* everyone really is, it doesn't really matter. It matters more in life what you strive to learn about yourself and what you make of yourself and having the satisfaction of knowing inside who *you* really are, not what other people think you are or of you. Hope I didn't ramble too much here.

(Karen) The context is fame at different periods of time. Kudos, Karen. You've uncovered and explained one of the more vailed references to fame. It was obvious to everyone that the movie is about fame but this detail was harder to see and understand. Lora, I appreciate your summary. The movie does end with the two protaganists having learned something and it feels right that we should too. And now, from the sublime to the ridiculous. I have spotted more jello just when I thought I had seen all that the movie had to offer. After Brian discovers Dr. Frisch has been moved, he stops the first attendant he sees and asks where she has been moved. The attendant comes onto camera pushing a cart of jello sculptures! Two thoughts: -No wonder Bianca thought it was a hospital - with that much jello around. -I wish ending credits had been as detailed in 1989 as they are now. Then, we could find out the name of the jello artist and their assistant(s). :-) In search of more jello: What do you think the woman is throwing at the man to eat at the outside table? What is the first waiter at the ceremony serving besides drinks? What is on the table when Brian finds Bianca looking for her earring? Candles or jello? Now, from the ridiculous to the sublime. I have to hand it to Otakar Vocotek for making a movie with so many details. I expect it when the film is based on a book but this one seems to have only been a screenplay. I also appreciate the fact that it is Mr. Vocotek that is communicating in this way because he is the writer and the director and I have enjoyed spending time trying to understand what he was trying to say. Of course, it was a stroke of genius to cast CF and thereby secure an audience for years to come. :-)

I also appreciate the fact that it is Mr. Vocotek that is communicating in this way because he is the writer and the director and I have enjoyed spending time trying to understand what he was trying to say. I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion of the symbolism in this movie...er..I mean...puzzle. But I can now understand why it was never released commercially.To really understand this film you just can't see it once in a theatre, you have to own it for repeated copious viewings in order to decipher it. Of course that's not a problem with Colin fans...we welcome the challenge. Makes me think that I've missed out on other films that I didn't understand first time around.

have just watched WoF for the first time, and will now spend time reading through your comments, which I deliberately avoided before seeing the film. First impressions - I'm really not sure what I make of it; its an oddity but right now I don't know whether it rates higher or lower in the oddity scores than HOTPig; Colin looks very young, but maybe that's the haircut; the Bianca storyline maybe could have been a bit stronger as it ends somewhat feebly, IMHO; there are lots of questions in my mind which maybe will be answered in your earlier discussions so I will get on and read them, and return in due course.

(Caribou) No wonder Bianca thought it was a hospital - with that much jello around. ROTFLOL!! OK, now you've piqued my interest. I brought WOF with me out of town just in case another viewing was necessary. It definitely appears to be. I must have my share in the jello discussion. Don't you wish you could contact either Otokar or Howard and ask about the jello? Did you notice any tapioca? ;-)

(Caribou)Of course, it was a stroke of genius to cast CF and thereby secure an audience for years to come. :-) Yes, perhaps he was planning ahead and making his reservation for the island of fame???

Well, finally watched the film yesterday, and read all your comments today - its been a very interesting discussion, and helpful in terms of understanding the film and getting more out of it. My comments are these: I thought the clerk was frozen when Valentin went for the book because they weren't expecting any arrivals so he didn't have to be awake - after all, he's there as a worker rather than as of by right as a famous person, so perhaps he's only "alive" when necessary? At first I thought the terrorists were people who'd managed to get onto the island to destroy it, but then realised that people can't choose to get on or off (as we see with the poet), so the terrorists are supposed to be there, so who might they be? I thought maybe the Bader-Meinhof gang, since its a German co-production (isn't it?). Then they have to have bombs etc in order to be able to carry on doing what they became famous for, and the desk clerk wasn't at all surprised when they ran in with a Molotov cocktail, so having them try to blow things up must be a regular occurence. re Bianca, I've changed my mind since my comment last night! I couldn't see how one minute she's with Valentin having already left the darts player, and next minute she's with Brian in the labyrinth, then in bed with him - it seemed too quick and simple, but on reflection I wonder whether it shows Bianca going from one man to the next as she realises that they can't give her what she's searching for ("this reminds me .... I'll find it") - Valentin is too self centred, Brian keeps telling her something she doesn't want to know - so she has to keep moving to keep searching. sorry if I've gone over old ground as a newbie, I've only watched the film once, its strange and fascinating, now I must watch it again with notes! By the way, Wings of Desire is on FilmFour at 12.35 tonight - must set the video.

Rachel, I think that's an accurate (and sad) summary of Bianca. She also really likes to chase or be chased. It seems to make her feel like she exists or is important. (Karen) Don't you wish you could contact Otokar or Howard and ask about the jello? I really do. I can just imagine some of the things that happened on the set the days the jello was scheduled to arrive. Just think of the logistics - how many they needed, where they were stored before the shoot, how everything had to be just right before they brought them out of the fridge, and the pressure to get the scene right before the jello dissolved under the bright lights. But seriously, does anyone know a way to email Otokar Votocek? Everytime I mention one of these discussions to my DH, he recommends we get a comment from the movie maker. (Karen) Did you notice any tapioca? ;-) No, in fact there is a decided lack of food anywhere else. Brian's toothpick hints that he has just come from the dining room but we never see a big buffet table like I would expect in a hotel of that magnitude. I have a nagging suspicion that this illustrates the European lack of emphasis on food and that my noticing it highlights my American view that no party is complete without the proper menu. (Evelyn) Makes me think I've missed out on other films that I didn't understand the first time around. I know I've missed alot but some of them are so depressing I don't want to understand too much more. I always hope Colin is careful in what he is choosing next since I am sure I will be watching it repeatedly. From what has been offered to him, ODB does seem to chose interesting scripts or working with a giant in the business or working with an interesting director. WOF must have looked intriguing as a script, he works with Peter O'Toole and Otokar Votocek seems to have been busy and making a difference in film making in the Netherlands in the 80's.

Caribou, interesting comment about European lack of emphasis on food - there are some good European films that feature food, I just have to remember them! I hadn't noticed that there isn't food in WoF, but wouldn't it be because they're all dead? So they don't have to eat?

Rachel: there are some good European films that feature food Babette's Feast would be one. And among the oldies but goodies, don't forget Tom Jones (famous food=sex scene). And, of course, who could possibly forget BJD--"blue soup, omelettes, and marmalade". Got to love a man who's "helpful in the kitchen" as well as in the bedroom. Tee, hee.

(Caribou)the pressure to get the scene right before the jello dissolved under the bright lights. Do we see anyone actually eating it? If it's just going to sit there, it can be made super-concentrated, and NOTHING can melt it. There are all kinds of tricks for stage/movie food, especially if it doesn't have to be consumed. (Rachel)I hadn't noticed that there isn't food in WoF, but wouldn't it be because they're all dead? So they don't have to eat? Makes sense to me. Perhaps the toothpick thing has nothing to do with a meal, and is just s nervous habit? (LouiseJ)And among the oldies but goodies, don't forget Tom Jones (famous food=sex scene). YES! Now there's a fantasy remake with ODB. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Just back after a long absence (and in case anyone is tempted, please spare me any unfunny comments on this). Great discussion, everyone. Re: Brian's costume not being the right period: I'm not very good on modern costume, but what period do you think he wore? Contemporary with the date of the film? There is at least one example of this kind of deliberate symbolism in the European cinema: in Andrzej Wajda's Ashes and Diamonds, a film set in 1945, made in 1958, the hero wears a pair of jeans.

Echo, good example. It would not surprise me if they did that because of that movie. (Rachel) ...wouldn't it be because they're all dead? So they don't have to eat? They do, however, do a lot of drinking. Valentin is seldom without a drink, people have drinks when they are sitting outside, at the dance, and at the ceremony. Just found out that a physicist is credited with directing WOF so, I assume that means Otokar Votocek is a physicist. It's interesting to think of the movie as being from a physicist's point of view. So, I asked my DH, what is interesting about jello to a physicist. He says it is a semi-solid material so, in terms of physics, it is hard to predict and define but most physicists like nice, predictable properties of matter. I think of it as "it wiggles, it giggles" but apparently that is the fascination - how long will it wiggle? which direction will it giggle? what can make it wiggle in different directions? So, possibly Otokar has added jello because it is unpredictable and so is fame and residence at this hotel. Maybe he is giving us a visual clue that there will be parts to this movie that will happen randomly. So, then, the fun is finding which ones have rhyme and reason. He seems to have hidden a lot in this film but I like to think we are finding them. BTW, isn't hide and seek, itself, also included? :-)

I wonder when jeans became an "urban" fashion statement. They've been around since the nineteenth century, but were considered to be worn only by "hicks" until some time in the 50's (possible James Dean influence--did he wear them because they were the trend or was he a trend setter?) As for Brian's clothes, to tell you the truth, I did not notice that they were anachronistic, fashion-wise. To tell you the truth, all that I noticed was that CF looked yummy--whatever he was or wasn't wearing. What was the style in the 60's--narrow pants without cuffs and skinny ties? I'll have to watch the film again and try to focus on the scenes where Brian is wearing clothes.

It never fails to amaze me--the things you can find on the internet. I put "blue jeans in the 1950's" into google and came up with the following link. Apparently James Dean was one of the trend setters. http://www.designboom.com/eng/education/denim2.html

(LouiseJ)try to focus on the scenes where Brian is wearing clothes Oh, right, uh, they were good too... ;-)

(Louise) I did not notice that they were anachronistic, fashion-wise. Even if he wasn't a slave to "Mod" fashion (girls at train station at beginning wearing those tell-tale hats), at a minimum, he'd be wearing a turtleneck. The t-shirt with suit is a dead give-away. By 1966, I'd say his pants should be getting flared, as Sgt Pepper was but two years away.

Aha!! Lots more on Mod fashion (think Carnaby Street): http://www.geocities.com/modmiss/ Plus his hair is very very wrong.