Comments on: Wings of Desire: Three Years After

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:22:34 +0000

Alfred, you’re exactly right … and I do believe in the spiritual, but it may be that it’s a manifestation of the physical, in which case it will go bye-bye when we are no longer around. But I don’t know for sure, and I would argue that nobody else does, either.

But whatever the case, as you say the pacing and cinematography and music all combine to develop the mood and feeling. Thanks for stopping by!

By: Alfred K.

Alfred K. — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:11:01 +0000

I just saw this movie for the first time about a week ago and I was incredibly impressed. What a fantastic pace to develop the mood and feeling almost as part of the movie. It is definitely a spiritual movie (not in the religious sense!) and the comment by Wim Wender that angels don’t have grand-ma’s maybe a bit too narrow focused. If you believe in re-incarnation and that there something more to life than just a pile of fine-tuned bio-chemicals then, why not.

Wir muss spazierengehen!

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:11:23 +0000

Yeah, heaven being sterile and bleached-white doesn’t sound like much fun to most folks. One of the things I always heard growing up is that whatever you desire be there, which sounds like a good thing, but for eternity? The idea for an afterlife is embedded in (modern, not biblical) Christianity and Islam, but not so much Judaism, and not at all Buddhism … I’m not very convinced of the idea, myself. Of course, in Christian mythology, angels are not ghosts but separately-created beings. Clarence notwithstanding.

I think films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” have entered the canon of beloved classics, and folks are willing to cut them some slack because of it.

By: Greg F

Greg F — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:23:34 +0000

It makes sense that they interchange since they're both dead people to some degree right? In the dreadful Ghost I brought into the conversation it could just as easily be called Guardian Angel. Angels are the part of the afterlife that seem very vague as far as specific religions go so they can be used effectively in a film such as this without anyone even wondering what the denomination is so to speak and still accepting they have a Heavenly origin. In Its a Wonderful Life no one complains (at least no agnostics or atheists I know) that Clarence very specifically comes from the Biblical Heaven. There's a desire that Heavenly things be as simple and flawed as the Heaven depicted in that movie and not some sterile bleached white choir of angels setting that so many religions try to sell us on. Most people who say they're agnostics simply don't want to believe the version they've been sold and that's very understandable to me. I definitely will see this on the Criterion. It's a movie I'd like to own anyway and might as well go with the best version available.

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:25:25 +0000

I remember one of your other blogs, though I can’t remember the name … But I would have thought that WP, with its infinitely resizable imagages, would be right up a photo blogger’s ally. But as you say, neither here nor there.

If you re-watch “Wings,” try to see the Criterion version; they’ve really outdone themselves this time.

You are right on the money with your thoughts of “ministry of presence” fulfilling a basic human, and even animal, need. I also like your observation that ghosts and angels are interchangeable; of course, Wenders’ angels are nothing at all like they are depicted in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (the Hebrew for angel means messenger), or in popular literature, where they are saccharine, do-gooder guardians.

Wenders’ angels were my favorites until I saw Mike Nichols’ version of Tony Kushner’s “Angels in America,” which actually owes a lot to “Wings of Desire.”

By: Greg F

Greg F — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:20:29 +0000

I've been blogging almost three years too. I started in March of 07 doing political posts on my original blog then added two others then finally honed everything down to movies starting in May and later deleted so many early posts and rearranged the posts dates that July 07 now shows as the posting start date for Cinema Styles which is a lie. But I had to delete those posts because they were SOOOOOOO BAD! No one could ever see them you understand. And you and I clearly had different experiences with platforms. I signed on with Wordpress for my photo blog and became so discouraged with the immobility of the interface I changed back to blogspot. I found WP to be very unworkable. But, that's neither here nor there (or over there). Wings of Desire is a beautiful and rich film and I've loved it from the first time I saw it. I agree, it is the first two thirds of the movie that stay with me even though I love the Peter Falk revelation immensely. It's been years since I've seen it and I must see it again soon. The movies have always understood "Ministry of Presence" and literature too. Since ghosts and angels have always been pretty much interchangeable in film (and I think of them along the same lines, never connecting the Biblical idea of an angel to them so much as the Hollywood idea of the ghost) you can see the "Ministry of Presence" in this one of course, but also in everything from the delightful The Ghost and Mrs. Muir to the dreadful Ghost. The idea of feeling comfort just by being in the company of someone who gives you security is a deeply rooted instinct that runs through the entire animal kingdom though probably more often associated with mammals. Wings of Desire taps into that and also gives us the frustration we feel when we want to intervene, want to help, but can't and are forced to only observe. It's a great film.