Brain Pain discussion

Mephisto won the 1982 Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. Directed by István Szabó and starring Klaus Maria Brandauer, Mephisto is based on the 1936 novel by Klauss Mann, son of Thomas Mann.

Wikipedia page for the movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephisto...

I missed the start date for this one. Maybe because everyone seems to have abandoned poor Faust in all his incarnations.

I saw this film around the time it came out however many decades ago. It definitely suffers from a small screen. Two of the scenes I remembered best were the one in the theater where everyone turns to see Höfgen as Mephisto talking to the general, and the scene at the party near the end with all the swastika banners. Both were somewhat underwhelming on a computer screen.

I think this is the only one in our Faust series that isn’t a retelling of the legend, but that instead uses Faust as a metaphor for someone selling out to badness for personal gain. I appreciated the light touch. Höfgen never did anything overtly evil, and he did save a few friends along the way. Only at the end did he even see how he had been used to lend legitimacy to the Nazi regime, being literally put in the spotlight by the general.

I was sympathetic to Brandauer’s character in that being an actor was everything to him. I don’t think you can say he compromised his morals, as he didn’t really have any outside of seeing anything that compromised his stardom as something to be avoided.

So, uh, did anyone else watch this?

I don't know if it's legit for me to comment here as I wasn't part of the Faust read but yes I saw the film & even though this is such a highly acclaimed movie,I couldn't connect with it mainly cause of the actor playing Hendrik H- didn't like him one bit but maybe that was the point. So all he wanted was to live in his country & act in German plays- acting was all he knew,acting was all he desired so it didn't matter how many compromises he made along the way,right? Wrong. As an artist,he was part of the intelligentsia & they can't be fence-sitters– so he sups with the devil– Nazis in this case. True,he is a complex character & he does try to help certain people close to him but that doesn't condone the fact that his theatre becomes a mere propaganda tool for the Nazis. The ending resoundingly brought home this point:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

The movie I watched had excellent print but I enjoyed director Szabó's other two films- Sunshine & Being Julia,far more.

Mala wrote: "So all he wanted was to live in his country & act in German plays- acting was all he knew,acting was all he desired so it didn't matter how many compromises he made along the way,right? Wrong..."

I never said Brandaer's character was likable or forgivable, and the film was certainly not making that point. I said I was sympathetic to the character, which is a very different thing. Could you really not understand why he behaved as he did? I could, and that's what I appreciated about the film and the performance.

It's easy to say that collaboration is wrong. Most people look at this history and say "I would never do that!" But the fact is, the majority probably would and, historically, did. Or did nothing as the Niemoller quote you have above addresses. What the "I would never do that!" crowd seems to miss is that the people doing those things weren't that different from them, at least initially.

In my mind, there's nothing particularly commendable about a film that just rehashes how 'Nazi's are bad'. We all know that Nazis are bad. A film that can get to the heart of WHY people did what the did, and possibly allow us to see that potential in ourselves, that's a film to be commended. And I truly believe that people who DO recognize that potential in themselves are the ones who are least likely to avert their gaze when bad things start happening.

Whitney wrote: "I never said Brandaer's character was likable or forgivable, and the film was certainly not making that point. I said I was sympathetic to the character, which is a very different thing. Could you really not understand why he behaved as he did? I could, and that's what I appreciated about the film and the performance."

I wish you had commented here earlier when Jim created this thread cause I saw the movie almost immediately after that & because the movie left me cold,I only retained the broad plot points & not the finer details so maybe I didn't express myself that clearly.
The point is– this was such a character-driven movie; the kind where an actor carries the entire film on his shoulders– to me,the German actor fell short. I kept thinking a Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day-Lewis would've played on the chameleon-like quality- gradual transformation/degradation aspect so well– this actor looked evil right from the beginning!
I think I did understand his motivations - his inherent insecurity which finds a welcome relief behind the Mephisto mask ( Aren't all actors partly insecure characters,why would they want to be other ppl,otherwise?!),all his actions,geared towards self-promotion ( He ditches his black lover to marry a rich girl from an established family) & so on.

He was given a choice several times, to defect,to emigrate & even though I understand when he tells his ex-wife in the Parisian cafe that a whole country can not emigrate,the fact remains that he was enjoying close proximity with powerful ppl & all the time deluding himself that he was only 'acting' as a nazi sympathiser while subverting their agenda through his 'art'– poor fellow,all along the joke was on him! Even when he's treated contemptuously & shown his place by the prime minister,he stoops further to organise that grand party in the PM's honour,thinking he could fool them again with that display of loyalty!
And cut to the final scene- the last line- he still thinks he could act out his way of this one.

"In my mind, there's nothing particularly commendable about a film that just rehashes how 'Nazi's are bad'. We all know that Nazis are bad. A film that can get to the heart of WHY people did what the did, and possibly allow us to see that potential in ourselves, that's a film to be commended. And I truly believe that people who DO recognize that potential in themselves are the ones who are least likely to avert their gaze when bad things start happening. "

Well said!
Recommended viewing:

Shoah (1985) - IMDb

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090015/

Recommended reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kind...

I must confess, I didn't find Brandauer very convincing as a brilliant actor when he was portraying his different on-stage roles. Which is kind of ironic as I thought his acting while playing an actor who has nothing outside of his acting was brilliant (parse that sentence!)

I don't think he portrayed a degradation because there wasn't much of one. Like you said, he was a shallow opportunist to begin with, and he ended as one. The story arc was more how his opportunism became something more sinister as the world changed around him and he failed to change himself.