Eva Mattes – Through the Shattered Lens

A German film from 1970, o.k. opens with a black-and-white shot of a group of men walking into a two-story house that’s sitting near a forest. The camera tracks them as they walk through the front hallway and enter a larger room. Uniforms of the U.S. Army hang on a rack in the room. Members of a film crew greet the men. A young woman sits quietly at a window and looks at the forest outside.

One by one, the men turn to the camera and introduce themselves. They give their name, their age, their religion, and their marital status. Two say that they are Roman Catholic but are no longer members of the Church. One Protestant says that he also no longer attends services. Another actor introduces himself as being a 28-year-old virgin and then briefly looks as if he regrets his candor. Director Michael Verhoeven joins the men to explain that the film we are about to see was filmed in Bavaria but it takes place in Vietnam. The film is based on an actual incident that occurred in 1966, when the Vietnam War was still in its early stages. While on patrol, four soldiers abducted, raped, and killed a young Vietnamese girl. Only one soldier refused to take part and reported the incident to his superiors, all of whom said that it was simply the type of incident that takes place in all wars.

(Known as the Incident on Hill 192, this crime also served as the basis of Brian De Palma’s far more straightforward Casualties of War.)

I have to admit that my first reaction to this was to think, “I’m not sure if I’m in the mood to be lectured about war crimes by the Germans.” However, one gets the feeling that Verhoeven himself knew that this would be the reaction of quite a few viewers and he was prepared for it. His actors explain that they didn’t film in Vietnam because Vietnam is “far away.” Instead, they filmed in Bavaria because “Here is closer.” I found myself thinking about that turn of phrase quite a bit as I watched o.k. “Here is closer.” o.k. may have been inspired by what happened in Vietnam but it was also about what happens in every war. The American soldiers, who have lost their humanity to war, all have American names but the actors make no effort to hide their German accents. The Vietnamese girl who was killed is played by German actress Eva Mattes and, again, no attempt is made to hide the fact that she is German. The characters emerge as universal soldiers and universal victims, playing out the same cycle, war after war. Verhoeven is not attacking America. He’s portraying the cost of tossing people into a situation where they have no control over their fates. The soldiers adopt a philosophy of kill-or-be-killed. Civilians, like Phan Ti Mao (played by Mattes), have no choice but to try to live in the middle of a war zone. The film is simply-told and starkly shot. We are continually reminded that we are watching a film, a production. We’re put at a distance and asked to just consider the film’s story and message without having the benefit of any of the usual war movie clichés or adrenaline-fueled action scenes to provide us with an emotional escape. Here is closer.

o.k. engendered more than a little controversy when it was released. It was entered into the 1970 Berlin Film Festival. Director George Stevens was the head of the jury that year and he led an effort to have the movie removed from competition. He cited a festival by-law that stated that the films at the festival should “contribute to a better understanding between nations.” When the jury voted 7-2 to remove o.k., the other filmmakers at the festival withdrew their films in solidarity and the Berlin Film Festival was canceled for that year. o.k. was later submitted as Germany’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar (as it was known back then) but it was not nominated.

Seen today, o.k. can sometimes seem a bit too studied for its own good but again, that was the point. It was a film that was deliberately made to force the audience to consider the production’s anti-war message without the benefit of easy sentiment. That said, it makes its argument effectively. It’s a film that epitomizes its own difficult era.

First released in 1979 and directed by the great Werner Herzog, Woyzeck takes place in a small German town in the 19th century. It’s the type of town where everyone knows everyone else and not much happens. As is mentioned towards the end of the film, it’s been a while since the town has seen a “real murder.”

Franz Woyzeck (Klaus Kinski) is a soldier who lives in the town. He’s had a son with Marie (Eva Mattes), despite not being married to her. For that, Woyzeck’s Captain (Wolfgang Reichmann) continually tells him that he is immoral. Woyzeck replies that the poor cannot afford morals. To make extra money, Woyzeck does odd jobs for the Captain and he’s agreed to serve as an experimental test subject for the Doctor (Willy Semmelrogge). The Doctor, who looks down on Woyzeck, has put Woyzeck on a diet of only peas. He’s curious to see what this does to Woyzeck’s physical well-being but he has no interest in the fact that Woyzeck is obviously going mad.

Woyzeck, who, at the start of the film, is already hearing voices and talking about his apocalyptic visions, comes to suspect that Marie is cheating on him with a handsome Drum Major (Josef Bierbichler). While the film does make it clear that the Drum Major is interested in Marie, whether or not she’s actually cheating is left ambiguous. Woyzeck may believe that she is but Woyzeck also believes that he’s having visions of the end of the world so who knows whether one should trust his opinion. Eventually, Woyzeck’s madness leads to tragedy and another ambiguous ending. (The ambiguity reflects not only Werner Herzog’s customary aesthetic but also the fact that the film is based on a fragment of an unfinished play.)

What drives Woyzeck mad? Was he born mad or was he driven mad by his jealousy over the Drum Major? Does he truly love Marie or, as someone who has very little to his name, does he just want to possess her? Is he driven crazy by the inequality all around him or is he just looking for an excuse to justify his own disturbed thoughts? Herzog does not provide a definitive answer. Why Woyzeck goes mad is less important than the fact that the community around him is thoroughly and totally indifferent to the fact that he’s obviously losing his mind. The Captain lectures him as him as if he’s merely a teenager who needs to grow up. The Doctor only cares about Woyzeck as a test subject. Even Marie seems to be indifferent to his instability.

With each scene shot in one take and featuring a largely stationary camera, Woyzeck captures the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped in one’s circumstances. Woyzeck is desperate to escape both his circumstances and his madness but Herzog makes it clear that Woyzeck has nowhere to go. He’s trapped in his life and his fate feels almost pre-ordained. This film is dark, even by the standards of Werner Herzog, However, it also features one of Klaus Kinski’s rare sympathetic roles. It’s not surprising that Kinski is convincing as a madman as Kinski is often said to have been a bit mad in real life as well. What stands out is just how good a job Kinski does at playing the rather meek and subservient side of Woyzeck. Woyzeck features one of Klaus Kinski’s best performances.

In My Best Fiend, Herzog said (one hopes jokingly) that he was often tempted to have Kinski killed. Woyzeck shows us why we should be happy that he didn’t.