Die Wand (The Wall)

An unnamed woman (Martina Gedeck) is getting away from it all in a mountain lodge with two friends.  The friends head off for an excursion in the village.  When they fail to return, the woman goes looking for them.  She finds the path is blocked by an invisible wall.  The wall appears to encircle a large area, but she is cut off entirely from civilization.  On the other side, she can see an elderly couple, apparently frozen in time, unable to see her, hear her or respond to her.  The woman has only animals for companionship: the couple’s dog named Lynx, a fluffy white cat she names Pearl, a cow named Belle, and later another cat arrives.  She bonds most closely with Lynx, her constant sidekick as she learns how to survive in the wilderness.  After some unknown period of time has passed, she writes down her story.

The film is based on the 1963 novel by Marlen Haushofer.  I haven’t read it, but judging by the Wikipedia entry, the movie is quite faithful to the source material.  With one notable exception: in the book, the woman is a widow with two grown daughters.  In the movie, we know absolutely nothing about the character’s background.  She is apparently somewhat educated, as her writing is very literary.  But there is no mention of family, home town, career.  Perhaps director Julian Pölsler made it this way so she would be an everywoman character, with more universal relatability for the audience.

But I found that not knowing anything about her robbed the film of some of its metaphorical power.  Is it meaningful, appropriate or ironic that this person is in this situation?  What does it mean that she seems to adapt relatively easily to living off the land?  Had the film told us that she was a widow, then the story’s concept could be more readily interpreted as an allegory for emotional isolation, the blocks we put up against others when coping with their loss becomes too painful.

Maybe Pölsler didn’t want us to read that into it, however.  Maybe there is no metaphorical implication at all, and it’s simply a tale of survival with “the wall” being a mere plot device to force the situation.  I don’t think so (there’s a multitude of better ways to achieve that) but it’s a possibility.  The film is very ambiguous in its meaning.  Ambiguity can be delightful, but it can also be a burden.  While I celebrate the daring attempt to subvert an audience’s expectations, to me there wasn’t enough to latch onto to make it a fully engaging experience.  It’s a promising experiment, but the promise isn’t fulfilled to satisfaction, especially in the moments where it becomes tedious and repetitive.  It also struck me as somewhat misanthropic.  It seems to be saying that one is better off in the company of creatures other than humans, and the woman never speaks fondly of any people in her life.

On the other hand, one thing the film accomplishes quite nicely is exploring the comforts we get from our animal companions.  The bond with Lynx is beautifully developed without a shred of trite sentimentality.  He is as much a character as Gedeck.  There’s also nice cinematography, especially with such a lovely wilderness as the background.

A word must be said about the narration.  There’s a lot of it.  We only see Gedeck speak a few words, but she says a lot in voiceover (dubbed in English for this release, which in this case I think was the right choice).  Having read some other comments beforehand, I was a little worried about it.  I would say 75% of it is just fine, giving information in an efficient way or expressing a state of mind that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent.  But the other 25% is a case where the “show, don’t tell” rule really should have applied.  She’s telling us things we can clearly infer from the situation and Gedeck’s face.  Or she’s telling us things that would have been better left to the viewer’s imagination.  Perhaps this is why the ambiguities didn’t quite work for me, because Pölsler didn’t commit to them strongly enough.  There were many moments that I thought would have been far more intriguing and satisfying without the narration.  Also, the language can be overly florid, with superfluous adjectives and such.  And if I may, I have one more gripe: the song on the car stereo is all about freedom, which is way, way too on-the-nose.

I have very mixed feelings about this one, and it’s tough to write about.  I was very grateful to have this be a movie club selection, because the discussion afterwards was valuable in sorting my thoughts.  It was also more stimulating than the film itself.  Maybe this is the mark of a great film?  But I don’t feel in my heart it was a great film.  There are interesting things about it, and it did promote good discussion… but I had some problems with the execution.  What some saw as intriguing ambiguities I saw as a lack of direction.  Despite my somewhat low rating here, I’m glad I saw it and got a chance to talk about it with others.  Rating: Fair (68)

IMDb