TRANSIT - MIFF 2018

Back in 2015, my favourite film of that year was none other than Christian Petzold's brilliant post World War II drama, “Phoenix”. A highly emotional story about loss, love, identity and betrayal not to mention attempting to move on with life after enduring such a horrible tragedy; the film was superbly constructed and performed, and had the most perfect ending. Within that year alone, I watched “Phoenix” three times and since that time I have been waiting for Petzold's follow up. I must admit that I was very surprised when he announced “Transit” as that follow up because it seemed to be mining similar ground to his previous film, with the story once again having to do with the effects of WWII. However, soon after filming began it was revealed that Petzold had transposed this story from 1940's France to a modern day setting. While I applauded such a brave decision, I also thought that it was the kind of bold move that could end up making or breaking a film. So how was the end result? Let us have a look at “Transit” more closely.

The plot synopsis of “Transit” on imdb does a great job of outlining the story without giving away any major story beats, so I will quote that here: “When a man flees France after the Nazi invasion, he assumes the identity of a dead author whose papers he possesses. Stuck in Marseilles, he meets a young woman desperate to find her missing husband - the very man he's impersonating.”

Similar to “Phoenix”, the plot outline of “Transit” comes across as very pulpy. The film is based on a novel written by Anna Seghers, which Christian Petzold himself has adapted. Once again, this is a powerful story about love and loss, and doing whatever is possible to survive during incredible circumstances. The whole thing is incredibly tragic and heartbreaking at times, as we understand just how hard life was for some during the horrible years WWII took place. However, Petzold's decision to change the time period the film takes place from 1940's France to modern day is an absolute disastrous result that takes away so much of the reality and urgency of the story. While I totally understand what Petzold was trying to achieve with this; highlighting how little has changed, in regards to the refugee crisis and the way these people are treated, some almost eighty years after the war, unfortunately the story loses its identity and power and thus the message becomes muddled. Again, I salute Petzold for being brave enough to attempt this change and make his point, but it just does not work. Worse than that, it takes away from the great story that should've been told and that would have worked brilliantly in its period setting. The film is so obviously a WWII story, that having our main characters attempting to flee non-descript Germans feels so false and odd. The story suddenly has no basis in reality, neither past nor present and seems to exist in an alternate world of sorts. Some viewers may be able to come to terms with this but it immediately stopped me from enjoying “Transit”. Matters are further confusing when Georg, the film's “hero”, runs into groups of African and Arab refugees. I understand Petzold is highlighting today's issues that mirror those of the past, but having Georg running from German fascists at the same time is kind of confusing, or it was to me.

Besides this decision, Petzold makes another horrible directorial choice with “Transit” and that is the inclusion of voice over narration. Many times on this blog, I have mentioned my love of narration in films when it is done right (particularly in the films of Terrence Malick), but I thought the device was used horribly here. For starters, the narration doesn't begin right at the start of the film; it only starts once Georg arrives in Marseilles and the “character” doing the narrating is so minor that I hesitate to call him a character at all. The man speaking to us is actually the owner of a bar/cafe that Georg regularly attends but again, the whole thing felt so wrong because this man seems to know details of events that he would have no knowledge about. While the end of the film gives an out to my problems here, after witnessing Georg for the previous two hours, he doesn't come across as the guy that would be chatty to just anyone about his ordeals. The other issue I had with the narrator was his voice was so grating; it sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.

From the above I think that it is obvious that I was extremely disappointed in “Transit” but you may be wondering if the film was a total disaster. Was there anything I enjoyed in it? What about the performances? Well, again, after the perfect pairing of Nina Hoss and Ronald Zehrfeld in Petzold's two previous films (the aforementioned “Phoenix”, and “Barbara”), the stars of “Transit”, Franz Rogowski and Paula Beer almost come across as a second best option. They just do not have the chemistry or the commanding power of the screen that Hoss and Zehrfeld had. That may seem harsh to judge their performances against two other actors in a completely different film but I couldn't help but think how great this film could have been, if only...... Rogowski is perfectly fine in the role, (do not get me wrong, it is not a bad performance at all) but he just does not command your attention. It is a complex role with many different emotions and layers attached to it, and he is good, but I still wanted more from him. Paula Beer on the other hand, has less to play with, in an underwritten role. She has little more to do than sit around and look pretty and from a character perspective, she is quite frustrating in the way she is constantly changing her mind and going from man to man depending on who can help her the most. Personally I thought Beer was fantastic in Francois Ozon's “Frantz” last year, so I was a bit disappointed with her here. Petzold did not help matters, especially with comparisons with Nina Hoss, as he dresses her in a red dress that cant help but remind viewers of Hoss's character Nelly from “Phoenix”. Speaking of Hoss, this is the first theatrical feature directed by Petzold that doesn't feature his muse since 2005's “Ghosts (Gespenster)”, and she is definitely missed.

While I have some issues with “Transit”, I must say that it is not a total disaster. It is very well put together with some beautiful cinematography from Hans Fromm (who continues his successful run with the director), and it has been expertly edited by Bettina Bohler (another Petzold regular) too. It is a film that is beautifully paced and the story is actual quite entertaining but it would've been that much better if kept in the 1940's. This is particularly true of the film's ending which once again is fantastic, beautiful and tragic, but I think would've been even more memorable if set in the correct period because by being in the present, something is off about the whole thing (this vague statement should make more sense after you have seen the film).

Overall, I found Christian Petzold's follow up to his masterpiece “Phoenix” to be a massive disappointment. In fairness, I went into “Transit” with the highest possible of expectations (it was in my eight most anticipated films of 2018 list), so maybe it was destined to disappoint. While it is not an out and out disaster (it is a technically well made film), the film is just screaming for its correct 1940's setting, and the terrible narration just had to go. While I will still look forward to Christian Petzold's next film, unfortunately this one fell well below the bar he set with “Phoenix”.

2 Stars.