Fraction armée rouge

I was at an advantage and disadvantage in watching BAADER. My advantage was that I know relatively little about the Baader-Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction (RAF). I believe this allowed me to view the film more objectively. As a fictionalized representation of the RAF, I figured I could see how well BAADER worked as a film. My disadvantage was that, well, I know relatively little about the RAF, so would be unable to figure out just how much liberty the filmmakers took with the real events. Ultimately, I'm not sure it mattered that much as BAADER falls rather flat as an accurate representation or inaccurate representation.

I found it hard to feel any real connection to the characters. And, by connection, I mean I didn't feel any great animosity towards the RAF or any sympathy. To feel so dispassionate about a group of revolutionaries/terrorists, is a failing in both the writing and directing.

Andreas Baader, as portrayed in BAADER, is supposed to bring an understanding to what brought these people together under his leadership to commit the acts they committed. However, I don't get any sense of why the other members of the RAF were drawn to him or even to the cause. Unlike some other reviewers, I didn't have a problem with Frank Giering being cast in the role. Giering seems capable and competent, it's the script that lacks dimension.

For most of the film, the characterization of Baader is nothing more then political rants and raves. It's possible that Baader was similar to this in real life, however, in the film it got old quickly. I wanted more insight into who this man was, and if not him, then more insight into the RAF as an organization. We don't get either in BAADER. The film doesn't give us enough insight into Andreas Baader and it never gives us much information about Ulrike Meinhof or the other members.

My impression is that the filmmakers wanted to romanticize the Baader Meinhof gang as a group of sincere idealists. It's brought out that the RAF didn't, at first, want to harm anyone. At least, that is what we hear through one of Andreas Baader's rants. Also, there is an attempt to draw almost a father and son type connection between Kurt Krone who is the federal policeman in charge of capturing Baader and destroying the gang, and Andreas Baader. There is a meeting between the two towards the end of the film and, inexplicably the film shows Krone's sympathy for Baader. Krone, at one point, says that the RAF almost managed to change society. My question is, change it to what, exactly? From watching BAADER, I have no idea, so therefore, one way or the other; I see no sense of urgency to the group and the film, in general. This is unfortunate, since the RAF was a big part of German consciousness during their reign of terror. And I certainly could have done without the fictionalized ending. Andreas Baader dies in a highly romantic way reminiscent of the American film BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. I have since found out that, Andreas died in a much less dramatic and romantic fashion.

If the film had been centered on Kurt Krone, the more interesting character in my opinion, BAADER would have worked much better. Krone's orchestration of the federal police and his ability to second-guess Baader, was fascinating. Again, I'm unclear how much of his character was fictionalized, but I much preferred the film when it focused on his character.

In the end, BAADER is neither a real life account of the RAF in the 70s nor an engaging fictionalized vision of how Andreas Baader and the group might have operated. If you have any interest in radical groups of this time period, it might be worth a look, keeping in mind the historical inaccuracies, otherwise there's not much to recommend.

The movie reminds one of a theater play gone wrong, from the awkward choice for the cast (the blonde/blue eyed, chubby Frank Gehring not only looked nothing like the skinny, dark haired Andreas Baader, but his play could not make up for the 'cognitive dissonance' one felt who knows/remembers original footage), to the historical 'facts' that were, quite frankly, badly researched (therefore wrong) and made misleading allusions to other parts of German political and time history. Originally, Baader's 'liberation' by Meinhof in 1970 took place at the Deutsches Zentralinstitut für soziale Fragen (German Central Institute for Social Questions) in Berlin. In the movie however, the sign on the door of the building Baader and Meinhof were led into reads 'Institut für Sozialforschung'(Institute for Social Research). The IfS is not only in Frankfurt (not in Berlin), but also directly connected to the Frankfurt School or Critical Theory of most prominently T.W. Adorno who were Marxist philosophers, very influential in the 1968 movement, but also radically critical of the RAF. That info given is therefore not only misleading, but drawing historically inaccurate and distorting connections. Another MASSIVE problem was the heavy Berlin accent Baader (Gehring) put on: Baader was born and raised in Munich and could for the life of him not master a Berlin dialect. Historical inaccuracy need not always taint the pleasure of a movie, but in the history of the RAF, itself a 'fetishized'and mythologized object, it did. That the movie depicted the members of the RAF as somewhat 'de-politicized', bored kids who simply wanted to have some thrill in their lives, was another problem, and itself also historically inaccurate, regarding the POLITICAL mission they considered themselves to be on and the many writings Meinhof and others published during their lifetimes (which are never mentioned in the movie). Not historically inaccurate, but very unlikely is the soundtrack. In the movie, the RAF members allegedly listened to Can. Everyone with a little knowledge of the German Krautrock scene and its aesthetic will find that connection unfortunate. Also the confined abilities of the actors (the late Gehring was usually great, but this role must have overwhelmed him) and the failure of the screenplay to deliver moments of suspense or drama contributed to its weakness.

I have to disagree with a lot of comments in here, even though I can understand why it is so easy to get the movie wrong.

Fact is that it mixes fiction with actual facts. Whether or not this is appropriate for a topic as sensitive as this one can be debated, but I think that it is legitimate as such.

I would disagree with the guy writing that the intention of the movie is to create a cult around the personality of Baader - that cult was there long before that movie, and still is nurtured, not only among leftist and teenager-circles.

My impression was rather that the movie tries to reflect a point of view that was not so unlikely in the 70s - the one of a certain hidden admiration for the RAF as a romantic reflection of the "out-law", fighting for freedom. At some point in the movie, there's said that according to a survey, 25% of the people in West Germany had sympathies for the Baader-Meinhof-gang - that is historically correct. I don't want to say that the end justifies the means, and it was soon after the first people were killed by the RAF that sympathies started to vanish. (You also have to know that during the time shown in the movie, there had not been even nearly as many people falling victim to the RAF as shown in the movie. The RAF started to be fairly more unscrupulous and violent in the later years, sometimes referred to as the "2nd or 3rd generation" of the RAF.)

So, I would argue that the movie has a right to exist not as a biopic or a semi-documentary, but as a reflection of a certain (maybe guilty) fascination for a subject that is not one single person's, but some sort of cultural phenomenon.

And here comes the big HOWEVER:

I have to agree with the people arguing that this movie does not offer much to people who are not familiar with the history of the RAF. Not only will it be rather erratic to them at parts, I imagine, but there's also a certain danger to it. If you know the facts, you are able to read the movie as an interpretation of historical events that is as well known as the facts themselves - thus, it becomes a contra-statement. If you do not know those facts or the debate around them, you certainly can get the impression of Andreas Baader as some sort of tragical hero - movie-style. And you certainly can say a lot about the RAF and Baader as a person, but that certainly is far from the truth.

A whole different thing is the fact that the movie has obvious flaws as a movie. The casting is not the smartest one. Frank Giering most of the time rather seems to be try-hard cool than really charismatic - I just don't buy the fact that this guy should be able to lead that many people into illegality. Especially since he doesn't really say many smart thing. Now, I do know that this seems to be true to the historical facts (Baader never was the theorist of the group, and there are a lot of people who would argue that the RAF never was about a theoretical base in the first place), but since Baader is doing pretty much all of the talking and all the other members of the RAF are reduced to mere bystanders, the overall impression is a rather uneven one. I would say that the weak dialogs are one of the biggest flaws of the movie. Plus, the director is sometimes really over-obvious with what he wants us to see, so that especially when it comes to romance (and there is one, because there obviously had to be some sort of Bonny&Clide-theme in it), it sometimes even comes close to cheesy. If it would have been a little more exaggerated, it could have worked for the movie, to make more clear the intentional fictionality of it, but unfortunately, it often looks more like the director's or the actors' incompetence of doing better.

Unfortunately, the movie is by far not as clever as the idea it is based on.

A beautifully filmed and excellently played film that conveys in the first half a lot about the life, the thinking, the hopes, and the dreams of those who later became known as the terrorists of the RAF. I like the ironic approach of both script and direction towards these people who thought about themselves as revolutionaries when they were still only a group of bourgeois youngsters looking for their way. The characters were excellently drawn and the dynamics inside the group - especially the psychological pressure put on the others by Andreas Baader - were well conveyed.

The film has some important flaws though, especially concerning the script and the plotline.

I did not understand for example why the storyline had to stray away in the second half from the historical events to a mythical depiction - like in the 'heroic' ending or in the obviously fictitious meeting between police chief Krone and Baader in the night on the road.

But the major flaw of this film is for me that it never addressed all the murders and abductions the RAF conducted, it never put forward that very moment when they really became a lot of unscrupulous terrorists from a bunch of disoriented young people dreaming about the revolution.

All in all a watchable, well made biopic that still leaves a bad taste in the mouth as it abandons at times an exact depiction of historical events to myths and fairy tales.

This film was exciting to me because it has a lot of ingredients I like.

First, there is that 70ies feeling throughout. It is created by the 70ies scenery, cars of that time, music of that time, haircuts, cloths, even the colors are kind of 70ies wash-out.

The carnival scenes remind me of "Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum", which plays in Cologne, just like the band Can featuring two of the songs (Swim Swan Song and Spoon).

The film is dense, relaxed but still full of tension. You see what an asshole Baader is, but still you may develop some positive feelings for him.

Its like a mixture of a "Tatort" and a Fassbinder, almost if Fassbinder had created a "Tatort".

The film is a complete demystification of the RAF. The RAF had been given the role of a dangerous threat to Germany, but is shown as a gang of weak persons full of admiration for Andreas Baader, following his commands. Reasons are given why the RAF was given that role (in the media) and that the real threat wouldn't be the Baader-Meinhoff gang but those who are supposed to protect Germany from them.

What has puzzled me was the apparent departure from the observed historical truth, in particular in the end. Maybe this was thought as a provocation, to remind you that you cannot rely on being told the truth.