Gold

Well, it shore is pretty. Little reason to watch this implausible movie, unless, like me, you're a fan of Nina Hoss and you like to watch beautiful scenery.

The trip itself is plausible enough. Plenty of fools made their way to Alaska for this second gold rush. There is even another movie (a better movie) about a similar subject called 'The Far Country' with Jimmy Stewart. But what happens along the way, and the way it is plotted and executed is absurd and comical.

Woe if you were a horse in this movie. Or one of the actors forced to speak the stiff dialog. The two main characters, Nina Hoss as Emily and Marco Mandic as Bohmer are believable enough, but tripped up by a silly plot. It's always difficult to make a movie about a long arduous trip without it seeming artificially episodic and here, the director and screenwriter, have failed.

This is a western…of sorts. While it's NOT about the American West and occurs a few years after the wild and crazy days of westward migration in North America, it looks like a western. It's actually about the Canadian West during those crazy and dangerous days of the Klondike gold strikes. While the American gold rush of 1849-1850 is more famous (especially when you look at the number of films devoted to both), the Canadian rush of 1896-1899 was far more dangerous due to the climate and terrain of both Alaska (through which many of the prospectors came) and the Yukon. Into this mad rush is a group of German-speaking prospectors —including a single woman, Emily Meyer (Nina Hoss). However, the trek turns out to be not nearly as trouble-free and easy as the leader of the expedition says at the beginning of the film. There are lots of surprises, tons of peril and plenty of death. In fact, watching the film reminded me of the computer game "Oregon Trail", as practically every sort of disaster that could occur does!

In many ways, Gold should be commended. While about 95% of the westerns you see are historical nightmares, Gold is very realistic. The natives are NOT uniformly hostile, the gunfights are not glorious and the film is, at times, a bit dull—because life there was a bit dull! It's actually funny that it took a Bavarian (that's in Germany) production company to make a realistic film about the western migration! Plus, it did make sense as despite what you see in other films, folks who did not speak English and who were recent immigrants are the sorts of folks who settled the West. We SHOULD have been seeing people like this in our films long ago. As a retired history teacher, this sort of film really excites me. HOWEVER, and this is a big 'however', most folks probably do want to see a mythical portrait of the West!! They like heroes, fights with Indian tribes, fist fights, shootouts on the main street and all the mostly wrong trappings of a typical western. Realism, unfortunately, is not always so exciting and the film is the type of thing most viewers probably would struggle with enjoying because they want more action, happier endings and the like. So, Gold is definitely a film for a select audience—those who want realism, warts and all, instead of non-stop action and intrigue. As for the quality of the film, the acting and direction are just fine—very professional and competent. Also, while the film was apparently made in British Columbia and not the Yukon Territory (where the Klondike actually is), it's awfully close and the brown hills definitely look a lot like the ones in the Yukon (I've visited the area). Worth seeing though even I must admit this film isn't super-exciting and the ending is a bit of a downer.

At the time when it was released - right in the middle of August - both in Germany and in France, Thomas Arslan's seventh film, 'Gold', appeared as the ugly duckling puddling clumsily around the pond of Summer movies. No cheap thrills, no big gags, no sultry scenes in this German UFO. Nothing about it to draw huge audiences. To begin with, it is a western, once a popular genre but today the ghost of what it used to be, at least in terms of box office (with the notable recent exception of 'Django Unchained'). Even worse, once again as far as box office is concerned, it is spoken in... Goethe's language! Okay, laugh you cynical money grabbers while it is still time! As for me, I would not be so surprised if this unusual effort should become a classic in the years to come. Agreed, associating the terms "German" and "western" looks incongruous at first sight but let's not forget there HAVE BEEN German "cowboy movies" before, mainly in the 1960's. Of course at the time they were generally nothing but undemanding adventure films meant for the young public, most of the time shot in Yugoslavia and aspiring to nothing higher than "to entertain". Whereas in the present case the ambition is different and while the end credits roll the viewer is now assured that the words "German" and western" can go together quite well. For 'Gold' is a little gem of a western movie, which is made apparent as of the first minutes through the feeling of authenticity it generates. For one thing, Arslan's rough and uncompromising work is shot entirely on location: all the places shown or mentioned (Baskerville, Clinton, Goldbridge as well as the wastelands of British Columbia) are the real ones. Moreover, the writer-director has worked from actual documents of the time (the Yukon gold rush of 1898), among which photographs, newspaper articles and pioneers' diaries. All that is shown is therefore realistic, not to say hyper realistic, from the horse tack to the weapons to the costumes to the train. Such a serious approach is commendable and would suffice to make 'Gold' a good film but there is even more to it than the true-to-life account of the journey of a group of German gold diggers, namely an allegoric dimension. Indeed, Beyond the facts reported lies a fable about the futility of man's efforts. Driven by the lust to get rich quick, the seven characters (with the one exception of the determined female hero... but for how long?) ride and suffer only to give up or die in the end. A sense of utter absurdity is thus gradually built, reinforced by the structure of the movie (almost all the protagonists disappear one by one in the manner of an Agatha Christie whodunit). I am pretty sure John Huston would have liked 'Gold' even if its tone is yet more pessimistic than his (for Huston, the final goal is absurd, only the adventure is worth living whereas for Arslan, the whole thing is purposeless). Well made, well interpreted by competent German actors (among whom Nina Hoss as the dark, untamed Emily Meyer), 'Gold' is an excellent surprise. Not totally flawless (a faster pace would not have gone amiss), it is nevertheless an outstanding achievement in its category. And quite an unexpected one at that!

Having traveled from british columbia to dawson anyone could see that the initial terrain traveled in the film was inaccurate ... it looked more like the prairies of eastern alberta or eastern montana ... struggles today traveling from vancouver north aren't much different then 120 years ago ... its still about 2300 miles of rugged territory but possible with good planning and a lot of luck ... if you do it, be sure you get to the laird river crossing before late summer rains or you may find yourself mired down with mud ... get past that and dawson is easy ... you can pan for gold anywhere with recreation license ... if you don't have one be prepared to pay a steep fine

Is this any good? Maybe. It illustrates the difficulty of being among the first in an area, and having to cope when there is no one else around for miles to help. Sometimes there is merely tension, sometimes danger, and sometimes the mood is just plain dismal.

Much of the acting is the same quality as what might be expected when a group sits around the table reading the script for the first time. Some acting is better than that. Even if the acting isn't all that good, the story is good, if you like this sort of thing. I wasn't all that entertained but this just isn't my type of movie.

Though this is supposedly set in 1896, a lot of the "music" sounds more like 1996. It might actually be appropriate but so much of it seems like just noise. Several scenes do benefit from an eerie new age sound that could actually have been performed during the time period, enhancing a very dismal atmosphere. Rossmann does play the banjo, but not nearly enough. He's pretty good, meaning real.

The scenery is beautiful. Some areas don't have trees and don't look quite as good, but that doesn't mean it's not still impressive. Personally I like the trees better than what looks like desert.

I forgot to look for the statement that no animals were harmed. Assuming there was one, a couple of horses do some good stunt work. Or at least someone does a good job of making it look like a horse had an impressive fall.

The movie doesn't quite live up to its title, but it's not too bad, I guess.