O Amigo Americano

Jonathan Zimmerman (Bruno Ganz) is an easy going Swiss picture framer living in Germany who believes he is dying from a rare blood disease. When he makes the acquaintance of Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper), an art dealer of dubious reputation, he is faced with a profound moral question. Should he commit a murder for Ripley's underworld associate, Raoul Minot (Gérard Blain) in order to guarantee the lifelong security of his wife Marianne (Liza Kruezer) and son Daniel (Andreas Dedecke)? Based on the novel Ripley's Game by Patricia Highsmith, Wim Wenders The American Friend is a probing character study of two very different men, one a solitary high stakes adventurer, the other a staid family man grown desperate by his circumstances. Perhaps as a result of an unacknowledged admiration for the other's lifestyle, the business relationship between the two men slowly develops into a reluctant friendship, powerfully illustrating the complexity of the human condition.

Shot in Paris, New York, and Hamburg, Germany, Cinematographer Robby Muller's moody waterfront shots and interior yellow-green color images enhance the mood of paranoia and keep the tension flowing. Cameo appearances by directors Nicholas Ray as a painter who faked his own death and Sam Fuller as an American mobster pay homage to these icons of American cinema. The plot centers around Ripley's revenge for an offhand remark Zimmerman made at an art auction, first spreading the rumor that is health is failing rapidly, then driving him to undertake an act that he would normally consider morally reprehensible. In trying to convince Zimmerman to commit the crime, Raoul offers to provide the services of a Paris hematologist but the lab results are faked and Zimmerman more than ever is convinced that he is going to die. Reluctantly, he commits the murder in a brilliant set piece aboard the Paris Metro, then slowly sinks into a maelstrom of deceit and deception that adds additional twists and turns to an already intricate plot.

Though questions remain unanswered, the strength of the film is not in the plot but in its multi-leveled characterizations and powerful performances. Ganz is fully believable as the decent man tortured by a moral dilemma and Hopper, rebounding from a period of substance abuse, turns in a performance of diabolical intensity as the underworld-connected profiteer. The American Friend avoids the temptation to be simply another film noir thriller or a good versus evil escapade, showing fully realized human beings who have thoughts and feelings we can understand even when we strongly disapprove of their actions. I just have one question. Didn't any one ever tell Zimmerman about life insurance?

Wim Wenders' movies are really a matter of taste. His detractors find his movies to be painfully slow, drawn out, pretentious affairs. Even I can admit to finding the prospect of sitting through some of his movies (particularly 'Until the End of the World' and 'Faraway, So Close!') almost unbearable. But when Wenders is on form he is hard to beat for mysterious, multi-layered, genuinely haunting movies.

Some people regard 'The American Friend' as a total bore, but I found it to be anything but, and almost equal to his masterpieces 'Paris, Texas' and 'Wings Of Desire'. Sure it is slow, and bound to frustrate those with MTV-type attention spans, but bear with it, and you will be rewarded.

Bruno Ganz is first rate as the picture-framer turned reluctant hitman, and Dennis Hopper, who is often ridiculed for his over the top self parodic "crazy guy" roles, is quietly impressive as the enigmatic, almost poetic Ripley. Compare his performance (and this movie as a whole) with Matt Damon's obvious turn in the more recent 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'. It speaks volumes for how much less subtle and intelligent most contemporary movies have become.

Wim Wenders is one of my favorite filmmakers, and like Scorsese and Tavernier, he is a world-class cinephile, as much in love with watching movies as he is making them. The problem with 'The American Friend,' I think, is similar to the problem of most contemporary films noir, which is, it's made with the knowledge it's a film noir. But it fails for a different reason than, say, 'L.A. Confidential.' The latter film is simply a big-budget period reconstruction of film noir, like something from the candy sampler box of film genres. It has no life of its own and is sort of like the model they show you when you're shopping around for a home in a new development; the furniture's well-chosen and neatly in place, but no one lives there. Other contemporary noirs, like Altman's 'The Long Goodbye,' approach the genre from a revisionist angle, and 'The American Friend' does it from the wrong angle, from a cinephile's angle.

The movie feels studied, like an academic exercise. It has no edge, no spontaneity. One can appreciate the movie, its cheeky comment on the art world, its humanism, without really enjoying it, and that's the trouble.

I've seen the movie twice and while its bold primary colors were appealing, and its meditative pace pleasurable to an extent, I found it a bit of a chore. It's interesting to see noir slowed down to a crawl, and Nicholas Ray is a delight, and surely, some sequences are involving, but the whole affair is lacking. Wenders' intensity has always been augmented by a certain lightness of touch, and that's what made the noir elements of 'Until the End of the World' a lot of fun. 'The American Friend' is too austere, though. Too muted. I thought 'Purple Noon,' René Clément's 1960 adaptation of the other Patricia Highsmith novel, was too muted the first time I watched it, but on subsequent viewings thought it to be engaging, almost musically so. Metaphysical heaviness for once bogs down a Wenders film rather than enhancing it.

The AMERICAN FRIEND

The fine German director Wim Wenders is responsible for this film. (If you dont know Wenders, you should). The setting of the film is handled well: the seaminess of the port of Hamburg Germany, comes across as one of the great film noir-type cities. It looks like an environment that is constantly wet and misty.

The movie ostensibly stars Dennis Hopper, but although he is given top billing in the movie he plays nearly a minor, background figure throughout. Clearly the most interesting performance, it is frustratingly parceled out to us in a way that makes you crave a really long scene with just him in it. But instead, his characterization happens in brief, truncated insights.

Hopper is well-cast once again in one of those teetering-on-the-edge roles he excels in. He is a loose cannon in this film--you clearly see his character is unbalanced --and you just dont know what he is going to do at any given moment and that lends the film its tense aspect. But the film doesnt really focus on him. Thats the main problem with this film.

Bruno Ganz (a fine Swiss actor) is the figure that the camera spends the most time on. He and Hopper and several other figures are all part of the world of art forgery and art smuggling. But Ganz's character--a painting restoration expert--is suffering secretly from a terminal blood disease. (His performance is soooo subdued it can make you antsy and annoyed, especially when you know Hopper is around somewhere).

Anyway, when the other shady characters in the movie learn of Ganz's condition they play upon his weakness to manipulate him into taking risks with the gangsters they deal with. His goal is simply to provide more money for his family after he is gone. (There is a nice moral dilemma in this film: if you knew you were dying, would your moral code alter?)

My emotional response to the plot: basically it evoked a sense of dread; a queasiness at the entanglements the main character is drawn into and the things he has to do--which are clearly against his better judgement. He is pushed to the limits of his moral and physical endurance. Its a tightly-focused story.

That being said, one immediately notices that the film's storyline is delivered in tiny, tattered snippets. These 'fragments' are in themselves intriguing. They are well photographed; they are sometimes laden with tension and atmosphere; and they often have taut, fused moments of acting.

There is also a poetic sweetness that occurs when two seemingly unrelated elements finally merge and make sense. Therefore, you know that the director isnt just fluffing it; because tiny motifs that are broken off in the beginning of the film reappear later and complete their meaning. Its great.

But overall, these slowly-delivered fragments can make one restless at times. There is too much that is unexplained; too much that we have to infer or dismiss because it simply isnt made clear. None of the characters, nor their subtle relationships to each other, are 'handed to us' outright. They are revealed in the same tiny flashes that forms the constructive style used throughout the whole movie.

Bottom line: a lot of the dialogue is frustratingly cryptic. I think you *could* figure out the weight behind each exchange if you went back carefully over the movie, but after a point--when the action takes over--youre left feeling that it just doesnt matter. Its as if Wenders shot long, fully drawn-out and rich scenes of dialogue but then went back and sliced it all up into little bits and pieces.

Its a movie that gives one mixed reactions. Kind of hard to characterize what the sum total of this film really is. Its basically a thriller, but done in such a low, deliberately dead-pan manner; that youre left with no sense of tension. Or climax. The Hopper character's weird relationship to the main protagonist, is what really leaves an aftertaste in your mouth. Perhaps that was the intent all along.

There is a sense of calm and satisfaction at the close of the movie, but more because the chaos is over and things have settled into a peaceful arrangement. Still, I enjoyed the movie and recommend it as worth seeing.

One reason that any film fan should really watch this film is the wonderful cameos by two of America's classic Hollywood directors from the 1950s: Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller. This is really a treat! Fuller plays a gangster and Ray plays a forger. Its the main reason I wanted to see this movie, and I am glad I did.

Plot summary: A normal, family "everyman" crosses paths with a questionable art broker and somehow gets tasked with the job of whacking a few people.

3 interesting things to keep in mind:

1. "The American Friend" is Wim Wenders' film adaptation of the novel "Ripley's Game" by one of his favorite writers, Patricia Highsmith. According to Wim, after he proudly showed the final print to her in a private screening, she hated it so much that she left without saying a word. This destroyed Wim. But months later, Patricia contacted him to say that she saw the film a 2nd time and LOVED it. Her initial negative reaction was due to her shock and confusion at the way the character "Ripley" was played, but on 2nd watching, she told Wim that Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Ripley was the best she'd ever seen. Which brings us to...

2. Dennis Hopper's portrayal of "Ripley". WOW!!! Just... WOW. In an incredibly complex, layered, formidable as well as lovable characterization, Dennis Hopper completely changes the book's Ripley into his own. Fresh off the set of Apocalypse Now, literally right out of the jungle and, as Wim mentions, "high on every drug created by man," Dennis Hopper entered the set of this film and proceeded to do whatever he wanted. It was fantastic, so Wim gave him free reign. So what you see here is Hopper's unique portrayal of what was originally a purely amoral villain. Instead we get a wonderfully magnetic, introspective, sensitive--and then back to calculatingly cold--character who is a real treat to watch. What makes it even better is his relationship (on screen as well as off-screen) with his co-star Bruno Ganz. Which brings us to...

3. Bruno Ganz's portrayal of "Jonathan". WOoooOOoOoOOoOWW! Swiss/German stage actor Bruno Ganz, in what he describes as his first real film credit, absolutely knocks it out of the park. And it's the dynamic between Ganz and Hopper that makes this film work. Ganz came to the set fully prepared with his lines memorized syllable-for-syllable as stage actors do. So it deeply TICKED HIM OFF when Hopper would go into his wild departures from script. This led to a knockdown dragout fistfight on set, upon which Wim shut down filming and told them to take it outside, which they did, for several hours awol, until coming back the next day stone drunk, arm-in-arm. This is exactly the sort of dynamic we have on screen. Ripley and Jonathan despise each other, and they love each other. Forced to work together toward a common goal, we watch their fantastic friendly-rivalry as events unfold. And if you believe the backstage stories, you'll understand how they achieved this rare balance. It's 100% real.

I'll just leave it there. I won't even go into the fantastic cinematography and lighting (the first time a major film was ever lit with fluorescent light, giving it a strangely surreal look), and I won't even go into the poetry and wonderful artistic elements characteristic of all Wim Wenders flicks. That's for you to look for and enjoy at your own pace. I just figured you might like the inside scoop on these 3 interesting things that helped make "The American Friend" the rare gem that it is.