O Amigo Americano

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.

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.

Wim Wenders' tribute to American film noir, with cameos for two great American directors, Sam Fuller and Nicholas Ray, and boasting the most imaginative cinematography ever and the most beautifully ominous music, is finally available in widescreen enhanced DVD. What is it about about Patricia Highsmith which inspires so many directors? From Alfred Hitchcock (Strangers on a Train) to Anthony Minghella (The Talented Mr. Ripley), via Jean-Pierre Melville (Cry of the Owl) and Rene Clement (Plein soleil aka Purple Noon), her novels have translated to the screen with astonishing effect. Purple Noon and The Talented Mr. Ripley adapt the same book in such different yet equally gripping ways that curiosity forced me to seek out the novel, and then the other four Tom Ripley novels. Ripley's Game, the source for The American Friend, is arguably the best of the five, and perhaps of all her novels. Jonathan (Bruno Ganz), not Ripley himself (Dennis Hopper) is the real protagonist. The Hamburg-to-Munich train sequence is probably the centerpiece, but the Paris subway scene is just as incredible (ending in La Defense before the Grande Arche was built). Dialogue flows easily between German, English, and French. Just one example of sensitive detail - when Jonathan (Ganz)is reading his hopeless medical report in a steel/glass/concrete modernist Paris apartment, the camera zeroes in on the miniature Statue of Liberty replica on a concrete island under a bridge across the Seine. A symbolic representation of the title?

Patricia Highsmith began infusing the world of film with creepy stories as early as 1951, with Hitchcock's masterpiece 'Strangers on a Train'. Her novels about the criminal character Ripley have been popular with several leading directors, and here Wenders has a go at her novel 'Ripley's Game'. It is not totally successful, and it is 'a real downer', with its gloom unalleviated. But it is yet another of Wenders's great films, just terribly depressing and leaving a sickly taste in the mouth. But of course that was what Highsmith aimed at, and Wenders duly executed. The main theme of the film is complicity, and the sub-text is the thin veneer of morality that lies across the surface of most respectable people, which can be more brittle than we imagine and under stress can reveal a spider's web of myriad cracks which quickly reduce the most smoothly groomed personality to a crinkled mass, like a shattered mirror which hangs on in its frame and refuses to drop. Here the shattered mirror is played by Bruno Ganz, a respectable and moral person leading a quiet life as a picture framer in Hamburg (a marvellously gloomy city). Lisa Kreuzer, who had made several Wenders films already, plays his silent and worried wife with deep intensity, and requires no lines of dialogue to convey her fears. Ganz believes he is dying, so he takes drastic measures to secure financial security for his wife and child. Ripley is played with subtlety and genius by Dennis Hopper, as an amiable American in a cowboy hat with a worm in his soul, but who beneath the criminal levels of his personality has an overwhelming and desperate craving for a real friend who is a nice person. We then see the complicity between these two opposites evolve through a harrowing tale of murder and corruption, with the pathetic Ganz becoming increasingly brazen and the brazen Hopper becoming increasingly pathetic, thus merging into one another. We see Hopper's essential loneliness when he is stripped psychologically naked by events. Ganz thinks he needs Hopper, but it is Hopper who really needs Ganz. Highsmith was intrigued by concealed needs, subliminal agendas, and dominance swops. This is a deep psychological melodrama between two men who in normal life would never even meet, much less end up as buddies. Wenders plunges in and gleefully excplores this moral maze with all the eagerness of a ferret in a rabbit hole. What fun he has! And film director Nicholas Ray is marvellous in his cameo as an aged painter of forgeries, living under an assumed name after having faked his own death. Everything about this film is morally dubious, and that is the point. After all, isn't most of life morally dubious? And aren't most people, when put to the test? Here, two unlike objects are struck together and both surprisingly turn out to be flints, producing fire and setting the kindling alight. Watch the blaze.