I saw this when it came out. All I can say, is I still remember the basic plot, and the cinematography. Walter Faber is paradigmatic as the post WWII individual, still blindly devoted to the goddess of Reason in his personal attitude to life, but beset by the unconscious flood of irrational experience: a real example of Carl Jung's warning that what is not made conscious will be lived out as destiny. It is overall a wonderful, understated film, beautifully directed and shot, representing in a gentle way what European directors (and all directors) should concentrate more on - literature, myth, relationship, culture. It's only fault, if I recall correctly, was that it was not longer and deeper, because it really could have been a great film. Go ahead and watch it!
Add a Review
-
b-gaist13 November 2008
-
len18g9 February 2000Voyager is to be enjoyed for the characters and the actors' performances and not for the plot which is rather obvious, unsurprising, and which requires extensive suspension of disbelief. Sam Shepard is very effective but it is the ethereal luminescence of Julie Delpy that kept me riveted. She is a special presence onscreen. In addition, although the story is contrived, the relationships and issues are thought provoking and lingering.
-
starfrog25 June 2000Never mind the violent plane crash deaths, bloody suicide, venomous snake attack, and other undisclosed disturbing subject matter. You won't mind or even seem to notice with the relaxing vacation-like mood the movie creates along with Sam Shepherd's cool 'whatever' attitude. This film follows Walter Faber on a relaxing voyage of air and sea around the world as he fatefully keeps stumbling into people that are somehow connected to his ex-fiancé, Hannah.
The film will reach a point where you will understand what has happened, thereby even the climax is rendered anti-climactic. But don't worry about that. Just Sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie. All I can say is that Hannah has information that would have best been disclosed from the get-go (trust me), and that Julie Delpy is very sexy! -
Nano_Burger3 June 2001The first (and last) images of this film really interested me. At the risk of spoiling, we find Faber sitting alone in a Greek airport trying to figure out what the hell just happened to him. A really depressing scene that draws you in to his web of coincidence that is the rest of the story.
Faber is a man of science that really should have a great life(he is the chief engineer on an important dam project), but his past catches up with him with a series of coincidences that play a terrible joke with his life.
Delpy is very sexy and very French. The aircraft that crashes is just as sexy. A romp around Europe rounds this great film out. Watch with your wife or girlfriend with wine - not with the guys and beer! -
lasttimeisaw22 July 2022"The change of Faber's nationality, from a Swiss in the novel to an American here erases Frisch's aim to echo Faber's decision to leave his Jewish girlfriend who is pregnant with his child behind on the eve of WWII, with Switzerland's own iffy neutral position and function during the war, so that pungent sense of comeuppance is diluted in the end, and Elisabeth, played by Delpy with an appealing air of ethereality and spontaneity, is over-simply reduced to a nubile object of desire and later, an"Agnus Dei" sacrifice (with that pestilent, slithering symbol of original sin). Schlöndorff's picture fails to enrich the story from her perspective, for one thing, her reaction after realizing Faber is a former friend of both her parents, is perversely unrealistic, anyone else would be piqued to pump him for more past details, but Elisabeth knowingly clams up, as if such discovery barely interests her. For a cis-gender, heterosexual male director, whose naturally less inclined curiosity of female characters's interiority is quite the sign of the times, Schlöndorff is guilty as charged."
- -
mjneu5913 January 2011A laconic engineer/adventurer, with a fear of chance and coincidence, courts both when he meets a young waif half his age who reminds him of his lost love, and not without good reason. The final surprise plot twist is telegraphed well in advance, but after a clumsy introduction, with too many flashbacks within flashbacks and odd, impulsive changes in scenery (Europe to South America to New York City), the globetrotting story settles down into a haunting parable of memory and fate, showing how one can be forgotten but the other never avoided. The only other flaw to the film is Sam Shepard's annoying and unnecessary voice-over confession, which sounds as if it were added for the benefit of slow thinking American audiences. The narration spoils what could have been a minor romantic masterpiece; notice how much more enigmatic and involving the story becomes without it.
-
oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx28 February 2010The only other Schlöndorff movie I was aware of having seen before this was Palmetto, a hyper-twisty neo-noir made in the States . I liked that movie a whole lot, but it didn't prepare me for Homo Faber which is very dense, well made and literary. Definitely not the "man with hot pants" type of neo noir, like Palmetto, The Hot Spot, Body Heat, Romeo is Bleeding &c. Indeed it's not that obviously noir, because it's steers free of many of the cycle's clichés, whilst keeping what is perhaps the essential ingredient: fatalism, wherein an initial mistake spirals out of control and controls your destiny. The film is not conceptual film noir, it doesn't wallow in the plot arc, or the destruction of a character. The only film I feel I can truly compare it to is the English Patient. Both movies have romantic themes, have extremely good literary-based scripts, contain educated well-spoken protagonists, excellent location shooting, unobtrusive period recreation, and take place in eras not too far apart in time.
So Homo Faber is a man, Walter Faber, a prodigal engineer, who seems like a laid back cross between Fitzcarraldo and Brunel. He's too caught up in his romance with engineering to seize the moment and the girl. He is reminiscent in this sense of Dominic in Youth Without Youth, and Zetterstrøm in Allegro (excellent films), both love-blind men caught up in their pursuits (linguistics and piano playing). As Cupid is the real God and reigns over drama, these men must be punished.
Homo Faber is Latin for The Man Who Forges His Own Destiny, which is ironic, because in the film Faber is subject to a series of extremely rare coincidences, seemingly manipulated by Providence. There's a duality though, because in a very real sense he has forged his own destiny, it's just that it's inescapable.
The movie is a luscious wonder, it takes place all over the world in often exotic locations, and the recreation of late 50s period details works really well (there are far too many "look at me" type films where the production team feel the need to introduce absolutely superfluous period details).
I mentioned the phrase "the passage of independents", in my title, which needs explaining. You come across many characters in the movie who are independent. Even when Faber is in love and travelling in Europe, quite often he will go off on his own, or she will go off on her own. The folks here are extremely insulated from the manipulations of others. Faber even has the annoying habit of ignoring questions put to him. I think the movie is very ambivalent on the subject of independence, which is displayed as being quite heartless, however on the other hand, you can see, for example, that if Faber had maintained his cloying New York relationship, that would clearly have been the wrong move. So the film allows you to make up your own mind on that subject, and really in the process becomes elegiac.
To be more forthright on the subject, the film may indeed be best described as being about the folly of existentialism. Although as mentioned there is a large level of ambiguity to this. Faber, the "intellectual Philistine", at one point draws a blank when Sabeth mentions Camus and his existentialist (although Camus rejected this term) novel The Stranger, and then makes a joke when Sabeth asks him if he knows about Sartre and existentialism, "aren't those the guys who dress in black and drink espresso" (quote from memory). This is despite him being what I would describe as a textbook existentialist himself. He is an authentic person, full of enthusiasm for his own interests, who lives for himself, whilst recognising his level of duty, and its strict limits. When he truly starts to understand love, and, although he feels absolutely nothing in the presence of art, is able to appreciate the happiness of Sabeth whilst she appreciates art, it is too late for Faber.
Couldn't recommend it more highly, would help a lot if you liked The English Patient. Is currently available via DVD from Germany. -
"Homo Faber" is a German movie from 1991 directed by Oscar winner Volker Schlöndorff, but this time he did not write it, but let Rudy Wurllitzer do the adapting of Max Frisch' novel. Schlöndorff's most known movie are all based on works from famous authors and this one here is no exception. The cast includes Oscar nominee Sam Shepherd, who looks like taken right out of a Hitchcock or film noir movie, Julie Delpy, probably the most stunning, most natural and most beautiful actress out there in the early 90s and Barbara Sukowa, who is a really weak actress usually with her constant overacting, but bearable in here, even if the European Film Award nomination is an utter joke.
The story is about a man, who on a business trip falls in love with a much younger woman. After some initial struggles about how (even if) a relationship may work out, the two are truly happy, but luck may not be on the protagonist's side this time after early on he survives a plane crash without any injuries. He seems to be very cold and calculating, but when he meets Delpy's character, he offers us and his love a totally new side, emotional and caring until the ghosts from his past come back to haunt him. Won't go any further into detail to avoid major spoilers, but this was such an unrealistic development, but I guess Frisch had it in his base material, so they had to include it here too. Also everything before he meets Delpy's character is fairly forgettable to me and I could have done without it, even if the film may not have crossed the 90-minute mark this way. Overall, despite occasional criticisms, I thought this was a really good watch for the most part and I can definitely recommend checking this one out. Oh yeah, you may also find it under the title "Voyager". -
This is an extremely moving and tragic tale of hopeless love between a middle-aged man and a young girl, who ultimately discover that they are really father and daughter. Such situations do arise. Many stories are known of brothers and sisters, and less frequently, of fathers and daughters, who have been separated all their lives, meet when adult, fall in love and even marry. It is because they are irresistibly drawn to each other for reasons they do not comprehend, and they have no previously existing incest taboo. In fact, it would be more usual than not for such a couple to end up in love. This story is taken from the novel HOMO FABER, published in 1957, by the famous Swiss author and playwright Max Frisch (1911-1991). Several grumpy reviews have been written by people complaining that the film is not sufficiently faithful to the original novel. Films rarely are, and we just have to get used to that. The only time a novel was perfectly translated to the screen was in the case of that work of genius, THE FOUNTAINHEAD (1949), where the novelist Ayn Rand not only wrote the screenplay but was given total creative control, overriding even King Vidor as director, and was able to choose her own leading man (Gary Cooper) as well. But otherwise, it has never happened. As someone who has not read Frisch's novel, I am free of the angst which so assails the distressed reviewers who have. The film is made magical by the performance of the enchanting Julie Delpy, who at that age had stepped straight off a canvas by Botticelli. She achieves shadings of mood and emotion of infinite hue, and shows a true genius, whether it be purely instinctive or by design, but it was impossible for me to watch this, even for the second time, without being spellbound at what she brings to the screen. Perfectly cast as her father is Sam Shepard, though he is annoying for two reasons: first, that he never takes his hat off indoors, which is simply infuriating, and second, that despite being supposed to be Swiss, he cannot pronounce the name Joachim properly. Those two sins are hard to forgive. Otherwise he is splendid. But the main credit for this dazzling creation must go to the director, the brilliant Volker Schlöndorff, who has achieved a true work of art. Delpy's mother is played by Barbara Sukowa, who is a very famous actress in Germany, despite her Polish name. She is always fascinating. In this film, however, she is required to play an extremely irritating character, so she is far from sympathetic. But she does it very well. Shepard got Sukowa pregnant when they were young, but she hysterically over-reacted when she imagined him to be marrying her without sufficient enthusiasm, and walked out on him just before the wedding and disappeared. She then married a man she didn't love and gave birth to Delpy who ended up fatherless because Sukowa left the man anyway. The whole tragedy was thus caused by Sukowa's headstrong and irrational behaviour. Twenty-one years later, Shepard meets Delpy on an ocean liner and they are irresistibly drawn to one another. He fights it but she is determined that she loves him, and who could resist Delpy, then or now? So love happens. They slowly make their way to Athens where Delpy's mother is working as an archaeologist, and just before they get there it becomes clear that Delpy is Sukowa's daughter, but Shepard still does not know whether she is really his daughter yet. Then a tragedy occurs. Delpy is bitten by a horned viper (I didn't know they had them in Greece, I thought they only had adders, but I must be wrong), and there is a desperate attempt by Shepard to get her to hospital and save her life. At this point Sukowa turns up. She is extremely unfriendly to poor Shepard, before she even realizes there is any reason to be. They both worry together about Delpy and Sukowa confirms that she is really his daughter, so the tragedy of his love for her becomes unescapable. Delpy survives the snakebite but further tragic events unfold, and things get sadder still. I shall not reveal more. This is a long and deeply engrossing film, made by a master, perfectly cast, and infinitely sad. What really makes it such a classic is the angelic waiflike quality of Delpy. She really is unique in the cinema, and now she is also a director, producer, editor, and composer as well. She did all that for 2 DAYS IN Paris (2007, see my review). So she is a phenomenon. But as an actress, this film is one of her greatest achievements, perhaps the finest.
-
SnoopyStyle11 July 2022It's 1957 Venezuela. Walter Faber (Sam Shepard) is a world-weary engineer. He is reluctant to board his plane which ultimately crash-lands in the desert. He seems to be followed by a German who may have a connection to his past. After returning home to NYC, he takes a ship to Europe and meets Elisabeth Piper (Julie Delpy). He has a fling with her but there is more than one way to be connected to the young lady.
I'm surprised that Walter isn't named Rex. Their age difference is a bit awkward but nothing compares to the final reveal. Julie Delpy is completely alluring with innocence, mystery, depth, and Frenchness. She brings that Before energy with her. Sam Shepard is able to avoid dirty old man territory with his sincerity. -
bungulahouwagadou5 August 2019From director Volker Schlöndorff comes another novel adaptation that will find its way as quickly as the director's other literature adaptations from the conemas to the classrooms of German schools. Not only does the film take out some complexity in the parts it shows, but also does it end after roughly two thirds of the story. The story, thus, feels unfinished, and is unfinished. I don't want to be that guy, yet I recommend reading the book rather than watching the film. It's worth its time much more.
-
pmp3 April 2000The atmosphere, style, and characterization are quite striking and memorable, although some aspects of the plot are simply not credible. I was riveted to my seat by the powerful cinematography and characters. In the end I'm not sure if there is much of a governing 'vision of life' which informs the film, although such a vision might be hinted at occasionally. Not that every film must exhibit such a vision, but the result of such a meandering plotline, as we see here, is a simple yearning for resolution. So why do I give 'Voyager' a high rating? Simply because such memorable and humane images and characters are very hard to come by nowadays.
-
jgcorrea28 November 2019The theme is fascinating enough: hyperrationalist technician clashes with real life, is shaken by it and starts to envisage completely differently the world. Walter Faber (Sam Shepard) is an emotionally detached engineer who is forced by a string of coincidences to embark on a journey through his past. His life then collides with his past from which he thought he had escaped. Chain of coincidences or fate, something he never believed to exist? This story is really about the failure of a modern man in a modern society. In a world full of science and rationality, Faber doesn't believe in fate or determinism. He used to explain everything: God is dead and humans are poorly built machinery. His Weltaschaung changes drastically when it turns out his daughter is not only still alive, but that he is also currently in love with her. Unlikely enough, 50-year-old falls in love with 23-year-old, who turns out to be his daughter and then soon after dies. When he finally realizes his thorough loss to logic and wants to change, it is already too late. Schoendorff's style here is rudimentary and fuzzy. Shepard's unmoved sentences (perhaps consciously so, so that his delivery self-represents the sober protagonist) sometimes imply the character's dubious internal morals with respect to contravening morality issues (namely incest). In short, a partial disappointment from Schloendorff.
-
minasant14 October 2004In comparison with the book, the film is in a scale from 1 to 10 a 3. On a good day a 5. In my opinion, for someone who has read the book and analysed it, it will be easy to see all the awful flaws in the characters interpretation and actions. The hole set is nicely developed and explored, but a few details (in Hanna's apartment for example) don't actually match with the characters personality. The book has a high quantity of symbols and metaphors and they are almost not shown in the film at all. The importance of small details like Walter constantly shaving in the book is superficially explored in the movie. Walter's disgust to Nature isn't shown at all! I think the movie could be more exciting. The plot has every spice it needed to be really great. Maybe if the actresses could have been better chosen, since Ivy is just to old, Hanna at the end just too young.. Only Sabeth fits perfectly into her role. Congratulations to Julie Delpy, for once again performing so beautifully. About Walter: Walter's interpretation of the role is unreal and unfaithful to the book. In the film Walter is a man full of charm, seductive and caring. Where is all the distance, cold-heartiness of the book's character..? The control-freak, the workaholic character? While having sex with Ivy, Walter usually thinks about planes and turbines, but in the movie he is an amazing lover. Hanna's importance in Walter's love life is also not given enough importance. In the book walter says that only with Hanna wasn't sex absurd. She was afterall, the true love of his life. The End of the film is an open ending, in the book Walter eventually dies with Cancer, after a huge change in his vision of the world. His relation towards nature totally mutates. He becomes a different man. Important details such as symbols that warn Walter about Sabeth's death (and his own death as well) are inexistent in the film.
But in an overall, and ignoring the fact that i've read the book by Max Frisch.. I've rated the film with 6 points, knowing how old it is, and how the budget might have been, it's a nice Sunday-afternoon film, that let's you reflect about destiny. -
hiver13 April 2001I give Homo Faber 5/5, it captivates from the start. The movie is set in some beautiful places namely (France, Germany, South America and Italian countryside)which does justice to its aka title "Voyager." A carefully structured plot which unravels beautifully with a touch of adventure,nostalgia and mystique. Sam Shepard really shines in this role. The rest of the cast is up to the job.
-
tomsview12 October 2016I thought this film sounded interesting, but as it went along I found it annoying. A film should play on different emotions within the audience, but annoyance isn't one of them.
I think "Voyager" is the most pretentious piece of twaddle I've seen in a long time. And I say this because it is actually well enough made, and the filmmakers went to some trouble and expense to make it, but it takes itself incredibly seriously based on little substance.
The story, which starts in 1957, is built around coincidence. On a trip from South America, an engineer, Walter Faber (Sam Sheppard), encounters a number of people with connections to his past. As he travels from place to place, the connections bring him back to a pre-WW2 relationship.
Sam Sheppard plays Werner with such an air of fatalistic detachment that it is almost as though he is on heavy medication for depression. By the end of the film I felt I should get some of that for myself because there aren't many light moments in "Voyager", it's heavy going all the way.
Werner has an affair with a woman who could be his daughter. This element of the story had the potential to be a bit icky, and is. The plot of "Voyager" goes into an ever-tightening spiral until Werner just about disappears up his own backside.
Mind you, I don't mind a challenging movie or even an obscure one. We've had movies told from the point of view of people who didn't know they were dead, and ones where everything is seen from the viewpoint of someone suffereing from schizophrenia, but the obscurity in Voyager is heavy-handed.
The film produces the unexpected death card twice. The first time was effective the second was annoying. To try the same plot device twice was simply misjudgement. The film ends with more fuzzy musings from Werner on the meaningless of his life. "I've got no use for suicide, it doesn't alter the fact that one has been in the world. What I wished was that I had never existed at all".
What the? Werner's motivation throughout seems odd, but the script has him flatulently expounding on just about everything without saying anything remotely profound.
Despite a great deal of technical competence, and earnest performances "Voyager" takes us on a journey where we are led around in circles. My annoyance comes mainly from the expectation that it would be a work of greater depth. -
suzanneoxford13 November 2010This is probably one of the best love stories I have ever seen because inevitably it is doomed. With a stellar cast and gorgeous scenery, the movie instantly grabs your attention. Sam Shepard as always gives an intriguing performance as Faber, a civil engineer traveling across the Europe. He has a dry wit and cynical sense of humor, seeming reluctant to make friends with his fellow passengers until he meets Sabeth played by Julie Delpy. With her charm and outspoken personality, he is soon drawn to her. The passion of their love affair and strong physical attraction makes this story all the more tragic as it unfolds. It is heartbreaking to witness the coolness and detachment which consume Faber as the realization of who this woman really is, hits him. I almost cried to see how devastated Sabeth was at Faber's rejection of her. This is a truly great performance and have always admired Sam Shepard as one of the great actors of our time. Julie Delpy does a fantastic job portraying the young woman. Also her mother gives a good performance.
I would highly recommend this film, but to a more mature audience who is not easily shocked. -
a-cornlover_198822 June 2006Schloendorff at his worst. All his movies are badly acted, awfully staged and directed, but this adaptation of Max Frisch's fabulous classic novel is just ... I can't even tell you HOW bad it was!! Schloendorf didn't understand the novel at all, he seemed to be more than confused, and the actors! Poor Sam Shepard, poor Julie Delpy! Schloendorff hunts them through various (admittedly lovely) locations, lets them talk a lot and loses the paths of the author too often. This movie is no entertainment, it's not thought-provoking, it's just an assault on good taste. The only good thing about this movie is the title song sung by Ute Lemper, the jazz standard "Careless Love Blues". But for that it might suffice to buy the soundtrack. My, this movie is awful!
-
As many German-speaking students know, Max Frisch's "Homo Faber" is standard literature in classes, and rightly so. It is one of the rare novels that profoundly show the transformation of an extreme type of person and creed:
Homo Faber, the man as the forger of his own fate, the believer in machines, technology and reason, filled with disgust towards all nature and "mushy" things like relationships, who rejects all signs and omens, finally has the bliss to get to know love and the fate to lose it.
None of the subtleties, deep characterization and symbolism of Frisch's novel survived in this movie - and Julie Delpy's sweet performance was not enough to make it at least half worthwhile. - Movie not recommended (read the book). -
stingray_b518 July 2010The Voyager is in fact a drama that happens to use the novel Homo Faber by Max Frisch as its backdrop. The director picked the main three characters and boiled down the plot to its essence which takes the viewer on a globe spanning journey of coincidences and places its main protagonist Walter Faber who is an engineer who doesn't believe in fate squarely in front of his past and down a spiral to the destruction of the life of his own daughter. Certain aspects of the movie come across as far fetched because the viewer cannot benefit from the additional information available to the reader of the book. On the other hand the movie brings across the immediacy of the tragic events much closer to home and resonate with a receptive audience. The novel and this movie try to show that life cannot be reduced to a simple formula and that the mind is not equipped to deal with the matters of the heart. In that the Voyager succeeds in translating the core of the plot. Students of the novel will of course be disappointed because the director had to cut out many scenes and aspects of the book. With that in mind we are still left with a movie that should get some emotions flowing.
-
LovePythons20 November 2010This is what I expected.
1. Sam Shepard actually inhabiting a character, not droning lines in a bored tone from a script. Even surviving a plane crash in the desert didn't interest him much.
2. With a German production, a little intelligence, some plot savvy and even some sophistication.
This is what I got.
1. Embarrassing performance. Dull dull dull.
2. Sloppy writing, plotting and directing. Clumsiness everywhere. Ugh!
If you haven't seen The English Patient, try that. -
lakeidamike7 December 2009I thought this picture was nothing short of just plain creepy. I've never read the book and doubt that I ever will. But the whole idea of a man through a series of accidents having intercourse with his daughter is pretty nauseating. The story line, as creepy as it is, is extremely far-fetched to the point of silliness. I felt as though I was watching something almost as facile as "Somewhere in Time." One other point: if a director is intent on making a movie set in another decade, in this case the late 50's, I wish he would take some care to watch over some of the small details. The street scenes in New York are full of modern day cars. Worse yet, there is a scene in which baseball scores are heard over a radio involving the Angels, the Blue Jays and the Royals--none of which were major league teams in the time this story is set in.
-
davidturgay16 November 2002Books and movies have a strange relationship. It seems somehow necessary to turn every half-popular book into a movie, no matter if it works or not. The strangest thing about it is, that most of the time it is not a genuine idea which gives the reason for making the movie, but simply that a lot of people read the book.
Consider "Homo Faber" based on the popular book by Max Frisch. Well, it is mainly popular in German literature classes where students are forced to read and interpret it until every word is turned around and every meaning is squeezed out (as it happens with all literature in school). Personally, I thought "Homo Faber" was a rather unneccessary book, boring, dull, complicated, the meaning squattered all over the pages with abstract metaphors. The last 40 pages are simply a dread.
So, how could I possibly like the movie? Well, I couldn't but at least I could stand it, because it is easier to watch this strange story than to read it. The story is, let's face it, really absurd. A man crashes with a plane, meets someone who is the brother of an old friend and finds together with him the friend, who killed himself. Then he goes on a journey with a ship meets a beautiful woman, falls in love, travels with her through Europe and finds out she is his daughter. She has an accident, he meets the mother/his ex-lover, they argue, the daughter dies, the end. If this sounds like I gave away the ending, I'm sorry, but Faber, the title character, doesn't hesitate to say it himself quite early in the movie and the book.
The story is full of implausible coincidences which aren't so obvious in the book with its complicated narration, but in the straight-told movie it becomes very obvious how ridiculous this is. The movie is a typical checklist movie, checking everything in the book and bringing it to the screen without any new ideas or innovation. It just straightens out the storytelling, leaves away the awful last 40 pages and remains to be quite boring anyway.
Schlöndorff doesn't try anything new he just films the pages, or maybe at least the surface of the pages. Technically the film is well-okay, although the music gets quite annoying in the end and far too dramatic in the "dramatic" scenes. The black-white effect could have made sense if it would have been used constantly and with some kind of logic. The flashbacks are hurried away and leave the viewer confused.
The acting is quite okay, Sam Shepard does the best he can (and he can be really good). Julie Delpy is another case for the "Love or Hate"-file, while I have to admit I don't love her. Barbara Sukowa as Hanna leaves us with no emotions for her character and August Zirner as Joachim is nothing more than a silhouette.
So, if you liked the book it is pretty likely that you will like the film. If you didn't like the book or haven't read it, it is more unlikely that you will like it. -
tributarystu13 October 2005Do you know people who say books are better than films? Well, with this one, they hit the nail on the head. I have to question both the intent of the movie, as well the reasons for which it was shot. Homo Faber is a book which engrosses us in character analysis and it's done in such a matter, that a conventional film could never cover it fully.
And that's what this is, a conventional film. Walter Faber is way "underdeveloped", his relationships with the people around him are somewhat chaotically put together and in the attempt of emphasizing some of his traits, there are moments in which the film becomes uneven. I can but be disappointed by this work, because it feels fake; everything does: the actors, the circumstances, the "existential questions".
A book which is elevated by style and substance can't be the starting point of a movie, unless the film itself aims in achieving the same uniqueness. -
Film helps the sales of a book but seldom vice versa. Not until today I got to know that Max Frisch was so famous and valued in Germany, though heavy European style can be sensed. In town, amongst all the public and university libraries, we can only have three worn-out copies (English translation) in total. The last read date perhaps is 1960, who knows? Sorry, we are not into the book. If it's not the movie, no one here would know who Frisch is. Gotta read the book to see what it's actually about.
I like beautiful things. Beautiful scenery of so many countries between Europe and South America, lovely love story, beautiful Julie, still hunky Tom, Greek tragedy, why not? When I watched this in 1991, I felt so happy to see young Julie's sweet smiles and the reverse oedipal expression. Even the Chinese name is tantalizing, "A Glassy Rose": something pretty, smooth and shiny but fragile, just like the relationship amongst Walter, Hannah and Sabeth.
Walter is a chaser, he got lots to do one after one, one after one until his heart was fateful hitched tight by a young girl. Voyager should be without legs, they should keep flying on because once they stop and tread on the ground, that would be lethal.