@rooprect said:

I love this film. I've watched it 3 times. But each time when it gets to Marion's monologue at the end, I feel like it's just rambling without any real connection to the story and theme up to that point. In other words, I don't get what she's saying.

I'm sure a large part of this is due to the translation from the original German (which I don't speak) to English subtitles. Can someone, German speaking or not, summarize the gist of what she's saying and how it wraps up the story?

I haven't seen this film in years so I can't answer your question but maybe this article can?

https://laughmotel.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/gravity-and-grace-wings-of-desire/

I cannot answer your question, but wow, I remember this as being one beautifully shot film. I couldn't help but comment about that. Good luck.

@bratface said: I haven't seen this film in years so I can't answer your question but maybe this article can?

https://laughmotel.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/gravity-and-grace-wings-of-desire/

omg YES it clears up so much. Thanks for that link! I never caught the sneaky breaking of the 4th wall in Marion's closeup shot, but it makes sense now.

One of the things that had confused me was when she said (in that shot) "Now, it’s your turn. You hold the game in your hand. It’s now or never." Because I thought to myself, it's obvious what he's going to do so why does she have to say that? But the idea that she's sneakily addressing the audience at that point puts it all into perspective. The story of Marion and Damiel has ended, and she is now talking to the audience directly. "We are sitting in the People’s Square and the whole place is full of people with the same dream as ours."

@CelluloidFan said:

I cannot answer your question, but wow, I remember this as being one beautifully shot film. I couldn't help but comment about that. Good luck.

Definitely a beautifully shot film. Even though I didn't understand all the dialogue, the visuals alone were enough to carry the entire film. Time to watch it again!

@rooprect said:

@bratface said: I haven't seen this film in years so I can't answer your question but maybe this article can?

https://laughmotel.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/gravity-and-grace-wings-of-desire/

omg YES it clears up so much. Thanks for that link! I never caught the sneaky breaking of the 4th wall in Marion's closeup shot, but it makes sense now.

One of the things that had confused me was when she said (in that shot) "Now, it’s your turn. You hold the game in your hand. It’s now or never." Because I thought to myself, it's obvious what he's going to do so why does she have to say that? But the idea that she's sneakily addressing the audience at that point puts it all into perspective. The story of Marion and Damiel has ended, and she is now talking to the audience directly. "We are sitting in the People’s Square and the whole place is full of people with the same dream as ours."

You are welcome.

If a woman spoke like that to me at a bar I would have turned my back on her monologue and resumed my drink.

Yes, it is interesting and makes sense that she was breaking the fourth wall, but she was still seemingly speaking to poor Dammiel at the same time.

@Fergoose said:

If a woman spoke like that to me at a bar I would have turned my back on her monologue and resumed my drink.

Haha that's the truth. Anyone at a bar who speaks for 5 mins without letting the other person get a word in is probably bad news. Recently I saw Wim Wenders' "Paris Texas" and I suddenly realize that he was doing the same thing in this scene that he did in PT, except I think PT worked tons better. The reason being, in PT they were separated by a 1-way glass, speaking through a phone line. So this made it physically & symbolically a 1-way conversation. The girl could indulge in a lengthy, meandering monologue because that's what the environment dictated. But in WoD I think the 1 flaw is like you said "she was still seemingly speaking to poor Dammiel at the same time" so it made for a very awkward "conversation". This is a small nitpick, maybe it doesn't matter to most people. But I definitely recommend Paris Texas for a more satisfying final speech.

Yes, I have pretty fundamental issues with Paris, Texas - but dialogue wasn't one of them. I almost feel like the 4th wall argument is making an excuse for this film. It already had a narrator and the narrator could have articulated this message to us in a more coherent way rather than getting another character, who was not the narrator, to go off piste in an otherwise conventional scene.

@Fergoose said:

Yes, I have pretty fundamental issues with Paris, Texas - but dialogue wasn't one of them. I almost feel like the 4th wall argument is making an excuse for this film. It already had a narrator and the narrator could have articulated this message to us in a more coherent way rather than getting another character, who was not the narrator, to go off piste in an otherwise conventional scene.

What's wrong with a small departure from convention as far as not having the narrator do all the work?

@CelluloidFan said:

@Fergoose said:

Yes, I have pretty fundamental issues with Paris, Texas - but dialogue wasn't one of them. I almost feel like the 4th wall argument is making an excuse for this film. It already had a narrator and the narrator could have articulated this message to us in a more coherent way rather than getting another character, who was not the narrator, to go off piste in an otherwise conventional scene.

What's wrong with a small departure from convention as far as not having the narrator do all the work?

Nothing, if it's done well. But if it's going go be that lengthy and ambiguous then you'd best know what you are doing and I think the director fell a little short here. They also showed no indication of why the trapeze artist had fallen for the ex-angel. It was all a bit disjointed.

@Fergoose said:

It already had a narrator and the narrator could have articulated this message to us in a more coherent way rather than getting another character, who was not the narrator, to go off piste in an otherwise conventional scene.

You know the whole 4th wall thing, while very cool, would've been 100x better if Damiel had delivered the final monologue and addressed the audience, since he was the opening narrator. It would've brought things full circle sort of like in American Beauty.

BUT I will say this in defence of using a new character to 'narrate' the ending, the whole film did pass between different characters narrating as we heard their thoughts through the angels. So I'll give Wim a free pass on that. But I think the truth is (according to the director's commentary) that they phoned Peter Handke for the ending, and he came up with something which he felt summarized the film but I don't think Peter was aware of how much the story had morphed during production.