‘Never Look Away’ Review: A Lush Adventure in Sex, Politics and Painting

Wow A O Scott, to me, brave, exquisitely complex 'Never Look Back' is seamless from my experience, so many others. An intellectual epic which connects across all borders rarely survives. Quite extraordinary to observe such a huge mind, drawing together all the complexities of existence by weaving complex themes. Bravo. ps By the way your non-spoiler, actual spoilers, would spoil the cinematic experience for any reader who attends the movie.

@Ron. You are on point with your observation about the generational divide between examining the Nazi past (or any country's past for that matter - Vietnam? Which generation was it that started asking questions?). So it was not jarring to me that Kurt seemed incurious about his father-in-law's wartime past. It wasn't even clear that in that final scene with him in the studio that he (Kurt) realized that he had solved the "mystery". His reaction was so bland, but that was in keeping with Tom Schilling's approach to the character (in my opinion). One other thing and maybe I'm imagining it but did von Donnersmarck have his "Hitchcock" moment in the restaurant where the newsboy was peddling the newspaper announcing that Seeband's superior (I forget his name) had finally been caught, living in West Germany? One man alone at a table buys the paper and then Kurt asks for it when he leaves. The man said, sure, take it, I only read the sports page. I thought to myself, that is something Hitchcock would have done as his traditional "cameo"! When I looked up a photo of von Donnersmarck it does seem that it could be him. I guess I'll never know for sure. Such is life. Almost.

Well. I've read some critical reviews, this one included, and all I can say is the my wife and I completely enjoyed it, found it deeply affecting, beautifully filmed, haunting and thought-provoking. I've read the Dana Goodyear piece (afterwards,) which just adds to the mystery of the Richter connection. But the movie totally stands on its own. Just before it started, we were talking about movies that seem to last forever -- in a bad way, and some in a good way. This one was timeless.

This film, however Hollywoodesque, has haunted me, or rather, the story behind it. One question in particular that remains unasked or avoided in the film and apparently in the biography of Richter by Jurgen Schreiber (see article by Donna Goodyear in the New Yorker) is how could Richter not know that his father in law, Henrich Eufinger, had been a prominent Nazi doctor linked to the sterilization and euthanizing program of the mentally ill (of which his aunt Marianne was a victim)? Why was Eufinger not denounced after he fled East Germany for West Germany? How could he had reconstructed his career and become a prominent doctor in the West? His daughter, must have had suspicions and shared them with her husband, Richter. After all, they had retained their property, status and position in east Germany. Was Richter part of the complicit secret of so many Nazis who avoided trial in the east and west? The film suggests that he did not consciously know--and only unconsciously made the connections. He may have been unaware of the personal connection with his aunt's case (or maybe chose not to probe), but it is difficult to believe he did not know about his father in law's highly compromised past. A very disturbing history that of the post war generation and the secret protection and cover ups of so many high profile Nazis (see the case of Werner Heyde too).

Was it Warhol who collapsed the distinction between serious art and kitsch? Not too much of a problem as long as you realize this film is basically cast in Hollywood genre. Yet, this bunch of mainstream conventions and formulas may nonetheless pose some troubling questions on the sidelines for those who care to probe further. There are very disturbing historical and personal questions on the margins of this film, and not necessarily the ones it casts light on. Don't ask a pear tree to produce apples, but it may produce some bitter fruit too.

Too much navel gazing and too many improbably gorgeous and perfectly groomed characters. Also - was anyone else woken from their stupor by the blaring error of a reference to Lyme Disease, which might have been a subtitle translation error but still, was a term not coined until many decades later?

Just saw it. It's brilliant, enthralling and by no means "too long".

Where are people questioning/experimenting with art and meaning today like they were in Dusseldorf in'61? Where is the current avant garde?

Sorry A.O. my wife and I and another couple saw "Never Look Away" yesterday and were mesmerized by the story, the performances, the music, the cinematography, the art and the direction. Having read Dana Goodyear's New Yorker article (but not having been blown away by "The Lives Of Others,") I was open-minded about this new film but concerned about it's 3-hour length. The time melted away in a blur of emotion, and not just for me. All four of us (rarely in agreement about what film to see or in our post-viewing opinions) were literally enthralled. None of us felt the film was too long. The storyline was taut, and compelling. It struck chords with us on every level, and we all anticipate Oscar nominations in virtually every category. The last time I saw a film that so stunned and invigorated me was an advance screening of "American Beauty." The only cast member name we recognized was Annette Bening. We had no idea what the story was about or who director Sam Mendes was. What a treat to walk in cold and walk out astounded. We strongly recommend "Never Look Away" as an unforgettable cinematic experience.

My wife and I have just seen the film, think it is excellent(!), and think also that it should bring the director his second Oscar... While Scott obviously knows well the historical context (the 12-year span of the 'Third Reich' and beyond), he misses a crucial point (missed, so far that I could tell, by most other reviewers, save Dana Goodyear in the New Yorker): that children born during the 'Third Reich' (Richter) tend to be a bit circumspect (subtle?) timid?) in the Q&A following the 'Katastrophe' -- not easy to confront parents -- and that it falls on the next generation, the grandchildren (Donnersmarck) to be loud and clear -- even Hollywoodian -- about grandparents' crimes...

Reviews that find a movie worthwhile in some ways but not others face a problem. More often than not their author implies, “I want to encourage something about the movie (its young director’s or cast’s hopes or social identity or politics or seriousness) but don’t waste your money on it.” Scott’s worthwhile-in-some-ways-but-not-others review somehow manages to escape that implication’s gravity. It implies, “This movie is worthwhile in some ways but not others”. What’s more, a sentence of its conclusion, “Back in the decades in which the movie takes place, critics and philosophers made much of the distinction between art and kitsch — a way of defending seriousness and difficulty against the pleasures and comforts offered [by] consumer capitalism”, was, for me at any rate, the obituary notice of an aesthetic ideal I had presupposed deathless. Really? And furthermore, is it a good thing, or at any rate not a bad thing to equate “Roma” and “Black Panther”? (That’s a question, not a rhetorical question.)

Running Time: 3h 8m. Almost a television miniseries.

An almost-good review. Or a good almost-review.

Well: until 24th of January - with one exception by the New Yorker - all criticts were average to bad (Please check IMDB for the list of critics including Rotten Tomate). No major price has been won at any festival. So far the worldwide box office was only something over 1.4M USD - concerning a budget of about 20M Euro. So: why the hype and why even spend more time with this movie? Richter very clearly distances him from this movie which is supposed to be a biopic about himself. The audience does not like it, it is too long, too boring and with awful dialogues, the criticts do not like it and no major prices were won. I do not know how the movie did get the two nominations but it was clearly a lobbying coup and not based on the (poor) quality of the movie. But well: if Donnersmarck will sink this ship it will be a long time until he will direct anything else as Hollywood was not too amused about "The Tourist" either.

Glossing over the wholesale denouncement of the film by the subject as a “complicated relationship” with the director is pretty cavalier. How were you able to divorce a review of a film from the fact that the person it was created about hates it?