“Bonhoeffer” follows the real-life story of theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor who openly criticized the Nazi regime. The scale from production to performance is unlike any film of its kind. The story is filled with conviction and contemplation. In terms of its tenacity and technicality, “Bonhoeffer” reshapes the industry. The movie is almost flawless, minus a few historical inaccuracies and creative liberties. Noting how “Bonhoeffer” grossed less than its budget, the problem resides not in the film but rather in the way it was advertised.
STAYING STRONG
If I had no knowledge about “Bonhoeffer” I would not believe it was a Christian film. I find when the genre is brought up the verdict is already made. Often, stereotypes arise from cheesy filmmaking. “Bonhoeffer” stands out in the sense that it is grandiose. Acclaimed cinematographer John Mathieson provides the movie with cinematic scope, while the score by Antônio Pinto immerses audiences into a foreign land. The most notable contribution to “Bonhoeffer” is director, writer and producer Todd Komarnicki, an experienced professional with an impressive portfolio. Komarnicki’s mainstream expertise makes the movie a new kind of faith-based film.
“Bonhoeffer” is crammed with Hollywood crewmembers but the casting takes a unique detour. The movie’s cast, with a few exceptions, is mainly populated with German character actors. Performers such as award-winning August Diehl and comedian Flula Borg add a sense of familiarity. Diehl’s performance is a nice change of pace from his standard Nazi roles, while Borg was unrecognizable, branching into a more serious character. Clarke Peters from “The Wire” also appears along with a few other faces. Then there is lesser-known talent such as Jonas Dassler who plays the starring role. Dassler is a figure to watch with his birdlike appearance and ghostly persona.
The true tale in “Bonhoeffer” also adds to the film’s importance. The movie jumps between Dietrich’s imprisonment and the events beforehand. “Bonhoeffer” explores the themes of conviction and not compromising one’s faith. The dialogue resonates throughout the runtime of the movie. Komarnicki’s script beautifully ties all these factors together in well-produced scenes. The most memorable is when Martin Niemöller, played by Diehl, preaches his final sermon. This moment stirred my soul in a way I have never felt before. Niemöller stares at the Nazi attendees and declares, “This is not your house.”
In the screenplay for “Bonhoeffer,” a particular motif caught my attention. Before the second act, Dietrich speaks a message against the Nazis. Dietrich’s mentor tells him afterward that he is no longer standing on the ground. In the end, Dietrich is seen floating toward the gallows. The proceeding shot shows him walking out the same door. I was confused and thought the decision was an editing mistake. After reflection, I realized it was a subtle allusion to the sentence from act two. The significance of this symbolism was driven even more by the fact that he was about to be hanged.
CAUGHT RED-HANDED
The final shot was emotional for me as well as others, but for different reasons. The part of Dietrich getting executed is one of many allegedly inaccurate instances. “Bonhoeffer” portrays Dietrich’s execution taking place in a field by an abandoned building. In actuality, Dietrich was executed at the Flossenbürg concentration camp. Another major inaccuracy is Niemöller’s riveting “First they came …” speech. The movie depicts the poem being spoken before Niemöller’s arrest, but the prose was actually spoken after the war, in 1946, when Niemöller lectured.
These partial truths and more minor ones are interesting to note. Upon discovering these facts, I was left with a question: Should cinema fully adhere to what really happens in history? Not necessarily. It is important to remain historically accurate, but we need to remember film is art. Art is an expressive practice and interpretation of life so not everything is exact. Does it really matter if “Bonhoeffer” shows Dietrich’s execution in a field rather than a camp? I don’t think so, as he died either way by the same means. I agree that a full departure from reliability cannot be taken. It is important to distinguish movies as another realm, not reality.
Misinformation is not the only critique plaguing “Bonhoeffer.” If you want to see an Angel Studios’ World War II spy thriller, “Bonhoeffer” will not suffice. I can confirm the assassination subplot is sporadically five to ten minutes in the movie. The marketing for “Bonhoeffer” promises a pastor, spy and an assassin. The real Dietrich was a pastor but the other claims are a stretch. Dietrich was a spy for foreign churches and attempted to rescue Jews. Deitrich was affiliated with conspiracies to kill Hitler but never directly contributed. The poster for “Bonhoeffer” depicts Dietrich with a gun and has an image of Hitler from the film. I can also attest that Dietrich never wields a pistol and Hitler appears for a second.
The reasons why “Bonhoeffer” underperformed are evident. The historical falsehoods contributed, but the advertising is more to blame. I believe Angel Studios did not trust the original material would sell. A war thriller, after all, does sound intriguing to the average moviegoer. Is it worth compromising the moving piece of “Bonhoeffer” for more tickets? No. If there was more patience and confidence “Bonhoeffer” could have been the next “The Shawshank Redemption.”
