Last night I attended the screening of
Persistance, the Daniel Eisenberg film, which he worked on during the '90's while living in Berlin, right around the end of the Cold War. It's a striking film on many levels, more than I could write about in one sitting, however, I wanted to record a few of my initial thoughts.
The film begins with three memorable images, each pulled from archival footage, as much of the film's imagery is. The first is the silhouette of an angel, which appears superimposed over a backdrop of the washed out sky and the blur of tree branches flying past, at times obscuring the view of our subject. The statuesque figure rises from the left side of the frame, shaken by the jitteriness of the handheld frame, apparently captured from the window of a moving car or a train perhaps, and yet it remains relatively fixed in its resolve, defiantly remaining unmoved from our view. It seems at first to be mounted to the moving vehicle, as if a hood ornament might appear, but its recurrence throughout the film later reveals it in a slightly wider shot to rise above the landscape on a pedestal, as a monument, for the purpose of the film to symbolize a salvation of some sort.
The second image is an aerial shot taken presumably from a military plane just after the end of WWII, showing the bombed out ruins of the German landscape. It is eery both from the perspective of the abject destructiveness that results from war, but also for the signs of life below, mainly in the trucks that continue along the roads that wind through the shell of a once vibrant place. Various shots similar to this one are shown throughout the film with people, both soldiers and civilians wandering amongst the wreckage, reminding the audience less of the acts of war that created the devastation we see, but more of the fact that life continues on despite it. Mr. Eisenberg shed light on one such moment that occurs later in the film in which two German women attempt to navigate the rubble of their town by wobbling their way across long, cylindrical, steel supports that once served as the structural elements of a bridge, but had been toppled to the rocky substrate that now covered the ground. As they climbed upon this unwieldy foundation, they swayed, as if novices attempting some sort of balance beam routine. Two passing Russian soldiers observed their struggle, and rather than passing by oblivious to the effort, one of them stopped to offer a hand, assisting one of the women on her journey. As Eisenberg pointed out, this rather foreign gesture of kindness between these people on opposite sides of political upheaval was captured by an American soldier, and in a way, these characters, each from a disparate social strata shared in this moment of humanity amongst the insanity that lay all about them.
The third shot, which is another of the recurring images, introduces a more familiar cinematic character, that of Edmund, the child protagonist of Roberto Rosellini's classic Italian Neo-Realist portrait of post-war Berlin,
Germany Year Zero. For those who are not familiar with that film, his character appears as just another lost soul, wandering playfully amongst the wasteland that remains of his former city. For those who know the endearing and tragic story of this character, it takes on a new life, outside its original context, though it elicits a similar emotional connection as existed for audiences of the original film.
The mixture of new and found footage is used effectively in
Persistence. The old 16mm, particularly the color footage, has that tactile quality to it, filled with a vibrancy that breathes through the frame with its distinctive earthen palette characteristic of the color stock of that era. It is visceral in its visual impact, reinforcing the bitter reminders of a society lost to the long, unrelenting Allied bombing campaigns. Even in the new footage, shot in the early 1990's, we still see remnants of conflict through building facades still crumbling, half demolished, or pock marked by the bullets that were strewn across their surface decades earlier.
One church in particular that Eisenberg focuses the lingering lens of his camera upon is one that has been nearly destroyed, but is finally being rebuilt. We discover that the church had been in disrepair even in its pre-war years and that the congregation, who had fervently supported the rise of Hitler, had hung a banner on its front that read "the Fuhrer will rebuild our church". After the church had been all but destroyed during the war and the Third Reich fell, the banner was replaced with a new one that read, "this is how the Fuhrer rebuilt our church".
We see these symbols of destruction and later, signs of rebuilding as Eisenberg comes to terms with his own oral histories of his Jewish heritage. Having been born in Israel, the descendent of victims of the Holocaust, he returned to the place of this horror, finding common ground with descendants of the perpetrators of these events and through it, finding reconciliation.
As we see the mammoth statue depicting Lenin being prepared for dismantling, while evidence of the churches, synagogues and the rest of the crippled infrastructure in East Berlin is being prepared for rebuilding following the end of the Cold War, we never actually see the actual work of addition or subtraction. We see only the laborious effort of assembling scaffolding, but never a block of masonry being laid or a sledgehammer striking stone, as with those iconic images of the Berlin Wall being toppled. The significance of this fact is up for interpretation, as is much of the film, and that is Eisenberg's intention. I suppose that for a city that for so many years lay in such a depressed state, the actual process of rebuilding is immaterial. That part is far less interesting, and far more predictable. Eisenberg points out that in more recent trips back to Berlin, the schism of East and West has been largely eradicated and that there is no longer any real visible evidence of the years of disarray. The buildings have been rebuilt, roads repaved, and life has moved on. This film does not seem to be about that process of laying new mortar and brick. To me, it is much more about the people, and the remarkable fact that even in the wake of such devastation, life somehow will persist.