The Tin Drum



Oskar is born in Germany in 1924 with an advanced intellect. Repulsed by the hypocrisy of adults and the irresponsibility of society, he refuses to grow older after his third birthday. While the chaotic world around him careers toward the madness and folly of World War II, Oskar pounds incessantly on his beloved tin drum and perfects his uncannily piercing shrieks. The Tin Drum, which earned the Palme d’Or at Cannes and the Academy Award for best foreign-language film, is a visionary adaptation from Volker Schlöndorff of Nobel laureate Günter Grass’s acclaimed novel, characterized by surreal imagery, arresting eroticism, and clear-eyed satire.


DIRECTOR-APPROVED SPECIAL EDITION:

- New, restored high-definition digital transfer of the complete version, approved by director Volker Schlöndorff
- Newly remastered 5.1 surround soundtrack, approved by Schlöndorff and presented in DTS-HD Master Audio on the Blu-ray edition
- New interview with Schlöndorff about the making of The Tin Drum and the creation of the 2010 restored, complete version
- New interview with film scholar Timothy Corrigan
- German audio recording from 1987 of author Günter Grass reading an excerpt from his novel The Tin Drum with musical accompaniment, illustrated with the corresponding scene from the film
- Television interview excerpts featuring Schlöndorff, Grass, actors David Bennent and Mario Adorf, and cowriter Jean-Claude Carrière reflecting on their experiences making the film
- Trailer
- New English subtitle translation
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Michael Atkinson and 1978 statements by Grass about the adaptation of his novel



Criterionforum.org user rating averages

I haven't seen it, but he has a cameo in Spike Lee's recent movie, She Hate Me, he plays a doctor. I saw a tiny still form the movie where he's in it, but it didn't have enough detail to really see him.

I have seen She Hate Me, and David Bennent has an important role. If you are a fan of the Tin Drum, She Hate Me is worth checking out for his preformance alone (though it's a small one). On the Tin Drum dvd, Schlondorff talks about David Bennent having some real life growth problems, and that making this movie helped him deal with it. In She Hate Me he is short, but he's not a dwarf.

Just thought I'd share (in my amazement) this really rather perceptive review of the film by Roger Ebert.

He sums up the main problem - the film is too clumsy, too overcrowded, too in love with outrage and spectacle to function properly as an allegory, so all we're left with is a very disjointed catalogue of gross/weird/surreal events and never really adds up to anything, narratively or emotionally. Plus Oskar is an irritating little shit who wants a beltstrap round his arse.

I really liked this movie; my instinct is to defend it. I haven't read the book, so I don't exactly know what the author's intention was. I think Roger Ebert makes good points about it being an allegory, and Oskar is still obnoxious, etc. However...

Oskar's decision to not grow up and join the adult world put him on the same playing field as the adults. Oskar IS an annoying brat, but he's no more childish than the adults. It helps for me also to view the film as "the adventures of Oskar" rather than an allegory for anything. Oskar isn't the "hero", he's just the main character, and we see the world from his perspective. He makes a conscious choice to stunt his growth, but at the end of the film he is tired of this; he jumps in the grave and chooses to start growing again. Maybe he thought that Germany's growth had been stunted (with everyone believeing in Santa Claus), and it was finally time to grow up.

I don't know, I haven't watched it in a while, so I may be forgetting parts that are contrary to what I'm saying. I just really liked this film, and I hate to see it trashed by everyone.

I liked it as well, and like jorencain said, I saw the movie as just being about an interesting boy who physically stops himself from growing. My only problem is that
[spoiler:2jqlebbh]there isn't an ending, and I wanted to see all the episodes of his life[/spoiler:2jqlebbh].
I see the point Ebert is making, I just liked it based on what it was literally. [/spoiler:2jqlebbh]

I urge everyone who has viewed this film to seek out the novel by Gunter Grass - the two just don't compare. Grass's novel is definitely allegorical, and those "digusting" scenes that appear gratuitous in the movie are actually important narrative devices in the novel. What is also important in the novel is Oskar's narration/monologue - we get a sense of this in the movie with the voice over, but, overall, it just seems there to guide the audience along. Also, the movie only covers two thirds of the novel - it leaves Oskar's post-war adventures out completely. I understand Schlondorff had to make cuts somewhere (if he had wanted to film the entire novel, he'd have had a movie at least twice as long), but being the fan of the novel that I am, I felt cheated at the end. Still, what the director was able to do with his source material was very good, and David Bennent certainly was a find.

Apparently, Gunter Grass served in the SS during WWII. I can't imagine the ways in which this will tarnish (or at least drastically alter) the way in which he and his works are viewed.

If he had come clean about this years ago it would be a non-issue.

"drafted at 17". shit. And we can't let the pacifist work that he has done in the last 50 years expunge what probably amounted to a few months of ineffectual involuntary service?! That sucks.

Walesa should drink a couple beers, relax, and then shoot a letter off to Grass asking for comment. It's sad when I see fellow left-wingers swing into Jerry Falwell territory on the bully pulpit.

I'll be interested to see what the lasting affects this will have after the initial backlash dies down. The Pope certainly has a checkered past for instance, and as far as I can tell hasn't had too much negative reaction from it. Then again, on the one hand he's, you know, The Pope, and on the other hasn't led a 50 year anti-Nazism pasifist effort to make up for it.

Considering all of the members of the American military (from Vietnam onward) who have joined the pasifist movement and spoken out against US foreign policy - I hope Grass makes it through ok.

A fine example of 'reflect before you speak' not being considered. Lech Walesa is a man who should understand empathy and compassion. What a fool. What is a man to do - simply state one day, "I was in the SS," or something? It surely weighed on his conscious every day of life since. He channelled the shame and anger into his books, which have a highly unique voice and paint an unforgettable, disturbing picture of the world. He's a great writer and this fact adds a new, highly intriguing aspect to his work. I thought that we'd got past the "ALL GERMANS WHO SERVED IN WWII ARE NAZIS! ARGH! HATE THEM ALL! SHUN THEM!" horseshit. And now, in addition to Schlondorff film being labelled "paedophilia" by various cunts, it will now also be labelled as "WRITTEN BY A NAZI!" by even more cunts.

I know, Gordon, but the Waffen SS? I'm sitting here willing to give Grass the benefit of the doubt, but that's not exactly regular army.

But by that time in the war, young German conscripts had very little say in which outfit they were posted to. In fact, wasn't the Hitler Youth program designed to feed into the SS?

This is a bit off topic, but speaking on conscription, a lot of citizens from the countries that were conquered by Hitler were conscripted. This is briefly touched on in Saving Private Ryan when the two GI's shoot the surrendering soldiers. This is the scene where the GI says to the other, "Look I washed my hands" These were apparently two Czech or Polish soldiers trying to tell the GI's they were forced to fight.

Exactly.

Waffen SS "members initially volunteered, but after 1944, as Germany's military strength was weakening, members were drafted at random."

Grass turned 17 in October of 1944.

I think the point here is that Grass has taken such moral high ground over the last 50 years without ever revealing a key bit of information about his own past. That, coupled with the fact that he finally comes clean two weeks before the publication of his autobiography, can't help but cast a somewhat dubious light over his character.

To be fair, Grass always said he was in the service. He just didn't reveal the truth about where until now.

RE RS232 etc: In your own words, please define this dubious light.

What consitency runs thru todays media, starting with the people who are editorializing today who will be hustling their asses for rancid horsemeat tomorrow, that has got you buying into such impulses of rampant unforgiveness? The guy lived in fear of a bullshit, hypocritical, stunningly-vapid-yet-even-more-stunningly-all-powerful media GENUINELY disinterested with the details of Grass' life (in lieu of the 15 minute press scandal which it will drop when it winks out, candle-like), and lived a la "You know what-- the less they know, the better"... which turned out, in retrospect, to be a mistake.

Why not hang a 21 yr old for not staying five? Why not hang every right wing Israeli or Arab or American for the same sort of tribal murder & brutality? All you have to do is roll outa bed these days to witness folks engaging in the precise form of murder you're using to disqualify Grass.

To a certain degree this is a major "no shit" story. Every German Grass' age was either a) a Nazi, or b) a liar. Everybody was a Nazi. So then it becomes a question of how active in the party or the military were you? The Waffen SS as I understand it was the division most responsible for the genocide; and the most active period of genocide was the last 9 months of the war; this 9 month period corresponds to Grass' period of service. I find that troubling. I'm sure if we want to know more we'll have to buy his book. It's pretty cool how someones affiliation with the Nazis is now being used as a marketing gimick. But fascism never died in German, or in Europe, so these tactics don't surprise me.

This is a curious story, one that I should be following in the German press (but don't have time to, sadly). I'll be sure to get the memoir and read it, but I think Grass's decision to hold back on the details of his service, however dishonest this may be, must have played a factor in his reception history. Or would it not have changed anything?

Edit: German readers can read relevant excerpts here. Not very revealing.

It is late here, and I appologize if what follows is more a series of thoughts than a complete statement. I felt bad reading this thread on my way home on the train tonight, and, although I come here to read and talk about film, I felt I could not sit this discussion out in silence.

I am not so old, but I increasingly find that some of the ideals that I try to uphold and that I believe are "common sense" seem to be falling very much out of fashion -- I respect my elders, I respect ability (the only true nobility), I generally shy away from commenting on people who are not in the room (especially, if I do not have anything positive to say); I also have a personal ethic about this new wonder of email/internet communication of not speaking any louder from behind the shelter of my labtop, than I would do in a roomful of people.

I read Günter Grass' wonderful novel "The Tin Drum," when I was fourteen. Along with "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Birdy," this was one of the first "serious" books I read, and consequently it made a great impression on me. I could identify with Oscar, whose wish it is to remain a boy; to not have to participate in the folly of the adult world. Although it has been more than twenty years since I read the book, I can imagine the book only as the work of a very fine human being. What made that man capable of writing such a beautiful book, and why is the central character a boy, who wishes to remain a boy, placed by the author at the threshold of an epoch in German history that most German adults would subsequently like to erase from memory? I can supply my own answers to these questions, as I am sure all of us can.

Is it important in which way the boy Grass was made to serve his country? Is it important whether he served enthusiastically? Would we have behaved any differently? I have watched Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph Of the Will several times, and, although I know that my family suffered at the hands of the Germans during the war, although I know that my Grandmother was Polish (and very likely of Jewish descent); although I know all these things, I also feel quite certain that as a 15-, 17-, 19-, 21- or 25-year-old German in the thirties, I too would have joined the rallies. I say that based on my knowledge that none of us know where history will eventually lead us, and neither did the Germans in the thirties. There was no television, no internet, few people had easy access to telephones. People read the papers, they saw the newsreels in the cinemas (if they could afford going), and if they were fortunate they had access to a radio. These were the channels through which people received their information. These media did not speak freely, and if they did, would they not applaud the National Socialists, who were intent on bringing Germany out of depression and indignation?

In George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey there is a segment that moves me. It concerns the liberation of the KZ camps in which Stevens participated, and at which occasion he shot some personal footage. In the film, we see the images of the camps, and we hear Stevens talk about his experience. Specifically he talks about a sense of nausea at the Jewish ex-prisoners, a revulsion at their touch, a need to get them away from him... and, he concludes by saying something to the effect that he felt the "Nazi" in himself. I think that few of us live lives, where we do not at some moments feel the "Nazi" in us, and I think most people act as Nazis more often than they would care to admit, or, probably are even aware of themselves.

I have the greatest respect for Lech Walesa. It was impossible to grow up in the seventies and eighties in Denmark (probably the rest of Europe too), and not follow Walesa's fight for solidarity. Even without completely comprehending the issues at stake, it was impossible not to sympathise with the man. I think I can understand his feelings with respect to Grass, but I cannot help but feel sad at his condemnation of Grass, who in so many ways is his brother in spirit. I cannot bring myself to reintroduce the theme of the "Nazi" in relation to Walesa, but surely for a few moments Walesa did not speak as the standard bearer of solidarity.

In conclusion, I would like to express my hope that Grass will continue to be seen as the central literary personality of the 20th and 21st century that he is, and that discussion will soon turn to his work and life after the war. Furthermore, it is my hope that those inclined to think (let alone speak or write) of Grass in derogatory terms, based on his revelation of his past as a member of the SS, make the effort to imagine themselves into Grass' place and time at the age of 17, even if only for a few moments, and to go and read (or re-read) some of his work. Following that (and not a few summarized lines on an internet news site) it may be possible to begin to form a vague outline of an understanding of Günter Grass.

I may be older than most board memebrs but I seem to remember at the very least SS "rumors" if not open discussion about Grass in the service back in the early seventies around the time of the Tin Drum's movie's debut.

How interesting to compare this hoohah to the recent death of soprano Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.

She of course became the darling of so many music lovers worldwide, throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s for her superb lieder skills in particular, and her pivotal Mozart and Strauss roles. At the same time, another Nazi party member - Herbie von karajan - was gearing up into his "TotalSymphonicRepertoire" recording career with the Berlin Phil.

Everyone knew about them. And still we came to the concerts and bought the records. Both artists had obviously made accomodations with the Party and the Gestapo to be able to continue their careers. As did many French movie people, like Danielle Darrieux with the Vichy regime.

The question is - WHO in the hell are WE to judge them! What the hell would any of us done in their shoes? How DARE we even begin to judge them with some squeaky clean snottiness, as though our own rotten governments (Oz, Brit and the US) arent also corrupt, owned by the mega capitalists and entirely dependent on our passive compliance with THEIR fucking wars, persecutions, political imprisonments, and concentration camps (three in Australia, at least one in the US.)

Take a really good look around you.

EDIT crossed wires with Scharephedin. I could not imagine a more eloquent response to this issue. You moved me to tears S.

What David said, adding that Wilhelm Furtwangler, arguably the greatest conductor of the 20th century, rode out the war believing that the power of music would outlast the Nazis, and from where I sit, he proved himself right.

I would agree with everything said. I was about to say how I felt disappointed that the media seems to be very quick to jump to judgement and condemnation of people, rather than a more considered approach, but thinking about it I feel that news media has always done that. It's not outright lying but it's selective reporting or highlighting of certain 'sexy' aspects in a news report. There was quite a typical example here in the UK a couple of days ago when a Scottish artist died from antrhrax poisoning. It headed up newspapers and news programmes because of course this is exciting and scary. But you have to read further to find out it was because he handled animal skins to make his artworks - so the panicked tone of the headlines are not justified. Is it worth reporting? Absolutely, but the rush to sex up news stories leads to audiences being duped - especially worrying as it seems to me that most people never actually read articles, just the headlines or the start of the news, so wrong impressions are created.

I think what davidhare says about nothing being made of the musicians past is extremely important and also factors into a situation where people 'create' rather than 'report' the news. Was it vested interests, being in with the right crowd and having the right friends, public support (perhaps created through the continued reporting of concerts and appearences etc when they could have downplayed their presence), or the feeling that the people 'allowed to get away with' their involvement could do so because they were worth something to others?

Thinking this way is a negative fuss created because the person reported negatively is hated by journalists or that there is more mileage to be made out of destroying a person through bad reporting?

Another thing reported here recently is how soldiers shot for cowardice during World War I were finally being pardoned. It goes to show that there are a lot of factors more to do with groups needing to be protected and their judgements officially approved of that prevent even the most basic dignities being provided. Now that almost everyone with close links to the people involved or a vested interest in the subject is dead some sanity can prevail and a correct decision made.

I was thinking of that documentary film Overnight - I would agree that Troy Duffy was arrogant and let the power of getting to make a film go to his head, but the biggest lesson I learnt out of the whole film was to never piss off the people doing your making of documentary! Troy Duffy might not have been the nicest person and a terrible filmmaker, but the people who made, marketed and did interview shows to destroy him, people who had started off as friends, showed how cruel and vindicitive they could be as well. I could perhaps see how unfortunate Duffy was in not being able to tell the difference between good and bad friends.

Of course what's most exciting - balanced views or an excited focus on the event rather than the context? An insane power-gone-to-his-head filmmaker, a somewhat deluded and seemingly self destructive actor shouting racial slurs at a cop, a pop singer caught cottaging in toilets by an undercover cop, an author admitting he was in the SS. All happened, all are well worth reporting, but I think the media need to much more focus on intelligent reporting that discusses the issues without creating new ones. And also be prepared to say "we're not sure" and get experts in to talk about particular things, rather than being so damn superior and handing out final moral judgements on every subject they report on.