"The Edukators" (Language - German) (2004) - Movie Review

Social and financial divisions are often predominant and argued thing which essentially forms the bottom line for any issue. People take many forms to voice their opinion for and against it. Some take violence; some take non-violence while some take the path of what Jan (Daniel Brühl) and Peter (Stipe Erceg) do in this film. Jan lives and breathes against capitalism. Peter appears to be a casual guy who seems to be partially doing what they do for fun and also for the cause of it. Jule (Julie Jentsch) is Peter’s girl friend who has been directly affected by a rich person. The film is how these characters emotionally get involve while in the process of discovering their own philosophies through the opposite side of theirs.

This is a film which is thoroughly entertaining. Yet they do not plunge into the normal thrilling moments any movie of this kind would lead to. They do take the natural path of triangle love story as expected in the midst of all these clashes of opinions. But how they portray is something to be watched. I am mentioning this even before any other things due to the fact that this is a very thin line to walk upon and they do it admirably well. This is a movie for and against capitalism. It focuses on the whole structure of the world designed unfairly. It is true that most of the product is done in remote parts of a country wherein a child is working as a cheap labour fighting for a decent living. It is also true that there are capitalists who directly or indirectly involve in those. What these three youths forget to focus is the consumer seems to be everyone. Sometimes people take a path like this to escape their own misery. Or they want some one to be blamed and they feel content in these actions. But these are also triggered by their instincts too which is visible in how Jan finds every conversation to route back to this. He is the man of principles. He wants to protest but do not want it to be violence. But it should also be aggressive and chaotic. So they ride the lightning. They carefully analyze and select a villa. Then they break in, but they do not steal anything. They paint their chaotic protest. They leave their signature with trade mark phrases. Jan feels this is an action which would instigate the people who are glued to TV. What he does not understand is that there is enormous opportunity using the same media. He believes it is masked by the capitalists too. Jan is the youth of ambition but some where gets lost in his belief and actions.

Peter is the lightest character of all who speaks seriously when he needs to. He wants to have an average life style but still wants to contribute to the cause. Unlike Jan, he believes there needs to be some casual approach but still carry out the process. He wants to relax and hence has a girl friend while Jan does not. He trusts his friend more than anything and loves his girl friend the same. Among these two characters Jule is the one who becomes the cause for a more uproarious plot event. She is in deep debt due to an accident with a rich man whose car got totaled. She is paying the high priced car with her low priced income. While she deeply believes that the person is entitled the money, Jan argues that it is sheer petty cash for him who should consider it negligent and pardon her. In these casual serious talks emerges love. We think this is one another story which becomes stereotyped but it takes a deep dive. I will not reveal the exact happenings but it needs to be watched to experience the thrill they bring out of a normal camera work.


There is a deep agenda in the film. It seems to take sides at various instances but stays neutral. While the first half deals with the argument of Jan, the second half is dedicated on how it could totally be perceived in a different direction. The movie tends to bring in these two opposite social forces together over a dinner table conversation. It tries to sort out things in between them and accept the reality. The reality of course is what the viewers define. The definition depends on what we look as possible and convenient. This is something unique from a film. It makes us to take sides at different ends but when the movie is over, we are standing where we were. But as the film says, “The Best Ideas Survive”. The idea of seeing the both worlds of opposites and realizing that all it needs is a communication. The end maybe negative but entertaining. It might seem the movie did not finish on right conscience and note. But it never promised it. That is clever about this screenplay. Any film which discusses serious issues like this might not give answers but make us mould ourselves to believe in one part. Here they oscillate us in both the direction and leave the end for entertainment. They also leave something solidly stated as well. They say that the characters may change or not. They may change their beliefs or deceive each other but end of day it is what they are. But it does not stop us from changing.