lukerisher Robby Muller is the Cinematographer for the 1976 movie "Kings Of The Road" Robby shows himself as a stylistic and unique film maker. This movie is not only in German, but otherwise very heavily based on emotional concept instead of a hard, concrete story line. The dialogue is a minimum, the shots tell the story, the theme are vague and abstract. At it's core the movie is looking at two characters, one is a projector repairman and the other a depressed man who recently divorced his wife. The two characters meet and travel together and form a relationship as one deal with depression and both simply live as humans. The elements of film and cinematography the Muller used were essential in making this story. In this film one of the most interesting things is the use of cinematic motifs. Similar shots and themes were repeated throughout the film. This created the effect of themes in the story being re enforced and portraying the same theme gave emotional significance to the moment. Because so much of the film is based on non dialogue or explicit story, but more based on emotional elements this way of using similar shots to link emotions to the views understanding of the story was extremely effective. For example one cinematic theme that Muller uses is a specific shot of the truck door with a shaving brush and shaving cream propped on it, when one of the characters opens the door the shaving setup falls. This shot is repeated several times throughout the film and in every scene it's used, it's used to show the characters starting a part of their journey. It's used when they first meet, used when one leave, used when they meet a different character. It's significance is clear as a gateway shot and the view understands this and associates this shots with a new leg of the story. The recurring shots help develop the viewers association build the story which is essential because the story is hard to grasp for the most part. One of the most unique characteristics of the film is the choice to make it black and white. The film was stylized with this black and white effect and also how this black and white effect affected the shadows and other lighting elements as well. The use reinforced the films overall themes of dealing with human depression. The black and white was a cleaner way to expose the humanness of the story. The lack of color was more effective for telling this story dealing with depression. The side effect of the black and white was that it created higher contrast and deeper shadows which made the overall scene more depressing in part. Similarly much of the film was shot at darker times of the day and night. The lighting was either natural or low lit industrial areas. When inside the scene most likely had a signal lamp or light on and the characters were partially lit. When outside the scene was mostly sunlit and the shot was wide, this was used to invoke a different theme of the largeness of the world in contrast with the minuscule characters. The lighting in the film matched the themes and message of the film overall. Through camera work Muller used a collection of three or four shot throughout the majority of the movie. These include a moving medium shot of the character, widescreen full shot of the landscape (especially including the truck), and a close up static shot of a character's face. These shots are recurring and the way they are used and inter-layer shows a lot about the themes of the movie. In a film dealing with human existence and a mixture of human depression and hope the use of the wide shots and the close ups create the big picture view contrasted with intimate human realities. The moving shots show the environment around them. For example because of the lack of dialogue and story line one of the most character developing moments in the film is the projector repairman buying a hot dog and coke and walking back to the van. In the shot choices we see the extreme view of the world, intimate view of the individuals, and the moving shots of how they interact with the world. These shots basically narrate the story more than any other element. Overall the film is very interesting. The film is stripped of many things such as color, dialogue, and an action packed story line, as a result, the cinematography shows through clearly and noticeably. The majority of the storytelling is told through cinematographic elements and Robby Muller utilizes them well to tell a fairly abstract story.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) This is already the second time I watched Wim Wenders' "Im Lauf der Zeit" or "Kings of the Road" and even if I did not hate it as much as I did during the first watch, I still find it really underwhelming and nowhere near Wenders' best. I like "Wings of Desire" and "Alice in the Cities" a lot more. This 40-year-old film (made in 1976) we have here is a film is a two-man show basically from start to finish and quite a challenge for lead actors Rüdiger Vogler and Hanns Zischler as the film runs for almost three hours. Wenders made color films before and after, but here he made the creative choice of returning to black-and-white. This is the story of a friendship between two men as they spend together a whole lot of time on the road. One of them, a mechanic who does lots of repair work in theaters, is played by Vogler, while the other (Zischler) is a man who just turned single again after the relationship with his wife ended. I did not care for these two as much as I hoped I would. I like Vogler as an actor most of the time, but here he gave off a really unlikable vibe on many occasions and this was a huge problem as it certainly was not intended. Vogler's character was not half as interesting as he should have been with his background. Admittedly, the short performance of Marquard Bohm stayed more memorable to me, even if Wenders' attempt to show things could be way worse about wife struggles feels pretty clumsy. Lisa Kreuzer has a very small role only and as she is third in the credits, it shows how much the film is really only about the two main characters. She also adds very little as a short-time love interest to Vogler's character. The struggles of the latter were also really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I personally enjoyed seeing Rudolf Schündler in here as I think he is by far the best thing about the Lümmel franchise, even if his character here is of course entirely different. As a whole, it is a film that is as slow as it gets and this is not necessarily a problem, can even be an advantage if the slowness still brings up interesting characters and elaborates profoundly on them. But I never developed interest in the duo here or even felt involved with their story and I do not think this is my fault, but the fault of writing characters that impossibly can carry this film, especially with this runtime. Still, with the whole atmosphere and setting of this road movie I am not surprised it received some awards attention, actually less than I expected. But I am very much surprised by this film's rating on IMDb as I think it is one of Wenders' weakest works from what I have seen so far and I don't think it has aged well at all. Also the parts about sexuality/masturbation add very little except cheap thrills. I give it a thumbs-down. Not recommended.

Tom Gooderson-A'Court Bruno (Rudiger Vogler) is a Cinema projector repair man who travels from town to town along the West and East German border repairing old cinema projectors. One day while shaving by the side of a road, a man drives his car at high speed into a lake, gets out and walks over to Bruno. Bruno, not knowing what else to do laughs at the man and offers him some clean clothes. The man, Robert (Hanns Zischler) hitchhikes with Bruno from town to town beginning a strange and often uneasy friendship.The film has several themes which jump out at you and are present throughout. The first is a love of cinema and anger at what has become of the small German cinema. Most of the cinemas that Bruno visits are either badly run, have been turned into porn theatres or are closed altogether. This is director Wim Wenders way of showing viewers what is happening to small cinemas. It is a problem which over thirty years later is still present in my own country. Occasionally Bruno will come across a small, old theatre run by an ex Nazi that is run with care and dedication. A place where old, noisy machines are used by artisan projectionists to show the great classics of the 50s and 60s but generally he deals with people who have no interest in film or it's proper projection. This film is very much a love letter to film.A second theme is that of loneliness. Both men are incredibly lonely. Robert's half hearted suicide attempt and constant depression is due to his loneliness after his wife has left him while Bruno spends his life on the road, in an old van, with no time for any love or affection from a woman. For large swathes of the film nothing is said but much is learned through glances and slight comments. It isn't until over an hour in that we discover what the characters names are and it is about two days after travelling together that the two men actually reveal their names. Both are used to silent existences. In one telling scene, Robert confronts his father about never being allowed to speak and we gain insight into why he is so silent.The third and final central theme is the Americanisation of Germany. This is a theme of the entire second half of the twentieth century but obviously something that affected West Germany in a large way. When talking about American music Bruno states that "The Yanks have colonized our subconscious". Although filmed and set in the mid 1970s it is still obvious that the Second World War is in the back of everyone's minds. Bruno lost his father to it, the elderly people were party members and the Americans still have a say in the daily lives of Germans who like Bruno and Robert were possibly not even born in 1945. There is a sense that the men and Germany as a whole have been castrated by American 'imperialism' and that is one of the factors in their introverted and non communicative personalities.A visual metaphor that Wenders uses is a railway. For much of the film, the men are seen to drive parallel to railways as though to indicate that they are remaining with the status quo and nothing is changing in their lives. In one telling scene, Robert has to cross the line to confront his father and in another he stands very close to it as a train passes, almost as if he is desperate to cross but can't quite manage it. It is as if the line is a barrier between their current selves and what they could be. This is confirmed in the closing scene in which the two men part company.Shot in black and white the film has the kind of hyper realism of Martin Scorsese's contemporary films. Wim Wenders goes a step further though and is not afraid to show the audience every part of a person's life. In one early scene Bruno is seen parking his van/home near a beach, walking on to the beach, squatting and defecating. The faeces are actually visible leaving his body. The scene is unexpected and shocking but makes you realise that you are seeing every part of this person's life and that nothing is being left out. In later scenes a cinema projectionist is seen to be masturbating, again showing the entire act and Robert is filmed urinating, once again hiding nothing. This hyper realism was unexpected and is responsible for the film's '18' Certificate in the UK. Was it necessary? No. But it let the audience know that nothing was being hidden from them.The plot itself is very slow and nothing much happens for a long time. It is the lack of communication that drives the tension rather than car chases or explosions etc. You almost want to reach into the film and start a conversation. The film also feels older than it is in part due to the black and white but also because the rural Germany in which the protagonists are driving through feels unchanged from before the war. The landscape of the towns reminded me of rural Slovakia, a country which today feels somewhat more 'backward' and less developed than Germany.The acting is very realistic and the script also adds to the realism. Wenders' shooting technique is visually arresting but the film is nearly three hours long and feels longer. It's a film that I'm glad I watched and would recommend to hardcore cineaste but a lot of people will find the film boring. I enjoyed it but could have done with an hour less of it.www.attheback.blogspot.com

bobhartshorn Considering the length and weight of his oeuvre, my exposure to the cinema of Wim Wenders is a limited one to say the least. This inexperience stems not from a lack of viewing opportunities, but an apprehension instilled in me after a succession of run-ins with some of his lesser achievements, such as the patience testing 'Until The End Of The World' and 'Faraway, So Close'. It was with a thick air of trepidation then, that I slipped the German auteur's 1976 opus 'Kings of the Road' into the DVD tray and positioned myself nervously on the couch in preparation for a potential 176 minute assault of self-indulgent monotony. I watched the first hour beneath a cloud of ambivalence as the monochrome images and sparse dialogue crawled by at tortoise speed with any blip of a detectable plot yet to appear on the radar.The longer it went on however, the more snugly it began to slip under my skin, and the saga of Bruno Winter (Rudiger Vogler) - a truck-driving mechanic travelling across Germany to fix broken down projectors in dusty old picture houses - and Robert Lander (Hanns Zischler) - a depressed hitchhiker with a failed marriage behind him - began to gracefully reel me in from the waters of uncertainty and onto the shores for a warm embrace. At journey's end, my mood was a gleeful mix of satisfaction and gratification: the best part of three hours in these charming men's company had proved very rewarding indeed.Bruno and Robert's paths cross via the latter's soggy, blackly comic suicide attempt, leading them down the long & winding road of decaying movie theatres, lonely hearts, unforgettable black & white images and a stunning soundtrack. And without really trying too hard, KOTR ends up as a far more worthy lament to the good old days of film-making than anything to be found in the pre-digested pap of 'Cinema Paradiso'.This is beautifully illustrated both in the prologue (where Bruno bends his ear to an elder statesman bemoaning the passing of cinema's golden age) and a sequence in which our heroes manfully attempt to restore a matinée viewing gone awry whilst silhouetted behind the movie screen of a theatre full of impatient school children. The two men spontaneously burst into a Chaplinesque slapstick routine to the delight of their captive audience and end their performance in a laughing, gasping heap on the floor. They're rudely awakened by a hangman's style noose swinging ominously between them. For better or worse, things will change. A very poignant moment considering today's climate of declining bums-on-seats in the cinema.Another thing that jumped out at me, were the separate occasions in which Bruno and Robert cast their eyes over the front-page headlines of the daily newspapers; "Terror attack in Jerusalem" and "1 million unemployed" are the type-faces that flash momentarily on the screen, giving both men a firm tap on the shoulder as a reminder of the big-bad-world they've left behind. Blank facial expressions give nothing away as to what either man is thinking and Wenders cuts to the next scene before there's any time to ponder the effects these news stories might have on the decisions concerning their chosen lifestyle. Whatever the case, it resonates loudly with the state of our own current affairs demonstrating at once, that nothing really changes, and what a fascinating, timeless work of art KOTR truly is.All of these things might sound portentous and heavy handed, but Wenders never forces the issues, takes sides, or labours the point, instead opting for a relaxed narrative where everything unravels in its own time in a hands off, matter-of-fact fashion, leaving us with an elegiac, me-dative affair blessed from top to bottom with great, understated writing and performances.Fans and critics alike seem to agree that the spare dialogue interaction between the protagonists signifies the difficulty of communication and self-expression that can lead to the breakup of a relationship, resulting in physical violence. This reading of the subtext is certainly not without merit, but as far as the central characters are concerned, I'd have to say I think it's a much lighter movie than that.Bruno & Robert's nods, smiles and casual shrugs are all part of a silent language and mutual understanding that highlights their free-spiriting nature and genuine feel and affection for each other. There is no need for them to spout endless superlatives re the might of the road, or posture existentially on the magnitude of the landscapes, when they know (more likely than not) that they're both thinking the same thing. Oh sure, they might bicker now and again, endure sadness and have the occasional strop, but so does everyone else on the planet. Everyone else likes to laugh from time to time too, so when the buck finally does stop (after an insipid, mirth-inducing 'punch-up') they go their separate ways with a smile and cheer of goodwill for each other. What could be sweeter than that? I'm not the first (and will surely not be the last) to say that one could go on longer than the film itself hammering out endless analysis on its incidental delights, sensitivity, craftsmanship etc , so I'll sign off by saying that Wenders' masterful epic will certainly not be for everyone, but was most definitely for me. It's quite possible I'll still be on my guard when it comes to checking out his other titles (although I'm super-keen to see the first two parts of this trilogy – 'Alice in the Cities' & 'The Wrong Move'), but when the mood takes me again, I'll be more than happy to hitch another ride on board The Winter & Lander Express. When it comes to KOTR, Wim Wenders is the REAL 'King of the World'!