# Talk:Wings of Desire

The article was just edited to read "...the movie before then [near the end] is filmed in a sepia tinted monochrome, except for brief moments when Damiel is watching Marion."  I remember other parts that were color.  Wasn't it in color anytime it wasn't an angel's POV?  (John User:Jwy talk) 05:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I realise this topic is seven seventeen years old, but it raises the question of whether the film is sepia-toned or not. The Criterion Collection's version definitely is, but the general-issue blu-ray seems to be black and white. This article, from the BFI no less, talks about how the cinematographer "used a silk stocking as a filter for his textured, sepia-tinged black-and-white imagery, depicting the angels’ muted vision of the world", but the screengrabs don't look sepia. NB I have the impression that the silk stocking would have been used as a diffusion filter, not to give the image a sepia cast (which wouldn't work anyway). Is it mentioned in any of the commentary tracks? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And confusingly DVDBeaver's grabs from the actual Criterion disc are stark monochrome. This article implies that the sepia tone was an artefact of the film's multi-generational transfer to colour film stock, but it's not authoritative enough to say either way. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Looking for the Potsdamer Platz in an open field".. the text should make it clearer that this "open field" IS actually the Potsdamer Platz (Potsdam Square). The site was/is a symbol of how nearly all of the densely populated big cities of Germany, typical of Europe, were mostly deformed into something much more empty and bleak by carpet bombing and in this special case by the division of the country. The old man's disbelief that this is supposed to be that once lively place is all too familiar for Germans who have made the effort to search for old photos of what is often suburban looking or even completely abandoned places to the present day. The movie does a very good job of displaying the scars of WW2, the space where the circus was staying is also definitely a former bomb site as historically, German cities were as dense as downtown London or Paris.

1987/2003 DVD ISBN 0-7928-5616-3 UPC 2761688745 widescreen 2hrs 8mins
mostly monochrome, some color; PG-13, Region 1
original German/English sound, English, French, Spanish sub-titles
extras - Commentary by Wenders and Falk, making-of, deleted scenes
69.87.193.125 15:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
4K Restored Original: @Ribbet32: Thank you for your revision of my recent addition to this page -- it's only one of a handful of edits i've made at WP, and i definitely appreciate your help.  Regarding your change of "performed a digital restoration" to "produced a digital restoration", when i was making the edit, the first word that occurred to me was also "produced" but i decided to use "performed" instead for two reasons. First, "produced" seemed like it could be confused with the Producer or Production (company) film making roles, as opposed to the technical work of creating the new version of the film. Second, the group that did the work used "perform" here. What do you think? Johanvz (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Copying more than a few words is discouraged as close paraphrasing. Also, "Produce: to compose, create, or bring out by intellectual or physical effort" Ribbet32 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this meets the definition of "Close Paraphrasing" that you have cited.  The sentence at Wim Wenders Stiftung site is "The Wim Wenders Foundation has performed an extensive process of digital visual and audio restoration of the film, to be made available in 4K and Dolby 5.1 by spring 2018."  Additionally, the "Close Paraphrasing" guidance also indicates it's acceptable with proper citations.  Perhaps this could be addressed by moving the first citation in-line? I am familiar with the more common definition and use of the word "produce" and i agree this particular definition accurately describes the work that was carried out.  However, the first point i was raising in my previous comment is that there is a specific use of the word "produce" related to film: To sponsor and present (a motion picture, etc) to an audience or to the public. As such, the use of the verb "produce" in this context is unclear as to which meaning is intended.  In other words, does it mean the Wim Wenders Foundation did the technical work of the restoration, or does it mean that the Wim Wenders Foundation *funded* the work (that might have been done by someone else) and then presented the film?  The latter interpretation would appear to be partially incorrect, as the same URL states: The project is being funded by Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg and the FFA, and by the French CNC.  In my opinion, following their word choice of "performed" seems clearer, as it eliminates the ambiguity and potential confusion. "Created" was another possibility that came to mind, but it seems incongruous or awkward when the object is "restoration." Perhaps it's best to use the same verb that the people who did the work used to describe their activity? Johanvz (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add to the "reception" section to include a less glowing review of the movie from the New York Times, but for some reason my addition was lost when I submitted it (just took me to a blank version of the edit window; I suspect a recent upgrade to by browser is causing problems). Anyway, if someone wants to add the info, you can find the full text of the 1988 Janet Maslin review on Google Books which calls the film his most ambitious yet, but "damagingly overloaded" with "a relentlessness to the direction" that turns the "film's fundamental airiness ... very heavy indeed." -Miskaton (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting side note: the review, though negative, is included in the (linked to above) NYT collected list of the 1,000 greatest films of all time. Go figure. -Miskaton (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article translates "Der Himmel über Berlin" as "The Sky over Berlin", but equally accurate translations would be "The Heaven Over Berlin", "Heaven Over Berlin" or "The Heavens Over Berlin".  Given that the word "Himmel" has a double-meaning in German (sky/paradise) and the word Heaven(s) has exactly the same double-meaning in English - whereas "Sky" has only a single meaning - and also given the subject matter (angels), it seems that "Heaven(s)" might be a better translation.  Has "Sky" been used because the director has indicated that this was his intention, rather than "Heaven"?   86.7.30.217 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any other opinions, and having noticed that the article previously translated the title as "The Heavens Over Berlin", but was changed by a "one-shot" editor, I've reverted that edit.  86.7.30.217 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Sky Over Berlin is almost uniformly used in English translation, and quick Google of both translation reflect this fact - so, at least, we should use both and include them into lede, in the first sentence, where literal translation template is used.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Really "over"? Why not "above"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.203.182.133 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is in the Category "French Films" and part of "WikiProject France" - other than one French-German actress, what's French about it?   86.7.30.217 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the two producers was Anatole Dauman, and the lead section calls it a "French and German co-production". Also, French is listed as one of the languages in the sidebar, but along with many others, so I'm not sure what the significance of that is. The German article is less generous; listing German, English and French as the "original languages". English probably refers to Peter Falk's dialogues, but I'm not sure what French refers to. — Sebastian 23:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for the film, and this page both list "Argos Films" as one of the producing companies. fr:Argos_Films appears to be a French company. The Cinematographer, Henri_Alekan, was also French. Johanvz (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The article currently lists German, English, French, Turkish, Hebrew, and Spanish as its languages and sorts itself in the corresponding categories. What's the significance of that? — Sebastian 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This Guardian Article (2022) gives a very good impression of the reception of the film, up to date. The reason seems be the restoration of the film. 
--Ai24 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)