The Young Karl Marx (2017) User Reviews

It is what it is; bringing the young Marx to life though people wanting more may be disappointed

[williammjeffery · 8/10 · 1 July 2017]

'A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism'. These are the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto which ironically is the film's conclusion. We learn that the purpose of the opening paragraph in the manifesto was to be simple and straight to the point, while saying so much. That's what this film is and what it did so well, draw the viewer into a simple world of major importance and complexity. "Substance, but no style!" Is what I heard people say as they left the cinema. Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree...well, fully. Indeed the film had its flaws and yes, it lacked urgency to go read Marxism but what we did get was the man himself and his 'world'. The title using 'young' is realistic; a man most known for the 'birth' of communism is the premise of the film and it was super compelling. This film could have had more style sure, but what is style if there is no substance. Communism has a collaborative process so it was great to see its collaborative side through a fantastic supporting cast ushered by an intelligent screenplay, though the film may be overwhelming for some with its excessive discussion of 'Marxist' philosophy. You never see Marx in a room by himself which ignores an independent or 'hero' image that he may be associated with because he was honestly a family man who liked to chat and have a good laugh. A family man, with the help of his friends, produced the product (The Communist Manifesto) that the film ends with in its final scene and is ultimately what the film is about.

An introduction into Marx' life (and Engels')

[redpaperweight · 8/10 · 4 November 2017]

The movie does a good job at a general overview of Marx'process in becoming the person he was, together with his legacy.

It shows the reader how the ideas of both Marx and Engels are not some farts in the wind but indeed theoretical and even genius. They were highly educated intellectuals, which is well communicated. Marx as a critic of everything is profoundly integrated. The same goes for the friendship between them, how deep it was and how it developed: well communicated. While Marx was not as poor as the proletariat, he indeed struggled to survive and provide for his family. Something that is also shown properly. His relationship with Jenny, however, is mostly overlooked and only abstract, his kids are nearly completely left out of the picture.

The ideas of Engels and Marx that are portrayed are only basic, but formulated on a level not so basic...their intellect is basically communicated too well. This movie has great potential to spread their ideas and to introduce new people to the idea of Communism, it does however take some knowledge to understand the concepts thrown around. As such the movie has failed in the way that it only deals with the top layer of their ideas but fails to clarify them clearly. Therefore it only has potential.

Clothing style and the used shots and settings seem very realistic, the atmosphere feels right. The feeling of the Communist specter haunting Europe is kind of missing for the lack of any real footage of revolts/uprisings. The struggle should have been visualized.

The movie is about the young Karl Marx (and Engels I would add, he is there for the most part, an intrinsic part of Marx'life), as such it is an introduction into his life. The foundation upon which his book 'Capital' has been build. Following this summary, the movie itself is also an introduction and foundation upon which could be build. With more knowledge of their work, and perhaps a better understanding as to enhance clarification, its potential could be multiplied.

Good but necessarily incomplete

[freeds · 6/10 · 7 March 2018]

Peck's film follows appealingly prickly young Marx and Engels from their early insistence on the hard truths of class-conflict against the utopian socialists of their day, to the founding of the first workers' international with a program of anti-capitalist struggle, the Communist Manifesto. Only a profit-system triumphalist would resist cheering them on along with the galvanized, wretched workers of 1848. The contrasting constraints on their activist mates, the high-born Jenny Marx and worker Mary Burns, raise still-pressing issues, and the situation of Engels, the revolutionary intellectual who must finance the cause by working for the enemy, may resonate with professionals today.

But the movie, concluding with a montage of wars and protests churned up by the profit system in the present, feels frustrating and incomplete - inevitably so. It doesn't show the collective hero of Marx and Engels' vision, the world working class. This class, that produces all, is now ever more interlinked and technically advanced. But its political development hasn't caught up with material conditions that never existed in previous challenges to capitalism. The decisive fight against the old system for humanity's future has yet to be waged, its film still to be made. R. Freed

nope

[treywillwest · 7/10 · 29 September 2018]

Given my interests, it would be very difficult for me not to have enjoyed this film, so I may not be the most neutral judge of its merit. I would say that this is a good biopic, though also the least interesting film I've seen by director Raul Peck. If Hollywood were to make a biopic of Marx and Engels, which it would never do, it would probably look a bit like this: good set-pieces, solid acting. There's a bit too much focus on the two men's love lives. (We need out watershed thinkers to be sexy!) As in almost any biopic of a creative person, there are some ham-fisted moments that attempt to depict major moments in the subject's creative development, including a rather laugh inducing one concerning the most famous quote from the Thesis on Feuerbach. On that note, the way in which it seems to me that this does stray from a Hollywood treatment is its attempt to, superficially at least, explicate some of Marx's early philosophy.

before the grey

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 23 February 2018]

Greetings again from the darkness. When the name Karl Marx comes up, most of us recall that iconic photo of the older gentleman with the large grey beard. As with all older gents, they were once young men, and that's the focus of this film from writer/director Raoul Peck and co-writer Pascal Bonitzer.

The story kicks off in 1843 when young Marx was the editor of "Rheinische Zeitung" and carries us through the 1848 publication of "The Communist Manifesto". We progress chronologically through Paris, Brussels and London and witness how Marx's personal life and ideological mission intertwined, leading ultimately to the birth of Communism.

August Diehl (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays Karl Marx and Stefan Konarske plays Friedrich Engels. Their mutual admiration brought them together and their commitment, along with the support of their wives Jenny Marx (Vicky Krieps, PHANTOM THREAD) and Mary Burns (Hannah Steele), carried them through and cemented their legacies.

With the endless string of debates and discussion, and the constant struggle with poverty for Marx and his family, the film at times seems repetitive and tedious. It does, however, succeed in making comprehensible the timeline and constant struggle to continue the fight. The process of societal-changing writing is not simple, and we see the different approaches taken by Marx and the upper-crust rebel Engels. The obvious battle between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat remains at the forefront, but we also witness the painstaking networking and research that goes into the work. The two gentlemen share a drink over this toast: "to minds that truly think".

Today, many in their 20's, are focused on which direction to swipe, yet at the same age, Marx and Engels were committed to changing the world. The ideals and issues that so dominated their writings (and led to revolution) are every bit as relevant today. We no longer use the terms Bourgeoisie or Proletariat, but class distinction continues to be debated as a source of many global issues - both social and economic. Director Peck (Oscar nominated for last year's I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO) uses Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" over the closing credits montage of revolutions and historic turning points to ensure we understand that rebellions and convictions do still exist.

Don't really understand the point of this film

[victoriavaradi-47267 · 6/10 · 29 November 2017]

I don't think that the film was terrible. It had decent cinematography, music, acting. I really enjoyed listening to so many different languages in the same film. It is watchable once, especially if somebody is interested in this topic and period of history.

But I think it lacked any artistic vision or imagination, depth, or entertainment. I don't know if it was because the filmmakers wanted to stay very true to the historical facts (which would be understandable), but watching the film felt a little bit like listening to a very basic two-hour lecture about Marx and his work.

The plot fell quite flat, without twists, without changes or even a real climax. (I guess Engels' speech in the end was supposed to be the climax of the film, but I only came to that conclusion after thinking about it for a while, since it didn't have too much emotional impact.) In the beginning, Marx works on articles and talks about his theories, after he meets Engels, they work on articles and talk about their theories with each other and others, finally, in the end, they still write articles, and talk about theories. So basically they do the same things and talk about the same things. Marx is having financial problems and has a loving wife, Engels doesn't have financial problems, and has a supporting girlfriend/wife throughout the whole movie. So their circumstances, their private lives do not change too much either. It is great for them, but not so great for the viewers. (Although I am sure that in reality they had quite a bit of drama in their lives, like Engels going against his father, their marriages, the effects of the financial problems, the eviction from France etc.) The glimpse we get into their private lives in a way feels too much, since it is portrayed in a rather uninteresting way, but it's too few to get to know them on a more "personal" level. It still feels like we see two characters who just walked out of the pages of a history book, as opposed to real living people with complex lives and feelings. If you want to know more about Marx, as a young guy, as a person I think this film doesn't do the job. If you want to know more about his work, or this part of history, you are better off reading a book, if you want to be entertained, than maybe it's also not the film for you.

From a different point of view, for a commercial film, it's not really entertaining enough, for an art film, it doesn't have a point of view, and as a biographical film, it's probably not detailed enough.

I was skeptical, but I got convinced

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 3 March 2017]

"Le jeune Karl Marx" is a co-production between France, Germany and Belgium that resulted in a German-language movie with some parts in French and English too because of the actors' nationalities, but also because of the countries where the film plays. It runs for almost two hours and as the title already says it focuses on the younger years of German philosopher Karl Marx. The director is Raoul Peck and he is also one of the writers here. I guess his origin and native language is also the main reason (just like other writers' nationalities) why this film is listed in the French language here on IMDb. Peck himself was just nominated for the first time for an Oscar in the documentary category (for a pretty controversial movie) after a filmmaking career of almost 35 years now and this will probably get his future works more attention, maybe also in Hollywood. But now let us take a look at this one here. The cast includes some names that German film buffs will probably recognize, but not too many either, such as Diehl and Scheer. Even Diehl's co-lead Konarske was pretty unknown to me. But he did his job well and held his own nicely next to Diehl, who certainly gives the most commanding performance in the film. It is not a coincidence that this film's name is "The young Karl Marx" and not "The Young Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels".

I have really liked Diehl for a long time now and it's nice to see him add another impressive performance to his body of work. He has been in some strong German films, but also appeared in Hollywood stuff. It is a bit sad that he has not managed yet to get beyond playing Angelina Jolie's character's husband or a Nazi commander in a one-scene performance in a Tarantino movie, even if he managed to be somewhat memorable in these parts too. He seems so natural at what he does and always disappears in character. Makes me a bit sad to see far more limited actors like Schweiger, Brühl, Schweighöfer, maybe even Waltz, get much more attention in Hollywood. But as long as Diehl keeps making films like this one here as well in the future, it's all good. I personally must say that 19th century politics never really interested me at all, back from my school days, but Peck and Diehl and the rest made it not only very watchable, but pretty exciting and interesting. The key to success here may be that the focus was really on the two central characters and their lives (private and public), and did not try oh so hard to make a political impact and be really important and relevant, i.e. full of himself. It is all about the simplicity of a strong story well-told as Frances McDormand said so fittingly. The only reason why I did not give it an even higher rating is probably that I always cared for for 20th century politics, but I learned a lot while watching this one here and that is certainly a strong achievement. The film also never drags during its almost two hours. Any criticisms really? Not that much. I found the song of the closing credits and the scenes not a good choice as the film should have been staying in the 19th century and it did not really fit. Jumping ahead a century in time roughly was too much, even if the scenes of course had a lot to do with communism. As a whole, a pretty good work and everybody who knows and cares about 19th century politics and communism must see it.

Karl Marx, his wife Jenny, Frederick Engels and his wife Mary and their fight against the horrors of early industrial capitalism.

[eurvater-908-159430 · 9/10 · 2 November 2017]

Six years ago I stumbled upon a Charlie Rose interview with author Mary Gabriel, a 2011 National Book Award finalist for her Love and Capital: Karl and Jenny Marx and the Birth of a Revolution. Intrigued, I ordered Gabriel's book. By the time I finished Love and Capital I was, as the British say, "gob smacked." What puzzled and surprised me, as a filmmaker, was that this turbulent epic, utterly engrossing and deeply romantic, had attracted so little attention. Why had this story not made it to the big screen, or materialized into a blockbuster television series? Is the name Karl Marx still so anathema? Then, last Sunday, a new film titled The Young Karl Marx (Le Jeune Karl Marx) which premiered at the 2017 Berlin International Film Festival, suddenly found its way to the Amherst Cinema.

In spite of some tepid reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, curiosity lured me to the screening. I have no regrets: The Young Karl Marx (YKM) is a rare and unusual film—beautifully-acted by a stellar cast, craftily scripted, and heavily focused on political content and character. Here is how Peter Bradshaw reviewed it in the Guardian/UK: "Raoul Peck is the Haitian film-maker who has an Oscar nomination this year with his James Baldwin documentary I Am Not Your Negro. Now he comes to Berlin with this sinewy and intensely focused, uncompromisingly cerebral period drama…about the birth of communism in the mid-19th century. It gives you a real sense of what radical politics was about: talk. There is talk, talk and more talk. It should be dull, but it isn't. Somehow the spectacle of fiercely angry people talking about ideas becomes absorbing and even gripping."

At the film's center is its title character, played brilliantly by August Diehl. Bradshaw describes Diehl's Marx as "ragged, fierce with indignation and poverty, addicted to cheap cigars, spoiling for an argument and a fight." This is the notoriously nasty side of the Marx persona. But as Gabriel's book, and many other biographies reveal, Marx's character is fascinatingly complex. I have often tried to imagine what Marx must have been like, but been unable to wrap my brain around his multi-sided character. Exploring the complexities of Marx, the man, is perhaps the film's greatest strength.

For starters, Marx was viewed by his contemporaries as smart as a whip. Moses Hess, a socialist and early Zionist, provides this over-the- top description to his friends of 24-year old Marx: "…you can look forward to meeting the greatest, perhaps the only real philosopher now living. …He combines a biting wit with deeply serious philosophical thinking. Imagine Rousseau, Voltaire, Holbach, Lessing, Heine and Hegel united in one person, I say united, not lumped together — and you have Dr. Marx." Edmund Wilson described Marx as the greatest satirist since Jonathan Swift.

But he was also a pussy cat: Wilhelm Liebknecht, who was constantly in the household during the 1850s, remembered Marx as "the most tender father: one must have seen Marx with his children to obtain a complete notion of the depths of sentiment and the childlike nature of this hero of Wissenschaft (academic pursuit). In his free minutes, or while strolling, he brought them along, played the wildest and most lively games with them— in short he was a child among children. "Children should educate their parents," said Marx, and lived up to the dictum by keeping in step with the reading, entering the fantasy life and adjusting his views to meet the religious scruples of his engaging youngest daughter, Tussy. Marx tells her the story of the Passion —"the carpenter whom the rich men killed," adding that much can be forgiven Christianity because it has taught the adoration of the child.

Because YKM dramatizes only a short five year period in Marx's life (1842 to 1847) a great deal of the Marx family saga remains untold: childhood and family life in Trier; Marx's scorching love affair with the baron's daughter, Jenny von Westphalen; the crucial role of his wife and three daughters in aiding and abetting him at every turn; Karl's betrayal of Jenny goes public when Lenchen, the family housekeeper, gives birth to Karl's illegitimate son Freddy, leaving it to Engels to save Marx's bacon by falsely claiming paternity of the boy, thereby rescuing Karl and Jenny's marriage. Perhaps these fascinating omissions will be addressed when the Marx family saga finally becomes a long-running television series--whenever that may come to pass. While we wait, Le Jeune Karl Marx is well worth the price of admission.

Maybe it wasnt boring if it would be ; Karl Marx : Vampire Hunter or Slayer . I remembered Abraham Lincoln Vampire movie somehow..

[sterbrender · 6/10 · 24 April 2018]

But what's with the "young" part, which brings to mind turbulent emotional dramas rather than trenchant economic theory? Whatever else you think about Marx and his ideas, it's hard to imagine him as hot-blooded and young. Watch it if you have time.

Ahistorical, Shallow Male Bonding Film!

[jessicacoco2005 · 5/10 · 9 July 2018]

It was wonderful to see Karl Marx and Engels in front of a big screen and to see them as real human beings who eat, drink, converse, and love. The film features a stellar cast with superb acting. However it's utterly lacking in vision, imagination, and depth.

The film takes place in Prussia in 1843 when in Marx's was in his mid-20s, it ends five years later with the publication of the "Manifesto" ; a collaboration with his friend Engels in France just before the major 1848 revolutions sweeping Europe

Instead of a stirring, sweeping, though-provoking historical film biography set in revolutionary times like the Lion of the Desert, it seemed like a barely memorable, emotionally uncompelling and intellectually unstimulating soap opera that could have been shown on PBS's Masterpiece Theater funded by the Ford Foundation. In other words, a film so absolutely sanitized, it's provokes little controversy, political or otherwise. Anyone really looking to understand the time period or know more about Marx and Engels will be sorely disappointing.

The film begins with great promise showing peasants being hunted and killed by armed police on horseback for gathering fallen branches in the woods; an act of theft according to the elite; then cuts to Marx and his colleagues having their publishing headquarters raided, destroyed, and being arrested by Prussian police for writing critical articles in the progressive newspaper, the Rheinische Zeitung. Then the film turns into a bad B rated male bonding film. At first each is wary of each other as they meet in the parlor of the publisher Arnold Ruge. Within minutes of meeting, Engels tell Marx out of nowhere, You're the greatest materialist thinker of our time; A genius." (although we in the audience are stumped to know why) and from this moment on they become best buddies; acting like "hip", well-dressed, immature teenage schoolboys: drinking, smoking , running from cops, and country hopping reminiscent of the silent slapstick keystone comedy.

The Young Karl Marx could have been a deeply, moving, intellectually profound, and politically astute film like Midnight Cowboy, Cinderella Liberty or countless other films from the 70's; where deep friendship and love is set among the realistic grinding poverty, desperation, and bleakness of a major city; but it is not. According to the director he wanted modern audiences to relate to the film. So the Europe of the 1840's is transformed into resembling the superficiality and shallowness of the 21st century. Never do we seem to feel the overwhelming suffering and anguish of the workers. If the director had never experienced or eye-witnessed hunger, deprivation, seen a slum or inside of a factory at the very he could have done some research.

Marx' family is poor, but the only deprivation visually depicted is Marx buying cheap cigars; hardly deprivation unless one is smoking to quell hunger pains. Never do we see real images of poverty: People freezing without coats, wearing rags, or sick and coughing from malnutrition. Never do we see scenes such as: Marx or his wife complain about eating small scraps of just plain, stale bread 2 weeks in a row, or even a scene where Marx is seen giving his share of a tiny piece of bread to his wife or child with the look of hunger in his eyes. Scenes even true in the US today. Rather everything is purposely sanitized from the lack of horse crap and human crap on the city streets to the bums and ragged, homeless children on the streets to the regimented textile mills utterly devoid of any coughing or appearance of exhaustion among the female workers. Even the drab gray clothing and washed-out color effects dampen our ability to connect to the workers, because they make the film looks so unrealistic.

I remember the first time I entered in a textile factory as a child in NYC. I will never forget the chaotic movement and especially the "fiber" dust. It was so thick; it burned my eyes and nose and blinded me as if I were in a sand storm. I will also clearly remember hearing the sounds of coughing and sneezing between the noise of the sewing machines operating; and the look of sheer exhaustion that every bone in the women's bodies cried out; including those who sat for 8 hour. Let me not also forget having to step over, with the help of my mother, over drunken bodies, because the bar was only two doors down. This was not grinding poverty, but much closer to anything shown in the Young Marx.

The closest we get to working people suffering is in a fictionalized scene where Mary Burns describing how she knew someone who lost some fingers in an accident. One has to ask why did the director need to create this utterly unrealistic fictitious scene? Even today a working woman in the US would think twice before raising her voice and being fired; but Mary Burns not only raises her voice, but walks out of the factory Engel's father owns without even a second thought; especially considering her family could starve to death and she may blacklisted from ever working again. The scene seems to have been invented so Engels could later childishly get back at his father for firing her; as if doing a one upmanship: "In your face, dad!

Marx spent thousands of hours in libraries doing research, taking meticulous notes, and writing and rewriting his works; a large portion of his life, but this is totally missing in the film. It's just not "hip" in today's society to show someone studying, reading lines of poetry, or listening to a beggar singing a classical aria on the street; all things that were part of life in the 1840's; even among factory workers. I rather doubt Marx composed his Labor Value of Theory between bouts of drunkenness or that Engels' major research for his History of the English Working Class came from romancing the young Mary Burns. With so much emphasis on drinking and smoking, I began to wonder ½ through the film how much funding the cigarette and alcohol companies provided.

Except for this one scene, women seem to be sprinkled into the film so it won't be an all-male cast. Their major role, following sexual stereotyping, is supporting their men; as if the time period lacked any revolutionary women. Even the relationship between the main characters and their significant others appear shallow. Both appear more passionate about ideas then their spouses. We never learn why or how Marx and his wife met or married; only that she was an aristocrat, The only passion shown between them is a gratuitous, unromantic, unsensual, and visually distasteful sex scene, which prevents parents from bringing children to see the film. Unless this was the goal, why was it included?

Just like the 2 women are sprinkled into the film, so are two of the biggest social critics of the time the influential social reformist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. We learn little about Proudhon's views and nothing about Bakunin at all.

Though the film ends at the cusp of the failed 1848 revolutions sweeping Europe, no where do we see or hear the sounds of chains rattling; attempting to break free. In a film made during revolutionary times, where are the workers protesting in mass? The film follows Marx & Engels, but not the workers on the street, which Marx and Engels joined.

Bourgeois cinema spends millions indoctrinates the working class into believing they need to follow a messiah who will rescue them. Marx and Engels were great men, but great men don't create history. MLK for example didn't start the civil right movement. No, Great men only do the steering, because it's the workers who create history. The 1848 revolutions didn't pop-up spontaneously among individuals, but through years of organizing among the masses. However, would we really expect anything different? Do we really expect our masters to teach us our history? To give us the theories and to show us how revolutions take place and that they are indeed possible?

The film ends with Marx and Engels writing "The Communist Manifesto," and reading the stirring first line: "A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism..." when it cuts to music and juxtaposed pictures. Instead of hearing the International and aspiring images of the Paris Commune and Russian Revolution, we hear the apolitical Bob Dylan song "Like a Rolling Stone" juxtaposed with photos from Che Guevara and Castro to Reagan and Thatcher. Ironically or perhaps expected Lenin and Stalin are not included; so as to not offend the financial backers or give the workers ideas.

One of the best political biographies in years.

[jmsdxtr-215-978064 · 10/10 · 30 April 2018]

When an honest film like this gets 6.5 stars on IMDB and The Avengers: Infinity Wars get 9.1, it shows that there is something terribly wrong with the ranking system on this site. A thinking film that captures the emotional, social and political complexity of mid-nineteenth industrial European radicalism is something to be truly cherished in this age of the vomit and mind numbing putridity coming from the nightmare factory of popular culture. That's all I need to say. Just watch this film.

Not convince, but to see

[riccardog · 6/10 · 7 December 2018]

The script something get lost. The storu is compelling, and keeping the different languages is good for getting into history. something, however, does not convince ... perhaps some aspects not unveiled of the historical events can leave an inexperienced spectator like me a little too clueless

* seen november 2018

The Young Karl Marx

[indiecinemamagazine · 5/10 · 1 March 2017]

The Young Karl Marx chronicles the period when young Karl Marx meets his future long-term friend and co-author Friedrich Engels and the several following years. During the Berlinale press conference dedicated to the film Raoul Peck was asked if he read Karl Marx. He answered that he attended seminars dedicated to Marx's Capital. His film is reminiscent of such a seminar; interminable and tedious.

There are many dialogues, questions, answers however the film completely lacks artistic vision. There is no interesting music, camera-work or a gripping plot.

Raoul Peck tried to underline the more materialistic side of his relationship with Jenny, showing his sex life and child birth. To deprive Marx of certain romanticism is also not fair, the young philosopher was a romantic of his own kind; he was engaged for seven years to Jenny and dedicated many poems to her.

The discussions depicted in the film are too primitive for such great thinkers such as Marx, Engels, Proudhon and Bakunin. The proletariat, on the other hand, is shown as a group of people with abject faces and feeble children, which makes the ideas of Marx about the proletariat too idealistic and not connected to reality.

One of the positive sides of the picture is that Peck did not try to distort facts about the people in the film, however after the film finishes one feels relieved that the drawn-out seminar on Karl Marx is finally over.

Read more at: http://indie-cinema.com/2017/02/young-karl-marx/

Marx Thinks as does Engels...a glorious collaboratopn

[jakob13 · 9/10 · 25 February 2018]

Rauol Peck has never shied away from difficult subjects: Lamumba and James Baldwin. Now, he has taken on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 'Young Karl Marx'. This film won't earn him much in the US, a country which has done much to suppress Marx's thoughts and has waged a ferocious campaign to emasculate its own Communist Party and wither on the vine democratic socialism. Marxism is taught drily and negatively on university campuses today, as a failure and a foil to triumphant global capitalism. Peck's film , splendid in the use of the camera, capturing as it does, the ravages of early industrialization in the textile mill the Engels owned in Manchester, the miserable condition of workers, child labor, misery of the cannon fodder that fed what Blake called 'Satanic mills', and the general impoverishment of the laboring class. In Germany, in Prussia, the reign of the feudal king who exercises the rights of a feudal lord with it heavy burden on the peasantry, but in whose university slowly burns revolutionary thought that await the flame to blaze, and in Guizot's France tightly held on a leash any attempt other than fancy theories to arouse the people as they did in 1789. Americans find in general history tiresome, being a society open to the future where the past counts little. They little tolerance for grand theory or discussions, fiery public meetings, respectful exchanges of ideas that command our attention, but mostly in the mouths of demagogues. Like the majority of Americans, they have little tolerance for philosophical discussions, and abstractions bore them no end. The millions that in slavery and wage slavery that built capitalism count for little. So, Peck's 'Young Marx' plunges into the tense, tight theories of Socialist theory of romantics and materialists in the first half of the 19 century, that left its mark even today in the 21 century. Peck's camera and his principal actors August Diehl as the spirited Marx and Stefan Kornaske ass his life long partner and collaborator in struggle as Engels, wage serious battle against Proudhon and Wietling and Bakounin for example, against the Young Hegelians, against Bauer and Feuerbach and Rugge ..names that have some resonance today, and are best read of say in the works of GDH Cole or Wilson's 'To the Finland Station'. Argumentation and debate were fierce, and Marx suffered fools not gladly, nor did Engels who had a smoother manner. Marx and Engels love and turning the other cheek in the fight for the working class whom they saw as the future, and a spearhead of equality that even today's America fear seek through the courts to weaken further so that the the coupon clipeers and the ruling finace capitalists can fully have their way and increase profits and political power and control globally in the full expression of raw exploitation. Marx insisted that 'philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it'; they have put theory on its head, but he and Engels turn it around and put it on its feet. And the fruit of their theoretical struggle and intimate knowledge of the material conditions of the working class came to fruition in the writing (jointly) of the 'Communist Manifesto' that signaled the outbreak of revolution. So on top of the moment were this pair that the Revolutions of 1848 broke only weeks later, sweeping away the vestiges of feudalism in the German Holy Roman Empire, and spurred the national struggle throughout an industrializing Europe. The 'Manifesto' is wonderfully written and still hold water today, despite attacks...even in our age of reaction. 'The Young Marx' is in three languages: German, French and English. Peck has assembled a first rate cast and with flair and much artistry conveyed the passions of the young Marx and Engels. Peck's film hasn't a wide distribution, alas. And yet, in the small art house I saw it, the 100 seats were fully occupied, by people of all ages and 'middle class' conditions. The film reviewers on the whole have sort to express impatience in seeing the 'Young Marx",making large yawns and little effort to understand Peck's cinematic vocation in tackling Marx and Engels' thinking and activism. At the end Peck has footage of how wide and vast Marx's influence is: May 1968 in France, Vietnam War protest in the USA, Lumumba, and Mandela, for example. When Marx died Engels tribute sums his life up: Marx didn't die, he ceased to think.

80/20, 20/80, or 50/50 ?

[bucyrusmo · 4/10 · 19 August 2018]

A film like this is going to walk a fine line between depicting personal lives and making clear the epic stakes and tidal societal shifts in play. Unfortunately, this film strays way too far into personal territory. You will learn how Marx and Engels "lived and loved" in their shabby tenements, but are left wondering what the difference between socialism, Marxism, and communism are and how these ideas affect us today.

Worth a watch if you're politics buff

[rudigerkleinmanagement · 8/10 · 16 September 2017]

This is a beautifully presented historical drama – and a political story/argument. It's based on the letters exchanged between Marx (August Diehl) and Friedrich Engels (Stefan Konarske). The film follows their friendship from their first meeting all the way until the the drafting of the Communist Manifesto. The story illuminates their arguments, their friendship, and their personal histories.

Marx, played by August Diehl, in an angry way, impoverished, and looking for an argument. Engels, played by Stefan Konarske, is the wealthy fellow, a dandy and a romantic.

The problem is, watching people argue about communist theories reminds me of my college days, minus the joint. It can be tedious, especially given the failure of communism. Nevertheless it's interesting if you're into politics and history. In fact it's a perfect film to show in a university course on social studies because it is, I believe, historically accurate. I would love to see someone take these characters and plop them down in present day to reflect on the course their ideas have taken. THAT would be a great talking film.

A boring attempt to present Karl Marx as one of the guys

[hessmontj · 1/10 · 9 April 2018]

If one is looking for a film which touts a boorish freeloader as an intellectual giant, then this might be a way to spend 2 hours of your life... For the remainder of us, we are better off cleaning the hardened gum from the bottom of our waste basket, as a much fancied alternative

Karl Marx as a living, breathing young man

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 11 September 2018]

Le jeune Karl Marx (2017) was shown in the United States with the translated title The Young Karl Marx. The movie was co-written and directed by Raoul Peck.

I found this biography of Marx to be interesting. As the person introducing the film noted, most of us think of a mature Karl Marx sitting in the British Library and writing "Das Kapital." However, in this movie, we see Karl Marx (August Diehl ) in his 20's, beginning his friendship with Friedrich Engels, and proving to other socialists and communists that his thoughts were important.

Diehl is excellent, as is Stefan Konarske, who portrays Engels. Vicky Krieps does well in the role of Jenny von Westphalen-Marx, as does Hannah Steele as Mary Burns. (In the movie, for whatever reason, Mary Burns is portrayed as Engels' wife. They were lifelong partners, but never married.)

The movie is packed with data. I believe some of it could have been left out, which would made the movie shorter and tighter. For example, much is made of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is considered the founder of anarchism. Proudhon and Marx did, indeed, influence each other. However, how many of us know that? We could certainly enjoy the movie without knowing it.

We saw this film at Rochester's excellent Dryden Theatre, at the George Eastman Museum. It was the opening film of the always-impressive Rochester Labor Film Series. It will work well on the small screen.

Not this and not that

[keenast · 3/10 · 13 February 2018]

Where it fails is a) the script and b) the very boring mis-en-scene. It. comes over as a classic 'DDR' movie - very well crafted but....no kick what's-o-ever. And the dialog...oh my;-(

A wonderful movie to be remembered

[leftistcritic · 10/10 · 19 January 2019]

This movie was great for many reasons. As a person who is interested in Marx and his theories this movie was very interesting. I liked how it honestly portrayed the respective romantic relationship of Marx (with Jenny), and the one of Engels (with an English worker named Mary Burns). Perhaps the movie was too weak on Proudhon but it tells an important part of Marx's life which I have not seen any other movie cover. There should be the young Mao, the young Stalin, and the young Lenin next!

There's much more to say about this film than this short little paragraph. This film is a compelling, moving drama to say the least. Not only does August Diehl do a great job playing Karl Marx but so does Stefan Konarske in playing Friedrich Engels and Olivier Gourmet playing Proudhon. At the same time, Vicky Krieps plays a powerful role as Jenny, Hannah Steele as Mary and all the rest. This film brings up the obvious contradiction of Engels criticizing capitalism while his livelihood is dependent on his father's factories which obviously exploit workers while Marx on the other than is literally poor almost all the time, relying on Engels to survive. This is to an extent brought up in Howard Zinn's 1999 play Marx in Soho which I watched part of some time ago, but this movie hammers home these points even more.

I think with this film as a start, it would even be possible to do a whole series on Marx and Engel's collaboration over the years. If there could be a 195-minute film about John Reed (played by Warren Beatty) and Louise Bryant (as Diane Keaton) called Reds in 1981, making such a series is not beyond question. However, obviously there would be no reason for Hollyweird producers to have a film positively portraying Marx, socialism, or communism, as they get more from their red-baiting, which dates back years and years. There is a reason that this is a foreign film rather than a film coming out of Hollyweird, as is obvious and evident.

With that, I think this film has been adequately reviewed for the time being and its review of a 10 out of 10 is fully justified, meaning this review has come to a close.

Left out some key parts of his life

[Please_pick_a_different_username · 1/10 · 19 September 2021]

I was looking forward to seeing how the film would portray Marx's poor hygiene. The smell was said to be so bad that people couldn't bear to be within a few feet of him for more than a couple of minutes. Sadly, this was not shown in the film AT ALL! Disappointing!

Very good film about Marx's and Engels's revolutionary theories that improved the world.

[Dr_Mark_ODoherty · 10/10 · 25 February 2021]

In 1844 Paris, while in his 20s, Karl Marx meets Friedrich Engels, an industrialist's son, who investigated the sordid birth of the British working-class. Although the two men are initially at odds with each other, the men befriend each other and start working together to create a new political movement to reform and unite the impoverished workers. This included revolutionizing labor law, ethics and child rights - so that child labor was finally made illegal in Europe. So I think this film gives a nice insight into the early lives of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; as well as their spouses, associates and friends - and how their altruistic theories (which were regarded as very radical during those times) improved the world. Indeed, it is regarded as text book knowledge in most European countries that Karl Marx contributed considerably in improving equality and ethics; especially in today's Germany, France and Britain - social benefits giving factory workers the opportunity to take pride in their work; by making top quality products while also being adequately paid for their work and receiving good pensions. However, it should also be noted that countries like China and the late Soviet Union abused the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; by corrupting their altruistic theories into an evil apparatus, to silence critics and strip people of their right to political participation - which of course Karl Marx and Engels never intended, as the political movement which they created leaned very much towards democratic freedoms and universal suffrage. In particular, the late Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong is responsible of misusing and perverting the altruistic work of Karl Marx - which even to this day President Xi Jinping of China is doing, by refusing to allow democratic freedoms and universal suffrage to the people of Hong Kong and the rest of China.

Contradictoly, there's no contradiction in the movie

[hcbispo · 5/10 · 5 December 2019]

Although it's about one of the thinkers who introduced the idea of critic and contradictory as we see it today, there's simply no space for that in the movie. The script simply follows a predetermined form, with cliché scenes (like police persecutions and characters appearing out of sudden to complete a dialogue).

An essential movie that everyone should see with an open mind.

[Nimbereth · 10/10 · 6 December 2018]

With so much crap in theaters, a movie that portrays one of the most important thinkers in the stories deserved a bigger score. The dream of Marx and Engels did not come in the nineteenth or twentieth century, but our time of infinite consumerism will come to an end and the workers will understand that they are living in a system that exploits them every day.

"Workers of all countries, unite!"

The answers will come if we work for them.

[heidibrideofchrist · 10/10 · 20 July 2021]

I knew nothing about Karl Marx before watching this film. I only know a very little about communism. Two years ago, I read their mission statement online for the first time. I was surprised to see it is the same statement as the Catholic Church. So, I must wonder, did Karl Marx come from poor parents? Were they religious? The film never gives us a history of his childhood, so I have no way of knowing why he associated with a dissenters newspaper. I was delighted with this film, and surprised. Fred Engels pressured Karl Marx to write the communist manifesto. They fight about this at the end of the film. Mr. Engels is not struggling to earn money. Mr. Marx is, and feels pressured to earn money from writting. He has a family to care for. Mr. Marx challenges Mr. Proudhon's communist ideas about private property at the Republican speakers meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Proudhon claims private property is the enemy of the public, and that it is anti-social. Marx then wonders aloud to Mr. Proudhon what he is stealing if he takes another man's property. This shocked me because the communist propaganda was from Proudon, not Marx. Marx is countering the argument. Throughout the film, Marx calls himself a materialist. He wants stuff. He needs money. That's more like capitalism than communism. So, by the end of the film, it looks like Marx was dragged into the communist party against his will. In the last 30 minutes of the film, Fred Engels demands an opportunity to speak at a meeting for The League of The Just. He had been ordered not to speak by party leaders. Fred Engels and his followers then take down The League of The Justs' flag and replaces it with a Communist flag as Karl Marx watches, passively, from the audience. Fred Engels is far more active politically than Mr. Marx is throughout the film. Engels is especially bold with older establishment figures, i.e., the scene in the men's club when he threatens the staff. That Engels' family is the owner of textile mills instead of Marx makes this viewer wonder how Marx came to form his political views. Would his views on labor have been the same without Engels' influence? Throughout the film there are homosexual innuendos. I get the impression Marx and Engels were lovers, as Mrs. Ruge comments that they met in her kitchen. She turns away from the camera and stops talking, which shuts down any further investigation. They then say they met in Berlin. At video minute 1:20:13, at the Workers party meeting with Weitling, Krieger, Grun, Engels, Mary Burns, Karl, and Jenny, Marx makes a point of offending Weitling. Mr. Weitling leaves the meeting enraged. Mary and Jenny are shocked. They ask what just happened. Engels and Marx start laughing. I wondered what happened as well. This argument between Marx and Weitling looks more like a homo-erotic power play for world domination than a communal attempt to alleviate workers suffering. Why alienate Weitling? Comparing this scene to the coup at The League of The Just meeting, Engels looks more like an anarchist or a trade spy instead of a labor leader. Someone yells "Long live George Sand" after Engels' speach. (I know George Sand was a crossdressing female.) Together with the other sexual innuendos, it confirms my suspicions that these attendees were not members of the existing craft guilds. They were the outcasts. This matters because the craft guilds are never mentioned in the film, but workers rights and communism is. For honest people, it's no conflict for laborers to make a profit. So what's the big deal? Both Mr. Proudhon and Mr. Marx mention starvation of the laborers. No honest boss would starve his employees. A new picture of the labor activists in this film emerges from the fog. They are not negotiating with the textile mill owners. This would have been very easy to do, as Mr. Engels' father owned the mills. So why not talk to him? Marx and Engels look more like provocateurs instead of labor leaders. I loved the sex scene with Karl and Jenny. There was nothing wrong with it. As a viewer, passing through this process of the sex, watching Marx with his baby, then the labor and delivery of their second child, then comparing these domestic scenes with the conversation between Mary Burns and Jenny Marx at the beach, (where Jenny is shocked when Mary says her sister will have children with Fred Engels), by this time, we should know this is why the establishment condescends to the lower classes, because they plan on disobeying. Marx calls himself a materialist. This is enlightening, together with the fact that we never see either Engels' or Marx working in a trade other than writing. Not that writing is any less labor, but it's not factory work. The point being, they wrote about factory workers from outside the industry. It's nice they were so empathetic to the laborers cause, but they did not live that life. They were outsiders. Engels' was factory owner. There are some assumptions that need attention. The first assumption is that the Bourgeoisie do not work. The director makes Mr. Engels' Sr. Appear to be a bully. We never see him in anguish over the fights with his employees. The next assumption is the Bourgeoisie do not suffer. We never see Mr. Engels Senior in anguish, suffering over the events with his son. We never see him in private, asking for advice, in a conversation with a wife or friend about the fight with his son. This omission is very important. Mr. Engels Senior has been cast as cold hearted, because they gave no screen time to him in private or in anguish.