While most reviews state the arc of the story well, it seems the details of what happens to the goalkeeper in the opening scene are not well understood. He is clearly sent off for dissent, kicking the ball away in protest after it has been placed in the centre circle after the referee awards a goal. He has not committed a foul, and he isn't dismissed because he fails to save the shot on goal, something which is not a rule of the sport. Nor is he substituted.
He approaches the referee and protests that a player was clearly offside when the goal was scored. When the referee ignores his complaint, the goalkeeper walks over to the ball in the centre circle and kicks it away. The referee immediately signals that he is sending the goalkeeper off. Although the referee isn't seen to produce a red card, he is heard to say something (in German obviously) about red, all of which clearly tells us the referee sent him off for the act of dissent.
As for the goal scored, we do not see a penalty kick being taken, and the way the scene is shot, as well as the fact that he protested that an attacking player was offside when the goal was scored, suggests more that the goal is scored in open play rather than from a penalty kick where by definition no-one could be offside if the goal was scored from a direct kick (rather than say after the goalkeeper saved the initial effort and normal play resumed -- to satisfy the even more pedantic!).
While it would be interesting if we saw the goalkeeper face a penalty, then see it "as it really is", an anti-Rashomon, on TV, it doesn't seem to me (at the risk of being too literal-minded, perhaps) that this is what Wenders filmed or intended. The TV footage does not seem to show the match in which the goalkeeper played. The stands are essentially empty in his match, but in the televised match, you can see it is pretty much a full house. And once again, there is no penalty kick in that televised match, but the goal is instead scored from open play with defenders crowding the 18-yard area. It does not feel like this is a detail we are intended to connect to the match he played. If anything, the brief TV clip is just another thematic demonstration of goalkeepers being on the losing side of their psychological battle with players taking shots at them. In the final scene, we see another goalkeeper actually save a penalty kick by guessing correctly which way to dive, finally showing us the alternative outcome of a confrontation which the sport takes for granted is heavily stacked against the goalkeeper.
There is a surreal, dislocated quality to the goalkeeper's behaviour in the opening scene. He leaves the field of play while his own team has possession in the opposition's final third, and addresses some children behind the goal. He casts a glance back at the pitch and we see that possession of the ball is now being contested in the midfield. He then turns his back on play again, still standing off the field. At this point in play, with no goalkeeper defending the goal, it would have been natural for the opposition to take a long distance shot on goal, so any normal goalkeeper would have got back on the field immediately to discourage that. Any normal goalkeeper probably would never have left it in the first place, of course, but this is 1970s New German Cinema after all and clearly his angst is greater than the instincts which propelled him to the position of professional shot stopper: he doesn't return to the field until what seem to be the last seconds before a goal is scored, and he stands there rooted to the spot as the ball hits the back of the net.
His actions prior to the goal suggest he's suffering from apathy prior to his dismissal, rather than that his dismissal so profoundly affects him that this alone accounts for his subsequent state of mind and actions.
The Camus references -- goalkeeper; inexplicable, passionless act of murder -- are entertaining.
He approaches the referee and protests that a player was clearly offside when the goal was scored. When the referee ignores his complaint, the goalkeeper walks over to the ball in the centre circle and kicks it away. The referee immediately signals that he is sending the goalkeeper off. Although the referee isn't seen to produce a red card, he is heard to say something (in German obviously) about red, all of which clearly tells us the referee sent him off for the act of dissent.
As for the goal scored, we do not see a penalty kick being taken, and the way the scene is shot, as well as the fact that he protested that an attacking player was offside when the goal was scored, suggests more that the goal is scored in open play rather than from a penalty kick where by definition no-one could be offside if the goal was scored from a direct kick (rather than say after the goalkeeper saved the initial effort and normal play resumed -- to satisfy the even more pedantic!).
While it would be interesting if we saw the goalkeeper face a penalty, then see it "as it really is", an anti-Rashomon, on TV, it doesn't seem to me (at the risk of being too literal-minded, perhaps) that this is what Wenders filmed or intended. The TV footage does not seem to show the match in which the goalkeeper played. The stands are essentially empty in his match, but in the televised match, you can see it is pretty much a full house. And once again, there is no penalty kick in that televised match, but the goal is instead scored from open play with defenders crowding the 18-yard area. It does not feel like this is a detail we are intended to connect to the match he played. If anything, the brief TV clip is just another thematic demonstration of goalkeepers being on the losing side of their psychological battle with players taking shots at them. In the final scene, we see another goalkeeper actually save a penalty kick by guessing correctly which way to dive, finally showing us the alternative outcome of a confrontation which the sport takes for granted is heavily stacked against the goalkeeper.
There is a surreal, dislocated quality to the goalkeeper's behaviour in the opening scene. He leaves the field of play while his own team has possession in the opposition's final third, and addresses some children behind the goal. He casts a glance back at the pitch and we see that possession of the ball is now being contested in the midfield. He then turns his back on play again, still standing off the field. At this point in play, with no goalkeeper defending the goal, it would have been natural for the opposition to take a long distance shot on goal, so any normal goalkeeper would have got back on the field immediately to discourage that. Any normal goalkeeper probably would never have left it in the first place, of course, but this is 1970s New German Cinema after all and clearly his angst is greater than the instincts which propelled him to the position of professional shot stopper: he doesn't return to the field until what seem to be the last seconds before a goal is scored, and he stands there rooted to the spot as the ball hits the back of the net.
His actions prior to the goal suggest he's suffering from apathy prior to his dismissal, rather than that his dismissal so profoundly affects him that this alone accounts for his subsequent state of mind and actions.
The Camus references -- goalkeeper; inexplicable, passionless act of murder -- are entertaining.