Having recently reviewed the DVD with Nolte's comments I must add a little explanation for the other reviewers who never got the motivation behind Campbell choosing to follow through with the spying.Campbell is a romantic through and through, he sees the action of spying in all its media created romance and not in the hard bitten truth that exists in real life. His relationship with Helga is just one more aspect of this romantic attitude and Helga is not at the center of his universe for long. Too many humans still consider war a romantic ideal filled with "action" and "heroes." Humans forever tell themselves that they are full of good intentions, that we mean well and so does Campbell. He never truly understands how his part in the war (the little devices created for him that somehow offer information to the allies) fits in but most of all he fills a role, a role of a lifetime on a huge international stage he is by career a actor/playwright and there is simply no bigger role he could take. Again fulfilling a "romantic ideal." But by playing the role as anti-Semitic propagandist he becomes so close to that role that he cant even separate himself from it, he becomes the role. Another "romantic ideal." But his being manipulated because of this romantic leanings leaves him empty inside and longs for real life. The contact "with the secret" John Goodman's role as the blue fairy godmother does appear and save him from himself a couple of times, but ultimately cannot in the end save him.This is an excellent cast and Vonnegut's novel is entirely intact and he does have a walk on non-speaking appearance toward the end. But this film is for the thinking audience not the shallow end of the mental pool.

I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots? A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists „discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.

I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in "The Thin Red Line". Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part.

American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. (played with a musty obsolescence by Nick Nolte) lives happily in Germany with his actress wife, Helga Noth (Sheryl Lee) before the beginning of World War II. At the peak of his life, Howard is drafted by an American agent (John Goodman) to become a spy on behalf of the Allies; forewarned of the risks the job holds, Howard has everything to lose, but finds the offer irresistible. Following the death of his wife and the end of the war, Campbell camouflages himself with the anonymity of a solitary life in New York City, which muddies his neuroses even further. The central question (indeed, a question that has frustrated many critics) of the movie and Kurt Vonnegut's source novel is, "is Campbell a hero or a traitor?" Director Keith Gordon and screenwriter Robert B. Weide offer us clues, but no answer, and this ambiguity–this NOT knowing–is what keeps "Mother Night" fresh and interesting throughout. At the beginning of the film, Nolte portrays Campbell as intelligent and confident; by the end, he's either scared and uncertain, or scared and COMPLETELY certain of his contribution/debt to humanity for the role he played in the war. Gordon applies a certain icy sheen to the images of the film's first half, which complement his portrait of the Nazi bourgeoisie and captures Vonnegut's dramatic side. On the flip side, when Campbell is confined to his lonely New York apartment (which he affectionately calls "purgatory") only to be discovered by a group of Nazis, the humor produced also is purely distinctive of the author, and provides a temporary respite from the dramatic tension that unfolds. The moral (even spiritual) paradox "Mother Night" presents doesn't lend itself to simple resolution, and to a degree, should be left ambiguous–the black-and-white scenes of Campbell staring wearily into space as he is imprisoned in Israel suggest an unspoken contemplation we are not made privy to–as Campbell is a character whose inner workings we wind up knowing very little about; the war changes him, coming back to America changes him, and meeting up with the Nazis in New York compels him to prolong the facade of his "act" even further, to the point where he can only stare wearily at an image of himself projected on a wall, spewing anti-Semitic bile. Perhaps that's the best reaction we could hope for.