Did Christian Petzold leave a MAJOR FLAW in this film?
My wife & I loved this movie, totally had us hooked from beginning.
The movie has at least one very confusing 'doesn't-make-sense' flaw, about which I'd love to question director Christian Petzold...but I can't access him. So if anyone reading this has the answer, love to hear from you.
The whole plot is based around concentration-camp survivor Nelly and her estranged husband Johnny, who doesn't recognize her (due to facial reconstruction) when she returns to Berlin. Yes, that's already a big stretch. All she'd have to do is mention to him, any 5 things only the real Nelly would know, and he'd know it was her, face change or not. But she plays along with his supposed lack of recognition, partly to see if he betrayed her to the Nazis, partly to see if she can rekindle their marriage, and, in the process, some of her sense of identity.
The subplot is that he sees an opportunity to "train" this similar-but-not-really Nelly to play her and then co-opt her war inheritance. But the key piece of evidence that Nelly's friend leaves behind to prove he betrayed her is his writ of divorce, executed the day she was arrested and sent to the camps.
WAIT! If he legally divorced her, he is no longer married or related to her in any way...meaning he has absolutely no claim to any portion of her inheritance. Even though she doesn't know about the divorce till the end, he knows he divorced her, all along. He knows this makes her money unavailable to him, all along. So why does he ever bother to train her and cook up this elaborate ruse, that, if she succeeds, could only result in her getting a big inheritance and him getting nothing, nada?!
Unless he's planning to somehow steal it from her bank account, or at gunpoint, after she receives it, he knows they are divorced and he has nothing coming to him. So, recognizing her or not, aside, he would never bother to work on this one minute with her.
The are several other "oh, come ON!" junctures in this film, but that one was the most glaring, and pretty much ruins the line of reasoning of the whole plot. Anybody clearly see something I'm not "recognizing?"