Being Jérôme Boateng? Rather not
Perhaps it is helpful to take a step back before looking at the television documentary about ex-national player Jérôme Boateng and ask a fundamental question: Who in particular should a public broadcaster actually pay attention to? And in which cases should it be better not to do this? Three times a good 45 minutes, that’s a decent board after all. Even celebrities don’t get that much interest as a matter of course. The ARD It might have saved a lot of discussions if their approach to attention economics had been better. Unfortunately she missed it.
So now there is the documentation, and at least from a journalistic perspective, not watching it is unfortunately not an option. Because the work is in a context that goes beyond the series and football: men who commit violence against women generally do not suffer any major consequences in our society. The three-part series “Being Jérôme Boateng” stands for nothing else. This is also due to the type of production, which sometimes comes across as pompous and seems constantly over-staged, especially visually and musically.
Boateng was found guilty of intentionally causing bodily harm to the mother of his children, and the verdict is final. The investigations by the Munich I public prosecutor’s office into bodily harm to his former girlfriend Kasia Lenhardt, who committed suicide in 2021, were discontinued according to the principle “in dubio pro reo”, in case of doubt for the defendant. Lenhardt’s family was asked to take part in the series and refused to participate, according to family lawyer Markus Henning, “with the clear request not to take up the subject of Kasia Lenhardt and not even to use her name.” The filmmakers didn’t stick to that, and that alone is absurd.
In addition, Boateng is initially portrayed exclusively as an athlete in two parts of the documentary. This shows why the film viewing is a very bad idea overall, because the series doesn’t do any of its themes justice. Quite important motifs – such as the presentation of some 2014 world champions as “mascots” for successful integration through sport – are only touched on, while at the same time the interviewees use the worst clichés. In addition, Kevin-Prince is framed as the actually difficult Boateng brother, which is also highly problematic.
In the absence of people who could speak for affected former partners, Boateng is allowed to spread his narrative undisturbed and even stage his own shock at Lenhardt’s death – and it is indeed a stage. What is completely missing, however, are classifications from experts on violence in relationships or the opinions of psychologists on the patterns in relationships with power imbalances and violence.
After the documentation was published, several people involved have already distanced themselves from it. They were told before the recording that Boateng himself would not be filmed. In addition, the lawyer Alexander Stevens, who acts as a criminal law expert, and the investigative journalist Gabriela Keller (formerly Correctiv) and the pop culture consultant Gizem Çelik, critical passages from their interviews were not used and statements were shortened and taken out of context.
The makers of the documentary had previously stated that they wanted to paint a differentiated picture of the former footballer. Even if that had been a worthwhile approach: in the end the series offers anything but differentiation, but rather seems like a flat PR production “Boateng on Boateng”, which is intended to help the former national player realize his dreams of becoming a coach. So it becomes part of the system of violence.
