Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die Situation, in der er lebt

It is just 67 minutes long, but it contains almost the whole universe of gay experiences and gay culture. The psychology, behaviour and views of gays 50 years ago still ring true today. It feels like I have watched a queer studies academic essay, and I mean it in a good way.

It's excellent. It's a great essay (done in a particular and creative way) on gay life by a gay man who lived in Berlin in 1970, and it sounds valid even today to think about the progress we have made. 50 years later, we can say, many good things have happened for homosexual people in many countries of the world and societies have changed too. As the movie asks for, many of us have come together and fought for our rights (and still are) ... Equality marriage is a reality (even parenthood by adoption or surrogacy, etc.) not even imagined in this movie . We also navigate the water of AIDS... We learned how to maintain a relationship for years or decades (through agreements that are often not so "classic")... and even we helped heterosexuals to expand their options in terms of ways of being as a couple or building a family (for example through civil unions, or open relationships, etc...) And most importantly, we learned how to overcome the internal homophobia, the self-hatred that many of us had developed as children, simply because our family and the people around us were homophobic ... I think this is the main subject of this film ... The fight against homophobia starting with ourselves and of course the others (the macho culture, the submission of women , the religions built around that, etc.). And we did ... (and we still are) ..

This movie is a kind of fictionalized documentary or perhaps it would be better to call it a cinematic essay. In either case, the movie follows the evolution of a young man named Daniel who arrives in Berlin in a rather "unspoiled" state and gradually trades in both his shyness and his sincerity to better feed his escalating appetite for excitement in the big-city gay scene. As we follow Daniel's escapades, he is transformed into a jaded hedonist caught in his addiction to ever more exotic (read: campy) clothing and ever more depersonalized sexual experiences.

Scenes from Daniel's life and the various milieus he frequents are accompanied by voiceovers that are sometimes narrations, and that sometimes represent dialogue. There is no synch sound and the movie never even tries to pretend that the sound was recorded together with the picture. Thus, this film is determinedly "low-fi" and has a crude and vibrant aesthetic that is well attuned to the subject matter it covers.

For most of the movie, the voiceovers are highly astringent -- steeped in cynicism, bitterness and melancholy. Seen from today's perspective after the tremendous cultural evolution that has occurred since 1971 with respect to gays and their acceptance in society this film often looks and sounds very dated indeed, but not so dated as many viewers might prefer to think. Many of the topics covered here with scathing honesty -- the idolization of youth and marginalization of older gays; the materialism of gays; the competitiveness of gays; and the hypersexualization of gay "culture" with its tendency to cause isolation and loneliness -- these basic themes are still quite operative in today's supposedly modern gay world where the mainstream acceptance so ardently craved by some gays seems all but assured.

See this movie and get a wholly authentic taste of the witty, insightful and unhappy man who made it. This is a brilliant document, often highly entertaining when viewed in the proper spirit, and a valuable window not just on the dawn of the gay rights era but on the underside of today's supposedly brave new gay world.

50 years on indeed.....and yes some things have changed immensely and back then one couldn't even fathom the curse and blessing that the AIDS epidemic would be for the gay and LGBTQI scene.

Yet things haven't all changed, some stuff stubbornly and depressingly stayed the same. And even though society is perverse, a lot of the inward critical reflection of this movie still rings true.

On the very big plus side, the film looks gorgeous, the styling somewhere between 70's realism and a full fledged John Waters phantasmagoria - the non-acting actors perfectly cast. Can they act ? Well maybe not in the traditional sense, but like any Waters/Warhol movie the actors themselves rise above the acting by virtue of being true. And isn't that what a million hours of Lee Strasberg actors Studio or Shakespearean training are supposed to give you ?

Tha actors playing the part are 200% believable if maybe their acting is a strange style unto itself (not uncommon in queer cinema).

The costuming, sets, staging is phenomenal. The sort of thing modern gay artists strive for at immense costs here done on ....less than a shoestring ?

I love both the " cliche'd" exagerration, the sterotypes, the comedy, the melodrama and the total earnestness. Which makes this film very unique.

The earnestness - especially in the long drawn out final scene - is A- totally earned and B -at once cutting deep and very sweet.

Mr. Rosa, hats off to you, i bow deep.