Der Einstein des Sex

This is a film that should be seen. It may shock, certainly, but it will enlighten and educate. It is also a part of German history. Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish homosexual, set up an Institute in 1921 to research problems concerned with sexuality. This was an unexplored field. People from all over Europe consulted him about their own sexual problems, including the young Austrian Baron Hermann von Teschenberg who became his lover. In 1933 the Nazis destroyed the Institute of Sexual Science. Research papers and museum pieces were lost for ever. Male nudity in this film is acceptable because it is relevant to the subject. The museum is filled with phallic objects carved from ivory, penis protectors from Papua New Guinea, an intriguing masturbation contraption (which perhaps is the fore-runner of the modern vibrator), tattooed testicles belonging to the Chinese emperor's brother and other so-called "sinful objects". All this is portrayed in a clinical and straight forward manner. The good doctor is called upon to do surgery and one can get a bit squeamish when he goes to work on the transvestite Dorchen or the removal of a penis from a pleading hermaphrodite. It seemed to me it was executed with a very quick snip done under the most unhygienic conditions. Some of the other characters worthy of mention are the young Karl Giese (Hirschfeld's lover) who fights a losing battle to protect the Institute from the Nazi madness, and Adolph Brand an important gay right-wing writer who writes extravagant poetry about the physical beauty of German youth. Direrctor Rosa von Praunheim has done a magnificent job in bringing the life and work of Dr. Hirschfeld to the screen. It is a frank and honest approach and it is not without its little touches of humour. This film is worthy of attention. It's one of the most entertaining I've seen for a long time. How nice it is to see something very different. I rank it high on my list of favourites.

This is the worst movie I've seen this year so far. The story is about doctor Hirschfeld that struggled at the end of the 19th century for homo-sexuality and trans-sexuality. So far so good. The theme is allright, and the brave man deserves a good biography. Nevertheless, the way this biopic was made, was like the copywriter litterally copied some lines from the encyclopedia. The acting was done by a bunch of amateur playwright actors: you could see them thinking: there is an audience watching at me. And to top things, there was not a single scene that was either witty or exciting. Oh, well, just don't waste your time on this kitsch movie, especially if you are interested in the life in Hirschfeld.

which was another title rosa entertained the possibility of using. when he announced it was forthcoming at a screening in LA I distinctly recall the collective gasp of the public, in anticipation: the subject seemed like the perfect one for rosa... but ... the film turned out nicht so gut, a big disappointment. actually I didn't see the whole thing but only walked out really cause I was visiting a strange city when it happened to stumble upon a chance to see one of its first screenings in the US, in Miami, where winsome elian gonzales was just about to be snatched from his home and riots were about to ensue.my feeling was he rushed into production on this one. it needed more rewrites to be the crowning glory of rosa his fan's tentatively but erroneously anticipated... and I wondered why he turned it over to the writers he chose rather than write it himself.

This film plays like community theatre on over-lit digital video. Don't you hate it when a worthy topic is wasted on a bad film? Overacting, a trite script, distracting voice-over, two dimensional characters and editing out of Film 101. It was a struggle to watch through to the end.

If you still want to rent this you can watch the documentary on the DVD where you will meet the director Rosa van Praunheim who will tell you how famous, wise, and intellectually and sexually experienced he is. And he's serious.

That said it is an important true story of the first sexologist who fought for the rights of what is now called the queer community.

The film had early on one of the wittiest lines I have recently encountered: M. Hirschfield, barely into adulthood, and discussing with his uncle and aunt what his academic aspirations are, has his aunt give arguably the best line in the film. "M. do you promise to live?" (That is long enough because his father was a disappointment in that department...) "Yes aunt, I do." "You have to promise, you know, because that is a lot of money that will go to your studies." Well, it was more wittingly put in the film, than I have rephrased it. If that is not Lady Bracknell (from O. Wilde's "The importance of being Earnest") converted into Judaism, I do not know what is! Some of the fun aside, I really think this is an epitome of Jewishness: you have to promise not to die, because, you know, you are giving your promise to the law, that is studying, that is in the Name of the Father. And life, my dear, is completely insignificant in matters of the law.

Too bad the film does not pay attention to its clues. This could have made terrific comedy, but the effect is literal: young Hirschfeld looks anxious, to the wrong direction, missing all the fun, and spoiling ours for the rest of his on screen time. He seems preoccupied in all the wrong ways, along with the script I'm afraid. And when the film shifts gears with his older self, the actor chosen is visibly of a quite different sensibility, so that we miss all the insightful change from his formative to his twilight years. And this, too, courts disaster, for a film concerning an important personality must put that to the test, and be put to the test trying it. None of this happens, and the effect is that of being cheated into cheap editing.

The camera work takes some decisions that run counter to what distance we may want to take from the film, or not, literally or not so. It is one of these instances that the film-maker seems confused in thinking out the film in visual terms, so he picks up the middle way of almost constantly occupying the middle field. This blurs the characters and their initiatives.

Or, to put it in another way, don't you feel cheated, when you put to yourself the question "how much of this was devised, and how much derives from books and archives and true research?" For me at least, when you seriously (and not wonderingly) ask yourself that, the film has failed dramatically.

For the "Einstein of Sex" part, this film has little relativity, even less organizing theory, or Einstein's famous humor. As for the sex, well, the film does not introduce us into such bold matters...