O Machão

Of all the films that make me laugh out loud, "Katzelmacher is probably the blackest. How else to justify the enjoyable quality of a movie in which almost all the characters, if not human scum, act that way most of the time. Make no mistake, the young Fassbinder knew exactly what he was doing when he made this early brilliant piece. Every shot has been planned with a single mindedness that enhances the meaningfulness of his exploration of xenophobia and its causes in dissatisfaction with financial circumstances and unfulfilled human relationships. Some eight or so young people of mixed sex pass their time in mainly useless activities. When they are not having it off with one another, generally in a lacklustre way, or playing cards in the local café they spend the time lounging about in the street outside an apartment building, their apartness from each other expressed in the horizontal line they form as they lean against a railing generally staring towards the camera. The building behind is not a slum. It could be a middle class dwelling in any town. The white wall behind is punctuated by windows with flower boxes. This and other settings are never sordid, merely dull. Inside buildings, by seldom moving, the camera reflects the inertia of these aimless people. For the first third of the film nothing much happens. Then there is the sudden entry of a young Greek worker, played by Fassbinder himself, to ignite the latent xenophobic prejudices of the rest of the cast. They wind each other up by exaggerating all those qualities they feel the Greek might have, including being a rapist and worst of all a communist. The men need little to start them off once they learn from one who shares a lodging with the Greek that he has a bigger dick than the rest of them. For the women it is the unfounded rape allegation that sparks indignation and a call for vigilante violence. At the same time as being enormously funny, this part of the film in its depiction of xenophobia as the product of ignorance is hammered home with ferocious integrity. Perhaps the most original touch is the punctuation of the action at various points with brief sequences in which different pairs of characters stroll very slowly between the same two rows of garages to the accompaniment of a badly over-pedalled performance of a piano Schubert waltz. Their laconic comments have the function of a kind of Greek chorus, binding the film together in a curiously subtle way. If you are looking for an early Fassbinder gem, "Katzelmacher" is the one I would recommend.

This movie is hard to find. I haven't seen it in years but remember the overall thing. 'Katzelmacher'is the best RWF ever threw at us. I read a review here earlier, a long synopsis...very interesting. I recall certain scenes. My fav, the walking pairs, threesomes, etc. all shown walking down the same alley gossiping, at various points in the film. A beautiful piano waltz accompanies each group as they walk. It struck me that RWF filmed all of these scenes one after the other in keeping with the motto of their clan of actors, "Cheaper, Faster, Better.", or something like that. If you notice, there's the same car parked in the background, and it appears the scenes were all shot about the same time of day. "Next!" The Peer Raben waltz is so beautiful. I played it on guitar at my father's funeral. I believe Peer called it 'Valse Katzelmacher'. I could be wrong on that, too. No matter, it's a heartfelt piece of music! I fell in love with this group of actors. It was always, "I wonder who's gonna be in this one?" and then..."Oh, Wow, Great! So, 'Katzelmacher', an absolute must for Kine buffs.

The lingering shots, the long continous takes allow for the story to unfold without distractions. Accenting this also is the stark black and white. These uneventful shots and use of black and white also symbolize the bland lives of the people. Which sets-up an uncommon reaction. Since there lives have no action. A simple arrival of a foreigner has these natural gossipers excited and mysteriously annoyed. Soon their jealous and rumours are started. A quiet man only looking for work is transformed into a beast.

Thus the film becomes an engrossing social commentary on prejudice and the effects of that and of jumping to conclusions. As well as taking an anti-gossip stand. The film would be a wonderful example in illustrating the events of any countries racial issues.

In may be demanding of the viewer though. The long shots and an hour of simple conversation and savage romance become tedious. Hanging on through the whole film though will be rewarding.

I think in big parts the film is about dynamics. Different couples with different dynamics. One couple in which the man treats his woman harshly, one in which he treats her more tenderly (until he is eager for more money) and one in which the woman has the upper hand in the household, apparently because she brings home the money. Yet they all seem to be in love with their partner and they are all friends with each other.

Money also plays an important role overall. Those who have money are more oppressive and dominating. As if having money gives one more of a right to tell your partner what he or she should do in things that have nothing to do with money. Two of the men consider doing something illegal, that should bring big bucks. This was the cause for some quarrels with their women who found the idea appealing but didn't want to risk it. We never learn what it was they had planned and eventually they dropped the idea. But the relationships with their women were hurt permanently by this dispute.

Everyone seemed to have sex with everyone (except the ugly woman), without being much of an issue, but hey, it was 1969. In fact, it only was an issue when one of the women demanded money for it. It made her a whore, but the other women doing it for free didn't make them whores. Except for maybe the woman who was said to have sex with the guest-worker from Greece.

The scenes of always two different characters walking, with the melancholic music I understood this way that the two people talk differently to each other when they are among themselves. Always more tender, no matter which two people it were. But once there are at least three people the dynamics change for the worse.

At the beginning I found the film quite alien, because of the apparent disjointness of the scenes, but the better I knew the characters the more drawn in I was and I soon started to get something out of most scenes. It was also alien because I was not used to the way they talk. Pretty stagy in pronunciation and phrasing. This could possibly be contributed to the fact that the cast and writer/director Fassbinder all came from theater with little film experience at that point.

There was no sense of time. It just goes from one conversation to another. From the dialogue you could gather that a lot of time passed overall, but it isn't really important to know how much. It was just important for the movie so to not have the plot stagnating, to see different sides of the characters. Although it could also be argued again that you don't get a sense of time passing because Fassbinder didn't yet know any better, since he was rather new to the medium of film.

Even though Fassbinder made a few films before, I and other people generally regard 'Katzelmacher' as his true debut as it is the most recognized of his earliest works (similar to how Mean Streets is viewed among Scorsese's filmography). Regardless, it is without a doubt noticeable that we are dealing with a director's early work; IMO that works both in the film's favor as well as against it.

There is a very strict and stiff approach to the filmmaking, the camera is almost always stationary, and certain scenes follow a specific "template" with regard to the cinematography in the respective sequences (i.e. Every scene that takes place in front of the house features the same exact perspective and mise en scene, etc). Also, the way Fassbinder utilizes his characters and actors is very "theatrical", sometimes characters almost become part of the mise en scene themselves, and there is always a "focus" on a specific character who is talking; rarely are two people's lines overlapping which, again, makes it very theatrical which is fitting, considering how this used to be a stage play.

So far everything I said is both something I can praise and criticize which is odd, but makes this an interesting film to say the least.

Where I do think the film becomes dated is in how it approaches its subject matter of xenophobia; in that regard I think Fassbinder's later works are just a lot better ('Ali: Fear Eats the Soul' for example). The Greek immigrant, played by Fassbinder himself, is somewhat of a tacky, cartoonish depiction of a foreigner in Germany and the character is very underdeveloped. I totally get that Fassbinder wanted to focus on the xenophobic Germans and their ugly behavior (even outside their racism), but again, 'Ali: Fear Eats the Soul' has proven that the overall topic can work better if you properly develop the characters and feature multiple views on the situation at hand, which leads to a better film overall.

There is also a brief fight scene that is honestly embarassing to look at given how poorly the punches and kicks were choreographed, a minor scene in the overall film, but the fact that I am still thinking about it proves that it could have been done better... To summarize, the film contains enough interesting elements to be worth checking out today, but with regard to its content, I think Fassbinder did a better job later on in his (admittedly short) career. Out of the films of his that i have seen, this may be the weakest, but it is not terrible either.