Peter von Kant

"Peter Von Kant"

Peter Von Kant (Dennis Ménochet), a successful, famous director, lives with his assistant Karl (Stefan Crepon), whom he likes to mistreat and humiliate. Through the great actress Sidonie (Isabelle Adjani), he meets and falls in love with Amir (Khalil Ben Gharhia), a handsome young man of modest means. He offers to share his apartment and help Amir break into the world of cinema.

For Fassbinder, the world of fashion was merely a context. Petra's work is not developed or analyzed. We only know that she's successful, that she needs to draw new designs, and that her assistant is there to help her. His work is how he meets others, discovers them, elevates them. Amir reveals himself before the camera, not just to Peter but also to the viewer. Suddenly we see him differently, he becomes an actor, which also makes us doubt his sincerity. Is his story true, or is it merely calculated to move Peter, to stimulate his desire to create? When Peter seizes the camera, his appetite to film Amir is clear. That movement plunges him into the creative desire of Pygmalion for Galatea. Sidonie is also a variation on the theme of Pygmalion and his muse. Peter loves and hates her simultaneously. 'I preferred the actress to the woman', he says. In Fassbinder, the character is merely a confidante; a best friend for Petra to bounce of off. We imagine Peter as a big drama queen, always making too much of things. In the Fassbinder film there's a queer side, with the women overplaying their femininity. Peter is forever drowning in his emotions. He's excessive, overly emphatic. And more often than not, he's high on alcohol or drugs. The trick is to embrace the theatricality of the character. The color and stylization work characterizes his final period on material from his first period.

Peter wants to take Amir in, protect him, be his Pygmalion. Peter falls in love not just with Amir but also with the creature he could shape Amir into. And when Amir ultimately escapes him, Peter is riddled with jealousy. And again, all his theories about freedom in relationships come tumbling down. When Peter meets Amir, there's a sexual fantasy for sure, but he's also found someone who is as alone as he's, whose life is broken. Beyond the physical and sexual attraction. Peter ends up alone, but he has his memories of Amir on film. Exploring the theme of love through the prism of cinema is moving, especially right now, with changing attitudes towards going to the movies, falling theatre attendance, the emergence of platforms. This film "Peter von Kant" is perhaps more optimistic than Fassbinder's. Though Peter ends up alone and isolated, his eyes are open to his films, his imagination, fiction. He films Amir, he records his love. Creation and cinema save Peter.

The film is an adaptation of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Fassbinder originally wrote the story for the theatre. He made it into a film in 1972 when he was just 25 years old. He had recently discovered the Hollywood melodramas of Douglas Sirk, and used all the theatrical and cinematic artifices and mannerisms at his disposal to film his play about emotional dependence and the impossibility of loving as equals. Fassbinder's body of work, philosophy and vision of the world have always haunted us. His unbelievable creative energy fascinates us. The film centers around one of Fassbinder's passionate love affairs. In 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant', Fassbinder had turned his own unhappy love affair with one of his favorite actors, Günther Kaufmann, into a lesbian love story between a fashion designer and her model. The character of Karl is inspired by Peer Raben, who composed music for Fassbinder's films and was also his assistant. The film trades the world of fashion for the world of cinema and changes the gender of the three main characters. It's a way of betraying Fassbinder the better to find him, in a universal tale of passionate love. The story is more relevant than ever in the way it questions the power dynamics of domination in the creative arts, the Pygmalion/muse relationship.

'Water Drops on Burning Rocks' was consciously very theatrical, with an ironic detachment reminiscent of Fassbinder's cinema. This film wants to inject more empathy into a new version of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Maybe with age and experience we understand Fassbinder better, the way he sees life, creation and love right down to it's most monstruous aspects. Fassbinder is not a loveable filmmaker. His films are not loveable. But we feel a wide range of emotions towards Peter. To hate him one minute and find him touching, grotesque or endearing the next. He blends the intimate and the political in the most naked of ways, both literally and figuratively. The effect is at once pathetic, sincere and devastating. There's also a dash of boulevard in Fassbinder's work, but it's more Brechtian, there's more distancing. The film wsnts to highlight the emotional power of the text, bring the character's humanity and feelings to the fore, leave behind Fassbinder's little theatre of puppets in favor of flesh and blood characters. The bitter tears in Fassbinder's play and film are artificial, which is what makes them beautiful, both theatrically and cerebrally.

Written by Gregory Mann.

I must say that, following all the male roles taken by women in, eg, modern interpretations of Shakespeare (will a man ever again be permitted to portray King Lear?), it makes a nice change to see a man take a female role, as François Ozon adapts Rainer Werner Fassbinder's play/film/opera for a male lead. Denis Ménochet gives a good portrayal of the mercurial, self-indulgent film-maker in what turns out to be an at times uneven production.

A constant presence in the background is Karl, von Kant's assistant. Played by Stéfan Crépon, he has no lines but instead conveys his emotions by facial expression. This would be a difficult task for any actor, and at times Crépon over-does the eye acting as Karl gazes, hurt, at von Kant, following yet another example of his employer's disregard of his feelings. The other male character is Amir, object of von Kant's affections. In this role Khalil Gharbia provides the weakest performance of the film, at times too obviously acting even in such a mannered production as this.

The film was worth seeing once, but I doubt I will bother watching it again.

The film shows a successful director who works from home with the help of his mute, endlessly submissive assistant. The still fresh pain of his breakup with his love partner makes him feel lonely and unhappy. His explanation for the breakup is envy from his boyfriend. His daily life is associated with work on scripts, alcohol and drugs. A ray of hope is his introduction to Amir, who is a young and handsome actor, separated from his girlfriend ( which is in Australia )and waiting for his star moment. Peter offers him to leave the hotel where he is staying and move into him. This is the beginning of their brief romance, the finale of which will make Peter's life even more bitter.

We cannot feel there connection in depth. Even when Amir leaves him, there is no sense of the great separation that would lead to Peter's immense suffering. Peter tries to stop him from leaving, but it doesn't look good, it's not finished clearly. There is a moment when Peter's mother asks him about something strange with grave of father, and Peter doesn't answer anything. The audience cannot explain this moment. He sits, like a hole.

Otherwise, the film is mostly shot in close-ups, which makes it chambered, and this trick works because approaching us to the full melodrama. It was shot almost entirely in interiors.

This is a weak achievement from François Ozon - otherwise a brilliant director. Although the movie is watchable without effort and there is great acting, you may feel that something is missing. The intense dramma that fills the 1972 Fassbinder movie has been turned into grotesque comedy. Both films are strongly theatrical, but the tone in Ozon's movie works less satisfactorily. Stefan Crepon's character Karl, however, is superb.

Where is the main flaw of this film in my opinion? The author was betrayed by the belief that an easy transcript of the Fassbinder mise en scène (changing sexes and adding some comedy) woulf be enough to yield a significant remake.

For instance, what is the reason to maintain the action in the seventies as in the inspiring movie? The only explanation that I am able to find is a wrong feeling that much of the dramatic tension would disappear in a world full of mobile phones. The fact that Petra Von Kant becomes a prisonner and an anxious slave of her land line phone after being abandoned by Karin is naturally inserted in the action of the 1972 version. Extra work would be required to recreate the plot in terms of mobile phones: I believe the result might be innovative and interesting. Instead of harming the script, it could appear as a welcome refreshment. Just think of how many episodes of jealousy, lies and betrayal could be manufactured with resource to contact lists, text messages and what more you can think of.

Though I've never seen Fassbinder's original Bitter Tears, I don't really think I have to in order to enjoy François Ozon's version. I loved just everything about it: the whole thing being very theatrical, the setting, the colours, the music, the texts and the silences (there's one character who doesn't speak at all but he's always there and he's fantastic!), but most of all I loved the grotesque-ness. I believe this is one of the best, classical means to express the vices of society and our human nature in general. Most of the characters in the movie, of course, are pathetic, hysterical, manipulative and violent but it is through this exaggeration that we understand that sometimes this picture is just a mirror for us to look at.

This film returned me to the basics of what a classical comedy should be. Great cast, impressive acting, gorgeous costumes and amazing photography.