Peter von Kant

This film works if the original source material is put to one side. Taking ' Peter von Kant ' and putting it into a modern context is in my opinion the best option, and also relates better to what is seen on the screen. I was fascinated by the tackiness of the decor, the mediocrity of the characters and above all a hint at the end of the film that this was all about the death of so-called quality cinema. Perhaps Ozon would disagree, but the scenario is excellent as long as it is put into the category of camp trash. Forget too that it is set in Cologne 1972. The content as I saw it was far more relevant to the trivialities of today's soap operas and mini-series. The final scene in the film made the film work for me, the trashy image of a third-rate actor turned into a ' star, ' and the tears in Peter's eyes are more for the death of the cinema, than the empty passion of a bisexual youth's love. Peter in this film is a director and Ozon must surely have been aware of the worst of them who trade in banalities, and work for the worst of reasons and for the highest amount of money. Denis Menochet is very good as Peter, and Isabelle Adjani as Sidonie as his friend and an actor for him is superficial to the hilt, and she is excellent playing her as such. There are no real feelings in this woman whatsoever. She is all facade, and so is Khalil Ben Garbia as the luxury grabbing rising ' star ' who Peter falls in love with. Hanna Schygulla as Peter's mother shows us the past, and of all the cast she is the most real. Evoking a tenderness and a love for others that surpasses the other's understanding. Then there is Stefan Crepon, extraordinary as the silent servant to Peter's whims and needs, and also his insults. He watches everything and represses his feelings until the penultimate scene. Without a word spoken he acts with his presence alone and his perceptive eyes. For me he was the best actor in the film. As for Ozon's direction it could be seen as being less than his best but seen as a reflection of the worst of today's cinema it is spot on. A film that will endure as a requiem for what we have lost in cinema as an art form, and a reminder in future years of the superficiality of our era.

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.

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.

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.

Not my favorite ozon. The film tries to merge a fictional account of fassbinders own chaotic relationships and the actual plot of petra von kant by changing the gender of Hanna's character and changing petra von kant with peter von kant (who is basically fassbinder himself). This however does not work as good for a number of reasons. More relevant to me is the sense that the power relations between the couple in fassbinders original was more of a professional success kind of thing whils in this one is more like peter von kant cannot deal with his boyfriend free love ethics. That makes the film seem strangelly (considering ozons previous films and the source material) monogamous. I was looking forward to this one because i really liked water drops on burning rocks but i left the theater a little bit disappointed. It is not a bad film by any means it just felt kind of colorless.