Paragraph 175

While I think that everyone should see this film because of its vitally important subject matter, I feel that because of lax editing and meandering, incomplete story telling, it was much less effective than it should have been.

As just one example, and I have been studying Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the movie briefly refers to a gay man's friend who was killed by German Shepherd dogs in front of 300 people. I read a similar account on the Internet (I suspect it was the same case), in which graphic details were given of the brutality of the crime, details which, if you heard or read about, you would never forget. To just gloss over this compelling tale in the manner the movie does is inexcusable. How can one understand the true horror when it is glossed over.

Additionally, one of the major points of this film should be how many gay concentration camp victims were still treated as prisoners after the war, specifically because of Paragraph 175. It is barely a footnote in the movie. This is inexplicable to me.

What is good is having a record of living survivors of gay detention during the Holocaust. It remains the reason for seeing this movie. But the narrative is very meandering and a few of the lingering close-ups of some of the survivors breaking down almost feels exploitative.

Bottom line: because of the important subject matter and the live interviews the film needs to be seen. I just wish it had been made more coherently. A film with this type of material will always be powerful. It could have been far more so had it been made by better filmmakers.

The golden days of decadent Berlin came to a bloody halt when Hitler's regime took over Germany in the early 1930s and gay men were brought down by simple innuendo and gossip (lesbianism was considered curable, but male homosexuality was "catching"). Early talk of homosexuality in Hitler's ranks precipitated the reinsertion of Paragraph 175, an old anti-sodomy law from the late 1800s, and gays were branded with the lowly Pink Triangle. Forceful documentary on a little talked-about chapter of history has just a handful of elderly witnesses but a superlative presentation of personally-shot footage mixed with telling photographs. Some of the recollections are haunting; the doomed come back to life in these harrowing stories. *** from ****

This film is fantastic. What a powerful 80 minutes of film. It was so informative and emotional without shoving anything down your throat. The way the delicate and sensitive subject matters were handled was graceful and respectful. Kudos.

It made me feel angry, sad, and compassion for the people that are struggling to voice their stories without making a fiasco out of what happened to them.

Like so many other documentaries, this one did not try and play with my emotion with overly sappy music or editing. It was simple and precise. The music was haunting and had the perfect mood for the piece. The interviews were not overly edited for dramatic effect, but were simple and honest.

I watched it twice. Cried both times. And I feel more educated and compassionate for renting this great film.

PARAGRAPH 175, which premiered in the US (outside of Sundance) last night at the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, is must-see viewing. When one thinks how many documentaries have been made about the Nazi oppression of Jews, Roma (formerly known as Gypsies), and other groups, it is almost inconceivable that it is only in the year 2000, 67 years after the Nazi persecution of male homosexuals started (in 1933), that a documentary on the subject is finally released. It was high time this happened. This documentary about the terrible fate of this population group aims to inform the general public, and does so well. It is aided by the excellent commentary voiced by openly gay actor and part-time Miami resident Rupert Everett. If it is shown anyplace near you, see it. It might be the only opportunity to do so, unless it is later distributed in video or DVD.

This film is an excellent example of letting people tell their story without embellishing the contextual situation. The extra material added to the interviews is perfectly balanced to put the interviews in their historical and personal context, without unduly expanding the context to overshadow what the (very few) survivors had to tell. Enough information is given about paragraph 175 and it's application during Hitler's reign and after for us to get an insight of its consequences, and the situation of denial of our 'civilised' western countries even today regarding the gay victims of this horror. But the focus is on the survivors' tale, not the context. This technique (too rarely applied) produced an extremely powerful documentary. I have seldom seen such a well balanced work.