Katzelmacher

In this quietly scathing film from Fassbinder we have a portrait of a community and of a country. It happens to be West Germany, but could have been anywhere, and the words ' We belong here and no one else ' are as applicable today as they were back in 1969. The group are made up of men and women who talk to each other in front of a generic house with flowers on the window sills, and then they go to what they call a tavern and play cards and continue mouthing banalities that are so cruel and appalling that I wanted to close my ears to what I was hearing. The men when not talking abuse their women and this is portrayed as being casually ' normal, ' and one of the men is a male prostitute who kisses his male clients. Money and how to get it, criminally or otherwise dominates their conversations, if you can call them that. And they want the ' normality ' of this existence until a ' foreigner ' enters their community. Fassbinder himself plays this role and he is excellent. The foreigner is Greek and rumours start circulating such as his penis being bigger than the other men, and jealousy begins to enter this communal garden of evil. What happens next I will not reveal, but as in all Fassbinder the taking of money by fair means or foul is dominant. Personally I like Fassbinder's earlier films, and this I believe was close to the beginning of his incredible output. The near static nature and use of minimal sets has by some been put down to lack of money, but I believe he needed us, the viewers, to focus and the camera, almost unmoving, makes the content pitilessly accurate. I rate Fassbinder to be one of the handful of the greatest film directors and this film is in my opinion equal if not better than some of his last work. Sheer genius.

Katzelmacher changed many people's lives when it came out. One has to wonder how exponential the effects were, but the waves that films like this make are usually much greater than most viewers can fathom. (For example, although very few people are familiar with John Cassavetes' Shadows, that film affected Martin Scorsese profoundly.)

In the interesting documentary, I Don't Just Want You To Love Me, Fassbinder claims that he didn't move the camera much during this time for aesthetic reasons. His cinematographer (Dietrich Lohmann), however, says that aesthetics had little to do with it; they simply couldn't easily move the bulky camera and dolly, and they had no budget to rent better equipment.

This film is part of an experimental avalanche, and it is amazing. The particular art house feel is a result of the times, and as Fassbinder moves on it is fascinating to contemplate how he gets his message across, using different styles. He was truly fearless, and all of his stuff is worth serious consideration.

Katzelmacher becomes even more interesting after viewing his later work.

There's not that much plot to Katzelmacher, but it's interesting the way it is. We're kind of looking at the late 60's German equivalent of what we might've seen in the 90's with certain movies (Clerks, the Linklater efforts, Kids) where we just see people hanging out and talking, but never about things that will really change their lives or affect them. This is accurate to disaffected youth, though Fassbinder makes it a little sexually charged here and there - nothing explicit, but there are some relationships that have fits and starts, mostly fits - and a 'new' person. A Greek man comes as a newcomer, and he's not really welcome. This makes up the conflict, though it doesn't seem that way at first.

It's tough to fully recall why the group turns on this Greek guy - maybe he said something or did something that made them turn, or it was his funny accent or way of speaking (I certainly remember the latter as it was one of those things that stuck out) - but the point is clear. Alienation drives so many of Fassbinder's story, and it's not simply the characters but the style itself here that gives off an alienating vibe. We see many shots that are just static on these guys (Fassbinder being one of them in the cast) hanging around, sitting down, smoking, talking, aimless, and then it'll cut to a shot of two women walking and talking in an apartment complex, and these are the only shots where music comes up (the same tinny piano music, by the way). It's in this atmosphere, in black and white no less, that things that look AND feel the same all the time can get disrupted by just one character.

I don't know if this is really among the director's best, and it's best I think to look at it as an early experiment. Certainly things he's dealing with here he'd explore throughout the rest of his career. It's not particularly engaging in the way of A-B-C unfold. You're just watching this very slow moving car wreck that's unfolding in a way that doesn't seem like it. Again, akin to one of those low-key character studies that would pop up in American independent cinema decades later. But it is interesting, for what it is, especially if you can be open to its intended aim of being *about* aimlessness and the way that underneath that is a lot of darkness.

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.