Katzelmacher

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.