Friday, April 25, 2025

Alain Berliner | Ma Vie en Rose (My Life in Pink) / 1997

the heart of their terror

by Douglas Messerli

 

Alain Berliner and Chris Vander Stappen (screenplay), Alain Berliner (director) Ma Vie en Rose (My Life in Pink) / 1997

 

Belgian director Alain Berliner’s Ma Vie en Rose is billed as a comedy, which ultimately it becomes; but not before a great deal of social bigotry, confrontation, and ostracization along with domestic confusion, terror, and outright confoundment before arriving at that place. One might almost describe this as a kind of absurdist comedy except that in 1997, the date of this film’s French-language release, the issues it raises were still so fresh that the underlying assumptions upon which the perception of the absurd depends were not yet fully established. Even today there are many intelligent people who have difficulty in talking reasonably about some of the issues Berliner’s film raises.


     It’s not just that the Fabre’s youngest boy Ludovic (Georges Du Fresne), called “Ludo” by family members, has a cherubic-like ovalene face, wears his hair long as many a European family permitted throughout the 20th century—even while US fathers and barbers insisted their sons be subjected to flat tops and buzz cut—dances to the tunes of his favorite TV show Le Monde de Pam, starring the fantasy-like human doll Pam (who lives in a pink world and marries the man of her dreams), but “she” regularly wears dresses and, when he is later told by his older sister Zoé about the basic biological facts of X and Y chromosomes that determines the sex of a child, which declares that he is actually a girl who instead of the female XX chromosomes he was intended to get, received the XY after “my other X fell into the garbage.”

      Ludovic’s mother Hanna (Michèle Laroque) puts on a brave face, believing in allowing the fantasies of childhood to be harmlessly played out, explaining "It's normal until 7. I read it in Marie-Claire.'' Ludo’s father Pierre (Jean-Philippe Écoffey) is not completely assured by her attitude, but as a loving husband allows his wife to raise the children as she sees best. Indeed, all might have gone well, but Ludo does not seem to be in any hurry to abandon his fantasies when the family moves into what appears to be the perfect suburban neighborhood which might almost remind us of Leonard Bernstein’s short operatic rendition of US suburbia in Trouble in Tahiti—a  backup quartet singing:

 

Friendly sun opens the eyelids, opens the eyes

Of the husband and wife;

Kindles their faces, kindles their love,

Kindles their faces with greetings of love

In the little white house in Wellesley Hills.

Suburbia!

....

Joy to your labors until you return

To the little white house in Highland Park

In Shaker Heights

In Michigan Falls

In Beverly Hills.

Skid a lit day; skid a lit day... Ratty boo.

 

 


    Not only is the suburban community friendly, but members share weekly neighborhood barbecues, which, of course, having just moved in, the Fabre family is now expected to host. They’ve invited their somewhat eccentric, certainly open-minded grandmother, Élisabeth (Hélène Vincent), their broodingly correct-thinking next door neighbor Albert (Daniel Hanssens)—who happens to be Pierre’s boss—and the entire force of fathers and mothers doting upon their seemingly rather bratty and selfish kids. Things appear to be going well until Ludo decides to show up in a frilly pink dress.

      At first, the visiting parents are delighted seeing in the child a beautifully dressed and well-behaved young lady; that is, until Pierre, in the midst of introducing his four children, pauses before continuing, “And this is Ludovic. The practical joker. He’s always doing things like that.”

     So begins a long and slow decline in the newcomers’ stature in this perfect childhood version  of “Pam’s World.” But unlike the TV version of a children’s fantasy, the adult one hides many secrets. 

     When Ludo meets his fellow classmate Jérôme (Julien Rivière) it is love at first sight, the boy, who just happens to be Albert’s son, accepting Ludo almost as the girl she demands she has always been. Even if the adults have not yet been able to assimilate the change in pronoun their children symbolically embrace it.


       As friend Jérôme invites his new girlfriend over to his house, he carefully explaining that the room just before his had been his sister’s, the issues get more complex. Later the children break into the sacred room, kept intact from a time before the daughter’s unexplained absence not unlike Mrs. Danvers’ shrine for Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock’s film. Discovering the child’s dresses, Ludo determines that she must dress up in the prettiest and pinkest of them for an unofficial wedding between herself and Jérôme, playacting a ceremony with the dead child’s teddy bear officiating, as “Pam” marries her “Ben.” It is a moving scene of childish wonderment; but parents in this film are ceremony interrupting the fantasies of their children, and Albert’s more than dutiful wife Lisette (Laurence Bibot) discovering them as they are about to kiss, faints in horror over what she, and eventually the entire neighborhood, perceive as a perverted desecration of their sexual values.

       The Fabre’s have no choice but to seek out psychological help for Ludo, which, given the girl’s insistence that she is female, has little result. She lamely attempts to play with the male-assigned toys, but it is as if the life has been drained from her. After Ludo, during the school production of “Snow White” locks the young girl who is playing that character in the bathroom and replaces her, awaiting the kiss of Jérôme she has previously been denied, the entire school district goes into crisis. Ludo is expelled and forced to attend another school which requires several hours of travel each morning and night.

      When Pierre’s own job seems to be threatened even Hanna joins in the societal blaming her daughter.

        Soon after, the child goes missing, found eventually in a freezer where she been hiding to await her frozen death. Realizing they will totally lose her if they continue, they allow her to wear a dress to a neighborhood birthday party. The next day Pierre is fired from his job and returns home drunk, with the terrified Ludo asking, “Is it my fault?” Pierre’s announcement to her that it is not, that people are “jerks,” and Hanna’s rejoinder, “I’m sick of all this hypocrisy” seems to suggest that Pierre and she no longer blame their child’s gender displacement to be the heart of the problem, yet at the very next moment she again turns against the child spitting out the horrible words: “Yes, it’s your fault. Everything is your fault,” almost as if suggesting what the hypocritical adults have determined is something she has no longer any power to deny. This is the way the normative patriarchal society works, blaming those innocent for their own fears and transferring the guilt upon those who attempt to salve those fears.

      Sexuality, Hanna recognizes is at the heart of their terror. Almost as if to prove it, she appears at her neighbor Albert’s driveway the very moment he has put Jérôme in the front seat and is waving goodbye to Lisette on his way to drop off his son at school before driving himself to work. Hanna greets him and plants a long, sensuous kiss upon his lips, gently stroking his hair.

       The obedient and long-suffering Lisette, a product of her husband’s social and cultural inhibitions, has no choice but to believe that her husband has now been dishonest, having long desired Hanna and other women previously. In this contemporary Salem—or to contextualize it within French history, in the tradition of Margot de la Barre and Marion la Droiturière, women who were accused of causing impotence and desire in Marion’s former lover—has truly become a witch, or as Albert describes her “a devil.”


       A day later they discover the words “Go Away Fruits” spray-painted on their garage door. The family itself has now become defined as “queer” simply for their son’s shift in the definition of her gender. This surely cannot be a comedy the audience must conclude. And as if in answer, soon after, while tears roll down Ludo’s eyes, her mother clips her hair to match the cut she has given her “other” sons.

       Is it any wonder that Ludo now wishes to live with her more accepting grandmother? When the two return for a family weekend reunion, however, Pierre announces that he has found another job in a town far away. And the Fabres once again pull up stakes and move on, as if attempting to put the past into the coffin where Snow White, never having received her kiss, likely died.

       The new home, certainly more run-down and less suburban than their previous home, is also filled with friendly-seeming neighbors. Yet the new family keeps its distance and have ordered Ludo to never again behave in a manner that suggests his gender desires. Ludo nonetheless meets someone willing to be a friend, a tomboy (Chris Delvigne) forced to wear girl’s clothes and envious at Ludo’s male attire. Invited to a costume birthday celebration with her mother, the two are dressed by their parents in cis-gender attire, Ludo in a musketeer outfit and Chris costumed as a princess. Alone with Ludo, the tomboy conspires to switch costumes, to which Ludo reacts with both horror and desire, twice insisting, “No I can’t.” The stronger of the two, Chris physically enforces the switch as both return to the gathering of mothers, Ludo hanging behind.

     When Hanna sees Chris wearing Ludo’s costume, she runs to find Ludo, who, as she begins to slap him hard, cries out “I didn’t do it. It wasn’t my fault,” a muted declaration that actually nothing ever was his fault. Yet Hanna, fearful of the past repeating itself, continues to beat the fairy princess. The mothers come running, pulling her away from Ludo, confused why such an innocent act as simply exchanging costumes has resulted in such a violent response.

       This is, if you recall an adult fantasy as much as one for children, and now, as Hanna rushes to find Ludo to apologize for her behavior, she finds her missing. Running to a highway sign advertising “Le Monde de Pan,” into which she has previously seen Ludovic longingly staring, she is startled to find Ludo in the picture as well, running off with Pam.


        Awakening on the neighbor’s couch, she is confused to see the faces of her own husband among her neighbors peering down at her. Dr. Freud might have noted that she is the one who is now displaced—as a mother who fears she can no longer play that role for her beloved Ludovic; what is a mother who cannot accept and protect her own child? a question surely that Lisette has long asked of herself as well.

     Wondering if it’s okay if she now wear dresses, both parents assure her that she may, clearly in acceptance of the transformation overwhelming their still beloved child.

 

Los Angeles, October 29, 2020

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (October 2020).

John Greyson | Un©ut / 1997

 the crime of three peters

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Greyson (screenwriter and director) Un©ut / 1997

 

Canadian director John Greyson may be one of the most original and talented of late 20th century LGBTQ filmmakers. His Zero Patience (1993) and Lillies (1997) are both near the top of my lists of favorite LGBTQ works, and I’ve still to see several of his films which are often difficult to obtain in the US, an odd fact since, as this film argues against, rights and permissions (outrageously expensive) to simply watch his films seem to be major problem in getting access to viewing his works.

      One of the major arguments of Greyson’s film is about the dangers of the strict copyright laws, which through the refusal of the Kurt Weill estate to allow parody versions of Weill’s sons from Threepenny Opera—a work itself that Brecht and Weill stole from the 18th century British writer John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera, which itself was based on popular ballads of the day—meant that one of his most important works, The Making of Monsters (1991) has seldom been viewed since its first release. Although that film premiered at the 1991 Toronto Film Festival and made the rounds of several LGBTQ festivals following its initial run, the film has remained unavailable in the years since due to copyright issues, as Warner-Chappell, the holder of the rights to Weill's songs, obtained a court injunction against the use of a "Mack the Knife" parody with different lyrics in the film, even though parodies are fully legal under fair use provisions. Warner-Chappell had originally approved the film’s appropriation of the song, but changed their mind after learning that the film contained gay content; even after Weill's songs passed into the public domain in 2001, Warner-Chappell continued to use legal threats to block public screenings of the film, preventing it from being included in the 2012 Greyson retrospective at the Art Gallery of Ontario.


     But the issue of copyright and the increasing interest in appropriation and “sampling” plays a much larger role in this film. As critic Gary Morris writing in Bright Lights Journal explains:

 

“Interwoven with…[various] narrative threads are striking interpolations of documentary footage of [Canadian Prime Minister Pierre] Trudeau declaring a state of martial law, artists and writers describing their problems with copyright infringement and sampling, censorship laws, and historical info about circumcision and censorship. Greyson finds rich parallels in real life to the film’s fictional high jinks. Peter Denham’s lust for the Jackson Five is augmented with an interview with John Oswald, who altered Michael Jackson’s video Bad to graft the head of the “King of Pop” onto a Nude Miss America body. Oswald’s sleight-of-hand apparently amused Jackson but the lawyers put an end to it. The film’s fake Trudeau — a comatose old man on a hospital bed — is contrasted with footage of actress Linda Griffiths doing a fabulous gender-bender interpretation of him, a performance that also skirted libel. Artist A. A. Bronson, a vehement enemy of copyright, talks eloquently about his appropriation of Gary Indiana’s famous LOVE logo and changing it to AIDS.”

 

     Morris also speaks about one of the most important incidents of the work regarding the fear of being sued for use of “protected” material—which like many of the kinds of threats of copyright infringement, borders or might be interpreted as outright censorship— recounted by film critic and scholar Thomas Waugh, who has written on several LGBTQ Canadian filmmakers. He shares the story of his historical photographic history of early gay erotic images, something that is still lacking in LGBTQ history. Terrified lawyers troubled over the fact that the people behind the images he

had gathered or even their families might sue if the images were produced as they appeared in the original pictures, demanded that he substitute all faces of the individuals in sexual situations and positions, a computer whiz replacing the faces with images of his own friends and acquaintances. As Morris reiterates:  In one picture from the 1950s, the replacement of a happy young hunk with what looked like ‘a 50-year-old Tory’ made a playful nude tug-of-war into a “political allegory.” In another picture, the computer artist substituted his androgynous girlfriend’s face for the original. So much for historical truth.” Indeed, it destroyed the entire notion of historicity which Waugh was attempting to reveal. These images were not even in copyright, but were still seen as being the property of mostly the dead, even if surely these dead might have wished their gay activities could have been openly expressed during their own day.   



     The copyright insignia, if fact, becomes part of the title of Greyson’s film, the word “uncut” referring presumably to the “original,” the “uncut” version of things before sampling and parody rendered it as something other. It is even more ironic that when Waugh attempted to use the full originals, he was forced like all the others to “cut” and paste, making the work something other than he intended it to be. In a sense those who had sampled, cut and pasted, were no better off regarding possible lawsuits and censorship than the author who was forced to do the same.

     But even more important in this work, that word “uncut” is the central subject of research by one the film’s three Peters, Peter Cort (Matthew Ferguson), writing a work, “The Psychosexual Meanings of Circumcision and the Foreskin,” as his thesis. Having written it all in longhand—1997, the date of this film being at the very cusp of the radical shift from handwritten and typewritten manuscripts to a totally computerized world—Cort takes the manuscript to a typing service inexplicably located on the roof of an Ottawa highrise building, handing it over to the second Peter, Peter Koosens (Michael Achtman), a speed typist who makes most stenographers appear as if they are on a slow boat to China.



      Cort’s handwriting is so illegible however, that he is forced to read out the manuscript to Koosens for the next several days, while a relationship arises between the two gay men and at the same time we learn of the history of the religious and barbaric practice of male and female circumcision, which clearly is another of the filmmaker’s pet peeves which simultaneously reveals the ineptitude and disruptiveness in personal life by yet another of the movie’s various authoritarian forces, this one representing the medical profession. Here too the individual’s life, in this case his or her sexual life is taken over by others and, just as with the lawyers and copyright holders, forces “cuts” upon the already whittled down personal freedoms available. If the copyright law and its lawyers prohibit free expression through the delimiting of cultural sharing and censoring sexual content, so do doctors, rabbis, and tribal chieftains interfere before a child can even know what’s happening with sexual aesthetics and pleasure, while making outrageous claims that circumcision prevents diseases, sexual disfunction, and even homosexuality—none of which have been proven, and some of which are homophobic and, particularly case of women, misogynistic, since female mutilation of the vagina is purposely intended to remove sexual pleasure, which some claim is also true of male circumcision. There also have been numerous incidents, moreover, of inattentive rabbis and doctors removing more that the skin at the tip of penis, sometimes accidently cutting away the penis itself. In one instance quoted, the child who lost his penis was raised as a female.

      As with many theses’ topics, the subject is of personal interest. When Peter Cort had been circumcised as a baby an inexperienced internist cut off a bit too much skin, so that his erect penis now leans slightly to the right. And consequently, he has now developed a phobia for circumcised males, being attracted to only those with uncircumcised cocks, which has great significance with his interactions with both the other Peters. He has supposed Koosens to be circumcised for religious reasons, but this Peter admits that since his mother was Catholic he remains intact.*



      The two become friends, sharing lunch—although Cort spends the entire time continuing to expound on his thesis subject.

      At the bar one evening, Peter Klossens meets up with a third Peter, Peter Denham (Damon D’Oliveira) introducing the new Peter to his own private code, another issue that appropriately appears in a work about LGBTQ, particularly gay individuals, since visual and linguistic coding are extremely important for men who cannot always speak their minds freely in public, and as I have made quite evident in these pages, was one of the major ways that filmmakers were able through the 1940s-1960s to introduce gay characters and themes. The two Peter’s find that using the typewriter keyboard as their crib, they can communicate by taping out messages with their fingers if they carefully watch the position of the fingers as they tap.

      The two quickly become attracted to one another, and soon head off to Koosens apartment for sex.


     There we perceive that Koosens has his own obsession, Prince Minister Pierre Trudeau who, by using cut out pictures has created collaged paintings of the man, one portraying himself and the famed “playboy” together, suggests an intimate relationship with his would-be lover. His love for Trudeau is centered, in part, because of the popular rumors—another way that gay males have of sampling and coding—that having divorced, and despite his having three sons, the eldest of them Justin (currently the Prime Minister of Canada), that Pierre was secretly a closeted gay. At the time of this film, both US and Canadian gay communities were outing a great many celebrities, in part to help make it clear just how gay men existed in all levels of social and cultural life as a partial remedy of the rising hatred gays experienced, in part, because of the community being targeted with the pandemic AIDS.



      Peter Koosens has evidently written dozens of letters to the Prime Minister, in one even offering a massage, in the hopes apparently of finding an opportunity to meet him and engage in some sort of relationship. Although Trudeau appears to never have received these letters, the Canadian police, represented by a female Canadian Police Officer (Maria Reidstra) has read them all and is keeping a close watch on Peter K’s activities. She’s already visited him at his place of employment, and will soon stop by again on his daily walk, often near the Prime Minister’s home, to query him about his letter concerning a massage, which she feels borders on sexual blackmail. She too has taken the personal and made it public, also without permission, bringing the private in the public.

      After sex with Peter D, Koosens awakes to find his lover gone and all of his framed pictures—yet another example of sampling and using images of an individual for the purposes of art—missing from the walls, stolen. He can only presume that while he slept, the police took them to further sustain their imaginary version of his intentions to destroy Trudeau.


      The next evening, Denham meets Cort at the same bar, introducing him to his own secret code, his use of glass beer bottles to create a musical scale which, if properly read by the sounds produces, when connected with their letters, can also communicate words and partial sentences. The code quite intrigues Cort, and the two of them enjoy their musical entertainments, but after a bathroom meetup, where Cort notices that Denham seems to be circumcised, he hurries off, suddenly remembering he has to be up early the next morning.

      When Denham shows up at Koosens office while Cort is reading out his manuscript, the three finally become a trio, Koosens shocked by the fact that Denham carries with him a box of all his missing artworks. He explains that he left a note, which he later discovers has slipped under Koosens’ refrigerator, having come up with a splendid surprise for him. But Koosens remains unsure of whether or not he can trust him.

    That evening Denham once more encounters Cort at the bar, and now realizing that he has avoided him because he was circumcised explains that when he pisses, he always pulls the skin fully back. The two become interested in one another, and Cort follows Denham home to engage in sex.

Denham’s fetishes are even stranger than, it appears, Koosens’ love of Trudeau and Cort’s attraction to uncut cocks. Boxes of Kleenex appear affixed to his walls at various spots and a TV that broadcasts the actions of those within his apartment intrigues Cort as they kiss while watching themselves simultaneously broadcast. We might say that Denham takes the most private aspects of being, the sexual act, and places it in a public forum. They seem to be enjoying one another until Cort pulls down Denham’s pants to discover that in fact he has lied, that he is circumcised. Cort quickly remembers he has another appointment, Denham desperately calling for him to return.

      The next evening as the first two Peters attempt to finish up the typescript of Cort’s thesis, they receive a call from Denham. He asks them to meet him at the bar for a surprise, but because of all the noise they cannot hear him, he finally needs to play out yet another code on the phone board where the sounds of the different numbers signify the time he wants them to arrive.

      When they do so, they suddenly discover that he is broadcasting live and nationally his new art work, itself like John Oswald’s Bad sampling, a combination of newspaper images of Trudeau along with the images of Koosens’ collages and Cort’s television sex making it appear as if Trudeau were somehow involved with all three of the men. At the very moment, presumed to have been caused by Denham’s broadcast, Trudeau falls ill and lies near death. The three are immediately arrested for having created a furor, disseminating false information, and for helping to cause the Prime Minister’s imminent death.


      In a typical Greyson trope, the trial is held as a mock opera—this director uses music, both classical and popular genres in almost all his works, introducing opera and musical theater into many of his films—in which the Police Officer suddenly begins to sing, along with an opera diva / judge, “La Habanera” from Georges Bizet’s Carmen, in what becomes a sort of feminist denunciation of all men and a listing of the sins of the so-called criminals from A to Z. Despite Denham’s attempts to explain that it was all his doing and that other two are innocent, the three are tried together in front of a journey of snails, and found guilty, Koosens and Denham sentenced to an open-air boot camp for 26 years, while Cort gets a 26-month punishment since he was not directly involved, presumably meaning that his body was used but not his own art.

      During the whole time while they are in prison, they are not allowed to speak to one another and forced to communicate only in the bathroom (the notorious meeting place of gay men) and by code, although the Officer has become aware of their taps, which she disallows as well. They are taught, meanwhile, how to “dust” books (all of them collected works of gay men) and analyze body excretions such as nasal fluids left behind by Denham—all with the intent of turning them into detectives when they are finally released.


      As the days pass, Trudeau’s condition, a symbol of his near loss of power in 1979, remains in the same semi-comatose condition so they discover from the illegal newspapers they sneak into camp. When Cort is about to be released, Koosens suddenly disappears from their night watch.

      In Cort’s thesis he mentions the miracle of Christ’s foreskin, saved by Mary, and eventually stolen by the conqueror Charlemagne, ending up in Kölm, among the Cathedrals claiming to have the holy relic. Many claimed that the very sight and smell of the relic had curative effects. St. Agnes claimed that when it appeared before in a vision she tasted it, describing the foreskin as being sweet and smelling of Chinese roses.


       Denham, now truly almost mad, performs his own bloody circumcision, afterwards pleading with Cort to feed it to the sick Trudeau in order to cure him. Cort, who has grown to love Kossens, finally agrees. Freed, Cort slips past the sleeping guard, enters Trudeau’s room, removes his oxygen mask, and slips the foreskin into his mouth.


       Almost immediately, the guard having awaken, enters and shoots Cort, hitting him predictably for this film, directly in the penis, presumably also killing the innocent.

       Trudeau suddenly rises and returns to complete normalcy much like the real Trudeau did after losing in 1979, reforming a government in 1980 which restored him to the position of Prime Minister.

       But just as in real life wherein Trudeau had been hailed as a hero for demanding that police no longer belonged in the bedroom and decriminalizing homosexual acts, after the kidnapping of Quebec Labor Minister Pierre Laporte he also invoked The War Measure’s Act, allowing innocent men and women to be arrested and held without trial. The Trudeau so loved by Peter Koosens in this film results in his and Denham’s imprisonment and Cort’s death. The three Peters have not survived his government despite the shifts implemented by Trudeau’s early protections of homosexuals.

      The film may not be a pictorially beautiful as Zero Patience and Lillies. But in his crazy, purposely campy, and comic multi-layered fictional documentary essay Un©ut, Grayson has taken up a broad range of political, social, cultural, and sexual concerns, demonstrating how institutions work for and against the individual in many different ways. Who else directing LGBTQ films today might be as ambitious as this amazing director? 

 

*I have my own highly unpleasant experience with circumcision. In 1947, the year of my birth, not all children were uniformly circumcised; I was not. At age 13 or 14, after years of chronic coughs, it was determined that I should have tonsils removed which might help the intense coughing spells I went through twice a year. In those days hospitals still used ether, my local doctor who served as the anesthesiologist, gave me what appears as too much ether. I had ether dreams for weeks after, sinking gradually under and under, under even the world as I remember it feeling like in the operating room.

     But even worse, when I woke up, I felt a terrible pain not where my tonsils were, but in my groin, which I quickly discovered featured a penis covered in bandages. What my parents had been unable to tell me, let along consult me about, was that the doctor had also suggested that he take this opportunity to do a circumcision. I was outranged! How could they have not have even mentioned this to me, to explain what might happen? I understand that my poor parents found it difficult to say anything about sex, but I still can’t quite forgive them for not talking to a teenage boy about my own cock.

     Over the years, I too find myself more attracted to uncircumcised penises; however, I married a Jewish boy, so clearly it’s not been a major obsession.

 

Los Angeles, December 10, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2022).

 

 

Wiktor Grodecki | Tělo bez duše (Body without Soul) / 1996

the lost boys

by Douglas Messerli

 

Wiktor Grodecki (screenwriter and director) Tělo bez duše (Body without Soul) / 1996

 

Grodecki’s second film in his trilogy (Not Angels but Angels, 1994; Body without Soul, 1996; and Mandragora, 1997) of young gay Czech prostitutes—or hustlers as many of them prefer to define themselves as heterosexual—begins simply with the boys, aged 14-17, simply introducing themselves and admitting to their “professions.” Slowly the interviewer gets them to begin  describing how they got involved with being a prostitute, and most of them seem ready to describe their situation, often involving running away from home, being kicked out of their houses for being gay or criminal activities, or losing their parents to death and winding up, for these and other reasons in the Prague railroad station sex shop, nearby video arcades, the Podolí swimming pools, or nightclubs like the Riviera where they are met by homosexual tourists who lure them into their beds. Later they meet up with other boys who tell them how to pick up strangers or are scouted by pimps who offer them what they are all seeking and very much in need of, money.



    They seldom get paid what they are told they might, although some of the scores of mostly German, Swiss, Austrian, and Dutch gay tourists do pay them fairly, mostly for a quick blow job; but others demanding and even forcing, if the boy insists he is straight as most of them do, anal sex. Almost all of them seem in Grodecki’s earliest interviews to be now well accustomed and even somewhat “adjusted” to their roles as quick sex pickups for male tourists. Prague is one vast brothel, as one of the boys says late in the film, and they are there, under the terms of the capitalist system, to give pleasure to those of the tourists searching for young boys. Several of them even knowingly bemoan the fact that since the younger, sometimes pre-puberty street boys are willing to do anything for less, that they have had to bring down their own prices.


      Some writers have described the boys as appearing glum, dour, or doomed, but in these earlier sequences I would simply say they are aware of the lives—depending upon the charity of your viewpoint—they chose or was forced upon them. Some of them are clearly more alert and less seeming drugged-out than others, and some of the boys are particularly intelligent in their comments, one of them asserting that even if they mostly claim to be heterosexuals, they are clearly, given the vast number of men they weekly service, either bisexual or gay. One hold-out, who declares he is not only heterosexual but hates homosexuals (“I don’t like the fact that homosexuals exist. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eva had children. If they were homosexuals they couldn’t have any children.”) admits to having had sex with 200 men, and when asked how many girls, answers: “Four.”

     One might instead of describing them as doomed—which of course they most certainly are given the fact that in a couple of years or so these boys will no longer be of interest for the tourists with money. I would describe almost all of them as deluded. Although some of them do use condoms with their customers, others argue that there the Czech Republic doesn’t have much AIDS, or that they don’t fear death, or that AIDS is simply a myth, or somehow since they don’t allow themselves to be fucked, but only swallow, they’ll be safe. While at the same time Grodecki speaks to one of their friends who has tested positive for AIDS, facing his death now for a year as he speaks from a prone position in bed, unable to explain how he got the disease, suggesting it was perhaps from the movies.

  


    Indeed, it is only when these boys begin to open up about their meager earnings from appearing in movies by the well know Czech director Roman Hysek—who appears to be in jail during the filming of the movie for soliciting underage boys for his films—and Pavel Rousek, who goes under the name of Hans Miller in the German world where his reedited and rescripted movies are finally released. Most  of the boys interviewed have also worked for these directors, particularly Rousek who grinds out several each month paying the boys paltry wages, no condom protection (demanded by his German audience), lots of bullying behavior and even punches and slugs in turn for their on-screen nakedness, kissing, sucking, fucking, and for the lead the bottom position of being fucked.

       If at first we might simply see this porn-maker as part of the horrific money-making machine is never fully paid the usual 6000 DM promised, and has out of that money to pay for film, the boys, their food, drugs, and other costs—at least as Rusek tells it. He is near poverty he insists, sending away his wife and daughter to the several days that he spends with the boys filming them in the family bed. Some of the boys, those he defines as criminals as opposed to the more pliable exhibitionists, rob him while on the job of lightbulbs and other camera devices useless to them.

       But gradually, as the boy hustlers begin to describe what a standard “shoot” is like and we hear Rousek tell of his own activities we begin to see him for the monster he truly is. Rousek evidently not only has the boys first suck him off, offering them alcohol, drugs, and constant abuse in order to keep them horny and able to function on demand, but we lose all sympathy as we recognize the master manipulator from the moment he meets the boys, takes them for several days on a drunken spree to loosen them up, forces them to sign agreements with clauses claiming that if they force a reshoot (i.e. unable to perform or look up at the camera they will have to pay for the entire film), demands they provide evidence, even if sometimes obviously fraudulent that they are of the age consent (in the Czech Republic it is 15), and bullies them into his inane plots revolving around lost street boys, sex in chicken coops, a  young robber sexually attacked by his would-be victims, etc. 

      Slowly he admits not only to his love of control, seeing his “actors”—as even some known beloved Hollywood directors have described them as being like cattle or bodies to move around and manipulate. Working with teenagers, he suggests, you have to psychologically control them demonstrating time and again the possible punishments if they complain or behave otherwise than commanded.


    In their first denuding and group showering, the boys themselves seem to check over one another’s bodies for any sign of a red or dark mark on their otherwise nearly flawless skin, determining amongst their peers which one might be willing to be a “bottom” and therefore the lead of the film.

       When Rusek reveals to the camera that his primary job is that of an autopsy worker at the morgue who is only to ready to invite the director’s camera to follow him into his workspace as he almost gleefully takes up a knife and cuts upon an entire cadaver, himself admitting that he is not wearing garments required for full protection.

       I resented, at first, Grodecki’s intercuts of Rusek’s almost reckless cutting apart of human body parts and his direction behind the camera of one of his porno scenes, where the fictional “robber” lies on a couch naked, pretending sleep while his intended “victims” sneak up to fondle him, suck him off, and otherwise use him as a piece of sexual meat. But Rusek himself seems to reiterate the analogies in his own commentary, and later when Grodecki returns to interviewing the boys one-on-one, they describe themselves as bodies for sale, given up for temporary use by others, so much empty meat sold to the tourists. One young man argues that when he sells his body it’s the entire body, if someone likes my legs I won’t cut those off for him.


   For Rusek, so he claims, there is no soul. But for almost all these previously almost illiterate hustlers, there is indeed something they call a soul which they keep apart from their bodies, that provides them with hope that they are more than simply toys for their johns. Some are proud to be unable to fall in love with any of their customers. Others insist that they save their love only for friends, on in one case for a wife with whom he lives with his male lover, insisting that he is justified in occasionally lying to his wife while claiming he is ever honest to his boyfriend, suggesting even to himself that perhaps he loves him more than her. Others are amazed to hear some prostitutes claim that after a few days of paid accompaniment they might even fall in love with their customers, knowing that it’s truly only money that they seek when it comes to the men who take their bodies temporarily away from them. A couple of the more sophisticated boys recognize that life is only a theater in which they are acting; but one shy boy can only wonder that he has not yet discovered his role in the play.

       One boy admits he has continued to love only one man he has encountered, although the individual may not know it since he has treated him badly. That person he quietly confesses, after a few minutes, is his father.

       Sadly, they need monsters like Rusek as surely as he needs them since in the society in which they live there is apparently to one to whom they can turn for help out of the financial quagmire into which the system has thrown them. One can only imagine that, metaphorically speaking, their bodies will also soon be sacrificed along with what is left of their souls to the street-bin equivalent of the large plastic trash container where Rusek throws, after quick inspection, his cut-up body parts.

       As one anonymous commentator (using only the handle Berry) wrote about this film:

 

“When Paris is Burning [Jennie Livingston’s 1990 documentary] concludes, one can simply find the whereabouts of the people featured with a quick Google search. The results aren't always perfect, but you have some closure as to how close they came to their dreams and aspirations before it came to an abrupt conclusion. Streetwise [Martin Bell’s 1994 documentary] is lesser known, but there's an entire section on its Wikipedia article and Facebook group dedicated to answering what happened to the runaways and delinquents. How this relates to Body Without Soul is that it's the most elusive level of obscurity. Therefore, hearing these stories, watching these events, and digesting them long after the film ended becomes more soul-crushing in the realization that there's no information on the subjects. No trace exists to the point that you'd think they never existed, and worst of all, consequences for the monster who feeds off of the youth presented are ambiguous. That's where it becomes startling cinema.”

 

Los Angeles, November 3, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2021).

 

 

My Queer Cinema Index [with former World Cinema Review titles]

Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [Former Index to World Cinema Review with new titles incorporated] (You may request any ...