Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Tabea Blumenschein and Ulrike Ottinger | Madame X - Eine absolute Herrscherin (Madame X: An Absolute Ruler) / 1978

the women’s collective of death

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ulrike Ottinger (screenplay), Tabea Blumenschein and Ulrike Ottinger (directors) Madame X - Eine absolute Herrscherin (Madame X: An Absolute Ruler) / 1978

 

Obviously, Virginia Woolf’s fictional biography Orlando was central to Ulrike Ottinger’s early films. The figure first appears in her 1972-73 work Laocoon & Son and is the central focus of her 1978 prequel Madame X: An Absolute Ruler to her “Berlin Trilogy,” the centerpiece of which is Freak Orlando (1981). Using yet another trope of feminine empowerment, this Madame X is a brutal sea pirate, who like James M. Barrie’s Captain Hook has lost one of her hands in an attempt to save her female lover Orlando from a poisonous species of sea anemone which she thought was a flower, and dived in to retrieve.


      Calling out to women around the world to join her, Madame X accrues an odd assortment of females representing various stereotypes of unhappy women, both lesbians and formerly heterosexually married individuals, among them a housewife whose husband has left her for another woman, Betty Brillo (Lutze, who will later be central to Ticket with No Return); a worn-out artist seeking new subjects and landscapes, Joseph de Collage who roller skates away from her entrapment (noted dancer, choreographer, and filmmaker Yvonne Rainer); a German woman living outdoors with her trusty rifle at hand, Flora Tannenbaum (Claudia Skoda); a beautiful “Tahitian” girl, punished by her husband for some action or inaction by being manacled and sent off in a small paddle raft, Noa-Noa (Roswitha Janz); along with a medical psychologist and a female pilot—all lured by her calls for “gold, love, and adventure.”


     While these may on one level represent various feminist figures, they are also presented by Ottinger as satirical, and many of the women taken aboard by the Orientalist figurehead—Madame X also serves as the maidenhead of her dinghy—do not survive the voyage, some of them destroyed by their leader herself. And although at moments the women do join together in a kind of feminist collective, just as often they plot, bicker, and gossip against one another. Neither are all of them true to the lesbian cause, Betty Brillo, in particular, later being punished for her interest in a sailor illegally brought aboard.

      When early in their voyage they also bring on board a castrato/fool, Belmondo (Mackay Taylor) who has been set afloat by a crew aboard a wealthy yacht simply for being so “different,” one might almost argue that Madame X’s dinghy acquires a slightly “rainbow” quality. But even the obvious effeminate “fairy” is so kooky and bizarre in his behavior that the medical psychologist immediately interviews him in a hilarious series of quick-fired questions which accuse him more than attempt to explore his peculiarities.

      One of the first things the crew must accomplish is to simply attract the attention of their cruel and absolute ruler, who seems oblivious of their presence, so much so that fear they might never even be served something to eat. Through a lottery it is decided that Noa-Noa will be the one to approach her.



    The encounter at first results in a fury of hostility (with the help of the canned sound of snarling tiger), but gradually as the Tahitian offers her onions and, the most absurd of offerings, large flowers of broccoli, as well as her own enticing body, Madame is calmed as Noa-Noa and her make symbolic gestures of love, the girl becoming her favorite thereafter.

     Almost immediately after this quite charming enticement, Madame X orders her ferocious-looking servant Hoi Sin (obviously jealous of her master’s attentions to Noa-Noa) to feed her crew with a large Chinese cooked fish, which the hungry female collective consume with the speed of a gathering of locusts.

      When the speechless Belmondo mimes the story of his being cast away, he describes the yacht filled with the mindless well-to-to individuals that have had no place for him, Madame X determines the course of the first (and only) adventure depicted in this film, which is clearly meant to be an ongoing series like the old silent serials such as the Fantômas crimes series of the 1920s or the Pirate Gold series of the same decade.

 

     Catching up with yacht, the dinghy provides the rich and bored people on cruise such an exotic sight filled with magnificently dressed (and in Noa-Noa’s case undressed) beings that they invite them aboard, muttering endless banalities and oohing-and-awing over the strangeness of these figures as they poke and prod them like so many pieces of art, snapping photos as if on one of Ottinger’s later ethnographic visits to an alien world. A wheelchair-bound female singer serves as the center of the fatuous folk looked after by beautiful young sailor and others who might serve their sexual needs.


     Madame X and her crew, sans Belmondo, allow themselves to be the subjects of outsider fascination until the sun sets when one-by-one they kill off the entire batch of the idol and rich and plunder their safes below deck of jewels and money.   The young sailor, however, dives overboard and swims to the dingy crying out for help, where the confused Belmondo saves him and the two, enwrapped in a small cocoon of a glass-surrounded room begin to make love so intensely that they do not, at first, even recognize the return of the pirates, who stare in intently at their love-making, Betty Brillo, in particular, becoming so jealous that even when the others report the incident to their cruel leader and she has put the sailor upon a net hanging over the waters, Betty is still determined to join him, as is Belmondo who fight for possession of the beauty.

     Belmondo finally gives up, and as Betty crawls into the net in an attempt to have sex with the

sailor, they are dropped together into the ocean, only Belmondo escaping death. His punishment by Madame X soon after is surprisingly allayed in a gesture of mercy that she does not show the others who soon after begin to resist her cruel behavior. One by one, some of her crew members are killed off for their various mutinies and offences. The pilot is poisoned with cake (see the second photo in this essay). 


     After taking a long bath, the hairy-chested Madame X orders Belmondo and another to kill someone watching nearby.

     Another is killed as she attempts to stab Madame X as she performs her role as the maidenhead (see the first image of the essay).  Finally, as they reach port, she has the medical psychologist who has kept a private log of her wrongdoings, shot through by an arrow.


     What Madame X has not warned these women is that their servitude in the new cause may also result in their deaths.

     Back in port, Madame X and her dinghy magically attract a whole new series of women, a hot-dog stand owner, a park sweeper dressed in what looks like a prison uniform, and others who are the same actors, in many cases, as the previous ones she has destroyed in their former personas, as if they have metamorphosed into new women desiring “gold, love, and adventure.” Indeed, this time the voyage is treated almost as a park ride, as the women sail out of port almost as if they soon will be returning from a tour adventure not so very different from the one of those on the doomed yacht.

     As in nearly all of Ottinger’s works, it is the visual splendor of her images and cinematic wit that most matters. Nothing is ever truly predictable in the world in which this director takes her adventurous viewers, and every time one takes the cinematic voyage with her, new discoveries are there to be uncovered.

 

Los Angeles, December 5, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2022).

 

Rainer Werner Fassbinder | In einen Jahr mit 13 Monden (In a Year with 13 Moons) / 1978

grim tales

by Douglas Messerli

   

Rainer Werner Fassbinder (screenwriter and director) In einen Jahr mit 13 Monden (In a Year with 13 Moons) / 1978

 

I found Fassbinder's In a Year with 13 Moons such an overwhelmingly rich film that it is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps the somewhat occult explanation at the beginning of the film, despite the fact that Fassbinder seems to negate it throughout, will help to explain the contradictory realities the film presents:

 

                                Every seventh year is a lunar year. Those people whose

                                lives are essentially dominated by their emotions suffer

                                particularly strongly from depressions in these lunar years.

                                The same is also true of years with thirteen new moons,

                                although not quite so strongly. And if a lunar year also

                                happens to be a year with thirteen new moons, the result is

                                often a personal catastrophe.


     This claim, based on a conversation Fassbinder had with an astrologer shortly after the suicide of his lover, Armin Meier, in 1978, the same year of the movie and a lunar year with 13 moons—an event which occasioned the making of this remarkable picture—prepares us for the series of events which happen to Erwin/Elvira Weishaupt (stunningly performed by Volker Spengler).

     As a young child, Erwin was given up by his mother to a Catholic orphanage, so we find out later in the film when he/she and his prostitute begin their quest to understand Elvira's problems; as a young boy the nuns were delighted with the shy and handsome Erwin and, ultimately, through the encouragement of the head nun, Sister Gudrun (played by Fassbinder's mother, Lilo Pempeit), a couple became interested in adopting him. But upon seeking legal permission from his mother, Sister Gudrun perceived that the mother had been legally married at the time of the adoption, and gave up the child without consulting her husband. Now the mother is terrified that her husband may find out about her actions—he is, evidently also a violent man—and will not agree to making it known. Accordingly, despite the love Erwin feels for his potential parents and they for him, the church cannot go forward with adoption, and the loving couple disappear from his life. The charming young boy turns into a lying, stealing teenager, unable to understand why he has been rejected.

     Fassbinder's telling of this history, in which the family, state, and religion have unintentionally conspired to refuse him love, is not a thorough explanation of Erwin's condition, indeed, does not even psychologically explain most of Erwin/Elvira's later actions. His presentation of this information is less like a revelation, accordingly, than a kind of staged confession, in which the nun who tells the tale, moves back and forth across the garden as Erwin, now a female, Elvira, and her friend Die rote Zora (the Red Zora) stand in the foreground; and, even before the tale is completed, Elvira is seen to have collapsed. But it does help us to imagine the hero's strange confusion and desperation to be loved.

     Indeed, throughout the quest through which Elvira journeys in this film, people reveal equally strange stories, myths, tales, and absurd fragments of information that when layered upon each other recreate the distressed and conflicted being at the film's core.

     In the very first scene, we witness Erwin in an early-morning park, dressed not as Elvira, but as a man, so lonely, that he tries to pick up another man. As the love-making begins, however, the younger man discovers that Erwin is not a male "John," as he expected, but a woman, a being without a penis; disgusted, he shouts to his fellow workers to join him in punishment.


     The bloodied Erwin staggers home only to discover his long-time lover, Christoph, has returned, this time to leave forever. But before he goes, Christoph also takes time out to verbally and physically abuse Erwin/Elvira, insisting that she/he look at herself in the mirror to see the fat, ugly human which he must daily face. In short, Fassbinder's hero is an outsider even to outsiders like men in the park and the homosexual Christoph. As Zora later declares, the strange thing about Elvira is that she/he is not even gay!

    In fact, the young Erwin underwent a convenient marriage, finding in Irene a woman, not only willing to accept him later for his "changes," but a person who remains his life-long friend. His daughter from that marriage still calls him "daddy." It is apparent, however, that the love between man and woman was not enough. So desperate for love was Erwin that he befriended a small-time crook, Anton Saitz, going so far (so we discover in Fassbinder's written story upon which the film was based) as being willing to go to jail for him. However, Saitz, who as a young boy survived the horrors of the Belsen-Bergen concentration camp, is purely heterosexual, and cannot return Erwin's interest. A passing statement that he might be able to love him if only he were a woman sends Erwin on an insane trip to Casablanca, where he undergoes an operation, removing all signs of his masculinity. Now dressing as a woman, he returns to Anton, who still rejects him, spinning the new Elvira into the series of events about to be uncovered.

     Irene also visits her ex-husband on this crucial day, adding her vitriol in response to an interview that Erwin/Elvira has recently given about those long-ago days, and which has just been published in a magazine. Irene is terrified that the now wealthy gangster-businessman Anton may attempt to get even for the interview by somehow harming their daughter.

     It is this third attack upon her being that sends Elvira and her prostitute friend on the quest to discover the past and, ultimately, to apologize to Saitz for revealing it.

     Bit by bit, we begin to piece together a chaotic string of events, no parts of which seem to belong together, symbolically involving not only the entire city of Frankfurt but the whole of post-World War II Germany. Fassbinder brilliantly exposes this discordant world through cramped images of beings caught up in a society of brutal noise and radically shifting realities. Erwin describes his first job, where he worked as a butcher simultaneously with Fassbinder's presentation of hideous images of the slaughtering of cattle, the draining of their blood, and the removal of their hides—all accompanied by a Handel organ concerto while our heroine speaks calmly of the peacefulness of killing and quotes Goethe.

      Another scene played out in which Elvira is entrapped in the dark confines of a bar filled with ringing pinball machines, as she encounters the man who attacked her that same morning. It ends with Zora arriving to take her sobbing friend into another, even stranger, location: the apartment of a man living with a silent muscle builder. Within in his dark room, filled with lighted candles, he, dressed only in undershorts, sarcastically refers to his horrors of the past and his fears of going out of the house, ending the encounter by breaking down into tears himself.

     When, after the encounter with Sister Gudrun, Elvira tries to sleep, Zora tells her a story similar to a Grimm Brothers' fairy-tale, but ending with a Fassbinder-like twist. An evil old witch has lured two children into the forest, transforming the boy into a mushroom and his sister into a snail. When the snail grows hungry, the brother encourages her to eat of him, the mushroom, as the girl readily bites off first his ear and then his leg.

    After Elvira falls asleep, Zora turns on personal tapes of Elvira and her former lover, and flips television channels between a talk show of Fassbinder's description of his own troubled youth, a soap opera, and the news of Chilean dictator Pinochet's "great achievements." At other times American pop-singer Connie Francis, singing in German, alternates with pieces of Nino Rota's music for Juliet of the Spirits and other Fellini films, the parallels between Fellini's suffering housewife and Fassbinder's confused lover becoming apparent.


     When Elvira finally visits the tower in which her wished-for lover resides, she encounters in the ground-floor bar a man, dying of cancer, who after being fired by Anton Saitz, has spent months staring out the window at Saitz's office. As she climbs the stairs—in a reversal of the Rumpelstiltskin story—to reach her lover, she encounters a series of empty rooms, where she briefly falls asleep once more, to be awakened by a man come to hang himself who invites her to watch.

     Everywhere she travels, there are people suffering as badly as she, individuals who unable to find love or, as Elvira describes it from a dream she has had, have had simply too brief of friendships, symbolized to herself as graves marked by short dates.

     She reports the stranger's suicide to a cleaning woman whose major activity seems to be looking through a keyhole, laughing loudly at whatever she is witnessing. The woman shrugs her shoulders and returns to her voyeurism.


      After passing through what seems like an interminable series of empty rooms, itself a nightmare-like image of the Frankfurt economic "miracle," Elvira is met by Saitz's chauffeur, who, in imitation Cerberus, guards the entry to Saitz's little hell. But even here the director turns the dramatic situation into an absurdly comic event. 

    At first it appears that, without one of the codes, Elvira will be refused entry. Yet she finally does make a guess, horrible reminder that it is: Bergen-Belsen, the A-pass. And she enters. When she is shown into a room with several men within, she turns to ask the now-genial chauffeur, which one is Saitz. The irony is earth-shattering; after changing his-her entire being and life for the man, she cannot now even recognize him.

     When told that he is the thin man in tight tennis shorts, she is forced to watch an even more grotesquely comic manifestation of power. While a Jerry Lewis/Dean Martin movie, You're Never Too Young, plays upon a television, Anton forces his male staff to reenact parts of the tennis court scene, a piece filled, in the original, with a chorus of marching cheerleaders led by the singing duo. Elvira joins in. Their performance is hilarious, but also mad. There is not even evil here. Reality is too strange for that.

 

      Elvira reveals his former name, Erwin, which, at first, seems to mean nothing to Saitz. But after she presents him with a photograph of the young Erwin, he does realize who this woman is, but seemingly remembers only that she could make coffee as good as his mother, suggesting they make a trek to Elvira's apartment so that she can serve it up. At the apartment, Zora is sleeping upon Elvira's bed. While Elvira moves off to the kitchen, Anton moves in on Zora, who readily accepts him in an embrace. Elvira returns to witness them in the sexual act.

       Cutting her hair, redressing as a man, Erwin returns to his wife and daughter, hoping that he might possibly begin over. It is, quite clearly, too late for that. The girl will soon be off to college, and his former wife, although still a friend, cannot now accept him as a man.

       The author who had interviewed Elvira, finds Erwin waiting on the staircase of his apartment. But when asked if they might have a talk, he gently sends him away. It is too late an hour.      

       Having moved through life so impulsively and full of passionate need, all is now too late for the man without any remaining identity. He is not really a woman, not really a man, not even quite a transsexual or a transgendered being. Erwin/Elvira is no one—and yet is everyone who has ever needed love. One by one the people who might have offered him this gift, gather at this door, now guarded by the Cerberus-like chauffeur. Inside is Anton and Zora, evidently locked in when this hero returned to slit his/her wrists. No one in particular is guilty; yet everyone is obviously guilty for the death of the shell they now witness.

     

Los Angeles, August 18, 2010

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (September 2010).

Monday, August 19, 2024

Alfred Hitchcock | Rope / 1948

the wrong side of the bed

by Douglas Messerli

 

Arthur Laurents (screenplay, based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, adapted by Hume Cronyn), Alfred Hitchcock (director) Rope / 1948

 

Two men are seen chocking another man to death in their apartment. But that act is only the beginning of a much longer and more troubling tale. Who are these men and how did they come to murder a man whom they do not truly even care about? Why would they murder a man who was basically a stranger, and what allowed them to believe that they might commit this dreadful act?


     By 1948, when this film appeared in the theaters, Alfred Hitchcock had directed numerous films in which murder and mayhem was the major theme, and most of his works had a gay character or a subtle theme of homosexuality; but this film was different. First of all, Hitchcock determined from the beginning to make this film in “real time” and in a near-continuous cinematic presentation—despite the reality that the big Technicolor cameras of the day could film only 10 minutes at a time. The great director faked the reality by a balletic-like moving of walls, quickly shifting furniture, and by covering up cuts in the film with close-ups of figures and objects to hide the breaks in continuity. A cyclorama, pretending to represent a view of the city from the apartment carefully shifted from daylight to sunset and darkness—requiring Hitchcock to reshoot the last scenes several times to get a more believable vision of the natural changes of light.


       For all the remarkable cinematic tricks of the film, however, the real heart of this film is about that terrible first event, the absurd Leopold-Loeb murder of another human being, based on their own perverted education, in which a former schoolmaster, willingly or unintentionally taught them to believe in Nietzsche’s notion of a superior race—allowing them to feel they were intellectually superior people, who were above the social and intellectual norm of their peers. They not only have meaninglessly killed their victim but have determined to celebrate their murder by hosting a party for his victims, using his temporary coffin as the table on which they serve up their culinary delights.


       But for all the horror of this premise, the real, and quite unspoken element of this film—which Hitchcock and his writers so effortlessly presented that even the restrictive Hays Code and Catholic restrictions permitted the film’s existence without substantial cuts—is that the two central characters of this film, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger), were openly gay character-actors—although “open” in those days meant a great deal of studio cover-ups. While the gay writer of the screenplay, Arthur Laurents, attempted to make the story more transparent, Hitchcock and others refused to talk about “it,” the bugaboo that would surely have downed their project. “Everyone involved knew,” so Laurents proclaims what “it” was, but no one was willing to talk about “it,”—the fact that the major characters were gay—reiterating that Hitchcock presented their relationship quite matter-of-factly, allowing even the housekeeper, the wonderful Evan Evanson, to describe her current employers (she has previously worked for Rupert Cadell), as both having gotten up “on the wrong side of the bed” that same morning.

     Hitchcock was, reportedly, delighted when he got word that Laurents and actor Granger were having sex during the shooting of the film (the two, in fact, had a four-year relationship). But the subject in his film was presented so ordinarily that even the censors seemed not to have noticed it, permitting the film to be one of the first “obviously” gay films—even if most visitors to the theater may never have recognized it as such.

 

   The wonderful tension between the two gay murderers, however, is at the heart of the story, as is their relationship between their former headmaster, Cadell (James Stewart), who—according to the original play—previously had had a relationship with Shaw. But the strait-laced Stewart has no ability to portray that former relationship, and, as Laurents himself has suggested in a later documentary commentary, Stewart performs the role as a gumshoe rather than a man who is immensely implicated in the murder itself. He appears to have never really had a true involvement with these figures, as if he has only slightly stumbled into their world, with which Brandon, particularly, feels he was so intimately involved.

 

     The dramatic scenes in which he might have to come to terms, given his own guilt through his philosophical teachings, with the murderers, shifts instead to the disavowal of his own statements, making him a pitiable figure who cannot comprehend his own involvement. Not unlike his final scenes in Vertigo, wherein the Stewart character cannot perceive how he, himself, has been the virtual murderer of the beautiful Madeleine, this Stewart character simply disavows his personal responsibility. He is a moral failure, not a hero—even if he has solved the plot and called for the police. When the two lovers eventually at their hanging swing on for their actions, he will remain safely in his bourgeois editor’s bed, wondering only where he might have gone wrong. Yet, he helped make these monsters, perhaps even sexually abusing Rupert as a young man. Stewart simply cannot convey this.

      Hitchcock had offered others—James Mason and Cary Grant, both of whom he slightly mocks through his clownish character’s Antina Atwater (Constance Collier) admiration for them—the role of Rupert Cadell; either might have been perfect to convey the sexual tensions between pupils and teacher, but both refused the role. James Stewart plays the figure, accordingly, with a great deal of confusion and a lack of commitment, twisting the movie into a kind of moral confusion that made it difficult for the movie-going audiences of the day to comprehend. And certainly, had the movie focused on those slightly pedophilic relationships, the movie might never have been made.

       If, in hindsight, Hitchcock’s film seems remarkably innovative and amazingly “cool” about its sexual assertions, in 1948 it seemed only a mild statement of a willful murder—which wasn’t even a true “who-dunnit,” since we know the murderers from the first moment of the film—with audiences of the day unable to comprehend precisely where the director’s sentiments lay. Were the murderers simply monsters predisposed to their criminal acts, or was it something these bright students learned, their murder simply a lark based on their own blessed social and intellectual entitlements? Hitchcock, alas, seems unable to even to address these issues in Rope. Nonetheless, I’ll take the movie’s witty dialogue any day above a plodding social document that might make these issues more apparent.

 

Los Angeles, June 1, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2016).

 

Index R-Z

Angelo Raaijmakers I, Adonis / 2021 Peeter Rabane Firebird / 2021   Tyler Rabinowitz Catalina / 2022 Tyler Rabinowitz See You Soon / 20...