« Still Life, 1997 | Main | The Man Who Envied Women, 1985 »


October 24, 2005

Berlin Alexanderplatz, 1980

alexanderplatz1.gif How does anyone begin to encapsulate the audacious, manic, insightful, resonant, humane, and allegorically loaded tone of the epic work - the quintessential "anarchy of the imagination" - that is Rainer Werner Fassbinder's adaptation of Alfred Döblin's thirteen chapter, Weimer Republic-era German Expressionist novel Berlin Alexanderplatz? Told from the perspective of an unemployed, hard-drinking, low-level pimp and convicted killer, Franz Biberkopf (Günter Lamprecht), the film begins with the ominous chapter title, The Punishment Begins as he is paroled from a correctional institution after serving four years for accidentally strangling his lover and prostitute Ida (Barbara Valentin) during a drunken rage over her decision to leave him. By the conclusion of the last chapter, it is inevitable that Franz would again be placed into some form of involuntary state institution, bringing the story, not to a narrative full circle (as indicated by the juxtaposition of end and beginning in the chapter title) but rather, to a coaligned point of precession within a receded and collapsing spiral as Franz, now an unemployable "half man" is again alone and without a devoted, self-sacrificing woman who will dutifully provide for him.

This dysfunctional cycle of systematic erosion also reflects the film's recurring theme of converging human economics where emotion and desire serve as real, transactional currency: from Franz's history of exploitive relationships with a succession of lover/prostitutes, to Reinhold (Gottfried John) alexanderplatz2.gif unloading his unwanted mistresses onto the obliging Franz (unwittingly carrying their own payoff bribes from Reinhold to their new lover/pimp - a pair of boots or a fur collar for a winter coat - as pre-arranged errands to set up their introductory encounter), to Eva's (Hanna Schygulla) "gift" of her protégée Mieze (Barbara Sukowa) to Franz after he is crippled during a burglary getaway automobile "accident". This pattern of commodified intimacy is also revealed in Franz's impulsive decision to offer money to a lonely widow one afternoon after a chance sexual encounter at her apartment while selling shoelaces door-to-door, his actions revealing his instinctual equation of affection with money. In this respect, the liberation of the (sexual) body (a theme explored through the post World War I photo-reportage of Denise Bellon in Chris Marker and Yannick Bellon's Remembrance of Things to Come) juxtaposed against Franz's increasingly lopsided economic and emotional dependence on the women in his life represents a broader national allegory for the Weimar Republic's ever-worsening national debt and hyperinflation (caused by payment obligations for war reparations), reflecting an irresolvable social equation - an inescapable, behaviorally entrenched bankruptcy - that cannot be set right. In essence, Franz's seemingly surreal black market world of stolen fruits, open door brothels, and handed down lovers is a reflection of the inconcrete (and ephemeral) basis that underlies the broader, national economy itself. Like Franz's retaliatory, sacrificed limb, it is an unsustainable economic cycle of national disarticulation.

With Franz's life and reality fractured, Fassbinder's addition of a thematically opaque, dream sequence montage provides a break in narrative tone as (perhaps intentionally) severe and wildly incongruent as the epilogue of F.W Murnau's Weimar-era film, The Last Laugh. Weaving through Fassbinder's voluptuous, expressionistic, stream of (sub)consciousness metaphoric imagery (something like a chronicle of Querelle foretold) of Kenneth Anger-like Bacchanalian ritual, transfiguration, erotic fantasy, curative masochism, and nuclear holocaust, the film converges towards a more conventional - and consequently, more absurd - alternate "happy ending". Set against an eclectic soundtrack of Kraftwerk's Radioactivity and the liebestod, Mild und leise, wie er lächelt from Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde - a sublime piece that articulates the transfiguration of love into rapture through the necessary process of death - the inspired design behind Fassbinder's jarring and idiosyncratic epilogue begins to cohere as an abstract elegy of twentieth century world history as seen through the inwardly focused lens of repercussive consequence resulting from Germany's political transformation from Weimar Republic to the Third Reich: the cold and rude awakening that signaled the death of the illusory dream of eternal halcyon days that once seemed possible with the end of the Great War to end all wars.

Posted by on Oct 24, 2005 | | Filed under 2005

Comments

a) Doblin's novel is in 9 "Books"
b) The widow gives Franz money not the other way around, hence Luders finding out taking advantage and robbing her.
c) Most importantly, the epilogue consists largely, I would say nearly entirely, of text and events from the novel. There seems to be a widespread belief that Fassbinder wrote it himself which is not true. Granted the viewpoint from which he films and filters it is later in the 20th century but nearly all the dialogue, event, text, is from the end of the book (just filmed with allusions, depictions, stagings that acknowledge a different position in time when made). The angels who walk besides Franz at the beginning, the biblical passages, the doctor's discussions of tratment, the discussion/depiction of death (the dialogue taken verbatim), etc etc. up to Franz's "death" and re-emergence in the world.

Posted by: greg on Apr 17, 2007 5:31 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the clarifications, Greg, the epilogue seemed so disconnected from the preceding chapters that it seemed to be tacked on. But then again, it does make sense that both Dobbin's novel and the Last Laugh are both Weimar era, they both have a cynical streak to them, and Fassbinder really tapped into that and turned it into something that's really his own vision.

Posted by: acquarello on Apr 17, 2007 6:51 PM | Permalink

no problem. Posting on a 1 1/2 year old post as I just saw the film at MoMA. Sorry if it seemed snipey at first there, just irritating as the general coments/reviews/etc. (of which I've read many recently) always seem to point out Fassbinder's "additional" epilogue whereas it is mainly the ninth "book" of the novel. Of course, Fassbinder films it in his own way and through the filter or lens of the years that have passed, and in a style that varies greatly from the body of the film, thus it's easily understandable how the dominant thought is just that, just feeling finicky about a common false statement.
I think upon an additional viewing one would notice many of the seeds of the epilogue in the first 13 chapters. Though not as prominent as in the novel many of the themes/texts/imagery in the epilogue are established in the film, largely through the voice-overs, on-screen texts and the more allegorical/observational dialogue of the characters. All of the on-screen text and narration is from the novel verbatim, pretty much, including in the epilogue. It is quite interesting the way Fassbinder throughout the film includes the digressions and textual variety Doblin uses(newspaper quotes, allegorical descriptions, etc).

Posted by: greg on Apr 17, 2007 7:23 PM | Permalink


Post a comment: