francois@yale-com.UUCP (Charles B. Francois) (11/21/83)
First of two articles.
I have seen "Taxi Zum Klo". Twice in fact. And my reaction to it on those
two occasions were so different that I dare not pass final judgement on the
film.
The first time was soon after its release in April 82, in a Manhattan theater,
with an audience I assumed was predominently gay. For those of you who may not
know, the movie was made by a former Berlin elementary school teacher named
Frank Ripploh who left his job to turn to independent filmmaking. "Taxi Zum
Klo" ("Taxi to the Toilets"), his first feature, chronicles the everyday events
in his life during the few months preceding his resignation. Those events
revolve for the most part around his relationship with a man who is radically
different from him both in temperament and outlook on life. Ripploh (nicknamed
Peggy by his colleagues) is a vivacious, outgoing big-city type who likes to
have a good time, while his new lover Bernd, a nice low-key guy who strongly
believes in fidelity, longs to live on a farm out in the country. But TZK is
about much more than that "Green Acres" scenario. It is a full panorama of
Peggy's life and moves with total naturalness from his bedroom to his classroom,
from public restrooms to his innermost thoughts, all with unflinching candor
and a great deal of humor.
The aspect of the movie that most appealed to me back then was its complete
lack of self-consciousness. It came across as a relaxed examination of
various facets of one gay man's life, including his sex life. As such, the
sex scenes received no special handling. Their treatment was just as frank
and unceremonial as the rest of the movie. However, this lack of formality or
rather sanctimony does not imply a lack of substance. TZK did address various
issues, but anytime it did so, it was done as part of the natural flow of the
movie and the points were made in extremely subtle ways. Beyond the issue of
promiscuity vs. 'monogamy' and teacher-student relations, TZK lightly touched
on other sensitive topics such as transvestism, non-vanilla activities, and
even adult seduction of children, all in a totally non-didactic fashion. My
final impression of the movie was of an energetic and very well-made film that
often had its audience laughing helplessly and knowingly. I admired it both
as a fine example of a completely autobiographical movie -- i.e. all the
actors portray themselves in a series of reenactments -- and as the first truly
gay film that made no compromises, and yet could clearly not be considered
gratuitously pornographic. That was the first time I saw it.
I'll describe my reactions to it the second time, in a following article.
Charles (decvax!yale-com!francois)