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)