|Index||2 reviews in total|
Werner Schroeter's movies are known to be difficult to approach, at
least if one comes from the background of literature-based film theory
and searches for subject-predicate structures, topic-comment
distribution or the connection of stereotypes. All these strategies
have in common that they are based on 2-valued logic which imitates the
physical schema of cause and effect in language. Although many film
makers have tried to replace these rationalist structures by
associative structures, the material has been proved rather stubborn,
and we are today still heaven-wide distant from even the basics of a
theory of associations which goes beyond the rather primitive,
behavior- based fundamentals of the psychology of the early 20st
However, as Schroeter continues to prove, it is well possible to develop whole narrative structures which are not based on rationalist preconditions. An important procedure in "Der Rosenkönig" (1986) is the use of metaphor and ritual and to create a semiotic-based double world, starting from Pre-Illumination concepts. While surrealism, as the term correctly predicts, starts with reality which is transcended (by usually reality-based methods), the semiotic worlds of Schroeter are not found in the reality of objects, but, in the opposite, the reality of objects are found in the semiotics of associative systems. Not the object and its reality are primordial, but the sign and it thematics. If somebody would have the capacity to extract a metaphysics of how Schroeter actually creates (and not depicts) reality, we would have a theory of a new world that would deserve its name. A world in which the word is substituted by a metaphor and the objective acts are substituted by rituals. (Needlees to say that in the letter device Schroeter goes way beyond Pasolini whose later work may have been Inspiratory for "Der Rosenkönig" as the Rose-King himself plays one of the victims in Pasolini's "Salo".)
The IMDb classifies the genre of the film as Drama/Musical, but
"Pretentious Nonsense" is probably a more accurate characterization,
even if this is a little unkind. The film is certainly pretty to look
at; each scene is (visually) as carefully composed as an oil painting,
and the slow pace combines these images to an overall impression that
is not unlike visiting an art gallery, i.e. moving from picture to
picture, pondering over each for a while.
The classical music accompanies this well and enhances that emotion, and the characters' movement have a certain balletic quality that fits to the mood.
However, that alone does not make a movie. There is barely a story extractable from the proceedings, and the personal relationships between the characters do not ring true, not physically, not emotionally; they are just weird. Ballet has similar difficulties when it tries to tell its audience a story, but there is little justification for maintaining this difficulty at the cinema, just for the heck of it.
The film is certainly watchable, like a piece of art, and is in this sense a vast improvement over Schroeter's dreadful "Das Liebeskonzil", but it does not engage the audience. In other words: for toffee-nosed elitists only.
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|