Christiane F.

Christiane F. – Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo (1981)
Directed by Uli Edel
Music by Jurgen Knieper, David Bowie
Written by Herman Weigel, Kai Hermann, Horst Rieck
 

I am certainly not the first to praise this film, but I thought I’d let you know my opinion right away: I adore it. When I first saw the film, I was unaware of the Bowie soundtrack (though I’ve been a huge fan of his my whole life practically), and more importantly, I was unaware of the true story behind the film.

For those unacquainted with the real Christiane F., I’ve discovered (through the help of a friend who I will credit only as "Natalie") that the 12-part magazine article which the film is based on, (here is the autobiography link: Christiane F: Autobiography of a Girl of the Streets and Heroin Addict) is pretty similar to Edel’s vision (perhaps it’s available on the Internet). What really warmed me to Edel’s film is the way he depicts both the attractiveness and harsh reality of the protagonist’s predicament. Often, in commercial presentation, one is discarded in sake of the other (both “extremes” of which, are inaccurate), and one will not find that in this film. There is a realistic balance that those “in the know” will recognize.

I’m assuming most (or all) of you have seen the film, so I won’t go into much detail as far as plot. Essentially, Christiane F. is a 13 year old girl in Germany who becomes acquainted with a chap named, Detlef (or Detlev, as it is sometimes spelled in subtitles – me, being extremely “non-fluent” in German, I couldn’t say as to what is correct), who indulges in various “favours” to support his (at least in Edel’s depiction) “early” drug habit. Detlef can be heard, predictably intoning throughout the film, “But I only jerk them off,” in justification of how he procures money to support his habit. In the end, we realize that Detlef doesn’t, in fact, merely “jerk off” his clients, but whatever is necessary to earn the money to pay for his increasingly destructive habit. What is interesting (and yet, painfully realistic) is Christiane’s dismissal of the notion that Detlef accumulates any personal satisfaction out of such occurrences.

I’ve heard this aspect of the film being described as “unrealistic” or a “contrived plot characteristic”, but personally (and, I think, anyone who has ever been in a relationship with someone who has sunk to a similar predicament … or vice versa), I saw it as a very real (though often glossed-over aspect of “druggie” relationships in cinema) situation (and justification, which stems, IMO, out of not a pleasure-filled consequence, but of an “acquired” acceptance of drug procurement – of course, pleasure may be a “learned” expression/mindset as well). I felt very sympathetic towards Detlef as well as towards Christiane, because they are both caught up within the never-ending cycle of drug addiction and love, in this circumstance, is such an inconvenient happening that it often begins strong but ends with regret, pain, and guilt.

Anyway, so Christiane, is drawn to this crowd (enabled to a certain degree by her fondness of Bowie music, from which we see that her album collection is fairly extensive – for the ’70s at least) through various circumstances, and her prevalent (though relatively hidden) attraction to Detlef gradually becomes ensnared in the drug-induced relationships and environment she has become accustomed to (though it is implied, that she has been aware, but hesitant, of partaking of this drug community).

To meander a bit (if I haven’t enough already), I LOVED one of the closing scenes where Christiane finally succumbs to “earning” the pay of a certain deviant (who pays accordingly in relation to the amount of pain/whipping he receives) by brutally beating the man even beyond his own fantasies. I really love this juxtaposition of reality and irony; the absurdity of the scene out of context can be quite amusing, but when one considers the very real existence of such a character, there is a lingering, bitter aftertaste.

It should be said that there is (IMO) a conscious exclusion of parental figures in the film. Of course, we do see Christiane’s mother (one can’t help but sympathize) who is very open-minded and yet wary of new experiences her daughter may encounter. The mother was a very interesting character for me, because (having been raised solely by my mother for most of my young life) she was depicted as being aware of the possibilities her daughter might be encountering, but also confidant in her daughter’s ability to handle such things. In the end, Christiane cannot, of course, handle it on her own and must seek outside help, but none of this (IMO) is the fault of the mother (who has quite a few of her own responsibilities). I liked this subtle character and it reminded me of my own mother, so (in all bias) I connected with this minor character and sympathized greatly.

At the end, we discover that Christiane does indeed survive, and of course, knowing the true story already, this isn’t a surprise. What is important about this film (and something that is often overlooked or discarded in more recent cinema) is the STRUGGLE that has led up to the ending. This is captured perfectly in Christiane’s discovery of her sister’s death (which caught me by surprise because I was expecting Detlef’s face in the newspaper) and the slow, ethereal motion of her emotionless, rigid form against the lights of the night life.

The film ends as it should; with her shooting up one last time, savouring in resignation, the bite and the “truth” of acquired religion. Her realization of self-destruction, but the uncontrollable urge (and ease) of descent. We don’t need an “aftermath” where Christiane is struggling to detox, etc., etc. (we’ve already seen that anyway) – the simplistic words on a screen are enough. With any good work of art, there needs to be a certain amount of imagination required on the audience’s part.

To delve into theoretical discussion: I’ve heard opinions on the film (both by people I know personally and otherwise) that the film should have inspired a sequel which tells the triumphant struggle of Christiane’s sobriety. While I’m pretty sure this will never happen (one can hope at least), there are many reasons why this would detract from the original. First of all, we know Christiane survived and has been sober for however-many-years, so all we’d be doing is revisiting stereotypical visualizations (most recently and commercially, perhaps one can recall the beginning of House season 6, which began promisingly but deteriorated into a montage of cliche). A fair note on “stereotypical visualizations”: there would be no other way of depicting “detox”, because there is a specific system involved in such a goal, and for the most part, is pretty much done the same way over and over again. Not to say that there is no heroic aspect of overcoming obstacles in this fashion, but merely to point out that narratively, there isn’t much one can do to introduce “originality” into such a scenario … but this paragraph can be struck out as merely “speculative.”

And I should mention, there’s a poignancy to the ending of the film, which remembers her friends (which we meet throughout the film) who all died at a very young age (and within the same year). The perfect ending to a film that, IMO, depicts drug addiction in ALL the facets of that existence; the allure of a “higher” state of mind, the initial (orgasmic) power of such a drug, the relationships one acquired whilst in similar throes, the spiraling descent (pardon the cliche) of being caught up in the physically (and psychologically) deceptive characteristics of addiction, the selfishness that inspires, the deterioration of one’s relationships, the realization of one’s predicament but justification of power, and finally a crossroads: either the detoxification that is required (and, dear readers, recommended) or death.

In many ways, there’s a very real connection with Dante’s Inferno (The Divine Comedy: Volume 1: Inferno (Penguin Classics))– whether that is intentional or not, is up to speculation, but let me suggest that drug addiction shares more than a few similarities with that seminal work which goes beyond such quibbling as a “dogmatic” or “religious” work (which IMO is only a backdrop to the true meaning of Dante’s Inferno). In my mind, Dante’s Inferno and Christiane F (the figurative and the realistic). go hand-in-hand in capturing the true struggle of humanity.

Of course, there’s the excellent soundtrack, featuring quite a few Bowie tunes (from his Berlin period, not surprisingly) and which, are juxtaposed with the film in the perfect way. The Bowie music always begins as a gradual fade in (intruding on earlier scenes, perhaps voicing the inevitability of the “social prison”), eventually culminating in club scenes where the music is kept very “source”, for the most part, throughout the film. What I found interesting about the use of Bowie’s music in the film (which may have been intentional, but could have also been just as easily, unintentional) is that it depicts the “attractiveness” or “glamour” of the drug-induced lifestyle, because (in all honesty) it IS an attractive lifestyle for those who don’t know any better, because it pulls us in to a communal type of existence where we relate to each other on a superficial level (often the initiation of the relationships of youth), but really only share similar levels of selfishness and the desire for acceptability. For me, there’s no better way to depict all of this than with Bowie’s music, labeled “glam rock” (thanks to Marc Bolan, may he rest in peace), which is, inherently, a commercial depiction/glorification of an extravagant, but ultimately empty, lifestyle. Ya gotta love glam rock folks, it’s pristine and self-aware but, oh so raw and seedy.

For those detractors of “modern” (this film WAS shot in the ‘80s, but IMO, culture hasn’t much changed much ideologically since then, so we’ve been in the “same” age for the past 30 years … anyway, agree or disagree with that as you will) German cinema, one has to only see this film to prove that that is not, indeed, a valid stance.

I’ve only seen two other films by filmmaker, Uli Edel (or Ulrich, as he’s sometimes credited); Last Exit to Brooklyn and his Rasputin film (starring a marvelous Alan Rickman), but Christiane F. continues to be my favourite. Edel has always shown (Christiane F. was his debut film – perhaps one of the most promising debuts in recent memory) his realistic inclination in treating his other films, but Christiane, IMO, is timeless and thorough, simplistic and focused, yet dark and foreboding – not many filmmakers can pull all THAT out of their hat with a debut film.

For a deep look into the throes of drug addiction (and how one can get caught up in such a lifestyle), Christiane F. is one of greatest and most accurate depictions in cinematic history. Unapologetically, I’d say it’s served as a template for every drug film following it (I would include “Requiem for a Dream” and “Drugstore Cowboy” as well), in the reality and “desensationalized” struggle of the last 20th Century martyr: the drug addict.

Overall Rating: * * * * * * (Six stars out of six)