MovieChat Forums > Die bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant (1972) Discussion > anybody else think Marlene was Petra's h...

anybody else think Marlene was Petra's husband?

posted 21 years ago by kyrat
18 replies | jump to latest

I spent the ENTIRE film thinking that Marlene was Petra's divorced 2nd husband.
I noticed that she was rather mannish looking and only had that one outfit. Then when Petra was talking about her abusive second husband the camera kept panning over to Marlene.I assumed that as Petra explained that she became more successful that the tables were turned in their relationship and that somehow the husband became the submissive.
In my opinion this reading made it even more interesting, as it turned around the S/M relationship from the husband as the abuser to the wife.
Try watching the film sometime from this perspective, it's kind of interesting.

[–] wedgwood 21 years ago

I presume you would appreciate an answer whatever the content. I disagree. Petra took on Marlene, after her divorce for help with her work. Because she was traumatised by her marriage and needed help with her new career. Put off by men, due to her unsuccessful marriage, Petra wallows in Marlenes subtle attention. Who knows where Marlene came from. Whatever the reasons, Petra needed female company after her marital problems. I hardly think her husband (from what she describes of him) would turn transvestite just to stay with his withering wife (she didn't become successful until after the divorce.
Whatsmore, in her conversation with her cousin Sidonie, she explains how her husband disgusted her so, to quote "the way he drank from his whisky glass made my gorge rise". The way I see it, Petra was done with her husband and had turned her sexual preferences around, toward women.
It's an interesting way of looking at things, I gotta admit. Maybe I'll take another look. Mercy.

[–] TemporaryOne-1 16 years ago

Petra took on Marlene, after her divorce

Petra hired Marlene when she married her second husband.

She had just divorced him when the film opens.

Sidonie asks her how long she was married, and Petra replies, three years.

Sidonie then asks her how long Marlene has been with her, and Petra replies, three years, and she adds that Marlene knows everything about the intimate details of her marriage and divorce:

Marlene's been with me for three years. She hears everything, sees everything, knows everything.

[–] scarletminded 20 years ago

That's an interesting idea...never thought of that...that could be why she never speaks! What happened at the end when Marlene was packing? Was she leaving too?

I thought Marlene stood for something, since she never spoke. Though I don't know what that is yet.

[–] nicola-davidson 20 years ago

Hey kyrat,
I thought that too. Nice to know I wasn't the only one, I felt a bit stupid afterwards.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chuck-526 9 years ago

-the fact that marlene had no dialogue

No dialog in the conventional sense, yes - i.e. no "voice". But Marlene did speak ...a lot. It's just that she spoke in the voice of the manual typewriter. The speed and intensity and loudness of her typing convey her internal emotional state remarkably well.

One of the notes I saw told of how the camera work (the constant zooming in) conveyed more clearly just how much the audience was already always looking at Marlene, something that in the stage play version the actress playing Marlene was completely unaware of.

-the fact that marlene stopped whatever she was doing and stared at petra wistfully/mournfully (with a dramatic zoom-in) whenever she spoke of her relationships - especially past marriages

An excessive interest in the current significant other's past failed relationship is pretty common. What does my significant other really care about? What sorts of events have pushed my significant other over the edge in the past? I read this as quite typical of anyone who "cares", but I don't read it as evidence the person is in some sense the past lover being talked about.

[–] zikratyy 18 years ago

thnx for such insightful suggestions. i would probably use em in my paper on that movie. i'm not sure we can speak in such a strong terms of being 'husband' but marlene possesses that 'male gaze' in the movie even though she's in the severe submissive position.

[–] Aizyk 18 years ago

During that zoom-in when Petra talks to Sidonie about her Husband, I too "realized" that Marlene might be the husband being spoken of, although at the same time it seemed unlikely because few males have a figure and preternatural grace like Marlene's. But during that shot when Marlene stops to turn and listen to Petra, you're struck by the realization that the former has a somewhat androgynous quality, and I think the film grammar Fassbinder used could understandably have been interpreted that way.

After having watched the whole film, however, my conclusion is that Marlene is interested enough in what Petra is talking about to stop her drawing and listen intently because Marlene is perhaps internally "excited" by hearing about the domination aspect of Petra's story. At the end of the film, once Petra renounces her dominating ways and pledges to begin treating Marlene more humanely and like an equal, Marlene immediately packs up and leaves, indicating that she was indeed there because she liked or was into being treated badly (which is what Petra told Gaby when the latter asked her about it).

| Fools rush in--and get all the best seats. |

[–] sofiamano 17 years ago

Hi I don't know if I share this interpretation but it is an interesting one. It reminded me of what Fassbinder wrote in the opening scene right after the title: "A case history dedicated to him who became Marlene here". What that means I am not sure. Maybe Fassbinder himself had been in a dominating relationship and drew Marlene's character from the person he was dominating. Whatever the explanation is, I think the key to understanding this movie is to decypher Marlene's role and personality. What she stood for. Despite never saying a line she was the true protagonist and a silent audience at the same time. Her reactions however were essential for understanding everything else.

On another note I thought she looked like one of the actresses that played in silent film especially the make up (lipstick). I guess since she was silent in the movie it made sense to make her look like a silent caricature from the old days.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VirginiaK_NYC 12 years ago

That is an interesting and creative thought - though so far it hasn't stuck with me.

I saw Marlene throughout the film as a consistently sexually involved presence - I thought she was chronically stimulated by Petra, stared at her with a veiled erotic focus, was very stimulated by any sex talk of Petra's and probably was kept present during Petra's actual sexual activities with Karin -- like a slave in the slave convention of erotic fiction and fantasy. (And lifestyle, I believe, too!)

I thought her intense typing expressed exactly that, and ratcheted up the erotic quotient of many scenes, nonetheless presented with some distance; and I thought her presence told us very early on what kind of vibes the story would deal with.

[–] gacaviale 15 years ago

in the scene where petra is speaking about her second husband, she is talking about how other "things" caused her to loathe him. that's when the camera zoomed in on marlene. marlene represents the "thing" that caused petra to feel trapped in her marriage to second husband.

let's get categorical and call petra a lesbian. im betting that marlene was too. marlene's so called "manly" features are really just butch. marlene introduced petra to her own sexuality. obviously the rest of the story is petra falling in love with her first true (free) love.

ill buy that marlene was a masochist because of the treatment she received as a servant and spurned ex-lover.

[–] limshun 15 years ago

It's certainly an interesting mirror to the Norma Desmond/Max relationship in Sunset Boulevard. I wonder whether Fassbinder had that film in mind at all when he created these characters...