Отто или в компании мертвецов фильм 2008 отзывы

Bruce La Bruce film is a brilliant analysis of contemporary displaced people, individuals who live on the margins of society, groups that struggle to obtain validation of either legal or social nature.

«Otto» is the story of an outcast teenager. Now, there would be nothing original about this except for one detail: In a world in which the living dead are humanity’s recurrent plague, Otto is a boy that defines himself as a non flesh-eating zombie with an identity crisis.

From the very beginning, the viewer is aware of a narration inside a narration, in a way that would be comparable to Propst literary models. «Up with Dead People» is the movie that lesbian intellectual Medea is filming, with references to Hélène Cixous views on the essential bisexuality of L’ecriture femenine, as well as Irigaray’s Speculum of the other Woman (the mirroring of the female body surmounts feminist theory in this film as Hella, Medea’s girlfriend, can only appear on screen as a black and white image from old reels of 1910-1920 movies, thus enabling a parallel between these two women and even classic and contemporary cinema).

In the first scene Otto rises from the grave, a classic image that has transcended the 7th art and has forever become part of popular culture. Ever since Romero’s «Night of the Living Dead» (1968) filmmakers have toyed with one of humanity’s most fierily rooted fears: death or rather the question «what happens after Death?». Romero and others have also explored the living dead as a metaphor of social marginality and the reification of the subaltern thus creating one of the most fascinating sub-genres in film’s history.

This film proudly assumes this cultural heritage and builds upon it. As the narrator’s voice tell us in the first scenes, these dead people have little or nothing to do with the classic flesh-eating, brain-devouring zombie. Those who are alive judge them as «An echo of their own somnambulistic conformist behavior». Normal society is exposed as a tyrannical Lacanian «Great Other», a Great Other that demands adaptation or extinction. Insofar heterosexual normative is carried out the Great Other is satisfied. The symbolic order, that which constitutes what one would perceive as «reality», can never suppress the «real» (id est, the obstacle of the symbolic order). But the real can only exist after the symbolic order (which relies greatly on language, the widest symbolization process known) has been fully inserted in everyone’s mind. Then, it’s only logical that zombies are finally able to reclaim language and reasoning. If zombies were the outsiders of past decades, they are now entities that can never fit in and that are constantly aware of their own situation. What can be more destabilizing for the heterosexual normative than homosexuality taken to the extreme?, in this case, a new wave of gay zombies that prey upon male flesh, in a very carnal and literal way.

Otto lives, or unlives, eating animals instead of humans. He runs away from those who would seek to harm him. And he finds a way to define himself thanks to Medea and her movie which is full of theory references. As Medea’s brother so aptly confirms, here the subject is «the empty signifier upon which you could project any particular gender».

Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory derives from Levi-Strauss structuralism (after Saussure and Jacobson linguistic studies). They would affirm that certain structures have invariably persisted in humanity’s development. One of such structures is the dual nature of language. When Saussure defined langue and parole he decided that the entire language was nothing more than a system of signs, signs that had arbitrary value and that would only have meaning in their relation with other signs. If so, the human language can only exist in a dual system of opposition (signifier / signified: signifier as the acoustic image generated by an idea or object and signified as the word in any given language that is utilized to retrieve that acoustic image from our memory). This fundamental duality has its first manifestation in sexual gender (males versus females). And as Lacan explains, the first structure one encounters as one enters into the world is that of sex, one is either a man or a woman, no one can be both or neither. Or at least that’s what heterosexual normative would have us believe. There is no place for a third sex and has never been one, hermaphrodites and other variants have been utterly discarded by psychoanalytic theory.

Lacan, nonetheless, accepts in his sexuation graphic that being a woman doesn’t necessarily mean to occupy the female position or that being a man doesn’t necessarily mean to occupy the male position. He also accepts that the male and female positions have evolved through history and adapted to social requirements, being a man or being a woman, as gender affiliated roles, is a sign of arbitrariness, in the sense that there is nothing human that can be defined as a masculine or feminine behavior. Everything is a social construction. And as such is an empty signifier. Gender roles are different now compared to recent centuries, or even decades, and they keep changing. Nothing is set in stone.

Does «Otto» attempt to disrupt the Lacanian structure? Otto has experienced idealized love (indisputably visible in his flashbacks as a living boy), savage and destructive sex with a costumed gay that thinks Otto is disguised as a zombie, and the possibility of a more complete relationship with Fritz, the movie star. He deals with the masculine position in his first love, he assumes sex as the ultimate manifestation of a consumer-based capitalist world (to consume and cannibalize are here synonyms), and finally accepts the failure to insert himself into society (after his brief relationship with Fritz) and wanders towards the north, hoping to find people like him, hoping to find, perhaps, a Utopian gay civilization in which the living and non-living can finally divert their basic and seemingly irreconcilable natures.

«Otto; or, Up With Dead People»- yes, that is the title- is a film (student-esque looking, really) about… well, not really ‘about’ because the plot barely delves into a story about him- except that he had an ex-boyfriend… a zombie named Otto. He walks around. A lot. Then in an Otto-unrelated situation, some other zombie fornicates with another zombie through a self-made stomach-hole. The film was like, half mockumentary and half some other crap. I’m sure there are some political revolutionary symbols that one could find relating the zombies to sex-repressed humans or blah blah, but I’ve seen political living dead films before, and this ain’t it. Okay, I’m not one to completely tear apart some other artist’s work, so I will say that the cinematography was great in certain scenes- like Otto walking through a field of yellow flowers- the colors were great, and there was one character that was a walking silent-film… that was pretty neat. So, when it all comes down to it:

What Drew Me To See It: I was perusing through IMDb and saw the keywords «Gay Zombie Movie,» and though, «Hey. That’s new to me.»

What I Was Doing While Watching It: Falling asleep. I tried really hard to get into it. I was at a point where I felt like I would be ostracized on the internet horror-movie community if I didn’t watch the whole film. So I watched it in 2 parts. Two long, long, slow-moving, confusing parts.

Stood Out For Better: The walking silent film, some visual scenes, and my want to keep watching for the first half. Otto was interesting as well. I just wanted to keep watching him, at first. Oh, and the stomach-screwing was notorious with me.

Stood Out For Worse: The stomach-screwing was okay with me- I’m a fan of outrageous gore and exploitation, but the big orgy of bear-biker zombies towards the end was just too much. And the ‘freshman year in film school at the most’ vibe of the film really threw me off. It had a hard time drawing my interest and keeping me entertained. I was more anxious to stay awake than I was to watch.

Overall: I hate to be harsh, but this film gets a C-. The only reason I didn’t give it a D was because I really wanted to watch it. I didn’t enjoy watching it! But I did want to.

b-grade gay zombie porn semi-mockumentary. repetitive, irritating sound design, jokes milked longer than they should. for some, there’s not enough blood and guts. for others, there’s not enough porn.

But all LaBruce’s films are bad! that is his charm and the charm of no-budget Cult Films! if you expect more, you won’t be alone. but if you expect perfection, then you’re a fool. like all those people who complained after seeing Tomb Raider or the Super Mario Brothers Movie — what did you expect?

Otto is fun. it’s certainly original. it’s gay politics are obvious, but accurate. the jokes range from falling flat to funny to shocking. it’s polarizing, memorable and thanks to Fritz (Marcel Schlutt), it’s damn sexy to watch.

Otto needs to be watched at a film festival amongst the typical gay indie films that are more sincere than their film makers can give credit to. Only then will something like SkinFlick’s ‘monkey rape’ and Hustler White ‘Stumping’ hit you with the full impact that it should

like SkinGang — can’t wait for the full-porno version of Otto

I just watched this and I should warn all viewers, especially fans of gore, that Otto; or Up with Dead People starts out remarkably slow paced. This film takes it’s time getting started with the plot and it will likely challenge most people to continue watching. It may be too slow for many viewers. However, if you stick with it, you will most definitely be rewarded! This latest film by Canadian filmmaker Bruce LaBruce is fantastic. It’s my second favorite Bruce LaBruce film after The Raspberry Reich. It is always an interesting experience to watch any of his films and this one sure didn’t let me down! Otto is a gay pornographic zombie horror movie. Judging from that description, it should be quite obvious that this isn’t for all tastes. Then again, not all Bruce LaBruce films are! Otto was, in a way, the movie I have always been looking for. I love zombie films, I love horror films, I love gore films, and I love films with gay themes. If you are a fan of all of these genres, this film should satisfy you. It is among one of the more satisfying gay films I have seen for quite some time. The film is scary, it’s gory as hell, and the sex scenes rock.

The plot basically follows around Otto, a German zombie with memory problems who has risen from his grave. He travels to Berlin and meets an underground filmmaker who wants to make a political zombie porno and finds a fondness for Otto and chooses him to be the poster child for the film. However, things get complicated when he discovers his boyfriend’s identity and agrees to meet with him. From there, things get extreme.

This movie is just plain fun. It works as a satire and as a horror movie in equal measure. I found it to be hilarious at times. The movie-within-a-movie trick often gets misused and can easily turn a film into a mindless mess a clichés. Otto does not fall into this trap. Instead, this film takes the idea in a unique direction. While the film, by no means, should be taken seriously, there is still a lot to admire in the artistic details of the film. The film is startlingly gory at times. There are scenes that go so far over-the-top in shocking behavior that the film manages to walk that fine line on surrealism and tastelessness. Whether it is either of those is irrelevant because it is hilarious to watch some of these scenes take place.

Politically, the film certainly has something to say. While Bruce LaBruce’s films have always dealt with politics, this film manages to not push that so far as it does play off of that idea. Bruce LaBruce satirizes himself with the German filmmaker, and as a result the film hits the right clever notes. Otto, the zombie, is ridiculously beautiful to look at. The soundtrack is certainly very cool, as most soundtracks to the films of Bruce LaBruce are. Most importantly, the film is alive and it flows with heart. This is truly the work of somebody who loves the conventions of film and the endless possibilities of originality in film-making. Definitely check this one out if it sounds like your kind of film. You especially won’t be disappointed if you’re looking for the next great surrealist picture of the 21st Century.

The brilliance of some films is visible on multiple levels. Films such as Network (1976) and American Beauty (1999) are both satirical, yet they can be simultaneously viewed as good cinema. Bruce LaBruce’s Otto; or, Up with Dead People (2008) is not such a film. It can be read as a satire, Bruce LaBruce’s whorish attempt at an instant cult classic, or simply as an entirely original work of art. Actually, it seems more like a combination of the three. Otto satirizes the zombie crowd’s lust for films that only have merit for their shock value. In case you aren’t familiar with him, Bruce LaBruce is famous for (infamous for?) his no-budget B films. He is one of few directors to have directed a porno and had a film premier at Sundance. Without seeing the film, Otto often comes across at an extremely misguided attempt to corner a niche market—gay zombie horror porn. With that said, the film is neither a horror film nor a porno. There is relatively little gore, and much less sex than the right wing IMDb trolls would have you believe. Otto may be a satire; Otto may be an attempt into instant cult status; but in any case, Otto is art.

Otto; or, Up with Dead People was shown at the Sundance film festival. However, simply being accepted into Sundance does not mean a film is good. Otto was also shown at the wonderful MoMA in NYC. Once again, this does not mean that it is a perfect film, but it should be noted in what way the film is being perceived: as a work of art. Most people will dismiss Otto as a pointless B movie, but in reality it is not pointless. Otto is one of the most original works of feature length cinema from the past decade that I have seen. And this is not simply based on the subject matter. LaBruce utilizes his distinct style and unique cinematic techniques to make Otto a truly fresh work of art.

Now onto the film. Otto (Jey Crisfar) is convinced that he is a zombie who just recently was resurrected. Stumbling around town, he comes across a flyer for auditions for a zombie movie, Up with Dead People. At the audition, the director of the film, Medea (Katharina Klewinghaus), is impressed with Otto’s commitment to the character. Otto of course truly believes that he is a zombie, while Medea is sure that Otto is just a regular guy who always seems to be exceptionally dirty. Zombies are often presented as allegorical to «the ultimate consumers who all eat the same things, congregate at the same places, act the same» (Fangoria). With Otto, LaBruce completely reverses this idea. Otto is a complete outcast. Not only is he a zombie, but Otto is gay. He experiences what is either gay-, zombie-, or gay zombie-bashing and generally not accepted by society.

Another of LaBruce’s interesting cinematic choices is presenting Medea’s lesbian lover, Hella (Susanne Sachße) as a silent film character. Hella is always presented in grainy black and white and her dialogue is even replaced with intertitles. Medea and other characters are still presented in full color even while the black and white Hella is sitting right next to them. As a film studies major, I am forced to attempt to find the symbolism/hidden meaning behind presenting Hella as such. However, I have come to the conclusion that LaBruce was simply attempting to present Hella as a specific type of character from the silent film era and he does so with clever blatancy.

Otto is not what most people would consider as entertaining. Otto is not what most people would consider as art. If you watch the film thinking that you will hate it, I can guarantee with complete certainty that you will hate it. Watch this film with an open mind, and don’t take it too seriously or literally. Network and American Beauty are praised because they work on two levels. They exaggerate the existing conventions of Hollywood cinema in order to criticize whereas Otto cinematically breaks free of the zombie genre in its criticism. As Dr. Marco Abel would say, whether or not you like the film is irrelevant. Otto is a entirely original piece of art.

Elly belly, you’ve taken the film too seriously! LaBruce is very grounded, very modest. Genuine issues are explored but in an refreshingly ‘anti Godard’ manner — he just makes fun of everything! Labruce ridicules politicians but also those against them; how being ‘anti-fa’ or ‘left’ is simply a style or fashion now, (particularly in Berlin), hence Medea, too was mocked when declaring out her ‘political’ banter.

Laugh at the sex scenes. Crazy, absurd, funny. Not shallow, either: the pleasure one derives from viewing pornography is thrown in their face once mixed with the thrill of the blood and guts of a zombie film. Labruce shows both simultaneously, erections and intestines between the same sheets. Despite being literally ‘bloody’, they are by no means violent or hate motivated. »Blood and guts» is just part of what the zombie lovers get down to in the bedroom! They can also have sex with each other’s (very very very newly created) orifices!! ha ha.

This is simply a great film, what a deadly cool way to attack homophobia. Thank god for you Labruce.

«a political-porn-zombie movie» that was the promised genre. well, it was merely political, as the political character Medea did not seem so sincere, she was more like a person who tried to be Gothic or something, but she was OK, not bad. zombie? yes, Otto was a pretty zombie, lost his frightening reasons in the process of zombie evolution. porn? absolutely. the idea of being «disgusting» was very well organized and presented, to be honest -no offense, I believe that was the aim. I don’t think that being straight is a reason for seeing it that way. more than half of the audience was gay and I did not see a joy expression at their faces, most of the people were irritated by the violent porn scenes. apart from the violently pornographic shots, Otto walks. walks. walks. this is not a spoiler, it’s just only an idea of what you’ll see. although a fervent movie addict, maybe I didn’t get it. maybe we couldn’t see the layers beneath Otto. but you didn’t let us do, Bruce..

I can’t wait to read other comments, I need to be enlightened or something, please write.

It takes a certain caliber of film-maker to approach a genre which was intended to horrify its audience and, instead, make it amuse and move them.

I found «Otto; or, Up With Dead People» to be Bruce LaBruce’s strongest work to date. The plot was both the most linear and accessible, and at the same time the most convoluted. Even with a lack of chronology, a dizzying metafilm of movie within movie, and multiple points of view and filming techniques, the movie manages to devote more time to standard plot development than previous Bruce LaBruce works.

Perhaps this was necessary to reach out to all the viewers on a more explicit level, and create empathy for a character, who belongs to a group of otherwise reviled monsters. It was quite bizarre to leave the theater relating to characters who had been shown brutally eviscerating each other in graphic detail.

But it is this feeling of commonality with a supposedly terrifying monster that makes the movie powerful and touching. The equivocal metaphor that compares conformist society to zombies is more like a thinly veiled reality: take away the blood and guts and what’s the difference between the two?

It goes to show that you don’t always need a grandiose and earnest tone to say something significant. Sometimes, the silliest and most ridiculous metaphors are the ones which uncover the most meaningful truth.

Canadian artist / pornographer Bruce LaBruce is known in underground circles for his transgressive and satirical no-budget contributions to Queer cinema. His films Raspberry Reich, Hustler White and Skin Flick, among others, endeavor to explore themes such as alienation, fascism, terrorism, persecution but are held together by Bruce’s real «meat ‘n’ potatoes» — hardcore gay sex (and in one case, amputee sex).

Somewhere in the near future where zombies are the norm (particularly homosexual ones) and have somewhat evolved from mindless flesh-eaters into talking, rational-thinking corpses, Otto is rising from the grave. He doesn’t remember anything about his past so he begins to wander the streets aimlessly, eating roadkill as he goes. Otto cant bring himself to kill & eat a human — he muses that maybe he was a vegetarian in his former life.

Otto is soon «discovered» by Medea Yarn, an avant-garde filmmaker. Medea is close to finishing her epic political-porno-zombie movie, Up with Dead People, and wants to begin on a docu-drama starring Otto. Medea’s crew consists of her brother, Adolf and her lesbian partner Hella Bent, a silent screen siren who is always seen in scratchy black ‘n’ white.

Intermittently Otto has minor flashbacks to what he thinks was his life before he became one of the undead. When he eventually discovers his wallet in his back pocket, he finds in it little clues to who he once was, one being an ex-boyfriend’s phone number. He arranges to meet up with this ex and through him learns some important details about his past.

«An original and inventive take on the zombie genre» Otto; or, Up with Dead People is a German/Canadian co-production predominantly shot in Germany with local actors. The majority of the dialogue in the film is presented as voice-over narration either by Otto or Medea, who we are introduced to, and who continues to address us via interview-type footage. The elements of satire are pretty blatant when it comes to Medea, the utterly pretentious filmmaker with her long indulgent diatribes against our capitalist, consumer-driven society. Then there’s the queer-zombie bashing, Otto the mindless teen zombie (product of a consumerist society?) and the sense of disdain that the general public regard Otto with.

Sex ‘n’ gore-wise I didn’t find the film too over-the-top; yes there are a few cocks and some gay sex but no XXX scenes. One of the more notable scenes is in Medea’s film Up with Dead People where the lead zombie penetrates his partner’s recently inflicted stomach wound. With regards to the typical gory zombie film though, I don’t think Otto can really compete, there’s very little grue, just the odd eating of roadkill.

One of the questions the film asks is — is Otto really a zombie? At the beginning it seems rather obvious that he is but as the film develops you discover that before he «died» he was committed to a psychiatric hospital after being diagnosed with schizophrenia and a severe eating disorder. Throughout the film people are constantly commenting that «he thinks he’s a zombie» and wonder what is wrong with him.

Otto; or Up with Dead People is an original and inventive take on the zombie genre, although for some, the lack of typical genre staples may disappoint. Recommended for Bruce LaBruce fans and/or indiscriminate zombie film lovers.

This IS a serious film. If you get past the gay porn and the expectation that this will be some zombie thriller (stumbling blocks that seem to have gotten in the way of many of the reviewers here), then it becomes quite clear that this is NOT primarily a gay politics film, and NOT a thriller.

For me, the relevance of this film comes through with full reference to Lacan and Zizek, who both discuss the different types of desire/drive that motivate the human subject. Most of us are stuck in the subjectivity of desire, pursuing our love objects—and losing them—but always in the grip of the idea that somehow we can have IT. The subject of desire is always motivated by ‘lack’ and the attempt to fill in the lack; but the subject of drive is motivated by excess and the weariness of always having ‘too much’.

In the film, Otto had IT, but as is clear in the scene when he re-meets his old love, the guy really wasn’t all that worth it. But this does not lead Otto to attempt to replace his lost love; instead he has the realization that his lost love is infinitely replaceable by any of the clones out there pursuing mindless connections. The scene with his lost love comes late in the film, but it suggests that some structural aspects of it were behind Otto’s becoming a zombie in the first place. There is a realization that leads Otto to lose his ‘desire’ and become a zombie—he lives with the curse that the object of his desire is endlessly repeatable—he is condemned always to having this realization, which essentially makes him neither alive nor dead.

The end of the film suggests that Otto achieves a different kind of jouissance than that merely had by the ‘subject of drive’—but it is only a suggestion, and Labruce goes no further with it than that. This is where I think the film falls short: it is an excellent expose of the emptiness of desire and of the flatness of desire’s corollary, drive. But the film does not satisfactorily navigate what lies beyond the desire/drive deadlock.

Nevertheless, this film is far beyond most film-schlock of the moment that never even rises to a decent consciousness of the chains of desire. It is a great exploration of the subjectivity of displacement and intimates that that is an aspect of ALL of our understandings, whether we perceive it or not. I agree with the reviewer who calls this an «entirely original work of art.»

I saw the film last night at Bangkok International Film Festival and, god forbid, I like it. I mean I thought I would be scared or find it disgusting or something like that. But I’d like to try zombie/gay film (as one of my friend called it) for once. Actually, the first time I have heard of the film, I’m interested. But when my friend who already saw it in DVD(something pirate, I’m sure) told me a brief summary of several scenes in the films, I’m not sure anymore whether it was the right choice to buy the ticket. However, already bought it. already came up to the theatre on seventh floor. So, let’s try it.

In the first horror scene on the road where Otto did something with the rabbit, I saw several people stood up and gone off the theatre right away which made me wonder..was that beyond their expectation? But after the first 30 minutes has passed everyone seemed to be happy and have a lot of fun watching this. Manys (me included) laughed on a lot of things in the film.

Personally, as a person who always wants to see such beautiful touching thing in the film and always avoid this type of movie, I found it really disgusting (ha ha)..and yet memorable. I love every single word spoken out of the female director’s mouth. (Big applause to you, Bruce.) And I love Otto character. He reminded me of myself sometimes ago.

In short, this movie is just as odd as its premise makes it sound. A young homosexual zombie wandering around, isn’t exactly a premise for an everyday movie but then again «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» isn’t your average everyday movie. It’s something unique and original and you will most likely either love it or hate it. Me personally; I quite liked it.

Above all things, this is a movie that is taking a very artistic approach. Watching this is a true special experience. Visually its a great looking movie, that is being quite creative and seemed to be full with great ideas. Now, granted that not everything works out well or interesting but overall «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» remains a good watch throughout.

You shouldn’t take everything in this movie too literally. Seems to me that its entire main concept was a metaphor how lots of people still look upon homosexuals and how they treat them. In lots of places they are still being seen as not normal, to put it mildly and as meat ‘eating’ animals. That’s why the main character of the movie feels like- or thinks he is a freak, or a zombie in this case. At least that’s how I interpret things. But who knows, maybe you will get something totally different out of this movie. But fact remains that this is a very homosexual orientated movie and everything revolves around this.

This also means that the movie is not just showing kissing men but also some far more explicit moments. There is a fair amount of male nudity and even a couple of graphic sex sequences, involving male characters.

The entire movie was obviously quite cheap to make but I think that director Bruce La Bruce did a great job with his material. The way he shot the movie makes it almost irrelevant that it has a quite cheap look to it. It’s directed with lots of class, which often makes the movie a visually great one to experience.

Don’t watch this movie expecting a lot of story though. There isn’t really a clear main point to the movie and the movie is more about its underlying messages. Some movies however can do just fine without a clear main story, as this greatly artistic- and as such an effective, movie demonstrates.

Still some stuff just remains too odd and distracting. Such as for instance the fact that basically every character the main characters comes across turns out to be an homosexual, male of female. Seriously, what kind of world was this movie supposed to be set in, since you clearly can’t call it a realistic one.

It also seems odd that this is a German movie, with mostly German actors, speaking all in English. Don’t know what’s the entire story behind this but it just seems to me that it’s more easy for Bruce La Bruce to make movies in Germany but he still wants to reach an international audience, so he wrote and shot all of the dialog in English. This means you can hear a lot of thick accents throughout the movie.

Call me weird but I for most part quite liked this movie!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

After viewing this film a second time, I picked up on the subtle cues I missed on the first viewing—a subtle swipe at Russian political reformation and romance, the bashing of the New Left, the Emancipation of Serfs through «Dead Souls» and the film-maker who is absorbed/consumed into/by their work—«Divine Horsemen: The Living Gods of Haiti».

As one must with any artisan film, subtle devices is key to understanding the missive and the import. Just as a viewing of Frankenstein’s Monster for its gore and horror is skimming the surface, to view this film simply for the porn and gore is simplifying it to a banal level that misses the cerebral context.

LaBruce mocks all sides of the socio-political debate revealing that participants in the capitalist consumption, the advocates of gay rights, and the participants in gay consumerism are equally ‘pawns’ — serfs, if not zombies — held captive by Causes greater than self. Even those who deem themselves part of the media and creative media are caught up in their own «hype» unable to divorce themselves from participating in the events they are called to record, just as Maya Deren was caught up in the voodoo experience while documenting the «Divine Horsemen».

Right, well I believed that I was in for a zombie comedy here, when I sat down to watch the 2008 «Otto: or. Up with Dead People». But that wasn’t exactly what the movie turned out to be.

Shortly into the movie they introduced something called the «gay zombie», and I thought, sure, why not. But then 16 minutes into the movie when a group of male zombies show up and started to make out, I just upped and turned off the movie. Never to return to watch it again. I have no interest in watching something like that. I sat down to watch a zombie comedy movie, not gay softcore porn. Mind you, I have absolutely nothing against gay people, but it was not the type of movie I sat down to watch, so it was a massive swing and a miss from writer and director Bruce LaBruce.

What the story was about, I didn’t have enough time to find out. I was just mortified by what happened on the screen, and literally have no interest in finding out what the movie was about. But I suppose the tagline «bringing sexy back from the dead» probably should have been a warning, who knew?

My rating of «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» lands on a mere one out of ten stars, as this was definitely not a movie for me, nor anything I would get any kind of entertainment from. Take heed, this movie may not actually be what you think it is when you sit down to watch it.

dear Elly-belly; your comment really irritated me. i feel sorry for you if those are the real thoughts of you about the movie. first of all, Medea was not the only character that was political and «goth», in fact the whole zombie concept is goth so it suits the movie. the political elements were very clearly explained, its your problem if you fell asleep during the film. Otto is a character that not only should be watched, he also needs to be understood. there you need the ability to empathy, to see the dilemma; otherwise all of your precious time is wasted. i suppose your not sexually open minded either. thinking that all those people in the cinema could watch the porn scenes with a smile on there face is SICK. «..no joy expression on there face..» what should the man do? masturbate?? pf..

finally, its a perfect movie for those who enjoy something extraordinary but not simple.

I’m blown away by how much I like «Otto.» I’m a straight woman who is not into horror films, B movies or zombie flicks. I am, however, studying gay cinema; still, everything I read about this film told me I would hate it. Ultimately, my reasons for liking it have little to do with an interest in gay cinema but rather I am touched by what «Otto» says of heart and head. Which was a big surprise! I was intrigued by the silent film element. I absolutely love the idea of refusal to participate in «consensual reality» as a revolutionary act. That was what made me decide to keep watching and I’m glad I did. I’m rating this highly because I love to be surprised. I enjoy having my preconceived notions shattered, especially when I am so certain that I know how I feel about things. I have never seen anything like «Otto» — which impresses me and has me thinking. Not only do I not regret the time spent watching this film but now I’m writing this. Who saw that coming?

If you have patience, there is something lovely in all of this messy, gory absurdity. The surreal pretension leads to something rare and sweet.

******SPOILERS!******

LaBruce, makes an attempt at being edgy, ironic, and satirical… but what he delivers is an uninspired, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly edited waste of time.

Firstly, I don’t know what’s more offensive… The fact that LaBruce exploits the struggle for LGBT rights, by using it as an obvious crutch to deflect criticism of his depictions of vile and unconscionable acts of violence and necrophilia, or how badly he misses the mark and twists what could have been a brilliant metaphor, into something you could imagine being shown in the basement of the Providence Road Baptist Church. Then again, it could be his sad attempt at a parody of post-modern nihilism, which also shows not a spark of insight, and instead of skewering the genre, he just parrots it.

Whatever his intent, LaBruce misses irony by miles and wouldn’t know satire if Groucho Marx shoved a copy of Huckleberry Finn straight up the orifice from which he originally pulled the screenplay for this film.

His ironic metaphor, to take mainstream societies rejection of homosexuality and place it parallel to the gristly abomination that zombies represent in fiction; *could* have been brilliant, but his half-hearted effort lets it fall flat and as dead as his protagonist. The real horror here is the result of LaBruce’s failure to show any irony at all in this metaphor, or prove it false. Instead, he actually drains all the humanity out of his story and actors, the very characteristic that would give lie to the idea that homosexuals are monstrous abominations that defile human flesh, what’s more, he adds fuel to the stereotype by having his characters devalue, exploit, and abuse one another casually.

One may be tempted to forgive LaBruce, his blatant exploitation, since this film is a excuse for pornography, disguised as social commentary, disguised as art. It could even be ignored that LaBruce feels free to dispense with the character development, continuity of plot, dialog, humor, or even context that might make this movie bearable… that is, if this really was pornography… but even at that LaBruce fails miserably.

What’s more tedious than watching some lifeless derivative piece of art house drivel? Why, it’s watching an *insincere* rendition of that same lifeless derivative piece of art house drivel; where only the most obtuse and predictable observations are made as satire and then we are expected to find them profound and witty. LaBruce attempts to mock the genre… but does so in such an artless way he becomes part of it. Like two mimes pretending to be mirror images of one another…only that’s not the best description, because the mimes may accidentally entertain you… unlike this film.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has survived the zombie apocalypse in actual fact. After mankind is wiped out and all his works have fallen to ruin, watching this film would ease the sense of loss. One could shrug and say… «the culture that produced this is dead and gone… good riddance.» Think you Mr. LaBruce, for giving us all just one more reason to be ashamed of humanity. Well done.

Bruce La Bruce film is a brilliant analysis of contemporary displaced people, individuals who live on the margins of society, groups that struggle to obtain validation of either legal or social nature.

«Otto» is the story of an outcast teenager. Now, there would be nothing original about this except for one detail: In a world in which the living dead are humanity’s recurrent plague, Otto is a boy that defines himself as a non flesh-eating zombie with an identity crisis.

From the very beginning, the viewer is aware of a narration inside a narration, in a way that would be comparable to Propst literary models. «Up with Dead People» is the movie that lesbian intellectual Medea is filming, with references to Hélène Cixous views on the essential bisexuality of L’ecriture femenine, as well as Irigaray’s Speculum of the other Woman (the mirroring of the female body surmounts feminist theory in this film as Hella, Medea’s girlfriend, can only appear on screen as a black and white image from old reels of 1910-1920 movies, thus enabling a parallel between these two women and even classic and contemporary cinema).

In the first scene Otto rises from the grave, a classic image that has transcended the 7th art and has forever become part of popular culture. Ever since Romero’s «Night of the Living Dead» (1968) filmmakers have toyed with one of humanity’s most fierily rooted fears: death or rather the question «what happens after Death?». Romero and others have also explored the living dead as a metaphor of social marginality and the reification of the subaltern thus creating one of the most fascinating sub-genres in film’s history.

This film proudly assumes this cultural heritage and builds upon it. As the narrator’s voice tell us in the first scenes, these dead people have little or nothing to do with the classic flesh-eating, brain-devouring zombie. Those who are alive judge them as «An echo of their own somnambulistic conformist behavior». Normal society is exposed as a tyrannical Lacanian «Great Other», a Great Other that demands adaptation or extinction. Insofar heterosexual normative is carried out the Great Other is satisfied. The symbolic order, that which constitutes what one would perceive as «reality», can never suppress the «real» (id est, the obstacle of the symbolic order). But the real can only exist after the symbolic order (which relies greatly on language, the widest symbolization process known) has been fully inserted in everyone’s mind. Then, it’s only logical that zombies are finally able to reclaim language and reasoning. If zombies were the outsiders of past decades, they are now entities that can never fit in and that are constantly aware of their own situation. What can be more destabilizing for the heterosexual normative than homosexuality taken to the extreme?, in this case, a new wave of gay zombies that prey upon male flesh, in a very carnal and literal way.

Otto lives, or unlives, eating animals instead of humans. He runs away from those who would seek to harm him. And he finds a way to define himself thanks to Medea and her movie which is full of theory references. As Medea’s brother so aptly confirms, here the subject is «the empty signifier upon which you could project any particular gender».

Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory derives from Levi-Strauss structuralism (after Saussure and Jacobson linguistic studies). They would affirm that certain structures have invariably persisted in humanity’s development. One of such structures is the dual nature of language. When Saussure defined langue and parole he decided that the entire language was nothing more than a system of signs, signs that had arbitrary value and that would only have meaning in their relation with other signs. If so, the human language can only exist in a dual system of opposition (signifier / signified: signifier as the acoustic image generated by an idea or object and signified as the word in any given language that is utilized to retrieve that acoustic image from our memory). This fundamental duality has its first manifestation in sexual gender (males versus females). And as Lacan explains, the first structure one encounters as one enters into the world is that of sex, one is either a man or a woman, no one can be both or neither. Or at least that’s what heterosexual normative would have us believe. There is no place for a third sex and has never been one, hermaphrodites and other variants have been utterly discarded by psychoanalytic theory.

Lacan, nonetheless, accepts in his sexuation graphic that being a woman doesn’t necessarily mean to occupy the female position or that being a man doesn’t necessarily mean to occupy the male position. He also accepts that the male and female positions have evolved through history and adapted to social requirements, being a man or being a woman, as gender affiliated roles, is a sign of arbitrariness, in the sense that there is nothing human that can be defined as a masculine or feminine behavior. Everything is a social construction. And as such is an empty signifier. Gender roles are different now compared to recent centuries, or even decades, and they keep changing. Nothing is set in stone.

Does «Otto» attempt to disrupt the Lacanian structure? Otto has experienced idealized love (indisputably visible in his flashbacks as a living boy), savage and destructive sex with a costumed gay that thinks Otto is disguised as a zombie, and the possibility of a more complete relationship with Fritz, the movie star. He deals with the masculine position in his first love, he assumes sex as the ultimate manifestation of a consumer-based capitalist world (to consume and cannibalize are here synonyms), and finally accepts the failure to insert himself into society (after his brief relationship with Fritz) and wanders towards the north, hoping to find people like him, hoping to find, perhaps, a Utopian gay civilization in which the living and non-living can finally divert their basic and seemingly irreconcilable natures.

«Otto; or, Up With Dead People»- yes, that is the title- is a film (student-esque looking, really) about… well, not really ‘about’ because the plot barely delves into a story about him- except that he had an ex-boyfriend… a zombie named Otto. He walks around. A lot. Then in an Otto-unrelated situation, some other zombie fornicates with another zombie through a self-made stomach-hole. The film was like, half mockumentary and half some other crap. I’m sure there are some political revolutionary symbols that one could find relating the zombies to sex-repressed humans or blah blah, but I’ve seen political living dead films before, and this ain’t it. Okay, I’m not one to completely tear apart some other artist’s work, so I will say that the cinematography was great in certain scenes- like Otto walking through a field of yellow flowers- the colors were great, and there was one character that was a walking silent-film… that was pretty neat. So, when it all comes down to it:

What Drew Me To See It: I was perusing through IMDb and saw the keywords «Gay Zombie Movie,» and though, «Hey. That’s new to me.»

What I Was Doing While Watching It: Falling asleep. I tried really hard to get into it. I was at a point where I felt like I would be ostracized on the internet horror-movie community if I didn’t watch the whole film. So I watched it in 2 parts. Two long, long, slow-moving, confusing parts.

Stood Out For Better: The walking silent film, some visual scenes, and my want to keep watching for the first half. Otto was interesting as well. I just wanted to keep watching him, at first. Oh, and the stomach-screwing was notorious with me.

Stood Out For Worse: The stomach-screwing was okay with me- I’m a fan of outrageous gore and exploitation, but the big orgy of bear-biker zombies towards the end was just too much. And the ‘freshman year in film school at the most’ vibe of the film really threw me off. It had a hard time drawing my interest and keeping me entertained. I was more anxious to stay awake than I was to watch.

Overall: I hate to be harsh, but this film gets a C-. The only reason I didn’t give it a D was because I really wanted to watch it. I didn’t enjoy watching it! But I did want to.

b-grade gay zombie porn semi-mockumentary. repetitive, irritating sound design, jokes milked longer than they should. for some, there’s not enough blood and guts. for others, there’s not enough porn.

But all LaBruce’s films are bad! that is his charm and the charm of no-budget Cult Films! if you expect more, you won’t be alone. but if you expect perfection, then you’re a fool. like all those people who complained after seeing Tomb Raider or the Super Mario Brothers Movie — what did you expect?

Otto is fun. it’s certainly original. it’s gay politics are obvious, but accurate. the jokes range from falling flat to funny to shocking. it’s polarizing, memorable and thanks to Fritz (Marcel Schlutt), it’s damn sexy to watch.

Otto needs to be watched at a film festival amongst the typical gay indie films that are more sincere than their film makers can give credit to. Only then will something like SkinFlick’s ‘monkey rape’ and Hustler White ‘Stumping’ hit you with the full impact that it should

like SkinGang — can’t wait for the full-porno version of Otto

I just watched this and I should warn all viewers, especially fans of gore, that Otto; or Up with Dead People starts out remarkably slow paced. This film takes it’s time getting started with the plot and it will likely challenge most people to continue watching. It may be too slow for many viewers. However, if you stick with it, you will most definitely be rewarded! This latest film by Canadian filmmaker Bruce LaBruce is fantastic. It’s my second favorite Bruce LaBruce film after The Raspberry Reich. It is always an interesting experience to watch any of his films and this one sure didn’t let me down! Otto is a gay pornographic zombie horror movie. Judging from that description, it should be quite obvious that this isn’t for all tastes. Then again, not all Bruce LaBruce films are! Otto was, in a way, the movie I have always been looking for. I love zombie films, I love horror films, I love gore films, and I love films with gay themes. If you are a fan of all of these genres, this film should satisfy you. It is among one of the more satisfying gay films I have seen for quite some time. The film is scary, it’s gory as hell, and the sex scenes rock.

The plot basically follows around Otto, a German zombie with memory problems who has risen from his grave. He travels to Berlin and meets an underground filmmaker who wants to make a political zombie porno and finds a fondness for Otto and chooses him to be the poster child for the film. However, things get complicated when he discovers his boyfriend’s identity and agrees to meet with him. From there, things get extreme.

This movie is just plain fun. It works as a satire and as a horror movie in equal measure. I found it to be hilarious at times. The movie-within-a-movie trick often gets misused and can easily turn a film into a mindless mess a clichés. Otto does not fall into this trap. Instead, this film takes the idea in a unique direction. While the film, by no means, should be taken seriously, there is still a lot to admire in the artistic details of the film. The film is startlingly gory at times. There are scenes that go so far over-the-top in shocking behavior that the film manages to walk that fine line on surrealism and tastelessness. Whether it is either of those is irrelevant because it is hilarious to watch some of these scenes take place.

Politically, the film certainly has something to say. While Bruce LaBruce’s films have always dealt with politics, this film manages to not push that so far as it does play off of that idea. Bruce LaBruce satirizes himself with the German filmmaker, and as a result the film hits the right clever notes. Otto, the zombie, is ridiculously beautiful to look at. The soundtrack is certainly very cool, as most soundtracks to the films of Bruce LaBruce are. Most importantly, the film is alive and it flows with heart. This is truly the work of somebody who loves the conventions of film and the endless possibilities of originality in film-making. Definitely check this one out if it sounds like your kind of film. You especially won’t be disappointed if you’re looking for the next great surrealist picture of the 21st Century.

The brilliance of some films is visible on multiple levels. Films such as Network (1976) and American Beauty (1999) are both satirical, yet they can be simultaneously viewed as good cinema. Bruce LaBruce’s Otto; or, Up with Dead People (2008) is not such a film. It can be read as a satire, Bruce LaBruce’s whorish attempt at an instant cult classic, or simply as an entirely original work of art. Actually, it seems more like a combination of the three. Otto satirizes the zombie crowd’s lust for films that only have merit for their shock value. In case you aren’t familiar with him, Bruce LaBruce is famous for (infamous for?) his no-budget B films. He is one of few directors to have directed a porno and had a film premier at Sundance. Without seeing the film, Otto often comes across at an extremely misguided attempt to corner a niche market—gay zombie horror porn. With that said, the film is neither a horror film nor a porno. There is relatively little gore, and much less sex than the right wing IMDb trolls would have you believe. Otto may be a satire; Otto may be an attempt into instant cult status; but in any case, Otto is art.

Otto; or, Up with Dead People was shown at the Sundance film festival. However, simply being accepted into Sundance does not mean a film is good. Otto was also shown at the wonderful MoMA in NYC. Once again, this does not mean that it is a perfect film, but it should be noted in what way the film is being perceived: as a work of art. Most people will dismiss Otto as a pointless B movie, but in reality it is not pointless. Otto is one of the most original works of feature length cinema from the past decade that I have seen. And this is not simply based on the subject matter. LaBruce utilizes his distinct style and unique cinematic techniques to make Otto a truly fresh work of art.

Now onto the film. Otto (Jey Crisfar) is convinced that he is a zombie who just recently was resurrected. Stumbling around town, he comes across a flyer for auditions for a zombie movie, Up with Dead People. At the audition, the director of the film, Medea (Katharina Klewinghaus), is impressed with Otto’s commitment to the character. Otto of course truly believes that he is a zombie, while Medea is sure that Otto is just a regular guy who always seems to be exceptionally dirty. Zombies are often presented as allegorical to «the ultimate consumers who all eat the same things, congregate at the same places, act the same» (Fangoria). With Otto, LaBruce completely reverses this idea. Otto is a complete outcast. Not only is he a zombie, but Otto is gay. He experiences what is either gay-, zombie-, or gay zombie-bashing and generally not accepted by society.

Another of LaBruce’s interesting cinematic choices is presenting Medea’s lesbian lover, Hella (Susanne Sachße) as a silent film character. Hella is always presented in grainy black and white and her dialogue is even replaced with intertitles. Medea and other characters are still presented in full color even while the black and white Hella is sitting right next to them. As a film studies major, I am forced to attempt to find the symbolism/hidden meaning behind presenting Hella as such. However, I have come to the conclusion that LaBruce was simply attempting to present Hella as a specific type of character from the silent film era and he does so with clever blatancy.

Otto is not what most people would consider as entertaining. Otto is not what most people would consider as art. If you watch the film thinking that you will hate it, I can guarantee with complete certainty that you will hate it. Watch this film with an open mind, and don’t take it too seriously or literally. Network and American Beauty are praised because they work on two levels. They exaggerate the existing conventions of Hollywood cinema in order to criticize whereas Otto cinematically breaks free of the zombie genre in its criticism. As Dr. Marco Abel would say, whether or not you like the film is irrelevant. Otto is a entirely original piece of art.

Elly belly, you’ve taken the film too seriously! LaBruce is very grounded, very modest. Genuine issues are explored but in an refreshingly ‘anti Godard’ manner — he just makes fun of everything! Labruce ridicules politicians but also those against them; how being ‘anti-fa’ or ‘left’ is simply a style or fashion now, (particularly in Berlin), hence Medea, too was mocked when declaring out her ‘political’ banter.

Laugh at the sex scenes. Crazy, absurd, funny. Not shallow, either: the pleasure one derives from viewing pornography is thrown in their face once mixed with the thrill of the blood and guts of a zombie film. Labruce shows both simultaneously, erections and intestines between the same sheets. Despite being literally ‘bloody’, they are by no means violent or hate motivated. »Blood and guts» is just part of what the zombie lovers get down to in the bedroom! They can also have sex with each other’s (very very very newly created) orifices!! ha ha.

This is simply a great film, what a deadly cool way to attack homophobia. Thank god for you Labruce.

«a political-porn-zombie movie» that was the promised genre. well, it was merely political, as the political character Medea did not seem so sincere, she was more like a person who tried to be Gothic or something, but she was OK, not bad. zombie? yes, Otto was a pretty zombie, lost his frightening reasons in the process of zombie evolution. porn? absolutely. the idea of being «disgusting» was very well organized and presented, to be honest -no offense, I believe that was the aim. I don’t think that being straight is a reason for seeing it that way. more than half of the audience was gay and I did not see a joy expression at their faces, most of the people were irritated by the violent porn scenes. apart from the violently pornographic shots, Otto walks. walks. walks. this is not a spoiler, it’s just only an idea of what you’ll see. although a fervent movie addict, maybe I didn’t get it. maybe we couldn’t see the layers beneath Otto. but you didn’t let us do, Bruce..

I can’t wait to read other comments, I need to be enlightened or something, please write.

It takes a certain caliber of film-maker to approach a genre which was intended to horrify its audience and, instead, make it amuse and move them.

I found «Otto; or, Up With Dead People» to be Bruce LaBruce’s strongest work to date. The plot was both the most linear and accessible, and at the same time the most convoluted. Even with a lack of chronology, a dizzying metafilm of movie within movie, and multiple points of view and filming techniques, the movie manages to devote more time to standard plot development than previous Bruce LaBruce works.

Perhaps this was necessary to reach out to all the viewers on a more explicit level, and create empathy for a character, who belongs to a group of otherwise reviled monsters. It was quite bizarre to leave the theater relating to characters who had been shown brutally eviscerating each other in graphic detail.

But it is this feeling of commonality with a supposedly terrifying monster that makes the movie powerful and touching. The equivocal metaphor that compares conformist society to zombies is more like a thinly veiled reality: take away the blood and guts and what’s the difference between the two?

It goes to show that you don’t always need a grandiose and earnest tone to say something significant. Sometimes, the silliest and most ridiculous metaphors are the ones which uncover the most meaningful truth.

Canadian artist / pornographer Bruce LaBruce is known in underground circles for his transgressive and satirical no-budget contributions to Queer cinema. His films Raspberry Reich, Hustler White and Skin Flick, among others, endeavor to explore themes such as alienation, fascism, terrorism, persecution but are held together by Bruce’s real «meat ‘n’ potatoes» — hardcore gay sex (and in one case, amputee sex).

Somewhere in the near future where zombies are the norm (particularly homosexual ones) and have somewhat evolved from mindless flesh-eaters into talking, rational-thinking corpses, Otto is rising from the grave. He doesn’t remember anything about his past so he begins to wander the streets aimlessly, eating roadkill as he goes. Otto cant bring himself to kill & eat a human — he muses that maybe he was a vegetarian in his former life.

Otto is soon «discovered» by Medea Yarn, an avant-garde filmmaker. Medea is close to finishing her epic political-porno-zombie movie, Up with Dead People, and wants to begin on a docu-drama starring Otto. Medea’s crew consists of her brother, Adolf and her lesbian partner Hella Bent, a silent screen siren who is always seen in scratchy black ‘n’ white.

Intermittently Otto has minor flashbacks to what he thinks was his life before he became one of the undead. When he eventually discovers his wallet in his back pocket, he finds in it little clues to who he once was, one being an ex-boyfriend’s phone number. He arranges to meet up with this ex and through him learns some important details about his past.

«An original and inventive take on the zombie genre» Otto; or, Up with Dead People is a German/Canadian co-production predominantly shot in Germany with local actors. The majority of the dialogue in the film is presented as voice-over narration either by Otto or Medea, who we are introduced to, and who continues to address us via interview-type footage. The elements of satire are pretty blatant when it comes to Medea, the utterly pretentious filmmaker with her long indulgent diatribes against our capitalist, consumer-driven society. Then there’s the queer-zombie bashing, Otto the mindless teen zombie (product of a consumerist society?) and the sense of disdain that the general public regard Otto with.

Sex ‘n’ gore-wise I didn’t find the film too over-the-top; yes there are a few cocks and some gay sex but no XXX scenes. One of the more notable scenes is in Medea’s film Up with Dead People where the lead zombie penetrates his partner’s recently inflicted stomach wound. With regards to the typical gory zombie film though, I don’t think Otto can really compete, there’s very little grue, just the odd eating of roadkill.

One of the questions the film asks is — is Otto really a zombie? At the beginning it seems rather obvious that he is but as the film develops you discover that before he «died» he was committed to a psychiatric hospital after being diagnosed with schizophrenia and a severe eating disorder. Throughout the film people are constantly commenting that «he thinks he’s a zombie» and wonder what is wrong with him.

Otto; or Up with Dead People is an original and inventive take on the zombie genre, although for some, the lack of typical genre staples may disappoint. Recommended for Bruce LaBruce fans and/or indiscriminate zombie film lovers.

This IS a serious film. If you get past the gay porn and the expectation that this will be some zombie thriller (stumbling blocks that seem to have gotten in the way of many of the reviewers here), then it becomes quite clear that this is NOT primarily a gay politics film, and NOT a thriller.

For me, the relevance of this film comes through with full reference to Lacan and Zizek, who both discuss the different types of desire/drive that motivate the human subject. Most of us are stuck in the subjectivity of desire, pursuing our love objects—and losing them—but always in the grip of the idea that somehow we can have IT. The subject of desire is always motivated by ‘lack’ and the attempt to fill in the lack; but the subject of drive is motivated by excess and the weariness of always having ‘too much’.

In the film, Otto had IT, but as is clear in the scene when he re-meets his old love, the guy really wasn’t all that worth it. But this does not lead Otto to attempt to replace his lost love; instead he has the realization that his lost love is infinitely replaceable by any of the clones out there pursuing mindless connections. The scene with his lost love comes late in the film, but it suggests that some structural aspects of it were behind Otto’s becoming a zombie in the first place. There is a realization that leads Otto to lose his ‘desire’ and become a zombie—he lives with the curse that the object of his desire is endlessly repeatable—he is condemned always to having this realization, which essentially makes him neither alive nor dead.

The end of the film suggests that Otto achieves a different kind of jouissance than that merely had by the ‘subject of drive’—but it is only a suggestion, and Labruce goes no further with it than that. This is where I think the film falls short: it is an excellent expose of the emptiness of desire and of the flatness of desire’s corollary, drive. But the film does not satisfactorily navigate what lies beyond the desire/drive deadlock.

Nevertheless, this film is far beyond most film-schlock of the moment that never even rises to a decent consciousness of the chains of desire. It is a great exploration of the subjectivity of displacement and intimates that that is an aspect of ALL of our understandings, whether we perceive it or not. I agree with the reviewer who calls this an «entirely original work of art.»

I saw the film last night at Bangkok International Film Festival and, god forbid, I like it. I mean I thought I would be scared or find it disgusting or something like that. But I’d like to try zombie/gay film (as one of my friend called it) for once. Actually, the first time I have heard of the film, I’m interested. But when my friend who already saw it in DVD(something pirate, I’m sure) told me a brief summary of several scenes in the films, I’m not sure anymore whether it was the right choice to buy the ticket. However, already bought it. already came up to the theatre on seventh floor. So, let’s try it.

In the first horror scene on the road where Otto did something with the rabbit, I saw several people stood up and gone off the theatre right away which made me wonder..was that beyond their expectation? But after the first 30 minutes has passed everyone seemed to be happy and have a lot of fun watching this. Manys (me included) laughed on a lot of things in the film.

Personally, as a person who always wants to see such beautiful touching thing in the film and always avoid this type of movie, I found it really disgusting (ha ha)..and yet memorable. I love every single word spoken out of the female director’s mouth. (Big applause to you, Bruce.) And I love Otto character. He reminded me of myself sometimes ago.

In short, this movie is just as odd as its premise makes it sound. A young homosexual zombie wandering around, isn’t exactly a premise for an everyday movie but then again «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» isn’t your average everyday movie. It’s something unique and original and you will most likely either love it or hate it. Me personally; I quite liked it.

Above all things, this is a movie that is taking a very artistic approach. Watching this is a true special experience. Visually its a great looking movie, that is being quite creative and seemed to be full with great ideas. Now, granted that not everything works out well or interesting but overall «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» remains a good watch throughout.

You shouldn’t take everything in this movie too literally. Seems to me that its entire main concept was a metaphor how lots of people still look upon homosexuals and how they treat them. In lots of places they are still being seen as not normal, to put it mildly and as meat ‘eating’ animals. That’s why the main character of the movie feels like- or thinks he is a freak, or a zombie in this case. At least that’s how I interpret things. But who knows, maybe you will get something totally different out of this movie. But fact remains that this is a very homosexual orientated movie and everything revolves around this.

This also means that the movie is not just showing kissing men but also some far more explicit moments. There is a fair amount of male nudity and even a couple of graphic sex sequences, involving male characters.

The entire movie was obviously quite cheap to make but I think that director Bruce La Bruce did a great job with his material. The way he shot the movie makes it almost irrelevant that it has a quite cheap look to it. It’s directed with lots of class, which often makes the movie a visually great one to experience.

Don’t watch this movie expecting a lot of story though. There isn’t really a clear main point to the movie and the movie is more about its underlying messages. Some movies however can do just fine without a clear main story, as this greatly artistic- and as such an effective, movie demonstrates.

Still some stuff just remains too odd and distracting. Such as for instance the fact that basically every character the main characters comes across turns out to be an homosexual, male of female. Seriously, what kind of world was this movie supposed to be set in, since you clearly can’t call it a realistic one.

It also seems odd that this is a German movie, with mostly German actors, speaking all in English. Don’t know what’s the entire story behind this but it just seems to me that it’s more easy for Bruce La Bruce to make movies in Germany but he still wants to reach an international audience, so he wrote and shot all of the dialog in English. This means you can hear a lot of thick accents throughout the movie.

Call me weird but I for most part quite liked this movie!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

After viewing this film a second time, I picked up on the subtle cues I missed on the first viewing—a subtle swipe at Russian political reformation and romance, the bashing of the New Left, the Emancipation of Serfs through «Dead Souls» and the film-maker who is absorbed/consumed into/by their work—«Divine Horsemen: The Living Gods of Haiti».

As one must with any artisan film, subtle devices is key to understanding the missive and the import. Just as a viewing of Frankenstein’s Monster for its gore and horror is skimming the surface, to view this film simply for the porn and gore is simplifying it to a banal level that misses the cerebral context.

LaBruce mocks all sides of the socio-political debate revealing that participants in the capitalist consumption, the advocates of gay rights, and the participants in gay consumerism are equally ‘pawns’ — serfs, if not zombies — held captive by Causes greater than self. Even those who deem themselves part of the media and creative media are caught up in their own «hype» unable to divorce themselves from participating in the events they are called to record, just as Maya Deren was caught up in the voodoo experience while documenting the «Divine Horsemen».

Right, well I believed that I was in for a zombie comedy here, when I sat down to watch the 2008 «Otto: or. Up with Dead People». But that wasn’t exactly what the movie turned out to be.

Shortly into the movie they introduced something called the «gay zombie», and I thought, sure, why not. But then 16 minutes into the movie when a group of male zombies show up and started to make out, I just upped and turned off the movie. Never to return to watch it again. I have no interest in watching something like that. I sat down to watch a zombie comedy movie, not gay softcore porn. Mind you, I have absolutely nothing against gay people, but it was not the type of movie I sat down to watch, so it was a massive swing and a miss from writer and director Bruce LaBruce.

What the story was about, I didn’t have enough time to find out. I was just mortified by what happened on the screen, and literally have no interest in finding out what the movie was about. But I suppose the tagline «bringing sexy back from the dead» probably should have been a warning, who knew?

My rating of «Otto; or, Up with Dead People» lands on a mere one out of ten stars, as this was definitely not a movie for me, nor anything I would get any kind of entertainment from. Take heed, this movie may not actually be what you think it is when you sit down to watch it.

dear Elly-belly; your comment really irritated me. i feel sorry for you if those are the real thoughts of you about the movie. first of all, Medea was not the only character that was political and «goth», in fact the whole zombie concept is goth so it suits the movie. the political elements were very clearly explained, its your problem if you fell asleep during the film. Otto is a character that not only should be watched, he also needs to be understood. there you need the ability to empathy, to see the dilemma; otherwise all of your precious time is wasted. i suppose your not sexually open minded either. thinking that all those people in the cinema could watch the porn scenes with a smile on there face is SICK. «..no joy expression on there face..» what should the man do? masturbate?? pf..

finally, its a perfect movie for those who enjoy something extraordinary but not simple.

I’m blown away by how much I like «Otto.» I’m a straight woman who is not into horror films, B movies or zombie flicks. I am, however, studying gay cinema; still, everything I read about this film told me I would hate it. Ultimately, my reasons for liking it have little to do with an interest in gay cinema but rather I am touched by what «Otto» says of heart and head. Which was a big surprise! I was intrigued by the silent film element. I absolutely love the idea of refusal to participate in «consensual reality» as a revolutionary act. That was what made me decide to keep watching and I’m glad I did. I’m rating this highly because I love to be surprised. I enjoy having my preconceived notions shattered, especially when I am so certain that I know how I feel about things. I have never seen anything like «Otto» — which impresses me and has me thinking. Not only do I not regret the time spent watching this film but now I’m writing this. Who saw that coming?

If you have patience, there is something lovely in all of this messy, gory absurdity. The surreal pretension leads to something rare and sweet.

******SPOILERS!******

LaBruce, makes an attempt at being edgy, ironic, and satirical… but what he delivers is an uninspired, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly edited waste of time.

Firstly, I don’t know what’s more offensive… The fact that LaBruce exploits the struggle for LGBT rights, by using it as an obvious crutch to deflect criticism of his depictions of vile and unconscionable acts of violence and necrophilia, or how badly he misses the mark and twists what could have been a brilliant metaphor, into something you could imagine being shown in the basement of the Providence Road Baptist Church. Then again, it could be his sad attempt at a parody of post-modern nihilism, which also shows not a spark of insight, and instead of skewering the genre, he just parrots it.

Whatever his intent, LaBruce misses irony by miles and wouldn’t know satire if Groucho Marx shoved a copy of Huckleberry Finn straight up the orifice from which he originally pulled the screenplay for this film.

His ironic metaphor, to take mainstream societies rejection of homosexuality and place it parallel to the gristly abomination that zombies represent in fiction; *could* have been brilliant, but his half-hearted effort lets it fall flat and as dead as his protagonist. The real horror here is the result of LaBruce’s failure to show any irony at all in this metaphor, or prove it false. Instead, he actually drains all the humanity out of his story and actors, the very characteristic that would give lie to the idea that homosexuals are monstrous abominations that defile human flesh, what’s more, he adds fuel to the stereotype by having his characters devalue, exploit, and abuse one another casually.

One may be tempted to forgive LaBruce, his blatant exploitation, since this film is a excuse for pornography, disguised as social commentary, disguised as art. It could even be ignored that LaBruce feels free to dispense with the character development, continuity of plot, dialog, humor, or even context that might make this movie bearable… that is, if this really was pornography… but even at that LaBruce fails miserably.

What’s more tedious than watching some lifeless derivative piece of art house drivel? Why, it’s watching an *insincere* rendition of that same lifeless derivative piece of art house drivel; where only the most obtuse and predictable observations are made as satire and then we are expected to find them profound and witty. LaBruce attempts to mock the genre… but does so in such an artless way he becomes part of it. Like two mimes pretending to be mirror images of one another…only that’s not the best description, because the mimes may accidentally entertain you… unlike this film.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has survived the zombie apocalypse in actual fact. After mankind is wiped out and all his works have fallen to ruin, watching this film would ease the sense of loss. One could shrug and say… «the culture that produced this is dead and gone… good riddance.» Think you Mr. LaBruce, for giving us all just one more reason to be ashamed of humanity. Well done.